Talk:Pakistan/Archive 16

osama bin laden image
i added the osama bin laden picture. Jawadreventon (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have removed the picture. Please take a minute to read through the "frequently asked questions" at the top of the talk page before making absurd edits.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment II

 * Should the events which occurred during the Bangladesh liberation war be referred to in this article as a Genocide?

Support

 * 1) Support Majority of reliable sources call it a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per DS above. The war is very significant and important in the history of the country (Not all countries get divided into two following a planned genocide on its own civilian population). Many reliable sources exist that support the terminology. --Ragib (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Per DS. The mention should be brief, Neutrally written and backed by reliable sources. The issue should not be whitewashed. AshLin (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The Point is reasonable and expected to be present in an article, although some editors driven by a sense of Nationalism might not like it but we need to remind ourselves about WP:NOTCENSORED and Should be reliably cited and as per Ashlin --  Ð ℬig XЯaɣ   17:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. A majority of reliable sources call it genocide, among them are leading genocide scholars such as Samuel Totten (Yale University, member of The Council of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide), William S. Parsons (Chief of Staff for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum), David L. Nersessian (Oxford University), Steven L. Jacobs, Adam Jones (author of the leading academic textbook on genocide). The Bangladesh Genocide appears as such in "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction", the leading academic textbook on genocide. It appears in numerable other academic books as genocide such as "Teaching about genocide: issues, approaches, and resources", "Century of genocide: critical essays and eyewitness accounts", "Confronting genocide" or "Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes". However it is going to be termed in this article, the very least which needs to be improved in this article is to state clearly that the 1-3 million killed were systematically killed by specific perpetrators based on their racial or religious affiliation. JCAla (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose: Currently it is stated precisely to the facts bypassing the debates related to POV (as explained by regentspark, even explaining what genocide means from an NPOV in this case will be debatable). If further POV details are introduced, they'll need to be balanced for NPOV and that will make the article loose the comprehensiveness. Currently the article is up for FAC, such an addition is clearly not going to help. It been discussed in much detail above why this is not appropriate. Even the details about Pakistan's own independence movement have been covered in a very comprehensive way. This is about a single war which is not as much prominent for the country and to be included in the country article. These details are already covered in the war articles and those dedicated articles. There's no place for such debatable content to be included in the article which will only invite further POV. Completely WP:UNDUE and even WP:POV. I'll also oppose this per WP:SNOW as an RFC before with POV addition could clearly not gain any consensus. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Genocide is a term with multiple definitions and not everyone can agree that a particular situation is or is not an instance of genocide. A summary article is not well suited to discussing all the caveats and nuances and whether a particular incident was or was not a genocide. A simple JSTOR search for "Genocide in Bangladesh", for example, reveals this article that differentiates genocides from political mass murder and lists the Bangladesh episode as an example of the latter not the former. The point is that while we should not downplay or sanitize the actions of a nation on wikipedia, we should also choose our words with care. This is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a forum for airing grievances or scoring political points. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So all the sources which call it genocide can now be discounted because you find one study which says it is Politicide? We can discount Samuel Totten, Steven L. Jacobs, Adam Jones, Wayne Morrison the Encyclopedia of genocide: A - H., Volume 1 is obviously a waste of paper, Robert Seitz Frey obviously has no clue what he is writing about in The genocidal temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda, and beyond and what would historian William Rubinstein know in Genocide: a history There are literary thousands upon thousands of sources which call this a genocide, and you wish to discount the mall for one paper? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also curious were you get the peculiar idea that genocide has multiple definitions? As I have only ever seen the one. From the OED the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether there's much point in replying (since you appear to be on a mission here) but what the heck. The United Nations Genocide Convention defines genocide as ""acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group". Which, as you can see, is different from your definition in the explicit inclusion of "intent to destroy". I suspect that, whether or not the Bangladesh atrocities were genocide hinges on the intent to destroy question. The point of my quoting the study (btw, the author Barbara Harff is also an expert on genocide, as I presume are the scholars you quote) was that there are differing views on whether or not this was genocide and we can't discuss all these views in a summary article. The particular study I quote was the second result of the search. (Ironically, and this underscores the point that the term genocide is easy to use but hard to define, the first result argued that Bengali settlement in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh are acts of genocide (for completeness .) But, I'll leave it to the RfC to figure this out. --regentspark (comment) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I got a request to comment on my talk page. The debate about whether to call this a genocide is adequately covered at the more appropriate location, 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. Certainly some intelligent observers believe it to have been genocide, but others would claim there was no actual intent to destroy the Hindu religion or the Bihari ethnic group, etc., but only to kill many members. Killings are always horrible, but "intent" to destroy an entire group is required to call something genocide by most definitions. (The article on genocide covers the different definitions people have for this politically loaded term.) I think that here we should simply use the term "1971 Bangladesh atrocities", which is the article title, after all, and leave to that other article any discussion about what political terms do or do not apply to the situation according to various observers. Here is not the place for that. – Quadell (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Genocide is a really loaded term to use for a civil war type of conflict like this. There are extensive arguments, as per Quadell and RegentsPark, that would oppose the use of this complex word, in many different contexts, to describe the events in Bangladesh. The debate itself is an entirely different chapter and is best kept out of this article. The article should only focus on factual, not objective (and debatable) information. Mar4d (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The section 1971 Bangladesh atrocities clearly shows debate on the subject. If there was an academic consensus on the issue there would not need to be a section in the article on the debate. meitme (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Term cannot be stated as fact and is debatable with no consensus. Plus inclusion of such pov will lead to further pov's in an attempt to balance, unnecessary length and npov issues. September88 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: the vague words like "genocide" and "terrorism" should not be used in encyclopedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose genocide is vague word. I agree with Dmitrij and Quadell. It should keep in only atrocities article. --Highstakes00 (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

 * Why can't we say something like "some sources have criticized the events as genocide"?VR talk  23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that will come up with a counter point that other sources disagree with this view, hence the same debate. And as per an excellent point raised by, that if this was not controversial, this section would not have been present in the main article. A country article has to be kept concise. There's much more to tell here about the country, this piece of information would be categorized in trivia even if it was confirmed. To add, only Indian editors are supporting such wording (in addition to support for many previous controversial terms such as "failed state" which were not kept). There's some bad taste here in my opinion. -- lTopGunl (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

UN Force Contribution
There is a statement in the military section that Pakistan Armed Forces are the second largest contributor to UN Peacekeeping Force. The source cited is the UN's official Monthly Summary of Contributions that lists Police, Military Experts and Troops strength individually and their sum. The present statement in the article is based on the total number of these three groups but the contribution from Pakistan Armed Forces are only to Troops and Military Experts group. And based on contribution to Military Experts and Troops groups, Pakistan is the largest contributor. I suggest following three options to correct this: -- S M S  Talk 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Correct the statement (by saying the largest contributor)
 * 2) Move this statement to Politics section in Foreign relation paragraph (After generalizing)
 * 3) Correct the statement in the military section (by saying the largest contributor) and also add it in Politics section in Foreign relation paragraph (After generalizing)


 * Just a personal 2 pence: for most readers the overall contribution is likely to be more notable than the contribution in any particular subset of categories, in whichever section it may be put. --Stfg (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - if Pakistan is not contributing to all fields, the total number is not as significant as the actual group being contributed to. The fact should however be specified that Pakistan contributes to these groups only or some other statement that justifies such inclusion and clarifies in itself instead of confusing a reader who would be comparing it as an over all number. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have boldly changed the wording to reflect the PAF contributions (Pakistan is contributing to all fields, but the policemen are presumably not members of the PAF). I don't think we need to separately mention the total contributions, but if we do, the paragraph on foreign relations would indeed be the correct place. Huon (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean Pakistan Armed Forces per context, PAF almost always refers to the air force... even I got confused at the first read... anyway, I guess we already have a consensus for the change. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, April 2012
I'll start it now. I'll work from the current version of the article without prejudice, by which I mean that if discussions like the current very good one about the Taliban leads to agreement to replace or add some text, I won't mind, and will be glad to come back and copy edit the new text.

My MO to avoid edit conflicts is to put a GOCEinuse tag at the top of an article while I'm working, and to replace it with an under construction tag overnight or when taking a significant break. Please don't edit the article while the in-use tag is there, but please feel free to whenever the under-construction one is there. Exceptionally, if you want to edit a section urgently, please leave a note here and await my acknowledgement of it.

Threading: For minor points of information I'll add bullet points below this. Where I need help (e.g. for clarifcation of something) I'll start a new sub-section under this. Please feel free to create subsections yourselves too, for example if you think I've unwittingly changed the meaning and want to advise me of that. Please avoid using this section for major content discussions. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The last FAC review mentioned linking issues and there is considerable overlinking here. Names of well known countries are not normally linked (I would link them when relations between countries are being discussed, though). Also, for example, the Mehrgarh article says up-front that it's Neolithic, and in cases like that it's normal not to link "Neolithic" in the referring article, especially to avoid having two links without intervening unlinked text. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See also: Talk:Pakistan/Archive 13 for a detailed discussion on mostly non controversial edits. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also keep in mind that this article uses Pakistani English which is mostly same as the British English (some times includes archaic words). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both the above, TopGun. If I transgress on either, please go ahead and restore. I'll understand "PE" as an edit summary, should you need it. --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "... has the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia". I think this probably means that Indonesia has the largest and Pakistan the next largest, therefore I've deleted "second" to make it "... has the largest Muslim population after Indonesia".
 * The "Colonial rule" section says On 29 December 1930, Muhammad Iqbal's presidential address called for an autonomous "state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims, within the body politic of India."[35] If you put something in quotes like this, it must be a faithful quotation, which this is not. I've replaced it with what he did say. --Stfg (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've informed other major contributors ( and ) who did the last overhaul with me so that the queries below can be dealt with. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a general comment for some of you: I'm finding a great number of piped links like paramilitary forces, which appears as paramilitary forces. In other words, a link to something specific has been turned into what looks like a link to an article about the general concept of paramilitary forces. A trick that sometimes solves such a problem is to bring the previous word inside the link, giving (in this case) several paramilitary forces. See also WP:LINKCLARITY. --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the 8th-largest armed forces in terms of members on active service, according to List of countries by number of troops, which also cites Hackett, so I've amended to this figure. --Stfg (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also taken the figure of 617,000 on active duty from there. --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In "Geography and climate, where it says "Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir lie mainly in Central Asia along the edge of the Indian plate", I've deleted the words "mainly in Central Asia" because the boundaries of Central Asia are ambiguous -- see its article. This was the only thing done in the edit a moment ago, so it can be reverted easily if there's an objection. --Stfg (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Area under forest: the figure of 1,902,000 ha was actually from 2005, not 2000. But as the source has a 2010 figure, I've taken the liberty of updating to that. --Stfg (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the education section I've added a Clarify timeframe tag to the statement "Government is in development stage of extending English medium education to all schools across the country." As far as I can see from the source, that project was supposed to be complete in 2011. This is always a problem with sections written to look like state-of-the-nation progress reports. The "Economy" and "Transport" sections will also date very quickly because of this. --Stfg (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source that was already here says nothing about Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's "synchronisation" [sic] of Qawwali and western music. Forunately, the WP article about him provides one that does, which I've added. --Stfg (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Media and entertainment" section: "The arrival of Afghan refugees in the western provinces has rekindled Pashto and Persian music and established Peshawar as a hub for Afghan musicians and a distribution center for Afghan music abroad.[256]". FN256 says nothing about Persian music and, the only thing it says about Peshawar is that Pashtun musicians there have been manhandled and in many cases forced to flee. Heavily truncated this. --Stfg (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Empires and Dynasties
In the second paragraph of the lead section, we have several examples of very general expressions (like "Indian empires") being used as pipes to very specific links (here, "Mauryan Empire", but one shouldn't normally pipe to a redirect). I propose to remove the pipes, so that this example would look like Mauryan Empire. Is there any objection to this? (Another approach could be to retain the generalised "Indian empires", but not link to anything.) --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think using the actual article name as suggested will do fine. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexander's empire
In the "Early and medieval age" sub-section: "... the Greek empire founded by Alexander the Great in 327 BCE ..." I don't believe Alexander founded an empire in exactly 327 BCE, though that was probably the approximate year of his arrival in present-day Pakistan territory. Could someone provide the exact reference please? --Stfg (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=wsiXwh_tIGkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 3 of the preview of this book. His time in India is given as 327-325 BC.

