Talk:Pashtun Tahafuz Movement

Content issues and WP:NPOV
This is now turning into a slow grinding edit war. Please open a discussion here. IMO, the onus is on you to discuss your changes here since the other editor has clearly stated that there are WP:NPOV issues with your edits. I haven't examined all the sources in great detail but at face value it does seem that this is the case for quite a bit of your edits. It needs to be discussed if this content must be included and the wording. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The only issue here is that Indian and Afghan accounts are interested in presenting a one-sided POV on this topic. For this topic to be neutral, BOTH POVs must be mentioned. I have included sources for everything mentioned, so I really don't see the problem.

For Example:

"the most iconic symbol of the PTM" ....This is highly debatable as these hate are imported from Afghanistan and aren't really a thing in Pakistan.

"This further strengthens their narrative of being sidelined and ignored by the system." ....This is an opinion, not a fact and shouldnt be stated as a fact!

All edits are properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AS 199207 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Adamgerber80 thanks for opening up the discussion. I think the repeated questionable additions by AS 199207 (the single-purpose user here) seems to be motivated by their personal hate for PTM. They are repeatedly adding negative propaganda material not reliably sourced. Is it possible that the user is a sockpuppet of a nationalistic banned user? Firstly, we should be careful about the inserted claim by the user that the group is inciting "racial hatred and ethnic violence". Most sources (like The New York Times, DW, BBC, Daily Times, Voice of America, NPR, RFERL, The Diplomat, The Nation, The Express Tribune, Pakistan Today, The Week, and Al Jazeera) quoted in the article do not portray the group as such. Also most articles by Dawn have not portrayed PTM as such. A single article by Dawn hinted towards this, but I think every extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary evidence, so we can't insert an extraordinary claim without an extraordinary evidence. Secondly, the August 11 incident during the preparation for Swabi gathering, although it is sourced, but too much space is devoted to it in the article far more than its due weight. Most of the reliable sources about the Swabi gathering do not even mention this incident. In my opinion, if we are to mention it then we need to first make a subsection about the Swabi gathering under the Pashtun Long March section, and first discuss the Swabi gathering for which we have so many highly reliable sources available to quote. Then we can very briefly mention this incident no problem then. Thirdly, the user wants to claim in the article that PTM uses fake pictures on social media. However, the only source they put for it is "Times of Islamabad", which is not reliable. How can we use such weak propaganda sources when none of the many highly reliable international sources support such a strong claim against PTM? Khestwol (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

To address your points:

1: "We should be careful about the inserted claim by the user that the group is inciting "racial hatred and ethnic violence""...I was present at the Peshawar rally where they used derogatory terms for Punjabis. And even if my word is not taken for it, it is documented. Proof: (https://www.dawn.com/news/1401659/young-pashteen-and-his-political-naivety)

2."I think the repeated questionable additions by AS 199207 (the single-purpose user here) seems to be motivated by their personal hate for PTM. They are repeatedly adding negative propaganda material not reliably sourced. Is it possible that the user is a sockpuppet of a nationalistic banned user? ---> Perhaps the same applies back? The user's personal hate for Pakistan and it's army may be a motivating factor for publishing one-sided entries on Wikipedia.

3. About sources: Most articles written on Western news outlets sourced here are "OPINION" pieces which imply anyone with an agenda and a 9.0 IELTS score can have their article published.

4. The user's bias is futher made clear with the statement "A single article by Dawn hinted towards this, but I think every extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary evidence, so we can't insert an extraordinary claim without an extraordinary evidence. " So basically the user is implying that any article or news source that writes something negative about PTM is not reliable, and every article that praises the movement is reliable and authentic?

5."Secondly, the August 11 incident during the preparation for Swabi gathering, although it is sourced, but too much space is devoted to it in the article far more than its due weight"...It is a well-documented incident that is worth mentioning.

Here are a few more sources and a video to prove the Swabi incident: 1. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1778625/1-watch-manzoor-pashteen-heckled-capt-karnal-shers-mausoleum/ 2. https://arynews.tv/en/karnal-sher-khan-brother-manzoor-pashteen/ 3. https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/headline/ptms-manzoor-pashteen-barred-from-entering-capt-karnal-sher-khans-mausoleum/ 4. https://www.dawn.com/news/1426558 5. https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/08/11/manzoor-pashteen-barred-from-entering-capt-karnal-shers-mausoleum/ 6. https://www.samaa.tv/news/2018/08/manzoor-pashteen-stopped-from-offering-fateha-at-captain-karnal-sher-khans-shrine/ 7. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/354035-capt-karnal-sher-shaheed-s-brother-stops-manzoor-pashteen-from-entering-his-mausoleum

This includes sources like Dawn, The Express Tribune, Pakistan Today, etc.

6. "Thirdly, the user wants to claim in the article that PTM uses fake pictures on social media. However, the only source they put for it is "Times of Islamabad", which is not reliable. How can we use such weak propaganda sources when none of the many highly reliable international sources support such a strong claim against PTM?" Times Of Islamabad IS reliable and is read by a multitude of visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AS 199207 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Naqeebullah Mehsud.jpg

Khaisor incident and deletion of vital info without valid reason
Many sources exist for the content about the Khaisor incident and Hayat Khan and his mother. So the info must not be deleted. Also, about the Hayatabad operation, the point of view of local politicians doubting the incident, which is also well sourced, must be kept in the article. 103.255.6.64 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)