Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Opening Discussion
Important. All parties, please prepare a brief summary of the main issues in this case, as you see it, to "Sunray Wikimedia" ." Try to limit your summary to 200 words. For the mediators in this case, Lord Roem (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Lord Roem. As you already have noticed on the main page, I`m happy to give you any further information but I`d like to parties to work to resolve it themselves. As well, there`s an IBAN between TopGun and Darkness Shines, just a conduct issue that you may need to pay attention to during the course of the case. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 16:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the two of you for your prompt responses. We are awaiting statements from the other two participants and then we will propose some issues for discussion, here. Sunray (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅, sorry for the delay. JCAla (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  Mar4d  ( talk ) 02:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New request for comment issue
Hi, please take a look at this. After asking me at WP:NPOVN to ask a neutral editor to write up an RFC, "We should let someone such as Whenaxis write the summary. You are heavily involved and I doubt you can write a neutral summary" JCAla has started one himself on the same with a non neutral RFC summary and structure unwilling to amend. Please either close it or make the necessary noted amends as it is about the same dispute. -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:16, 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 TopGun for the option he wants to have in the RFC and out of the four options added by me, two represent TopGun's suggestions (1&2). He 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 his option, I did not mention any such consensus as he objected to it and used the frame proposed by RegentsPark. Instead of simply going along with the RFC as there are two of his own suggestions he could support, he is boycotting the RFC. As a compromise, I suggested to him, he should pick 2 of the options of his liking (change them in the RFC if necessary) and I will suggest the two other options. That is fair and balanced. If he can't agree to that, I suggest all of the four editors involved in this mediation should come up with one option each. JCAla (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You went ahead to write up an RFC after asking me to request a neutral editor and while this mediation was on. 2) Two editors have pointed the problem out to you. You should include the option, without all suggestions given the RFC is not neutral. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've added the left over option per discussion here without editing JCAla's summary. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 22:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting started
Our apologies for the delay in responding. We've both been fairly busy with off-wiki stuff. We think it important that at least one of us be fairly available at the beginning of the mediation. I'm hoping that Lord Roem will be available, as I'm only going to be sporadically available for a few days. Sunray (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Time zones
Would participants please indicate their time zones below so we can determine the best times for interacting:
 * Sunray - Pacific Daylight Time (North America) GMT -7 Sunray (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines GMT + 1 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem - Eastern Daylight Time (North America) GMT -5 Lord Roem (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TopGun - Pakistan Standard Time GMT +5 -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mar4d - GMT + 10 --  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Re timezones, do you plan on making fixed time appointments or what do you mean by "time for interacting"? JCAla (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just listed the timezone where I live. Just so you know at certain times in the night, you shouldn't expect a quick reply. Lord Roem (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. JCAla (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed issues
Here are the mediators suggested issues based on participants' statements:
 * 1) Improving neutrality and verifiability in editing of Pakistani articles.
 * 2) Including critical commentary with proper balance
 * 3) Ensuring that all editors understand and follow editing rules and behavioral guidelines.

Agreement with issues
Participants are requested to indicate whether they agree with the foregoing issues, or would like to suggest changes. Sunray (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to discuss giving due weight to the academic press over government press releases. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's encapsulated in Sunray's first and second points. Yes? Lord Roem (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had not noticed the internal. I am ok with the points as are then. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with the general issues mentioned. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. JCAla (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. --  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Considerations
While we wait for the fourth and final party to indicate agreement to the short-list above, here is the first question we'll start with. The beginning of the process is to look at sources, but even beyond that, we have to determine some basic standards we'll use in that later process.


 * I contacted Mar4d awhile back and they haven't responded. How about we proceed and they can join in when/if desired? Sunray (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the question, think about your response, and post it once the fourth party indicates acceptance :