And according to this source 326 is the exact year when he defeated the Indian Kindgom of Porus. http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=vSwi2TYabS4C&pg=PA7&dq=alexander+founded+empire+in+india+327?&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yQaLT6zMH-vP4QSD0NiNCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alexander%20founded%20empire%20in%20india%20327%3F&f=false

326 is supported by this reference as well. http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander13.html

September88 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've used the del Testa book and rephrased so that it's clear that alexander came there in 326, not that he founded his empire in that year. --Stfg (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Greco-Buddhist period
In the "Early and medieval age" sub-section: "The Indo-Greek Kingdom founded by Demetrius of Bactria in 184 BCE included Gandhara and Punjab and reached its greatest extent under Menander, establishing the Greco-Buddhist period with advances in trade and culture." This needs clarifying. The Greco-Buddhism article isn't precise as to dates, but that period certainly began before 184 BCE, so what does "established" mean here? Secondly, what exactly is it that led to the advances in trade and culture -- the Indo-Greek Kingdom?, Menander? Greco-Buddhism? Please could someone either clarify it or point me to what is being summarised here so that I can revise it? --Stfg (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The para basically meant that Buddhish culture became prominent during this era and advances were made in trade & culture. Now when I see the reference sourcing the para, it does not clarify things and multiple sources for dates are making things confusing, so its better to use a single consistent for them. :http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=wsiXwh_tIGkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. This source gives Demetrius period from 180-165, & Menander from 165-150 BC. Says that Menander converted to Buddhism & hence that culture prospered. Plus that Gandhara art flourished during that period, thanks to Indo-greek rulers, so art can replace trade & culture. Page 3, 152, 162. September88 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. Could I prevail on you to write what you'd like to have there, with your choice of refs. I'm breaking for tonight now, so we won't have an edit conflict. --Stfg (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright. I've modified the line to this 'The Indo-Greek Kingdom founded by Demetrius of Bactria (180-165 BEc) included Gandhara and Punjab and reached its greatest extent under Menander (165-150 BE)C, prospering the Greco-Buddhist culture in the region.' Feel free to further change if unclear.September88 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nothing to tweak there; it's perfect. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FN37 (Pakistan Movement at Cybercity Online)
What is this footnote doing? It doesn't support what is cited to it. --Stfg (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Counter checked the source, it is citing "After a hard and heroic struggle by the Muslims of the sub- continent, the British Parliament was forced to approve the Indian Independence Act, 1947 leading to the birth of Pakistan on 14th August. 1947 (this statement) from the source and also citing to the statements about Jinnah leading, in the text. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A bit flowery, isn't it, hardly neutral, those names aren't listed, and its position in the article relates neither to Jinnah nor the August date, which are cited to other sources anyway. The Wolpert reference is no-preview -- does it contain enough to serve by itself? --Stfg (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we're using neutral wording in our article as compared to the source since Wikipedia NPOV policy can't extend to the external sources... that should suffice for that matter. Yes, it doesn't cite the names of the Congress party but it does cite some of the content, how about moving the source inside to the instances it is citing. I trust that the other book which details on this topic should be covering it well, but I'll wait for September88's comment on that to be sure. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * While I think the 2nd source alone would suffice, I'll add a source with preview just to cross check. And then maybe replace the CyberCity one since I think it can be pointed out for being unreliable. September88 (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That would be excellent. --Stfg (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile I've now removed the Cybercity one. @TopGun, such a POVvy source can't really be described as RS, can it? --Stfg (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of First Kashmir War
FN40 is not really valid for this: it give the UN's dates, not those of the war. The First Kashmir War article gives very precise dates (October 21, 1947 - December 31, 1948), but the sources for those dates are not clear to me. Can we ditch FN40 (for dates, anyway) and correct the date at the end of "Colonial period" with a better source? --Stfg (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure I've add a new one with date. But kept to month only because varying sources gives the exact day from 22 to 26 October. 20:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)September88 (talk)
 * Makes sense. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

-ise or -ize?
The article has a fairly large number of both, e.g. characterised but subsidized. Does Pakistani English have any rule about this? --Stfg (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is same as the British English for this, but I've seen textbooks using both. You can standardize (no pun intended with ize here). ize looks more familiar to me (personally) though, may be because of the internet age. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Stfg: As clarified by TopGun, Pakistani English is derived from British English, so all spellings should preferably conform to British conventions. Cheers,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you both. --Stfg (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

AWB Edit
Please note that this AWB edit might have undone what you did about the spellings though some of the words like "defense to defence" were corrected actually. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. That edit also placed Use British English at the top of the page even though the article already had Use Pakistani English in among the templates at the bottom. I've moved the Pakistani template to the top, overwriting the British one. As we weren't sure about -ise/-ize, I don't want to revert the edit, but if you want to take it up with Ohconfucius, that's fine. I'm happy with either approach. As for defense->defence and center->centre, the edit is right, of course. --Stfg (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, have similar views. Both ize and ise are Ok by me. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good; we don't need to do anything. For my own interest, I did research it a bit more just now, and found that we were justified in going for -ize, which is called Oxford Spelling. I've written about it at User talk:Ohconfucius if you're interested. But we don't need to do anything now. --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that. Actually, the use of templates other than use British English and use British (Oxford) English tend to confuse me and my script maintenance – particularly the maintenance of z-words. If the article had been tagged with the latter, I would not have changed all the z-words into s-words. Just as a matter of interest, Britons mostly use the 's' form of words, like "organise". I rarely see the 'z' form used; many regard it with disdain as it is more closely (but perjaps falsely) associated with American spelling. So whilst the OED may make a claim for "Britishness' of the z-form, in practice its frowned upon. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Administrative divisions" section

 * 1) The expression "Pakistan-proper" is too hand-waving and begs all kinds of question. (Rhetorically: in what sense are any parts considered not "proper"?) Hence tagged for clarification. --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Would there be any objection to my changing the caption at the top of Template:Pakistan Administrative Units Image Map from "A clickable map .." to just "Clickable map ..."? As a caption, this would look better, I think. --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pakistan proper is being used for the area of Pakistan minus Azad Kashmir which seems to be a neo. Please reword it. For the second point, that will do. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Before I reword it, could you confirm whether "Pakistan proper" includes or excludes Gilgit-Baltistan? The map and text seem to suggest it might exclude it too. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It includes it since 1970, Gilgit-Baltistan was made a part of Pakistan and separated from Azad Kashmir. It currently has a province-like status while Azad Kashmir has its own government. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All clear, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Apart from Azad Kashmir, Pakistan has 113 districts" seems a bit confusing to me.. does it seem like implying that Azad Kashmir is a district too? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)You're right; I'll change that. But first, I've just found Districts of Pakistan, which gives 113 (or 114) districts just in the provinces, and Administrative units of Pakistan, which still talks about divisions. So we don't seem to have a clear account yet. Is there any reason to separate a "proper" Pakistan from all the rest? Why not just say there are 131 (or 132, depending on what's correct at Districts of Pakistan) and describe the FATA structure separately? --Stfg (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would do too. Azad Kashmir has its own parliament and Prime Minister even though they are a territory of Pakistan, they have not acceded yet, so the neo Pakistan propoer is used some times. I agree with stating the total districts but if FATA gets to have a separate structure (which is actually the other federal area), then Azad Kashmir should have similar description for clarity. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand all of that, especially about "if FATA gets to have a separate structure". FATA already has its own sentence in the article, as I think it must, given that it doesn't have districts. Here's the whole paragraph before I edited it:


 * Local government follows a three-tier system of districts, tehsils and union councils, with an elected body at each tier.[95] There are 113 districts in Pakistan-proper, each with several tehsils and union councils. The Tribal Areas comprise seven tribal agencies and six small frontier regions[96] detached from neighbouring districts; Azad Kashmir comprises ten districts[97] and Gilgit-Baltistan seven.[98]

We could, if you like, change it to this (the small green non-italicized part can be included or excluded, as you prefer):


 * Local government follows a three-tier system of districts, tehsils and union councils, with an elected body at each tier.[95] There are about 130 districts altogether, The Tribal Areas comprise seven tribal agencies and six small frontier regions detached from neighbouring districts[96].

This has cut out "each with several tehsils and union councils", which may be good as it rather duplicated the previous sentence. It also makes the number approximate. This is to accmmodate the internal inconsistency in Districts of Pakistan and to be less sensitive to the fact that the number seems to change from time to time (paragraph 2 of that article). What do you think? (P.S. I'm away till tomorrow morning now, so no rush). --Stfg (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment was on your suggestion to describe FATA structure separately but not Azad Kashmir's. Both are federal territories so should be treated in similar way. Usually provinces and federal territories all get mentions in the text books in such descriptions. So I'll recommend including the green text. The proposed version is good I guess. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good. Done, including the green text. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Military section
The "first pass" I've just completed for this section is merely at the sentence level, and it needs more. The first two paragraphs jump around: first the numbers, then the overview of the military, then the head of the Army and its date of founding, then back to the military in general, then the numbers again. This needs making coherent, which will require checking which sources relate to which statements. Before doing that, it would be good to sort out the penultimate paragraph. I've used tags to indicate what needs doing with it. --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Military presence in Arab countries: Actually Pakistan has maintained forces in Middle East states in varying strength from time to time on request. The purpose was mostly imparting training, security of oil fields and royal families, etc. Some sources for military deployment in Saudia Arabia during Gulf War and before:. Another source is a book Military Lessons Of The Gulf War, (page 81, 90 and 143) where you may find more clarification on this issue. These pages are not available in Google book preview but if you need it I can give the excerpts.
 * Grand Mosque Operation: Source: -- S M S   Talk 17:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SMS. I've added the source you gave for the Grand Mosque Operation. For the earlier one, you've used the search term "Pakistan army in Gulf war". Participation in the Gulf War is actually covered in the last sentence of that paragraph and is already adequately cited. The first sentence of the paragraph is about Pakistsan Army presence in Arab countries more generally, and "particularly during the Arab-Israeli Wars". It's the general presence and the Arab-Israeli Wars that need citation. I think we only need one or at most two citations for this sentence. Do you have any for that? Also, can you help to clarify "divisions and brigade strength presences"? Was the latter actually brigades? If so, let's say so. Otherwise, perhaps some phrase like "divisions and smaller units"? By the way, I will be editing other parts of the article today, so if you want to put things in the Military section, please go ahead, and we won't get edit conflicts. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I used this search string, sorry for giving the links in raw form. Some of these sources also discuss deployment of troops other than Gulf War, like:
 * This source discusses troops deployed before Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's rule (.i.e. before 1972), from 1972-1977 and from 1978-1991. (Pages 62-63)
 * This source states Pakistan army presence during late 1970s and 1980s. (Page 265)
 * This source talks about troops deployed in Saudia Arabia. (I am not sure about the period the author is talking about as I don't have access to full text of this book, but it looks like it is before 1988). (Page 256)
 * About the military's participation in Arab Israeli wars, as much as I know Pakistan Army didn't participate in the war directly rather it was on defensive duties largely in Saudia Arabia. However as this source says Pakistan Air Force did participate directly in the war.(Page 196-197)
 * And most of source present different figures for the strength of these troops. I will dig a little more deeper to find a source that addresses this issue and also the presence of troops in general. I have an exam tomorrow, so will be looking for it after that. -- S M S  Talk 21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I will continue with the later sections for now, and wait till you have time for the deeper digging. Good luck with tomorrow's exam. --Stfg (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for taking so much time. Ok I found that the division or brigade strength force that is much talked about was stationed at Tabuk, Saudia Arabia, so I refined my search to this. Other than this there were troops deployed in Arab countries for advisory and training role and also like Jamal A. Khan a Pakistan Air Force serviceman, served as Air Chief of UAE Air Force. The troops stationed were stationed at Tabuk in 1970s and 80s. Source that I can find differ on strength and variate from a single brigade to two division. I am listing the sources below with a summary so you may decide how to correct the related material in the article.(In italics are my views, not the authors)


