Wikipedia:Peer review/Inter-Services Intelligence/archive1

Inter-Services Intelligence
This is a self-nomination. I wrote this article. I just want to see what more needs to be done before this article is ready for FAC status. --Mercenary2k May 5, 2006 (UTC)

Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * References: Just three references to support a sensitive topic? I would like to see more.
 * Is it Inter-Services or Inter Services (hyphen)? I've always read it as the latter.
 * ==Missions== needs to be prosified and written in a more neutral manner. It appears to belittle India.
 * ISI has alleged links with terrorist groups. This needs to be mentioned.


 * In regards to missions. Care to give me examples where neutrality is violated and where India is be-littled?
 * Also in regards to ISI with terrorist groups. Those are just alleged with no concrete proof. The one area where there is some proof I have mentioned it in the alleged section because the D-company bombings have been denied by Pakistan, accused by India but there is solid evidence that ISI was involved and thats why I have posted it in the allged section. If you can find any ISI terrorism links from neutral sources. Give them to me.
 * As for references. There isnt a whole lot of literature written exclusively on Pakistan's ISI missions. The one is which I use extensively, "Profiles of Intelligence", which mentions specific ISI missions in details. I don't think it does matter on the number of references as to the quality of references. --Mercenary2k 1:47pm May 5, 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure: ISI made aware to the world, (made aware? how about "uncovered")  (Perhaps the most spectacular success... -- weasel term
 * ISI is alleged to be linked to terrorists groups. I did not say that the ISI is hand-in-glove with terrorists. They are two different things. We have to strive to achieve the neutral point of view in wikipedia. If India, the CIA, Russian or Israeli intelligence agencies accuse the ISI of terrorist links it has to be mentioned and cited. It may not be necessarily true, but the "alleged" word is. I hope you get what I mean.
 * More References are needed. As I mentioned this is a sensitive topic, and one source can easily gloat over an "achivement". How about looking through newspapers and magazines?

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added various new citations. I created a new controversy section, where I expand upon the ISI role in Kashmir, Assam, meddling in Pakistani politics, al-Qaeda and taliban. I also changed the two items you mentioned to make it more neutral. Is there anything else which needs to be done? --Mercenary2k 12:57AM May 8, 2006 (UTC)

My comments
Hi M2K - this is a very difficult topic to make FA, so I congratulate you on your hard work. There are some serious issues to address:


 * 1) The "De-classified operations" section is poorly written. First off, you cannot classify operations as "Successes" and "failures," becoz of POV, insufficient and conflicting evidence and different analysis. Wikipedia should not appear as making a judgment on the ISI. Anybody can dispute the success or failure of ISI's work.
 * 2) Citations as per Nichalp. You need a lot of citations from different sources, Pakistani and non-Pakistan.
 * 3) Images you need images, which I'm sure are available.
 * 4) You need to create whole sections on Involvement in Pakistani politics, Role in the Afghan War, Kashmir and against al-Qaeda. These topics are vast, and the present coverage cannot be assumed to be comprehensive. So I suggest a complete revamp of "declassified operations" along these lines.
 * 5) Unencyclopedic language - no words like "liberation," "lost glory" must be used. No sentences like "Pakistan's version of the NOC's of CIA" - what does that mean?? You should explain with clarity and concise details.
 * 6) Data - there needs to be more information on the work/history/personnel of specific branches, the command structure, the covert operations, technology, communications intelligence. I would also like to see something on the role of Islam on officers and personnel, and in the training and working culture. I know for a fact that with Zia ul Haq, the role of Islam in Pakistan's military increased dramatically. While association with Taliban and al-Qaeda is ok, there is a basic influence/effect on the ISI that needs to be documented.
 * 7) Wars - Pakistan has fought wars in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. I'd like war-specific information on what the ISI did and how it was affected during this time. In 1971, the eastern wing of Pakistan became independent - what impact did this have on the ISI's role, future, capabilities, mission?

You'll have to do a lot of re-writing and re-organization to achieve comprehensiveness and encyclopedic content. But I'm sure you can do it. Expect further help from me and please keep up your good work with Pakistan military subjects. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The tone seems to fluctuate from a present tense to past tense and somewhere in between. That should be corrected.


 * There is no citation for the 83,000 afghan mujahideen trained. Such a precise figure surely needs one among the many others both Nichalp and Rama's Arrow have mentioned. another example is the "experts estimate" of 25,000. According to BBC there are 10,000 in the ISI. sources need to be provided for these figures.


 * If any other things pops up to my mind I'll include it here. That's it for now. Idleguy 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, quite an achievement. Comments: Hornplease 12:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Citations: not bad. For views of the ISI's involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere which focus on the disruption caused to local interests, I suggest you go to Human Rights Watch, or to archive searches on the Boston Globe and the Christian Science Monitor, both of which are reputable newspapers with a large group of reporters in Kandahar and elsewhere. This should satisfy those who worry about the reliance on official sources above.
 * 2) NPOV: Needs a spot of work. This is the hardest thing to get right for an article like this, (mainly because its the easiest for other readers to check). So be very careful about the words used; 'liberation' is NPOV, but 'lost glory' should pass as a stylistic flourish, for example.
 * 3) Presentation: Here's the trouble. I dont like the Successes-Failures in one big go thing. I think you should try to categorise the ISI's history; Pre 1971; 1971-Afghanistan; Afghan insurrection; Post 1991; Post 9/11 etc. Point out what the Pakistan state's goals were, and how the ISI's institutional goals overlapped or differed. Finally, in each stage, talk about the declassified operations, and let people decide on their own the success or lack thereof. It would read much better, and people would understand the evolution of the ISI better.