'''What are the neutrality considerations for the articles in question? Please list your concerns and thoughts below.''' -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are none, NPOV has been misused as a bludgeon to censor academically sourced content. I also need to know if I am allowed free rein here? Given the IBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you will be allowed to fully participate here, as a functional suspension of the IBAN for the purposes of the mediation. Obviously, do your best to keep focused on the content, and there won't be any issues. :) Lord Roem (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments here - I strongly feel it will favour the progress if it strictly stays in place (explaining this might lead to me violating the IBAN so I can email you if needed) - so I'll oppose any suspension of IBAN and favour content related comments being addressed to the mediators as an alternative (can reasonably be done as this is a content discussion). Because I have strong reasons (again, I can explain) for such a stand, I'll report any vios per normal precedence. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just honestly don't know how parties can proceed in a mediation when they can't communicate to each other. I can assure you that Sunray and I will be keeping a very close eye on discussions because of this very issue. Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I emailed you my reservations, please go through that. If you still insist, I can trust you with it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. We've agreed. The suspension will simply be for DS to respond to comments by TopGun, in this discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. So DS can say "TopGun, I disagree with that phrasing of the sentence, maybe XYZ is better", without getting in trouble. However, personal attacks, on the part of anyone, will not be tolerated. Thanks everyone for understanding. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no intention of attacking anyone, I need to know if I may point out edits which are problematic. It is an entire waste of time my saying anything if I may not state my case fully. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. This is about discussing content. Sunray and I will guide all parties through different issues that will help us build a consensus on the central dispute. Don't think of it as stating 'a case' for anything but your position on sources, content inclusion, etc. There's simply no need to 'point out edits which are problematic'. The past is past. We're here to move on. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This topic area has been under heavy POV pushing and pointy edits - many even after consensus was first formed (even very specifically) on the talkpages with the editors involved. The fact that the same content is later reverted in with a slightly different wording or sneaked in makes it difficult to proceed with normal talk page discussions. Similarly, after AFDs resulting in deletion, if articles are then again created with the same POV content and a different name, it is difficult to proceed with good faith. Neutrality is the top issue in these disputes (actually the one which got us to the mediation). All POVs should be given weight in the article and POVs should be attributed whenever there are conflicting claims. A major issue that has been repeatedly coming up is that Pakistan is alleged to have supported Taliban in the 90s. This was refuted by Pakistan. We have an RFC at Talk:Pakistan which is strongly and reasonably showing in favour of neutrality and attributing the POV. These issues are currently present in all the related articles which mention these details and need to be fixed. The most basic one being Taliban. An RFC took place there too when the content without attribution marginally got in, and if I remember correctly, the closer said more discussion was needed so as to attribute. This and a few related / unrelated issues are the ones that mostly come up at different articles in one form or another. For reference, Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28 already clarified on how to treat these issues. This has however been disputed by JCAla that the closer uses present tense in the wording and that it does not stand for the allegation about the support in the 90s. This was also clarified by an uninvolved copy editor at the RFC currently at Talk:Pakistan that stating POVs as fact stands for all times and articles of the wiki. In my opinion if the above linked consensus would have been followed in the first place, none of these issues would have been there which keep appearing at different articles mentioning this. I can reply in more detail if a more specific response is needed about a consideration. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason that Pakistan supported the Taliban keeps coming up is because they did. Even their own government has admitted it. I have yet to see a source which says they did not which also says at the same time that they did. It is a cold hard fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban, and use terrorists to fight proxy wars in J&K, India & Afghanistan. These are not views which need attribution, it is documented historical fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on the point of the question here: what considerations do we need to keep when considering which sources to include/which information to include. Darkness Shines, with that question in mind what considerations should be taken? We'll leave the question of Pakistan support later. What's your thoughts on this preliminary matter? -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a glimpse of why that is not true. I don't think there's any reliable source that attributes such views to Pakistan's government - only weasel and scandal statements of some individuals which do not even specify if the word 'support' meant Pakistan's official recognition of Taliban government or military support. There's not a single source which says it as Pakistan's official stance, while I've presented reliable sources for Pakistan declining this at all times. It might be POV to say that Pakistan supported Taliban as a fact, but it would be incorrect to say that Pakistan supported Taliban and then it agrees to that too. Further more, the fact does not matter... consensus does, which seems to repeatedly have been clear at multiple venues in support of attributing POV, specifically this one. In short, since I've presented my views in much detail at the linked discussion, I'll not go into these details as a reply to the issues to be considered. Since this specific dispute has been lingering over the whole topic area since November, I think it is the main topic of interest for consideration in this mediation (me, and probably others, have burned out on this one after replying in so much detail at a list of venues to this - I'll be glad to link all those discussions to be reviewed by mediators if requested) and this makes NPOV a major consideration in contrast to your view of it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to judge what to include based on academic sources, not government press releases. It is a question of weight, not neutrality. We state as fact that which is the majority view in academia, as fact it is. For the purpose of neutrality we attribute the obvious denial to the Pakistani government giving that the weight it deserves, which in my opinion in none, but for Wiki purposes they warrant a line. Those are the considerations. When all sources say a certain thing as fact, so do we. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing from this, I will have no part in a process whilst one of the persons involved is emailing administrators to try and get me blocked for non existent violations. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, what are you talking about? Lord Roem (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the participants of this process has emailed an administrator in an attempt to get me blocked, again. Quite frankly I want no more to do with with any editor who seems to prefer those they disagrees with being blocked rather than actually make decent contributions. I see no point it wasting my time with this when such chicanery is ongoing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know that editor emailed an administrator? I'm honestly just really perplexed/curious. Lord Roem (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From the mail I read this morning from him. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the mediation is going to proceed given above incidence, maybe the mediators can make a recommendation? :) JCAla (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The dispute with regards to the Taliban is the following: All the reliable sources state Pakistan's support for the Taliban 1994-2001 as a matter of fact. There exists no reliable source to state the contrary.
 * But because Pakistan initially followed a policy of denial, TG thinks that deserves equal weight to the academic, scientific and practical consensus of all reliable sources stating the support as a matter of fact (including leading Pakistani scholars). Therefore he wants to turn the consensus of all reliable sources saying "Pakistan supported the Taliban" into "there are reports of support" as he proclaims that even if something is consensus among reliable source it can't be stated as a matter of fact when a military dictatorship denies it.