 * This source says that training brigades were deployed at Tabuk.
 * This source says Pakistani troops were part of a Saudi brigade and there were about 11,000-15,000 Pakistani troops and advisors in Saudia. (Now this numerical strength is almost equal to size of a division of Pakistan Army)
 * This source says that one unit was stationed at Khamis Mushayt and one at Tabuk.(In Pakistan Army a Battalion is usually referred as a unit and and two or more than two units make up a brigade)
 * This source says a brigade strength force was sent to Tabuk.
 * This source says a Pakistani armored brigade was at Tabuk.
 * This source says that initially 2 division force was to be deployed but quotes President of Pakistan saying that there are 3,000-4,000 army and 1,500 air force personnnel are in Saudia Arabia and denying 2 division force.
 * This source says 2 division force was stationed at Tabuk.
 * This source says 1 or 2 brigade force was deployed in Tabuk and Khamis Mushayt.
 * This source says 10,000 Pakistani troops part of 12th Armored brigade at Tabuk.
 * This source says 2 divisions including an armored brigade stationed at North West Saudia Arabia.
 * This source says 20,000 troops strength brigade was stationed in Saudia Arabia.

I am not sure with this much divergence in strength among sources, how this should be stated in the article. But it will be more suitable to write this in a more generalized way. If you decide using anyone of the above sources please tell me so I can give relevant information to fill out the citation template. And I am unable to find a citation for ...particularly during the Arab–Israeli Wars.-- S M S  Talk 11:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! I'm impressed, and thank you. But could I remind you that I'm your copy editor, not a military historian or other topic expert? Would you be kind enough to decide what should go there and which sources to use? I won't be on that section today, so you can safely do it whenever you like without risk of edit conflict. --Stfg (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What you did today looks good, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this source currently used in the article, Pakistan is the largest contributor of Military troops, not second largest. Also you might like to update this with March 2012. -- S M S  Talk 20:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This was one that I didn't check (copy editing works on prose issues; we generally only check citations where we need clarification of what is meant, though I did a lot more than that in this case). What the article says is "second largest contributor", not just of troops. So it's the total column that applies, rather than the troops column. I believe we get the same result in the March 2012 version too. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, just posted here as you were working on the article. Actually the article says "Pakistani armed forces are the second largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions", so what my point here is a military establishment (Pakistan Armed forces) don't include a civil law enforcement agency like police. I will start a new section for more wider input. Thanks for the copy editing work, you did a great job. -- S M S  Talk 21:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
Meaning of two sentences might have been changed during the copy editing. In this edit : *Figuratively, the name is an acronym representing was changed to In that form, the name was once used as an acronym representing. It changes the meaning a bit to the fact that the acronym was once used as such (limiting it to past tense) while it is actually used along with the actual name and the facts behind its use have not changed. Maybe removal of "once" will do? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The letter 'i' became the defacto addition to ease pronunciation was changed to The letter i was incorporated to ease pronunciation. This was actually reverted before on the bases that -istan is already a defined term in the Urdu language. The title had dual meaning, "Land of (the) Pure" and the acronym. The question is, isn't the meaning slightly differed after this change? (Well with the exception that this time we do have "and form the linguistically correct name" as an explanation at the end).


 * OK, let's have a look. Here's the text in the version before I started work:


 * Figuratively, the name is an acronym representing the "thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN" — referring to the names of the five northern regions of the Indian subcontinent, viz.: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan".[11][12][13] The letter 'i' became the defacto addition to ease pronunciation and form the linguistically correct name.[14]


 * The first change aimed to solve the problem of "figuratively", which is meaningless in this context. Two of the three references are to copies of Now or Never. (Why we need both is not clear to me, but it's not a problem to have them.) The third is to page "pp. 177–" of Iqbal's Indian Muslims and Partition of India. That way to present the page number(s) is strange, but anyway, a search for "PAKSTAN" in the book gives zero hits. What we do have is that page 177 refers to Now or Never. So the only explanation given for the acronym is its use in Now or Never. If it is still in use, we need an up-to-date example of this. If not, "was once used" is simply an increase in precision.


 * The second change was an attempt to improve on the clumsy circumlocution "became the defacto addition", which I changed to "was incorporated". I don't believe it significantly changes the meaning. Note that I didn't add "and form the linguistically correct name"; it was there already. --Stfg (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In the first change, I'll clarify my comment further, the word/acronym PAKSTAN was actually coined in Now or Never by Chaudry Rehmat Ali, so all references will actually point to that (hence I thought it will be useful to put the historical reference itself in the citations too). The word might not have any search results as it is not used now since 'i' is added in... what I meant was, the acronym still defines the same areas with nothing about those facts changed. Using "once" might confuse reader over that. If for precision, might I suggest using "it was then used", or simply "it was used" would have no downside.


 * For the second, I added the last part as it was raised how it became "Pakistan" later or why 'i' was added... this part is fine then. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. I've tried another way for the first point. Does it work? --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to go. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Kashmir conflict" section

 * The citation from the Zakat Foundation (FN123) doesn't cover everything stated in the article about India's claim; I have therefore added a second one, the House of Commons Research paper.
 * I have removed the phrase "Considering Kashmir an unfinished agenda of partition and obligation towards Muslims in Kashmir, ..." at the start of the last paragraph. "unfinished agenda of partition" is unintelligible, and looking to the source for a clue, it doesn't use the word "partition".
 * The same reference also does not say anything about elections being supervised by the UN. I have rephrased to mandated by the UN. --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fauna
I've tackled the issue of correct linking of animal taxa raised by User:Johnbod in the FAC review. For reference in future FC reviews, I have used this source (cerrently FN147) and taken the following views:
 * hawks: the term is vague and is used differently in different parts of the world. I'm not sure it's worth inclusion when buzzards, vultures and harriers are not, but as this is only a summary, I've left it as is.
 * The source doesn't say how many of the two mongooses, three civets and at least five species of deer (Hog deer, Swamp deer, Red deer, Himalayan musk deer, Indian Muntjac) are on the southern plains, so I've not included any numbers. Likewise I haven't distinguished the two (Balochistan and Tibetan) subspecies of Asian black bear, for which we don't have separate articles in any case.
 * Pace Johnbod, the African wildcat is not Felis silvestris sp. but Felis silvestris lybica. Certainly, that isn't in Pakistan. The "desert cat" listed in the source is probably F.s. ornata, but that would be OR as the source only states F. silvestris. I have changed from desert cat to wildcat, which gets to F.silvestris.
 * "Panthers" were mentioned in addition to leopards, but this must be an oversight. The only Panthera species still living in Pakistan is the leopard, since lions and tigers are extirpated there.

"Economy" section

 * Why are we using a 2010 source from RAD-AID when we have 2011 IMF sources available (and used by both List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP))? --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to replace with the latest IMF report. September88 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I went to do that, but the IMF's tables appear not to be sortable, so are suitable for the numbers but not the ranking. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note an As of? and a Page needed in the final paragraph. --Stfg (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If we remove now from the As of? line, I'd say it could do without the As of?? ::The page number is 199. September88 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Page number inserted. I don't think removing "now" helps, because a very precise figure is being given for a value that will change annually in any case. IMO the tagged statement needs a year, whatever. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Science and technology" section
This section is rather dismal at the moment, disorganised and full of puffery, and with a failed verification. I am prepared to copy edit it, but what I would do would be pretty drastic, so I've tagged it just now and won't do any more with it till Sunday (22 April). The reason for this is to allow anyone who wants to improve it for content first to do so. Don't worry about the GOCEinuse banner on the article. Feel free to edit this section, and I won't edit-conflict against you.

If nobody takes it up before Sunday, I will do as follows:
 * Create a short introductory paragraph that doesn't fail verification, including, for example, the Nathiagali event currently at the end of paragraph 1.
 * Create paragraphs using the material on general Pakistani scientific and technological activities. For example, the space programme, the Antarctic programme and everything in the final paragraph.
 * Bullets for those scientists that have done something specific, like the guy who won the Nobel Prize and the one who spotted the uses of the Neem tree. But all the ones who are just listed as very clever, important, notable and generally wonderful people without any accomplishments listed here would go. And so will the "economical sciences".

If anyone wants to do something different instead, just say and I'll leave this section alone. --Stfg (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now done that. Note that Naveed Zaidi and Naweed Syed have been omitted. No criticism of them, but the first is British, the second Canadian. --Stfg (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Culture and society" section

 * The Kwint Essential reference (currently FN246, ref name=nuclear) was being overloaded: it does say that the basic unit is the extended family; it does not say that there's a trend towards nuclear family. Ref moved and unsourced statment tagged.
 * Dawn.com has now moved "The rise of Mehran man" to its own archives; I have replaced the URL with where it now is at dawn.com, leaving the Wayback archiveurl unchanged. This reference was also considerably misrepresented. I have rewritten the two sentences cited to it. --Stfg (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For trend towards nuclear family, this source could be used, although socio-economic concerns may need to change to urbanization.

Nuclear family 1st page. September88 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nice source. I think it does actually justify "socio-economic". --Stfg (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Literature" section

 * 1) "... encouraged Muslims binding all over the world to bring about successful revolution": needs clarification of "binding". Also, none of the three sources mention Iqbal urging people on towards revolution. There are a couple of metaphorical mentions of revolution, but nothing like that. I think this sentence needs rethinking.
 * 2) Please could an expert look at the last paragraph and identify which of the names there is notable enough to desrve a mention in the country article. If possible, please also could you remove puffery and suggest what to say about why they are notable?
 * --Stfg (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Sports" section

 * I have reorganised so that hockey is covered in one place.
 * Two Citation needed tags have appeared. These places appeared in the previous version to be cited to Ian Graham's book Pakistan (now FN278, ref name=squash), but actually these things aren't mentioned there and were always unsourced.
 * I have deleted the sentence "Other popular international players are Kiran Khan in Swimming and Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi in Tennis.[280][281]" as I don't believe either is notable enough for a country-level article. I did this in a separate edit with no other changes in case it needs reverting.
 * --Stfg (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources for Hockey World Cup: Page 771, Page 83.
 * Sources for Olympic medals:,.
 * Total Medal count in Asian games : 160 medals.
 * Total Medal count in Commonwealth games: 65 medals.
 * -- S M S  Talk 20:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sufism
A religion/demographics section on a Pakistan article discussing all religions and sects, yet nothing about Sufism! Sufism is very much rooted in South Asian/Pakistani culture and deserves mention. 58.165.94.247 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I know there is at least one important shrine, and that there have been terrorist attacks directed against Sufi shines or worshipers, but where can we find information about both the history and contemporary role of Sufism? The absence of a section on religion, including its history is a glaring omission. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sufism Under Attack in Pakistan" User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Islam That Hard-Liners Hate" User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a short section based in the NYT's coverage. Much more about history could be added. The coverage at Islam_in_Pakistan is the most detailed, but is unreferenced. A short search shows that obtaining good information on Sufism is Pakistan is rather difficult although there are a few books, Sufis of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh by Nagendra Kumar Singh and Sufism in Pakistan: Pakistani Sufis, Sufi Shrines in Pakistan, Urs in Pakistan, Muhammad Qadiri, Tahir-UL-Qadri, Pir Meher Ali Shah. There seems to be more on Amazon UK than on US Amazon. There is a category Category:Sufism in Pakistan. I have limited interest in this subject, so won't be following up. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The last peer review resulted in a consensus on removing separate subsections under Demographics, specifically religion. Please review this (Peer review/Pakistan/archive3) and the FAQs before making further edits. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out this discussion. I think a separate section on religion which includes history is justified, rather than a short section in demographics, but that subsection should certainly be a subtitle and included in the table of contents. My interest is not strong or sustained. I just noticed the brief note about Sufism not being mentioned and did something about it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Population
Since I don't have an accoun, I ask someone o make the following changes: update the population from "2011 estimate 177,100,000" to "2012 estimate 190,291,129" based on this source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html

And update "With a population exceeding 170 million people" to "With a population exceeding 190 million people".

Thank you. --85.70.56.231 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Internet
According to this list, Pakistan has the 15th largest internet population in the world. it's also got the highest internet penetration rate compared to other South Asian countries. I believe a sentence on internet should be in the article, but I'm wondering what section that would go into. Any thoughts?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dubious notability. You write as if it's a big thing, but really it's 16.78% of a large population. The bit about South Asia is highly selective, and is WP:OR anyway. --Stfg (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Though I should have clarified my point further, I did not just intend to talk about internet, but I'm also referring to telecommunications and information technology in general. The telecom industry in particular has registered remarkable growth in the past few years and is one of the mains sectors of the economy that really stands out. There are articles on the subject, see Telecommunications in Pakistan, Internet in Pakistan, Information technology in Pakistan etc. It's got to get at least some mention (a sentence would do), yet there's nothing at all.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good. I'm sure that these could supply enough information to furnish a sentence, or even a very short paragraph. I would suggest the "Science and technology" section. The thing to careful about is not to seem to select those figures that overstate things rather than those that paint a balanced picture. This tendency was exhibited on the question of "the largest troop contributors to UN peacekeeping missions", justified on the frankly very feeble premise that police aren't troops (see Talk:Pakistan/Archive 16). It's unwise: people are sensitized to spin doctoring these days, and the effect can often be the opposite of what might have been intended. --Stfg (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the internet, but last I checked, Pakistan was highest bandwidth consumer on the SMS services. That could get a mention maybe... though to me it only indicates the kind of free time we have at our hands (in a negative way) ;). Agree with adding a short paragraph at the end of Science and technology about the topic. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Request for Comment
It escapes me why I should be notified today of an RfC that applies to an argument that has been extant for more than a month. Perhaps that an issue for any administrator present to address.

The issue itself is one of Wikipedia's internal contradictions between rules, the ability of anyone to derail the rules by stonewalling (and other methods), and the opaque, unpredictable power of administrators to override rules and even rationality. In short, there is never a degree of certainty about outcomes, and certainly not about neutral outcomes.

Let's accept that regardless of the Wikipedia lip-service to neutrality and objectivity, Wikipedia is essentially beholden to an American weltanschauung, and its neutrality can be considered neutral only once everyone agrees to regard the entire world from an American perspective.

From a Chinese perspective, for example, it may well be that what is considered support for the Taliban in the West is in fact no more than domestic regional politics. I can only guess at what might be the views of the South African, Fijian, Indonesian, Saudi Arabian, or Ecuadorian position might be, but I suspect it would be mostly a matter of indifference.

That aside, in the matter of Pakistan's support for the Taliban, the rules state that any reference to such support, or denials of such support, are valid to include in the article if they can be referenced to reputable sources. It appears there are reputable sources for both positions aplenty.

The rules also say that editors should avoid undue emphasis on any particular issue. It appears that the proposed wordings being pushed around are too ambitious to meet that test. A simple summary that flags the issue with an interested but non-partisan reader should suffice.

For the main Pakistan page it seems to me that mention of the Taliban is unavoidable because of the international relations prominence of the Afghan conflict and the 'war on terrorism', but that a simple sentence stating claim and counterclaim is enough, particularly if there is a link to a Pakistan-Taliban page about those claims and counterclaims, where they can be described in more detail.

To determine the appropriate sources for the sentence in the Pakistan page, it appears to me to be most sensible to refer to the earliest and latest claims (2 claims in total) and to the earliest and latest denial (2 denials in total), put to paraphrase the sentence so it is the briefest possible summary.

A possible summary statement: 'Public statements have been made in the West implicating Pakistan in support for the Taliban since 19XX, to which Pakistan has consistently responded that any support for the Taliban ended in 20XX. See Pakistan-Taliban page.'

Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk  03:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not an "American Weltanschauung". See i. e. Pakistan Institute of International Affairs, Pakistan horizon, 2006: "[S]upport to the Taliban and ISI involvement was at its height during Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's tenure in 1995, the most active being the then Interior Minister, Naseerullah Khan Babar." The general lack of awareness about a phenomena, currently reintroducing Taliban rule over parts of Afghanistan and leading to a comback of Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Afghanistan, is disturbing. JCAla (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * May be he's right. That is more commonly known as systematic bias and wikipedia agrees that it has it. Much of it has been discussed in the RFC. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Strempel: You made one of the most sensible comments around here in my opinion. Samar  ( Talk  .  Contributions ) 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why this is not subsection of rfc? --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Recognized" regional languages
The source given does not show any real official recognition of these languages. All that is shown is that these languages exist in the country, as the source given is simply a census. Can these languages be used in government correspondence? Are they mandated in public schools? Do the provincial governments recognize them as "official" languages? Not that I've heard. Perhaps they are, but a better source is going to be needed than the Pakistani census. For the sake of not propagating erroneous information, I'm removing the "recognized regional languaegs" section until a reliable source for this information is given. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 07:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was not needed, but for your satisfication, there is added reference and cited. Justice007 (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The information is, once again, not in the sources given. The first source is the Pakistani Census, which only outlines the populations of the major languages of Pakistan. No official status is mentioned. The state.gov reference you just added has the same problem, this one only mentions the main languages of Pakistan, only specifically mentioning the official status of Urdu. Following the advice of Smsarmad, I'm going to add a template to that part of the article until we a reliable source that explicitly states the official status of these languages.


 * By the way, I definitely want these languages to be official. But as far as I know, unforunately, they're just not. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 14:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Official languages are at first line,and second, languages are recognised,I think there is no need citation to infobox, the content is taken from the sections,there are references,and cited, you are Gaming the system,and do you know how to figure out meanings?. Please use a bit Common sense. Justice007 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Justice007, please use :, ::, :::, etc. to precede your comments. I don't mean this as an attack or anything related to the discussion on these languages, it'd just make the talk pages easier to read. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of Googling "official status whichever language" a few times and this is what I got:










 * So of the languages currently listed in the article, the only one that could reasonably be claimed to be a "regional language" is Sindhi, based on this cursory Googling. Do you have any better sources that claim some official status for these languages? How on Earth is asking for reliable sources "gaming the system"? I'll take a look at the sources you say are already present in the article, all I ask is that you take a look at mine. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the language section know, where I'd expect to find this [...] content [that] is taken from the sections,there are references,and cited. The first source for the officiality of these languages is once again the state.gov source, which as we've already established does not say anything about any official recognition. The next source used is the Library of Congress, which only claims any official status for English and Urdu. The third and final source is the British Council, which says:


 * Let's disregard for a moment the articles erroneous parroting of the Ethnologue classification of Pashto and Balochi as "macrolanguages" and Pakistani Punjabi as closer to Saraiki than to Indian Punjabi; once again we find that the only regional language with official recognition is Sindhi. Also, I'd like to ask you to kindly stop removing the tag until sources that do indeed say that are added. Thanks,  saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)* I know that are not official languages, we are talking about recognition of the languages,which is the proof of your submitted references.At infobox mentioned languages are not only recognised nationally but also internationally,please take a look at references, 3, 33 and 225.Mentioning of the languages,itself means,"recognised".I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "recognized" doesn't imply more than "it is mentioned in a source". Sure those languages exist, and sometimes official agencies mention them for statistical purposes, but recognition, to me, implies a little more. I suggest we simply remove the word "recognized" from the infobox. I have similar problems with the term "provincial language" and our (unreferenced) article on the provincial languages of Pakistan. With the exception of Sindhi, what exactly makes a language "provincial"? That seems to be pure original research. Huon (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

All please note: Template:Infobox country when applied to countries has these parameters for languages:


 * official_languages         =
 * national_languages         =
 * regional_languages         =
 * languages_type             =
 * languages                  =
 * languages_sub              =
 * languages2_type            =
 * languages2                 =
 * languages2_sub             =

and the article is presently using the official_languages and regional_languages parameters. Both of these are for officially recognised languages. If you wish to document the regional use of other major languages, maybe a combination of the languages_type and languages parameters would do it. Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was trying to remove "recognised" from infobox, but couldn't make that.May be someone able to do that.Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have done so; thanks to Stfg for pointing out how to do so. Since we no longer say they're "recognized", I have removed the failed verification tag. If a name other than "regional languages" is preferable, we'll have to modify the languages_type parameter accordingly. Huon (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Thanks for clearing that up Huon. Just one small caveat though: why prioritize Kashmiri over Hindko, Potwari, or Brahui, which have more speakers in Pakistan? Kasmhiri is not the dominant language of Azad Kashmir, but rather Potwari (and Hindko further to the north) Indeed, the second source given for the "regional languages" references Hindko and Brahui but not Kashmiri. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 19:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, done.Justice007 (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding Hindko and Brahui, but I'm still struggling to understand why we have Kashmiri in the infobox. Of course it should be mentioned in the article, but I wouldn't characterize it as a "regional language". It doesn't form a majority or plurality at the district level or even tehsil level in Pakistan, AFAIK. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment (Taliban in Pakistan article)
Several editors want to bring Pakistan up to FA status. As of now the article, though featuring a sentence about Pakistan's estimates on the toll and costs to its own country because of the War in Afghanistan ("War on Terror"), does not mention Pakistan's relationship to the Afghan Taliban. Should the article mention Pakistan's relationship to the Afghan Taliban? If yes, how should it be phrased in this article? (please also refer to the sources in the sub-section below)
 * Option 1: No.
 * It should not be mentioned at all.