 * Even more bothering is the fact that the Pakistani policy of denial has been superseded by admissions to the support by the very Pakistani leaders who led the country 1994-2001 including the later President and then Army Chief, Interior Minister and Prime Minister (which TG is terming as "scandal statements"). The policy of denial today stands for only very limited areas of the 1994-2001 support such as the provision of direct military support. JCAla (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who thinks that denials should be inline.. it was the NPOVN consensus. Anyway, this was refocused to considerations in general at this moment I guess. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TG keeps citing a "NPOV consensus" for a discussion which was solely about the War on Terror period (2001-present) in which Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the Taliban after 9/11 with multiple international accusations standing against that. For that period the NPOV decision has been honored mainly because a share of reliable sources oftentimes states the current support as an allegation only. The problem is TG tries to apply the same "consensus" to the 1994-2001 period which was never discussed at NPOV and for which all reliable sources state the support as a matter of fact. In the following diffs taken from the first posts of the NPOV discussion TG himself stated very clearly: "Coming to the topic, the points you've given about Pakistan assisting Taliban before the war on terror are completely invalid because the topic of discussion is whether or not Pakistan's military is currently an ally to Taliban (so those should be disregarded - refer to my 2nd comment in this thread)." and "Anyway, we should stick to the topic (which is the current relation)" That is how the discussion went then, only post 9/11 was discussed. A "consensus" cannot be applied to something that was never discussed. JCAla (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The dispute with regards to the Balochistan conflict is the following: I conducted a major restructuring, rewrite and provided largely missing references to the article. TG undid everything. From April 12 until this very day he has failed to name specific objections to the edits. He reverts and then refuses to discuss content-based. Until this day I am waiting for a reaction to the following posts:

Ok. So, you reverted without knowing the content of the edit, rejecting only that one sentence sourced with the Standford University? Showing good faith, and to move this forward, I will give you the major points of the edit. And you will look through the edit and tell me what else you are rejecting and based on which sources you are doing so. That's it. Now, tell me and please provide sources as I have done in the edit.
 * 1) Put in flags for Jundullah and slightly updated the infobox.
 * 2) Then we have the sentence sourced with the Stanford Universtiy Press about Kalat in the lede and the history section. You reject that. Please provide a source on which you base that.
 * 3) Structured the article into a Pakistan part and an Iran part as the conflicts are not directly related and they are currently totally mixed up with Jundullah attacks under Pakistan section.
 * 4) Integrated the three separate sections on the economy into one.
 * 5) Expanded the parties to the conflict section.
 * 6) Removed the "led by" from the history section headings.
 * 7) Integrated content from the new Economist article.
 * 8) Changed "foreign support" to "alleged foreign support". We have the RFC on that below now.
 * 9) Expanded on the human rights section.
 * 10) Cleaned up the mess in the Balochistan_conflict section. Removed unsourced and replaced it with sourced content, to which you are free to add.


 * Pakistan army invading Kalat

The source used by me "South Asia's Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament", published by the Stanford University Press, on page 175 states very clearly:
 * "The Khan of Kalat [Balochistan] took his independence seriously, and when he resisted the incorporation of his land within the new Pakistani province of Balochistan, it required the forceful action of the Pakistani military ..."

So the following sentence is correct: "Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army invaded Kalat the central part of Balochistan which rejected to accede to Pakistan." What exactly are your objections and on which sources do you base them? The following is the section you removed.
 * Human rights section
 * In the period from 2003-2012 it is estimated that 8000 people were kidnapped by Pakistani security forces in the province. In 2008 alone an estimated 1102 Baloch people disappeared. There have also been reports of torture. An increasing number of bodies "with burn marks, broken limbs, nails pulled out, and sometimes with holes drilled in their heads" are being found on roadsides because of a "kill and dump" campaign conducted by Pakistani security forces especially by the Punjabi-dominated Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Pashtun-dominated Frontier Corps (FC) - which until 9/11 fought alongside the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. In July 2011, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan issued a report on illegal disappearances in Balochistan and identified ISI and Frontier Corps as the perpetrators. The Pakistan Rangers are also alleged to have committed a vast part of the human rights violations in the region. No one has been held responsible for the crimes.


 * Islamist parties such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jamaat-e-Islami, allegedly supported by and allied to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have also systematically targeted Shia Muslims in Balochistan, with about 600 being killed in attacks in recent years.


 * On the other side about 800 non-Baloch settlers (mostly Punjabis) and Balochs accused of "spying" or "collaborating" with the government intelligence agencies, were killed by Baloch militant groups since 2006.

What exactly is your objection? Every statement has been attributed to one of the following sources: The Economist, Human Rights Watch and The Guardian.

JCAla (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You were told to propose the changes to the status quo, you never did that. My objections are present on that talk page. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your objections to these questions are nowhere. JCAla (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As TopGun has now also retagged the article Civil war in Afghanistan (1992-1996), refuses to elaborate on the why on the talk page and said he would do so at the mediation, I am still waiting for the specifics. If no specifics are provided by TG for putting the tags, nothing can be addressed and the tags should be removed.


 * I like to copy User:Noleander's statement, because I couldn't agree more how these issues in general should be decided:
 * "If the issue is "did Pakistan support the Taliban?" then the best path forward is the following:
 * Editors must provide specific quotes from reliable sources. The list of sources above in this DRN is a good start, but the next step is to provide specific quotes from those sources which say "Pakistan supported the Taliban" or  similar statements.
 * Conversely, if editors have sources that say "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" or "Pakistan opposed the Taliban" or similar, then quotes from those sources should be identified.  If sources cannot be found for this opposing viewpoint, then the tag should be removed, and the article must represent the other viewpoint (presuming sources are available for the latter).  See  WP:BURDEN.
 * The sources should be assessed for reliability. Blogs and the like are not acceptable.  Potentially biased sources may be used (if reliable), but will need to be noted as such per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
 * The material in the article should be updated to reflect what the sources say. It is safe, but crude, to simply quote the sources in the article and identify each source.  Better is to summarize the sources in an encyclopedic paraphrase (and if sources are potentially biased, identify the source per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).
 * If the sources have multiple viewpoints, the article needs to include them all, although WP:UNDUE requires that the article must convey to the reader the relative strength of the viewpoints amongst the reliable sources."
 * JCAla (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I agreed to above (things that I've cited myself to you a number of times). If you read Steven's comment's on the DRN you opened, the article is very obviously full of heavy POV. I'll address the issues as the discussion comes to that. At the moment you seem to be dragging the discussion to the two disputes where you want to revert me instead of answering for the question in discussion... the neutrality considerations. If you keep on doing this, I'll have no other choice but to say just propose what you have to on the article talk and get the consensus. I've given my views on the neutrality considerations above, feel free to respond to them if you have any issues with them. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Noleander said: "Conversely, if editors have sources that say "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" or "Pakistan opposed the Taliban" or similar, then quotes from those sources should be identified. If sources cannot be found for this opposing viewpoint, then the tag should be removed, and the article must represent the other viewpoint (presuming sources are available for the latter)." Where are your reliable sources that say as a matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (1994-2001)? We have never seen any. Please present them. JCAla (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided sources for Pakistan's vigorous denials and opposition to the views as you quoted right above at the RFC. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't understand. We know that Pakistan followed "a policy of denial" ("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." Amin Saikal, Modern Afghanistan, 2006). The "policy of denial" was later superseded by admissions to large parts of the support from the Army Chief, President, Prime Minister and Interior Minister. The sources you keep citing state things such as: "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite." What you need to present though are reliable secondary sources that themselves state as matter of fact: "Pakistan did not support the Taliban (1994-2001)." We have never seen any such sources. JCAla (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We already had that debate and the result was that it is not right for wikipedia to state either in favour or against as a fact rather as attributed. That's what's being done. I'll wait for input from others before continuing here so as not to be tedious by repeating. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, there are no reliable secondary sources stating as a matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban (1994-2001)"? JCAla (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the tags per above. I waited for 3 days. No sources were presented to state as a matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban". Furthermore TG has not reacted in any way to my proposal (made in below section) with regards to rewriting the "policy of denial" part. If TG considers to put the tags back there for whatever reasons, I want to ask him to explicitly identify these reasons, so that it can be worked on. His general statements here do not apply to the article which already has everything attributed. JCAla (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'll not go into a debate which already has gained consensus. That would be useless waste of time. I'll let the mediation continue on its due course and see what comes out of it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you guys think mediation can continue without DS? Lord Roem (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I can not comment much on that as most probably the exception does not stand now and the IBAN thing is messy at the moment. But for the mediation, I think we might be able to continue it though I see that me and JCAla have come to a deadlock on some points which had been the same 3 months back on these issues. I don't know what Mar4d has to say to this, but RFCs seem to have solved these issues some what and look like the better way of breaking these deadlocks. What is your judgement of it? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that DS was a major participant in this dispute, and without his involvement it becomes difficult to craft a solution that would stand the test of time. Even if you two worked it out, there's no telling what DS would think. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, mediation can be nullified if efforts of two users are overrun by a third not withstanding to that consensus. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly what I meant. If the third major and involved party isn't here to discuss compromises, I'm not sure whether said compromise can even be said to be a consensus. If one party isn't willing to be involved in discussions, it may be the sign that arbitration or some other conduct-related forum is a more appropriate place. I hope you all can avoid such stress and troubles, but I'm conflicted at the moment about proceeding with this RfM. Lord Roem (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you think when an editor withdraws from a dispute discussion, it also implies a withdrawal from the dispute? Otherwise it will mean, "I will not discuss any more, but I will continue to revert and editwar"... If I'm right, there should be no problem, if it is not the case the example I gave stands correct. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not always. In fact, most times editors are just generally frustrated or exhausted by continuous discussions. For Sunray and I, its a new issue to think about, but for you all, its been a debate ongoing for some time. Editors are free to feel that way, and I completely understand that. All I'm saying is that such action makes it difficult to envision a way forward with the mediation. Lord Roem (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean it that way, I might be at the same position vide my reply to JCAla above. We get a consensus, then that's reversed or gamed around or some times not recognized at all by the editor reverting and the others involved in the consensus building being uninvolved no longer revert and the thing comes back to the same two... it has just been going back and forth. Conduct disputes mostly, you're right. This has been to arbcom and rejected. I'm ready to go with the flow in case the mediation is closed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this indeed becoming a conduct issue. The tags TG posts state "see discussion on talk page", on the talk page TG states "this is going to be in the scope of the mediation. I will discuss it there as formal mediation is a formal venue for this discussion, which makes these tags completely valid" and here at the mediation he refuses to discuss pointing again to other places. This kind of blocking behavior is driving away editors and I have had people telling me that.