 * Option 2: Yes.
 * "Pakistan's international relations have been affected by allegations of support for the Taliban and by its response to these accusations."


 * Option 3: Yes.
 * "Between 1994 and 2001 Pakistan provided military support to the Taliban and there are allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban."


 * Option 3 (b): Yes.
 * "There are reports that Pakistan supported the Taliban between 1994 and 2001, and allegations of continued support to the Taliban after 2001. The government of Pakistan has denied supporting the Taliban either before or after 2001."


 * Option 4:Yes.
 * "Pakistan's Interior Minister, Naseerullah Babar, stated that Pakistan created and supported the Taliban from 1994 onwards. Before 9/11, up to 100,000 Pakistanis including the Frontier Corps are reported to have fought alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Pakistan is accused of providing continued support to the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), which Pakistan denies."

JCAla (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: Please see Talk:Pakistan/Archive 15 for discussion that lead to this RFC and should be included in resulting consensus. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary of sources

 * Note: The sources below are as cherry-picked by JCAla and disputed by me (they should atleast be collapsed so as not to flood the discussion as they are mere quotations), I also have objection to RFC summary as it is written by JCAla and not by a neutral editor (it does not include the suggestion I added in the end of my comment as proposed in discussion). [Was done]. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"We created the Taliban," Nasrullah Babar, the interior minister under Benazir Bhutto, [stated in 1999]. "Mrs. Bhutto had a vision: that through a peaceful Afghanistan, Pakistan could extend its influence into the resource-rich territories of Central Asia." The Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) provided assistance to the Taliban regime, to include its military and Al-Qaeda-related terrorits training camps, to further this vision. Since 9/11, Pakistan's military and civilian leaders have played a double game. One the one hand, Pakistan assures the United States that it is vigorously repressing Islamic militants. On the other hand, it aids and abets those same militants. "Publicly, Pakistan and the militants are enemies. Privately, they are friends."
 * McGrath, Kevin (2011). Confronting Al Qaeda: new strategies to combat terrorism. Naval Institute Press. p. 138:

"Since 1994, an estimated 80,000—100,000 Pakistanis have reportedly trained and fought for the Taliban in Afghanistan: this "creeping invasion" of Afghanistan has been a major factor in the expansion of Taliban influence"
 * The Oxford Companion to Politics in the world. Oxford University Press (2001):

"Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, highlighted the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency's role in sponsoring the Haqqani Network - including attacks on American forces in Afghanistan. "The fact remains that the Quetta Shura [Taliban] and the Haqqani Network operate from Pakistan with impunity," Mullen said in his written testimony. "Extremist organizations serving as proxies of the government of Pakistan are attacking Afghan troops and civilians as well as US soldiers." ... Years later, Pakistan's duplicity in this long war is still a major problem."
 * Admiral Mullen: Pakistani ISI sponsoring Haqqani attacks, The LONGWAR Journal (2011):

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (2007)


 * "When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: first, that they would bring peace to Afghanistan by bringing the warlords to heel; second, that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance."

United Nations (1999-2001)
 * "The [UN security council] resolution imposes an arms embargo against the Taliban, including foreign military assistance that UN officials say comes mainly from Pakistan."
 * "United Nations officials say that the Taliban gets their strongest sustained support from Pakistan."
 * "In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals."


 * "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support."

Human Rights Watch (2000) Academia
 * "Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support."
 * "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism."


 * "The [Pakistani] ISI's undemocratic tendencies are not restricted to its interference in the electoral process. The organisation also played a major role in creating the Taliban movement." (Jones, Owen Bennett (2003). Pakistan: eye of the storm. Yale University Press. pp. 240)


 * "Pakistan had all but invented the Taliban, the so-called Koranic students" (Randal, Jonathan (2005). Osama: The Making of a Terrorist. I.B.Tauris. pp. 26. ISBN 9781845111175)


 * "Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency used the students from these madrassas, the Taliban, to create a favourable regime in Afghanistan" (Boase, Roger (2010). Islam and Global Dialogue: Religious Pluralism and the Pursuit of Peace. Ashgate. pp. 85. ISBN 978-1409403449)


 * "Pakistani support for the Taliban included direct and indirect military involvement, logistical support" (Goodson, Larry P. (2002). Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. University of Washington Press. pp. 111. ISBN 978-0295981116)


 * "The Pakistan government's then Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar reportedly justified Pakistan's crucial backing for the militia with the claim that "our boys" (Taliban) were protecting Pakistani "interests". Pakistan's diplomatic machinery especially its representative at the UN was instructed to persistently deny any Pakistani role in the militia's victories." (Pakistan and the Emergence of Islamic Militancy in Afghanistan)


 * Amin Saikal in Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006): "Although publicly maintaining a policy of denial of any support for the Taliban [at that time], her government expanded its logistic and military assistance to the militia, as was subsequently confirmed by hundreds of Pakistani officers, troopers and volunteers who were captured by anti Taliban forces."


 * "The Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, the ISI and other parts of the Pakistan government. Would the Taliban have been able to come to power without Pakistan's help? Of course the Taliban could never have come to power without the help of Pakistan."


 * George Washington University (2007): "Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban but the newly-released documents ... conclude that there has been an extensive and consistent history of 'both military and financial assistance to the Taliban.'"
 * "Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. ... They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles. ... They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them ..."
 * "Pakistan became directly involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban in the 1990s …" (Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York. p. 352.)
 * "'Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasirullah Babur discovered and empowered a group of former Mujahideen from the Kandahar area as Pakistan’s new strategic card in the Afghan conflict.' … In the late 1990s, Pakistan continued to support the Taliban regime in its war against the Northern Alliance."
 * "The ISI was trying to create a puppet state in Afghanistan? Yes. And they created the Taliban in order to facilitate that? That's right. ... You had an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then [and] right up until 9/11, this unholy alliance was dominated, directed, guided mostly by ISI in Pakistan."

Encyclopedia
 * "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia

Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.) "When the Taliban dominated Afghanistan in the 1990s, General Babar, then the interior minister of Pakistan under Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, called the new rulers “our boys.” Colonel Imam, working for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence served as Pakistan’s consul general in the strategic Afghan town of Herat, providing vital financial and military support to the Taliban. ... He viewed the creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan as an important buffer for Pakistan against Central Asia and Russia. “I’m not sure General Babar realized what demons he unleashed,” said Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent Pakistani lawyer who was interior minister in an earlier Bhutto government."
 * New York Times:

"Babar’s role in propping up and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan was also pivotal. He made no bones about the fact that he was the father of the Taliban and commanded respect within the Taliban leadership. However, the sources say, Babar looked at Taliban as a ‘strategic and political ally’, not an organisation he was ideologically connected to, and believed a Taliban government could help Pakistan strategically."
 * Pakistani Tribune:

International Governments
 * "Pakistan's military backs Afghanistan's Taliban rulers."
 * "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan."
 * "The level of support reaching Massoud's men is a fraction of that reaching the Taliban from Islamabad."
 * "Tehran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance and said Iran was holding Pakistan responsible for what it termed war crimes at Bamiyan."
 * Nicole Fontaine, Head of European Parliament: " …speak firmly to the Pakistani authorities. … I will solemnly ask Pakistan to cease supporting a [Taliban] regime which because of its fanatical and obscure views is setting its fate against international society."
 * ”Russia today accused Pakistan of directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan close to the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and warned that Moscow reserves the right to take any action to ensure the security of its allies in Central Asia. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Valery Nesterushkin accused Pakistan of planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics…. "Concrete facts, including large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance provide this evidence," Nesterushkin stressed.”
 * "U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan."
 * "Administration officials told Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar during his recent visit to Washington that the White House had a "growing body of evidence" that Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban."


 * French media archive video: "Pakistani army personnel captured by Massoud"

Option statements
-
 * Option 1 (with flexibility for 2 and 3(b)): I've explained at great length in the section above why this should not be included. To summarize my reasons, such controversial statement will need explanations from both sides making it unnecessarily long. This dispute has been lingering for months at Taliban article itself and has gone repeatedly at NPOVN and repeatedly brought up which is just WP:POINT because it achieved a given consensus at that article once. Each time it gets dug up, it only brings more bickering with it wasting everyone's time and over-running achieved consensus. In short it would be counter-productive because it has been discussed before at Talk:Pakistan/Archive 15 and Talk:Pakistan/Archive_13 where consensus was not to include such in this article. If any consensus is achieved to include such a statement in this article, I have suggested the Option 2 so as to state the issue without stating a party's POV. Pakistan has strongly denied providing any support to Taliban before or after 9/11. The sources JCAla has provided are discussing whether actual support has been given or not... and per this consensus on the issue, Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28, it is not appropriate for wikipedia to state the support as a fact. If at all it is included denials should be present in-line. None of JCAla's sources attribute any admission of support to the Pakistani government and rather to individuals. Even the sources that do say that Pakistan actually supported Taliban still accept that Pakistan denied supporting the Taliban before 9/11:


 * "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite.".


 * There are also reliable sources that attribute Islamabad's denial:
 * "Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban."


 * This is also present in most recent reports:
 * "Pakistan has repeatedly denied that it is the architect of the Taliban enterprise."


 * As for the current support, there're vigorous denial reports present in the media and the denial not disputed even if the support is. I strongly oppose the Option 4 as unacceptable which goes against the consensus here stating things as fact and not adding appropriate denials and giving undue weight to a scandal statement by the foreign minister which is more appropriate for discussion at its own article and not the country article which has much more to deal than even politics in general. Option 3 is the least acceptable statement to me only and only if denial for pre-9/11 support is added to it and if consensus is in favour of including POVs of both sides instead of the first two options; that is, in this form of modified option 3 ( now included in RFC options as option 3 (b) ) with complete attribution and denial:


 * "There are reports that Pakistan supported the Taliban between 1994 and 2001, and allegations of continued support to the Taliban after 2001. The government of Pakistan has denied supporting the Taliban either before or after 2001."
 * -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

---
 * Option 4 is preferable as being most accurate. Option 3 secondary choice as a compromise version. Given the sources used for Pakistan denial also say Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"? Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists Covert Policy Linked Taliban, Kashmiri Militants, Pakistan's Pashtun Troops And "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite." It is obvious that all reliable sources state as fact that before 9/11 Pakistan aided the Taliban. We should not give undue weight to Government denials and should reflect what the mainstream says. All academic sources, MSM and NGO's say Pakistan founded, gave financial and military support and continues to do so. Airlift of Evil being a prime example. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