I have asked for his article-specific concerns. He has wasted hundreds of words on not telling me his concerns when he could have used three sentences to explain (the same with the Balochistan conflict). He has not presented any sources stating as matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (not even on the RFC he keeps mentioning and this can easily be proven by checking it out). He was explicitly asked to provide such sources (also per Noleander's input). Instead TG keeps referring to a RFC "consensus" (not yet closed) about the Pakistan country article, which I already told him is not applicable to main articles such as "Taliban" or "Civil war in Afghanistan" dealing with the concrete topics. I also already told him that the Pakistan RFC stands in opposition to the Taliban RFC, which came to a different consensus which is more applicable here.

I would ask the mediators to make some recommendations to move this forward. I guess DS is waiting for his above mentioned grievance to be addressed. JCAla (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I answered your questions here as I said at that talk page after tagging, if you didn't like my answers, that is a different story. The RFC is much relevant and I quoted previous consensus on different issues esp about stating things as facts. You out right reject that... that's why I can not do much about it after that. It is quite telling that you call it a blocking behavior in reply. You might also notice that I didn't make a statement on you, rather gave an explanation of this being a partly conduct dispute. That does not give you a free pass to start throwing allegations at me. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll speak to Sunray and see if we agree. As I said above, I would hate for this to leave unresolved, but the withdrawal of a party may force that. However note this: if you do decide to pursue a request for arbitration, all discussions in this mediation would not be admissible. This is a privileged process. Lord Roem (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd also prefer to have this resolved here. Maybe you can address DS's complaint and give a recommendation with regards to TG's and my discussion. Maybe this could move things forward, I don't know. JCAla (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I shall make a full statement on Wednesday. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mediators' comment about process
Lord Roem and I have compared notes about the process thus far, and I want to make a couple of comments. The discussion above seems productive to me when it is focussed on content. I would like to encourage all participants to stick to content, not the contributor. The other thing that strikes me is related to acting in good faith. If participants are engaged in disputes outside of this mediation, it will retard our progress. My strong recommendation is to cease all other disputes which involve other participants. Would participants be willing to indicate their intent in this regard? Sunray (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with sticking strictly to content. I've tried keeping it this way, for example I tagged the article Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996) as disputed (which is about the content being discussed above for neutrality considerations). I left an explanation on the talk page that it is well in the scope of this mediation so I'll not make any major edits to the article trying to prevent a fork dispute. JCAla has however started a DRN fork discussion . I'll leave a response there that we're discussing it at formal mediation. Disputes seem to find me when a user who disputes many of my edits appears on a new article which I edit and makes edits that are likely to get disputed . These are primarily conduct issues but I'm trying to be less responsive to such and do not make admin reports till there are bright violations. I'll encourage all editors involved to use this mediation to cover for disputes instead of starting fork discussions when the topics are already relevant to this discussion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate what that means, Sunray? Do you refer specifically to the DRN which I think was to a certain degree productive because User:Noleander provided a very useful statement which I'd like to bring over here. I think that captures DS's and my point beautifully. I went there as TG provides reasons for his actions neither on the talk of the article in question nor here at the mediation. But I try to be more patient and wait whether TG will address anything here. Or do you mean any content dispute in general? I am trying not to react to the above ad-hominem comments by TG. JCAla (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I some times start to feel JCAla does it on purpose completely ignoring my reasoning (actually saying that I never provided any) and also ignores the fact that it is being debated else where with him. I don't think that will help. It is a waste of time to provide the same reasoning about the same disputed text when you come across it on a different article. Both sides know what the dispute is and what the other's reasoning is and since we're involved in mediation here, simply include it here instead of doing all that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is different content as it has been attributed and yet you still have a problem with it which you won't specify. The Pakistan article dicussion is not applicable to other articles as it takes place in the very narrow boundaries of country articles. The articles in question in this mediation are however the main articles dealing with the specific issues we are talking about. JCAla (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the comments there are very general. In anycase, I'll ask the closer there to specify the parts that stand for the general dispute so that your concern is addressed. And then, this mediation still stands. If Steven being uninvolved can see the obvious POV issues, I guess you can too. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd strictly recommend the closer not to try to do that. The discussion was only about the very sensitive country article which led to a majority of editors commenting there coming from Wikiproject Pakistan. Other editors commented baring in mind that it is the main country article and explicitly said the issues needed to be elaborated on their specific articles. Therefore, whatever consensus comes out of it, it is not applicable to main articles about these issues. Addtionally, the RFC at the Pakistan article so far stands in stark contrast to the result of the RFC on the Taliban article which decided the content was majority view and could go into the article without attribution. Now for the civil war article (large parts of which weren't even written by me). Steve did exactly what I originally asked you to do. He provided me with a specific answer from which to work from. His issue was with "loaded words" and I subsequently was able to address that concern removing those "loaded words" that I saw in the article. As for his comment with regards to the article making it look like as if Pakistan's support was the only opinion among reliable sources (except for the policy of denial), I'd have liked to continue that discourse with him (as it is indeed the only opinion among the sources) but things were moved here. JCAla (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've read my comment right. I said that about specifying the comments that were not directed to that article in specific but at the mention of this statement and the like. I don't think terming it as a policy of denial will be a move towards a compromise solution to the dispute. The denial is Pakistan's POV in par to the accusations. Not mentioning it will be censorship or rather partly hiding so as to present a tilted view. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, that is what I asked you to do all along on the article's talk, specify. So, your problem is with the term "policy of denial". This is something concrete people can work with. Instead of "Although Pakistan followed a policy of denial when it came to its connections to the Taliban ..." (as currently in the article) we could write something such as, "Pakistani politicians during that time repeatedly denied supporting the Taliban, which has been described by reliable sources as an explicit 'policy of denial'. ..." As for "Pakistan's POV", I don't agree. These denials were superseded by later admission by the most senior Pakistani government officials. The most senior Pakistani policy research institutes such as the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs writes: "[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." And the internationally most acclaimed Pakistani analysts such as Ahmed Rashid of course write that Pakistan was the decisive factor in the Taliban's capture of Jalalabad and Kabul in 1996. And then there is always the due weight factor. JCAla (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can someone of the mediators please enforce stick to content, not the contributor? I am tired of reading false presumptions spoiling the process such as "At the moment you seem to be dragging the discussion to the two disputes where you want to revert me instead of answering for the question in discussion." and "I some times start to feel JCAla does it on purpose". JCAla (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point about changing discussions is strictly content, see the question asked at the top of this section. As far as the last part, I can seriously have no answers if I say something and you say I haven't said it. But sure, I'll like the mediators to manage this issue. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Closing?
Mediation will not work if the participants continue disputes elsewhere. Lord Roem and I are thinking that perhaps we should close this mediation now. If, later on, Darkness Shines decides to return and the other participants show greater willingness to mediate in good faith, we could re-open it. Comments? Sunray (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am willing to not continue disputes elsewhere if all the other parties do the same. I think we should wait for DS's comment on wednesday, he currently has limited internet access. JCAla (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread
Hi there. A DRN thread was opened regarding a similar issue to the ones in this case, so I have closed it and directed the parties back here. The thread is located at Regards,  Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing the fork - vide my comment above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lets get this going
.

All the above sources are from the academic press, all state catagorically that Pakistan founded, gave aid both military and financial to the Taliban. This is the fact as I see it, we either state as fact, as every academic, media, political and any other source you may think of also state as fact, or we give equal weight to the "accused" who have issued at most two or three press releases since 9/11. Pakistans own politicians have admited to helping the Taliban. Pakistan has admitted to setting up terrorist groups to fight proxy wars in thier neighbors countries. We must follow the academic sources as laid down by policy, NPOV is not a stick to beat away facts one does not like. Once the other side of this dispute has offered up, say ten academic sources which support their POV I will capitulate. For every one academic source thhe provide i shall provide ten. The sources they give must state clearly Pakistan never supported the Taliban", or words to that effect, the source may not have words along the lines of, the truth is entirly opposite to that, which one of those denial sources say. As requested below I will file no further RFC's nor at noticeboards unless it is for something not covered by this mediation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you are going with this. Would you be able to provide some details of what article we are talking about? To determine whether something is NPOV depends entirely on context: what statement would be added or removed from existing text? So how about we start with an example? Also, for material that is not available online, we will have to see actual quotes on which statements are based. Sunray (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are quotes in the majority of those sources, all pertain to Pakistan support for the Taliban. I thought one of the points of this was to decide on if we could state as fact that Pakistan supported the taliban before 9/11. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a question of context. What is to be stated in which article? What are the counter arguments (if any)? How can we cover all views in accordance with WP:WEIGHT? Sunray (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could start with some specific examples. Would participants be willing to agree on specific examples of text within articles that we could take a look at with reference to the identified issues? Sunray (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I may point out, that people are still engaging in disputes elsewhere and I find it especially disruptive that TopGun is constantly seeking to get people blocked. Meanwhile people were very well aware of his violation for example but chose to let it go. On the issue, we can look at the sentences for which TopGun chose to place POV tags on the article Civil war in Afghanistan (1992-1996):
 * "By October 1994 the Taliban movement had according to academic consensus and on-the-ground reports attracted the support of Pakistan       which was unhappy with the unsuccessful Hekmatyar and saw in the Taliban a way to secure trade routes to Central Asia as well as establish a government in Kabul friendly to its interests.    Pakistani politicians during that time repeatedly denied supporting the Taliban, which has been described by reliable sources as an explicit 'policy of denial'.  But senior Pakistani officials such as Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar would later state, "we created the Taliban"  and former Pakistani President Musharraf would write "we sided" with the Taliban to "spell the defeat" of anti-Taliban forces. "

ANI
Hi. There is currently a ban proposal under discussion on ANI (ANI) that may be of some interest to mediators. I'm thinking of an alternate proposal that would restrict the two editors to this page for a period of XX but am uncertain as to whether this mediation is working at all and, assuming it is, what the appropriate length of time for that restriction might be. Would appreciate any comments from mediators to get a sense for whether this is worth the effort. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi RegentsPark, we've seen that discussion and Sunray and I are following it. Thanks for the message. :) Lord Roem (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The two of us (mediators) have been discussing this for awhile now. We were going to close the mediation, but recently have had some signals from the participants that they are willing to abandon their disputes on the topic-related articles and focus on the mediation. Accordingly, I've made a suggestion at ANI for a conditional topic ban. The condition would be that they are able to edit in keeping with WP policies. If you want to give that a try, the mediators could give a progress report within (say) three months--i.e., sooner if they get things sorted out. Sunray (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The ANI discussion is now closed. What do participants think about getting down to some serious mediation now? Participants have agreed to avoid disputes outside of these pages. This is important. We have our issues established and there is has been some discussion (above) about picking specific text to work with. This seems like a good idea. Shall we proceed? Sunray (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am good to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too. Just a note, that this edit needed to be conducted to remove blatant source falsification and misrepresentation damaging to wikipedia itself. Otherwise, I am good to go. Both DS and me have given specific text examples which we could discuss. Both DS and me have also provided ample of reliable sources to back up our positions. I guess we are waiting for the other editors to follow suit now. JCAla (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that.. JCAla has started another editwar on the Taliban dispute exactly, coming to an article he never edited before. Last he started a DRN over a POV tag during the mediation. I'm waiting for the serious mediation - these disputes are bogging it down. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I already mentioned above, that was a removal of serious source falsifications - it was a necessity per wikipedia policy. It was TopGun who came to a a variety of articles he never edited before during the mediation time. Example: . And because of the mediation his tags are still there. Otherwise, per Noleander's statement, they would have been long gone. But I let them stand. The same goes for the Balochistan conflict article. I let TopGun's favourite version stand because of the mediation, although he until now has completely refused to present any reliable sources. But, there is a line which not to cross and that is blatant source falsification. So, yes, we are all waiting for serious mediation now. And the next logical step in this mediation will be for TopGun and Mar4d to finally present text examples and reliable sources like DS and I have done. We will witness what will be their answer below this post I guess ... if there is any willingness to constructively participate in this mediation by actually presenting and discussing reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I came to that article as it was in the scope of this mediation and it was not even nearly neutral as pointed out at the DRN you started. All I did was add POV tag and did not start a content dispute, rather I was the one who asked to continue it at the mediation (see that talk page). The article you just started on is not a BLP, if you think there is OR or incorrect information, follow BRD. Every one who thinks they are right might not use NOR policy to editwar... OR is not an exemption, you should follow BRD (actually just raise the article here instead of starting a dispute per your agreement here. I'm making a general revert to status quo due to that). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, no reliable sources presented by TopGun. Instead he just edit-warred what has been pointed out as serious source misrepresentations back into the article using the mediation as a scapegoat - this goes beyond disruptive editing. JCAla (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I made a single revert.. I follow 1RR. You are the only one editwarring there. I take that your last comment means a disagreement to not starting disputes elsewhere... I'll like the mediators to get the issue of raising content disputes elsewhere related to the Taliban dispute. Conduct disputes might be impossible to avoid but content disputes are easily avoidable.. esp when all JCAla and DS have to do is not follow me and Mar4d like in this one. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, no reliable sources presented by TopGun with regards to the mediation issues. Instead promotion of source falsification at wikipedia misusing mediation as a scapegoat. Note that nothing in the article version that TopGun reverted is really part of the mediation dispute as everything has been attributed. TopGun and Mar4d are misusing the mediation process to revert to their favourite version on all articles and to remove reliably sourced and attributed contents in the article main space. And we let this stand for the sake of mediation. But when serious source falsification is involved, then a line is crossed to disruptive editing. JCAla (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't repeat your self. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