--


 * Option 4 reflects the true scope of Pakistan's relationship with the Afghan Taliban. Option 3 (a) could be agreed on only as a secondary choice and compromise version. As can be seen under the sources section, the majority of reliable sources states as a matter of fact that Pakistan gave (military) support to the Taliban before 9/11. Naseerullah Babar who was Pakistan's interior minister in 1994 when the Taliban were founded explicitly said: "We created the Taliban." Even Pervez Musharraf, then Pakistani army chief, said: "When we sided with the Taliban ... it was to spell the defeat of" anti-Taliban forces. While Pakistan did have an official policy of denial until 1999, the statements of today by those who were the government of Pakistan then (there is no misunderstanding "we created the Taliban", creation goes beyond support), clearly back up what the reliable sources have been stating as a matter of fact for a very long time. Some examples:
 * 1) The Yale University Press published: "The ISI's undemocratic tendencies are not restricted to its interference in the electoral process. The organisation also played a major role in creating the Taliban movement." (Jones, Owen Bennett (2003). Pakistan: eye of the storm. p. 240)
 * 2) The University of Washington Press published: "Pakistani support for the Taliban included direct and indirect military involvement, logistical support". (Goodson, Larry P. (2002). Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. p. 111)
 * 3) The Oxford University Press calling Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan a "creeping invasion" published: "Since 1994, an estimated 80,000—100,000 Pakistanis have reportedly trained and fought for the Taliban in Afghanistan: this "creeping invasion" of Afghanistan has been a major factor in the expansion of Taliban influence". (The Oxford Companion to Politics in the world, Oxford University Press 2001)
 * 4) The New York Times wrote in 2011: "When the Taliban dominated Afghanistan in the 1990s, General Babar, then the interior minister of Pakistan under Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, called the new rulers 'our boys.'"
 * 5) Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Ghost Wars", Steve Coll, states: "They [Afghan Taliban] were an asset of the ISI. ... they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them".
 * Pakistan claims it ended its support to the Taliban post 9/11, but a majority of international experts and analysts as well as the most senior international officials have brought forward allegations and evidence that Pakistan keeps supporting the Afghan Taliban. Since, in contrast to the pre-9/11 period, reliable sources state the post-9/11 as an allegation, we decided to have the post-9/11 support as an allegation. For both periods, pre-9/11 and post-9/11, wikipedia with option 4 or 3 would reflect the majority of reliable sources according to policy. JCAla (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

---


 * Option 4 (with caveat): Based on the premise that this is the clearest, most neutral and most clearly verifiable by sources. More tweaking could be achieved regarding making the comment completely neutral and devoid of any accusations of bias one way or the other - but that is always the most difficult thing to achieve in this type of situation. I hope I've placed this comment in the right place (responding to RfC) - if not feel free to move it elsewhere. isfutile:P (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How's option 4 neutral with almost everything stated as a fact and a three word denial? Have you seen this? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sir, option 4 is not the most neutral or there wouldn't be so much argument involved. Its one view which has oppositions and contradictions just like others. Neither is it most clearly verifiable, other options have reliable and authentic references. Simple superlatives are not helping. Samar  ( Talk  .  Contributions ) 14:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... there are arguments about all the options. Option 4 is indeed the most accurate. JCAla (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its one view which has oppositions and contradictions just like others. Yes, there are arguments about all options, no denying. Simple superlatives are not helping. Samar  ( Talk  .  Contributions ) 06:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---


 * Option 3(b): This is the most to the point while at the same complying with the resolution of Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28 (with which I whole-heartedly agree). Option 2 comes a poor second -- poor because it's too oblique. Option 1 is completely unacceptable as ignoring something so obviously prominent in recent history. Options 3(a) and 4 are completely unacceptable as flying in the face of the above NPOV/N resolution. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That resolution was only about the post-9/11 period as only the sources for that period were the matter of discussion on that board. Pre-9/11 was not the issue there and the source and factual situation for that period is completely different. When Pakistan's fmr. president Musharraf and fmr. interior minister Babar (both in office during the time in question) say for the pre-9/11 period they "sided with" (Musharraf) respectively "created" (Babar) the Taliban, then of course there is no longer a NPOV problem in stating, they supported the Taliban pre-9/11. As their denial during that time has been nullified by their more recent admissions. JCAla (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither the question nor the resolution of the NPOV/N make any distinction between pre- and post-9/11. What it says is that we should report on what the sources say, not on the extent to which we believe specific sources. That is a timeless principle. If sources for government denial of pre-9/11 support cannot be found, then of course my preferred option would change. But the existence of RSs alleging pre-9/11 support says nothing about the existence or otherwise of RSs denying it. It all comes down to sources. If any government denials are now superseded by later government admissions, please show sources for that. For now, my view is unchanged. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen no reliable sources which state "Pakistan did not support the Taliban pre-9/11". Have you? Can you show me them? I have only seen sources say "Pakistan had a policy of denial, although it supported them" pre-9/11. Would you give equal weight to a government denial which is explicitly described as untrue in the reliable sources it is mentioned and to what the reliable sources actually say? Even more so, when the denial has been superseded by later admission that Pakistan was indeed involved in supporting and bringing the Taliban to power. The sources are under the "sources" section. But here they are again.
 * Robert D. Crews, Amin Tarzi. The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan. p. 102: "... in a BBC interview, Benazir Bhutto shed light on American involvement admitting that her government had trained the Taliban in Pakistan with American financial assistance. Benazir Bhutto conceded that this group [Taliban] developed out of a joint venture among the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Pakistan's Ministry of Interior, and the Pakistani merchants and trucking network." (please check here)
 * Kevin McGrath (2011). Confronting Al Qaeda: new strategies to combat terrorism. Naval Institute Press. p. 138: "We created the Taliban," Nasrullah Babar, the interior minister under Benazir Bhutto, [stated in 1999]. "Mrs. Bhutto had a vision: that through a peaceful Afghanistan, Pakistan could extend its influence into the resource-rich territories of Central Asia." (please check here)
 * Pervez Musharraf (2006). In the Line of Fire: A Memoir. p. 209: "When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: first, that they would bring peace to Afghanistan by bringing the warlords to heel; second, that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance."(please check here)
 * Pervez Musharraf published that in 2006. He was President of Pakistan until 2008. He said "we sided" to "spell the defeat of" anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, while the fmr. interior minister even said "we created the Taliban".
 * The discussion of the NPOV/N was only about post-9/11 and the reason for the discussion was that some wanted the ISI to be featured as a current ally in the Talib article infobox, and others didn't want to.
 * JCAla (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply below where JCAla has copy pasted these walls of text. Please take it to extended discussion when you are commenting in general or on more than one comments. Refer to Tendentious editing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---


 * Option 3(b): Its best to go with an option where every side's opinion is included. Due weight should be given to the Government's response (denial) because it is the primary source of all proofs; all the rest are just reports and allegations and statements.


 * Option 4 is an absolute no.
 * Pakistan's Interior Minister, Naseerullah Babar, admitted in 1999 that Pakistan created and gave military support to the Taliban from 1994 until 9/11.
 * He admitted in 1999 that Pakistan supported Taliban from 1994 till 9/11 which took place in 2001 ! No more comment on this.
 * Option 1: Again no, since this has become one of major focus of discussions for Pakistan and it is not right to ignore this.
 * Option 3(b) because it almost gives all view points.
 * Comment: There doesn't seem to be one right solution for such issues, every opinion is present and every opinion will have some reliable background. Its better to get rid of the 'I want THAT candy' attitude and try to find a middle ground. Cheers Samar  ( Talk  .  Contributions ) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL actually for what you pointed out about the "admission" of support till 2001 in 1999! No idea how I missed something that ridiculous. That just tells how blatant an attempt it was to push in POV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Samar, you are right with regards to the sentence (changed that). But you are of course not right with regards to the issue. He admitted in 1999 that "we created the Taliban". However, post 1999 he kept stating that Pakistan was supporting the Taliban and that he was the "father of the Taliban". JCAla (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah JCAla, try to find a middle ground here. Please try to understand every option has for and against arguments. I agree option 4 has its own source, but if it is based on comments from one ex FM and one ex President then what about the whole lot of current and past PMs, FMs, presidents, senior officials stating otherwise. Anyways, can't argue if that's your final decision. Cheers Samar  ( Talk  .  Contributions ) 06:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish you had come earlier to this debate because then we could have more options to discuss than we currently have in this RFC. Anyways, Pervez Musharraf ("we sided with the Taliban" in order to "defeat" anti-Taliban forces) was not just "one ex President". Musharraf was Pakistan's military ruler from 1998-2007/2008 (which is much of the time in question). The ISI belongs to the army. Benazir Bhutto was the head of state during the time (1993-1996) when the Taliban were created and rose to power and she also said the same as Babar. (see sources under Stfg's option statement) Please show me statements by Pakistani officials as senior as the ones named above (which do not pre-date these rather current admissions). JCAla (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply below where JCAla has copy pasted these walls of text. Attempting to join these discussion forks. Better move them to extended. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

-


 * In my opinion <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> has explained deeply and widely as NPOV,there should not be forced to linking the ways which does not fall under the article criteria.I suggest option 1 is the best way to compromise realities and facts.I am traveling and have no much time to fully participate in the discussion .Justice007 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

-
 * Option 3(b) seems to be just the ticket. Option 4 has too much detail for a summary article. Option 2 is vague. Option 1 is a no because this is salient information relating to Pakistan. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that 3b is factually incorrect.
 * Robert D. Crews, Amin Tarzi. The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan. p. 102: "... in a BBC interview, Benazir Bhutto shed light on American involvement admitting that her government had trained the Taliban in Pakistan with American financial assistance. Benazir Bhutto conceded that this group [Taliban] developed out of a joint venture among the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Pakistan's Ministry of Interior, and the Pakistani merchants and trucking network." (please check here)
 * Kevin McGrath (2011). Confronting Al Qaeda: new strategies to combat terrorism. Naval Institute Press. p. 138: "We created the Taliban," Nasrullah Babar, the interior minister under Benazir Bhutto, [stated in 1999]. "Mrs. Bhutto had a vision: that through a peaceful Afghanistan, Pakistan could extend its influence into the resource-rich territories of Central Asia." (please check here)
 * Pervez Musharraf (2006). In the Line of Fire: A Memoir. p. 209: "When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: first, that they would bring peace to Afghanistan by bringing the warlords to heel; second, that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance."(please check here)
 * Pervez Musharraf published that in 2006. He was President of Pakistan until 2008. He said "we sided" to "spell the defeat of" anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, while the fmr. interior minister even said "we created the Taliban". And Benazir Bhutto explained the Pakistani "joint venture" which created the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Sided is weasel as it can point to merely recognizing their government... 2) You are copy pasting your sources on all option statements and this repetition will not change the fact that these are either cherry picked scandal statements or weasel comments. I have given proper sources which say that Islamabad denied ever giving military support to Taliban in these exact words. Please refrain from copy pasting the sources to your each comment as they are creating similar walls of text which were pointed out to you at ANI. This is the fourth instance in this very RFC where you have pasted a copy of these including a separate dedicated section which you made for them. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you for once stay on topic or shall I remember you how many things have been pointed out to you on ANI and elsewhere about several things?! I am sorry but these are the best quality reliable sources, these are statements by the most senior Pakistani goverment leaders themselves. "Military support" is not the same as "support". 3b states, "The government of Pakistan has denied supporting the Taliban either before or after 2001". That is simply a blatant source falsification (as currently everyone likes this term so much). They admit to creating the Taliban, training them and siding with them to defeat others (before 9/11). Above are the evidence. JCAla (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm on topic. Don't expect me to ignore the copy pastes. Well, lucky for me I've given sources for both military support and support. My point stands. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. You gave two sources. One referring only to "military support". The other merely describing a denial (identified by same source as untrue) and being nullified by more recent admissions. JCAla (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you agreed that I gave a source for the denial of support as well, I'll point out that we are debating on the denial here. There's no question of stating the support as a fact, that's already decided. And I don't think it is nullified by scandal statements and weasel comments; not nearly comparable to official stance, which you attribute as "admissions". -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That has not already been decided. As these sources were never discussed before. It is quite amusing that you would refer to the most reliable sources and the statements of the most senior Pakistani politicians as "scandal statements and weasel comments". JCAla (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stfg and others have verified that NPOVN discussion. So I'll rest my case. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Verified, yes, that all povs need to be presented. POV of senior Pakistani leaders is that they created the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My note
 * I think we should bold but not foolish,we have to discuss concept of the wiki rules. It seems to me that we are trying to create here a kind of political platform. It is a big blunder not to know who created the Taliban??,they were called Mujahideen, and now terrorists and next may be possible great friend of U. We should not and must not blaming all the Pakistani leaders, non of them has created the Taliban, we know and you know too who is behind?.Taliban issue is no any way related or relevant to article of Pakistan, it is cristal clear. I will back soon at my station,and give proper reply with reliable sources and NPOV. Justice007 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As my comment

As my comment, here is my second reply. As my view, any state is a strutcure first, than something else. Similarly Pakistan is a first structure of a state,and article should be based on it,rather than on her leaders or individual groups behaviours. if there are concerns about that, that shoud be mentioned in separate article, not in the state's article, nor its any sections. As other states articles exist. I do realy not go into the history of Afghan Talibans, who created them,  who used them, who declared them terrorists and now who is most interested to compromise with ??? them 1 2. Political and journalistic games, we all know and understand  (Analysis by Aleem Maqbool). State of Pakistan is not involved in any terrorist organization nor supporting them 3, while Pakistan is itself targeted by Afghani or Pakistani Taliban ( terrorists)  4. Actually why West and USA is blaming that Pakistan is helping Afghan Taliban?, and self eager to make them again friend?. We should use Commonsense, rather than insisting to add section in the article Pakistan about helping Taliban.Well,if there are necessary requirements or desires of someone, it should be done in separate creating article.Justice007 (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

-

Option 4 is simply over detailed. Option 2 is simply bewildering and impalpable. Option 3(b) because it's defect less and is simply perfect. TopGun has correctly given the explanation and if Option 3(b) doesn't seem right, I think we should go for Option 1 as it is following NPOV Simply arguing again and again over petty issues isn't the way to resolve conflicts. I suggest that Option 3(b) must be considered here -- Inland mamba   (talk to me) 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) -
 * Option 3(b) : I agree with Samar's statement and TopGun that option 3b is the best choice here. Even America's Hillary Clinton has her own confusing statements. At one point Obama administration supports Pakistan's role in fight against terrorism and then Ms Clinton goes to India and speaks that Pakistan is not doing enough.
 * Option 3(b) is the closest to what I can call a neutral summarized statement, as I think the issue of supporting Taliban do need a mention and also the pre and post 9/11 needs separate mention. The other thing that, using the word like created is not good to reflect Pakistan's support or help to different smaller Mujahideen factions and political parties who participated in Soviet war to group together and form a civilian government in Afghanistan rather than fighting with each other, that most of the groups were doing after Soviet exit. Pakistan was helping to bring stability to Afghanistan so the millions of refugees who came to Pakistan during Soviet war could return to their homes who were putting a considerable financial pressure on Pakistan's economy and as an unstable Afghanistan is also threat to Pakistan's stability. -- S M S  Talk 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. What, dear sirs and madams from Wikiproject Pakistan?! 1) This is about Taliban, not Soviet period and mujahideen. 2) Pakistan after Soviet period supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to destroy stability in Afghanistan. Without Pakistan's support Hekmatyar "would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul." (Amin Saikal, Modern Afghanistan. 2006) 3) Taliban led to even more refugees going to Pakistan. JCAla (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. The Afghan Taliban largely evolved from Pashtun fighters who were previously what you call "mujahideen" forces engaged in the Soviet war; these same Taliban were once funded by CIA money. Got to agree with SMS as far as the use of the word "created" is concerned; it is not relevant to the context, since the various factions have a background back in the Soviet war and the aim after the war was to unify factions in the country to make some sort of government. How effective that was, as observed by the fact that Afghan factions started fighting each other instead, is a seperate issue. We only add content relevant to Pakistan in this article and stay to the point. If some Afghan warlords and factions couldn't get over their differences and form a civilized country (for whatever reasons), the only place relevant for discussing that would be Talk:Afghanistan instead.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Afghan Taliban largely evolved from Pashtun refugees in Pakistan, indoctrinated in Pakistani madrassas. Some of their commanders may have fought in the Soviet war with the Harakat Inqilab or Hezb Khalis faction. The Taliban as an organization were however created long after the Soviets were gone, they just inherited the support structure in Pakistan formerly working for mujahideen factions such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's. Pakistan's aim after the Soviet war, beginning in 1990, was not to unify the factions, rather to install puppet Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as dictator against the will of all other Afghan parties. When the Afghan mujahideen factions unified under the Islamic State of Afghanistan, Pakistan's Hekmatyar worked as the spoiler placing the Afghan capital under extensive bombardment. When Hekmatyar's campaign failed, and the Islamic State started to consolidate power, Pakistan dropped him (at which point he had to surrender completely) and introduced and created (according to own words) another spoiler, the Taliban. The second Pakistan drops the Afghan Taliban, they will have one year and then they will perish. That is the role of Pakistan in Afghanistan. Unity and an independent, reinvigorated Afghanistan going back to the late 1960s eye-to-eye relationship and border disputes is the last thing Pakistan wants. Either it is a dependent government or chaos. JCAla (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice story of afghani view --Highstakes00 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Highstakes is a confirmed sock account.

- -- -- Talibans are not exclusive to Pakistan. I don't see any mention of USA involvement with them, so why does Pakistan's mention is needed exclusively? Plus this is a very controversial issue, including it makes way for more explanations or pov pushing from both sides making this portion of article unnecessarily long. However if its to be included I can show flexibility for Option 3b, because it seems to be the most neutral statement out of the given options. September88 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC) --
 * Option 1 usa create taliban but american article is not in rfc this is pov pushing to say such thing here. Option 4 is pov pushing every one has oppose option 4 so do not use it. 3b is neutral good suggestion of my fellow editors but debate is not over still why we mention taliban in Pakistani page? Pakistan page must mention country detail as we discuss before this is a single taliban problem. Afghan taliban is not very important in Pakistan. Taliban in Pakistan are TTP terrorist they are different Pakistan is fighting with TTP. Afghan taliban must be mention in Afghanistan page. --Highstakes00 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Highstakes is a confirmed sock account. JCAla (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A note on highstakes, blocked users' comments from when they were not blocked are valid. The user is not tagged as a sock rather blocked for socking after this edit. The blocking administrator is free to clarify and strike my comment if applicable. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Strike per Salvio below. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. I am the checkuser who blocked Highstakes00 and I believe his !vote should not be counted by the closing admin; this account was blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet and not as a sockmaster. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying as no details about the block were available. I've struck my comment. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1, with Option 3(b) as second preference The proposals contain nothing about the Soviet war which is a background to the conflict. And, as a user above pointed out, there seems to be nothing about the involvement of the United States in funding these factions once upon a time. The options thus seem quite mediocre. Further, I still stand by my original proposal which was that if this is to be included, there should be an entire paragraph on diplomatic relations with Afghanistan which also touches issues such as the Durand Line dispute and Afghanistan's interference in Pakistan's internal affairs post-1947 so that readers can get an entire perspective and background on foreign relations. This is just one egg in the basket. Nevertheless, if not option 1, I would support Option 3(b) as second preference as that is the only remotely neutral option.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1, with flexibility for Option 3(b)
 * Option 4 with flexibility to option 3 and strong oppose to 3(b)
 * option 4 is neutral enough, its not overly detailed as claimed by few above. Gives a decent 2 line intro on the facts with links to investigate further if the reader is interested to read more. well sourced and supported by RS and gives a world view of the incident.
 * Option 1 opposed as violates WP:NOTCENSORED,
 * Option 2 opposed as gives half cooked info.
 * option 3 weak support
 * option 3(b) strong oppose as its Pakistans POV not the world view
 * option 4 support good enough. already mentioned above. --Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  05:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You definitely need to read the discussion as a whole. Option 1 is not claiming censorship if you see the explanations given for it. It would be censorship if it was said that the discussion should not appear anywhere on the wiki, this case here is about WP:UNDUE. I have no idea how you've reached the conclusion that option 4 is even nearly neutral (which fails to mention Pakistan's view in it and states the accusation as a fact) but I really do need to correct you on your understanding of option 3 (b). It includes the accusation and the denial (calling it Pakistan's view is simply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). It is a completely balanced view giving weight to all POVs. Also, I can only hope that you don't mean to say that "world view" is congruent to NPOV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

--
 * Option 4 with flexibility for Option 3.Strong Oppose for 3(b)
 * As DBigXray said, option 3(b) is surely Pakistan POV..not world's view.  ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  Ω  05:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strike Eagle, this article might be a good read for you. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot TopGun..that was quite helpful!  దṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  ™  15:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Extended discussion
Note on the options: In the extensive discussion in above section on the Taliban several suggestions were made by participating editors. Two of above options have been suggested by TopGun, namely option 1 and 2. I asked TopGun if he wanted to stand by his version (Option 2) on his talk. He just asked for a "no mention at all" option and I added one. I don't think there is a need for one editor to have three suggestions as he requests above. The third option is a proposal made by User:RegentsPark on April 14 trying to find a compromise. Out of the suggestions RegentsPark made, this is the one hitting middle ground (it does not have terrorism vs India, "direct", "credible") as present in some suggestions by RP, but it also does not have the controversial "denial" (as in another suggestion). The fourth is an additional possibility by me. Note on the source summary: The sources put into the source summary are those which would be needed as citations for some of the options if to be put into the article. Any other sources for further information can be found under "further sources". JCAla (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is regentpark's objection on the version (option 3) that you attribute to him. So my objection has been verified clearly. As for the sources, please collapse them as they are quotes and not editor comments hence flooding the page. Ofcourse editors can review them by clicking on show, that does not make them less visible as headers will be present. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not just attribute it to him, it was in fact made by him on April 14. And he has not generally "objected" to option 3, he just commented on the RFC. JCAla (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You do attribute to him which is an issue since he pointed it out that there's a problem. Simply add both of them in. I don't see any down side of doing that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Four suggestions is already a lot. I don't think we need three just for you. That is way over the top. You chose option 1, now choose option 2 (either stay with your version or choose one from RP to replace it). I'll stay with RP's middleground version (April 14) as option 3 and mine as 4. JCAla (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given my statement and I've explained that RP's version has been pointed out as problematic by RP himself, so it will have to be adjusted (not that I think that you have any authority to put a limit to the options in the RFC). Thank you. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RP also said he doesn't know enough to be sure and that it would be up to us two to phrase that RFC. I suggest that you write down option 1&2 and I keep option 3&4. Or, you can include RP's other suggestion as a third version but then - to keep it fair and balanced - we'd also need to include the version DarknessShines i. e. voiced his support for which was: "Between 1994 and 2001 Pakistan heavily supported the Taliban. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India." It would be six then, which is way too much. JCAla (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it quite telling that you write up a non-neutral RFC summary with a similar structure yourself right after telling me to ask a neutral editor to do so instead of doing so myself. I've objected to both the current structure, may be you should remove the RFC template for a while and discuss that or this is a conduct dispute then. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Between that and my posting the RFC, was a truely long period of discussion. Several editors were supportive of me posting an RFC after the long discussion. I asked User:RegentsPark i. e. how best to frame the RFC and I kept to his advise. I then asked you for the option you want to have in the RFC and out of the four options added by me, two represent your suggestions (1&2). You also said: "If you want to put this in an RFC do add a "completely oppose inclusion" option too. Actually better to ask an uninvolved editor frame it, since I even disagree with your conclusion of their being a consensus at all." I did add your options, I did not mention any such consensus as you objected to it and used the frame proposed by RegentsPark. Instead of simply going along with the RFC as there are two of your own suggestions you could support, you are boycotting the RFC. As a compromise, I suggested to you, you should pick 2 of the options of your liking (change them in the RFC if necessary) and I will suggest the two other options. That would be fair and balanced. If you can't agree to that, I suggest all of the four editors involved in the mediation should come up with one option each. JCAla (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Options 2 and 4 need copy editing for grammar and MoS, as follows:
 * Option 2: "Pakistan's international relations have been affected by allegations of support to for the Taliban and by its response to these accusations."


 * (Note: to doesn't need changing to for in option 3)


 * Option 4: "Pakistan's Interior Minister, Naseerullah Babar, in 1999 admitted in 1999 that Pakistan created and supported gave military support to the Taliban militarily from 1994 until 9/11. From 1994 -  to 1999, up to 100,000 Pakistani _national s are reported ly to have fought alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Pakistan is widely accused of continuing to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), which Pakistan denies."


 * --Stfg (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refer to this discussion with the mediator . I have added the left over option per the discussion without editing JCAla's summary. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to pop up so long after this started; I wanted to take time to think. To my mind, none of the options offered is remotely acceptable. Option 1 (no mention) is, as someone rather aptly said, to ignore the elephant in the room. Options 2, 3a, and 3b, by using the language of allegations and denials, reduce the whole business to one of hearsay and puts and accusatory spin on it all; about such things as this we need well-attested fact neutrally stated, nothing else. Option 4 starts better by identifying an authoritative source, but then reverts to POV and weasel. To save you scrolling, here it is again, with offending language in bold italics: "Pakistan's Interior Minister, Naseerullah Babar, admitted in 1999 that Pakistan created and gave military support to the Taliban from 1994 until 9/11. From 1994 to 1999, up to 100,000 Pakistanis are reported to have fought alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Pakistan is accused of continuing to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), which Pakistan denies." Here: admitted implies a confession -- stated, if borne out by an authoritative source, would be neutral; are reported to is weasel -- we need a source identified in the text and it needs to be an authoritative one. The last sentence is complete rubbish, both hearsay and POV. It needs to be replaced with something like "Pakistan states that ..." cited to an authoritative source.

Imho, what we need is two very crisp sentences telling us what people in a position to speak authoritatively -- ministers, ex-ministers, government spokespersons, that sort of thing -- have stated. I'm sure that would be possible and still get both sides of the equation. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank's for pointing out the issues with the options. We've already gone over the issue on whether or not to state it as a fact here. It is not right for an encyclopedia to state such as a fact without sufferring from POV. The discussion linked already states there has been heavy cherry picking of sources. That is why I tried to point to the issue as it is in the second option and leave the debate for Taliban article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Stfg, I think it would be something like the following then?
 * "Pakistan's Interior Minister, Naseerullah Babar, stated in 1999 that Pakistan created and gave military support to the Taliban from 1994 until 9/11. According to independent estimates from 1994 to 1999, up to 100,000 Pakistanis fought alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Senior international military and government officials as well as academic publications say Pakistan continues to support the Afghan Taliban in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), but Pakistan states it does not support the Taliban."
 * JCAla (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @TopGun: thanks for pointing me to that NPOVN item. I am not sure if you have understood that I am not arguing for any statement about the facts of P's support or lack of support for T; I am arguing for that we should mention statements that have been made by key authoritative sources. (I'll say more about "authoritative" below.) So I believe I am consistent with Georgewilliamherbert's admirable ruling that "Neither the opinion that the Taliban are supported by Pakistan nor that they are not is appropriate for Wikipedia to state as fact. In the case of disputed underlying facts in a real world case such as this, Wikipedia's role is to neutrally report all major, relevant organizations' opinions and statements, using reliable sources and verifiable citations for the positions of the two (or more) organizations involved." As to Option 2, I would find it more neutral if you were to replace both allegations and accusations by claims, though I am curious as to how you will cite this.


 * @JCAla: not yet. The first sentence is fine now, but thereafter you are indulging in appeal to authority, i.e. you are editorialising about the quality of your sources. The second sentence is gilding the lily anyway, and if the best you can come up with is estimates, and from sources you feel the need to assure us to be independent, then it would be better to omit the whole sentence. "Senior international military and government officials as well as academic publications" is begging the question of authoritativeness too: who are these people? where do they get their information? Finally, countries only make statements when people make them on the country's behalf. Once again, who?


 * Authoritative: probably nobody knows the whole truth about this question -- even prime ministers get much of what they know from what people on the ground choose to tell them :) And then, some people who are close to the truth may choose to bend it. So the only thing we can ever hope to do is to state who said what, on the record. So whose on-the-record statements are the interesting ones? I would say, those who have some actual involvement, without the lens of journalistic or academic interpretation between us and their statements. --Stfg (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Stfg, the NPOV statement by the closer referred ONLY to the post-9/11 period which was the topic of discussion, not to the 1994-2001 period which was not discussed there. Wikipedia represents what is the majority position among reliable sources as a matter of fact and for the pre-9/11 period, the majority position is clear. We had a RFC on that question and it came to that same result for the pre-9/11 period. So, for the pre-9/11 period, Pakistan's support to the Taliban is stated as matter of fact, for the post-9/11 period as an allegation.

All numbers of this size are estimates on different matters and articles on wikipedia. But they are nevertheless a standard of measurement. I chose the "independent estimates" phrase as it had already reached consensus as a formulation on the Bangladesh issue. The "estimates" are an accepted number among many academic sources. For the senior officials and academic publications we need a way to summarize them as they are way too many. You can't have a sentence with "the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Afghan President and all his cabinet ministers as well as the intelligence chief, the Indian government, European governments and publications by the London School of Economics, etc., etc., etc. say" ... That is too long, isn't it?!

And you know, "the truth is out there"! ;) JCAla (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I read your comment too quickly then... I do still see your point about the words to be used in context to the actual source of information (though not at the cost of NPOV). For replacing allegation and accusations with 'claims', won't it get a bit monotonous? Also, I find it a bit more precise, to call it an allegation when we can't state it as a fact. Even the sources' own context presents it as an allegation (though a fact according to them). I disagree with JCAla about his interpretation about the closer's comments... even the RFC he is referring to was closed as a marginal consensus and to be discussed further for adding attribution. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd put the avoidance of one repetition well below finding neutral words. But perhaps the best thing now would be if you could say which source(s) you want to use to support option 2, and then we can have a more concrete discussion about how to represent them neutrally and without monotony. :) --Stfg (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @JCAla, (if I may request it, it would really help if you'd use indentation in the conventional way.) Thank you for identifying some of the "senior international military and government officials as well as academic publications", but I do notice that none of them has ever been part of Pakistan's command structure or even its thinking processes, and so I would wonder how they could know. They are only as good as the product of their sources and their motivations, you see, and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq comes rather forcefuilly to mind. The truth, or at least the facts (different!), is/are certainly "out there", but whether they are accessible to you or me, or even to the CIA, I very much doubt. As to Wikipedia representing the majority position among reliable sources as a matter of fact -- really? Do you really, really want to say that? Well, poor old Galileo; he ruined his life just because he didn't have Wikipedia and so couldn't know that.


 * I disagree with your reading of that closure. When Georgewilliamherbert said "In the case of disputed underlying facts in a real world case such as this, Wikipedia's role is to neutrally report all major, relevant organizations' opinions and statements, using reliable sources and verifiable citations for the positions of the two (or more) organizations involved.", I take that as a statement of a general principle, and imho an excellent one.


 * One last point, if I may. Broken record isn't a form of negotiation. --Stfg (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Stfg, we have to distinguish pre-9/11 and post-9/11.


 * For pre-9/11, we have the Pakistani Army Chief and President (during that time) as well as the Pakistani Interior Minister (during that time) - both obviously at the most senior of Pakistan's command structure - stating "we created the Taliban", etc. (see sources). So, yes, as in addition all major reliable sources state Pakistan's support for the Taliban as a matter of fact and there is not one single reliable source stating the opposite, for pre-9/11 we can state as a matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban. This is like all reliable sources stating the historic fact that Germany invaded Poland in an act of aggression, disregarding the Nazi minority view.


 * For post-9/11, many reliable sources state a continued support as an allegation, not as a matter of fact - yet. ;) Still reliable sources such as the New York Times have indeed quoted senior ISI officials privately saying, "yes, we keep supporting the Haqqani network as a strategic card". And we have a reliable source such as the BBC reporting about hundreds of Taliban commanders who attested to the fact they have been trained by the ISI in Pakistan. Then, Afghans certainly are able to observe what is happening in their villages, towns and cities. And across all divide there is one common statement based on many evidence --> Pakistan is behind the Taliban. Yet, as most reliable sources - until now - state the post-9/11 support as a notable allegation, we reflect it as such.


 * On the majority position issue. No, I don't want to say that, but it is wikipedia policy. Yes, a minority view sometimes represents the truth. But wikipedia policy is the following: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." On the weight of the position among sources I refer to the explicit wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." All reliable sources state Pakistan's support pre-9/11 as a matter of fact, that has been substantiated with references to "commonly accepted reference texts". JCAla (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. (A) on distinguishing pre- from post-9/11: OK.


 * (B) Your first large paragraph, on pre-9/11: those sources are fine and your (revised) first sentence is fine. I don't think you need the level of detail of the second sentence of option 4 in this article, though. It's unnecessary detail at this level of article.


 * (C) Post-9/11: Good, and much more convincing than "the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Afghan President and all his cabinet ministers as well as the intelligence chief, the Indian government, European governments and publications by the London School of Economics, etc., etc., etc.", frankly. Especially if you can find one of those that actually cites a name senior official, or at least states a specific senior rank.


 * (D) I'm familiar with WP:WEIGHT. You seem to me to have represented it inaccurately before, though, when you said: "Wikipedia represents what is the majority position among reliable sources as a matter of fact ...". The bit of WP:WEIGHT that you quoted says nothing at all about either fact or truth; it speaks only of the balance of sources. The three are different.


 * That's all I can say. I'm not really helping you make progress, am I? So I'll out of this debate. Good luck in resolving it. --Stfg (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stfg. It was good to have some one clarify the points I was trying to make since November with a different approach. Maybe we can go ahead faster if we stop debating about the discussion itself... clarification of policies like above would really help in that as there is some WP:MPOV involved. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)