At ANI, the mediators suggested that major edits to articles be avoided. How are we going to proceed if edit wars keep breaking out between you? Sunray (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Starting mediation
The above is not really helpful to mediation. It is content that we need to focus on, not the other guy. Awhile back we were talking about picking an example of text and references. That would be one way to begin. Or there could be other approaches. But the key will be to find things to work on. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right... this will be stuck if there's disruption. I'll like to start with your suggestion as a general discussion of the dispute. NPOV should be the first thing to work on as references are present from all sides as well as consensus is there to attribute POV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A question to the mediators in order for this mediation to be taken seriously. One of several source falsifications. There were two Taliban attacks on Herat, one in February/March 1995 (not of interest here) and the one in September 1995, which led to the protests (topic of the article). In the case of the September 1995 attacks, Ahmed Rashid writes in "Pakistan and the Taliban"
 * "The paramilitary [Pakistani] Frontier Corps were used to help the Taliban set up an internal wireless network for their commanders in the field. Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) and the Air Force sent in technicians to repair Kandahar Airport and the MiG fighter jets and helicopters the Taliban had captured. ... When the Taliban launched their second attack on Herat, the [Pakistani] ISI weighed in with a limited amount of military support."


 * Mar4d made the following out of it (a clear-cut source falsification):
 * "According to an April 1998 column published on The Nation by Ahmad Rashid, the Taliban's attacks on Herat in 1995 were independent actions."


 * This was the version I introduced removing the source falsification:
 * "According to "Pakistan and the Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid, also published on April 1998 as a column in The Nation, Pakistan furthermore directly provided limited "military support" in the Taliban's September 1995 offensive against Herat ..."


 * TopGun restored the source falsification. Which sentence does represent the source correctly? JCAla (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is off topic. Move it to above section instead of messing up the refocused discussion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is starting the mediation by a very clear-cut example. JCAla (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This may, or may not, be an example we want to work with. My own reaction is that neither of the paraphrases convey the actual meaning of the source, which is reporting observations rather than drawing conclusions. For example:
 * "Pakistan furthermore directly provided limited "military support" in the Taliban's September 1995 offensive against Herat..." "Pakistan" includes not only government agencies, but political and cultural entities. "Military support" covers a broad range of military actions and implies armed support. This sounds more like technical support to me.

Sometimes it may be necessary to reproduce the source exactly. JCAla, terms like "source falsification" do not seem helpful to me. What is the question you wish to ask about this example? Normally, a neutral question on the talk page will move towards resolving an issue. My suggestion is that, instead of edit waring, participants bring examples here for discussion (using neutral language). Is this possible? Sunray (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It has already been addressed. See here. The source, Ahmed Rashid himself, uses the term "military support". But, of course, let's discuss one example. We have suggested enough examples above by now. I propose the mediators choose one example from the above and we start a section on such an example. JCAla (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that by now you four have discussed many things. In order to get on a better footing, we have to work with some specifics. I was pointing out that the actual example used by the source did not justify the paraphrase. We can start with similar discussions and work out some groundrules for editing by participants. If you are successful, the Taliban-related articles will benefit and life will be a little bit better around WP. Perhaps we can all look for examples. It will be important for participants to agree to work on particular examples. How about we start listing some below? Sunray (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already listed an example along with sources further up, do you wish another example and further sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More is better, IMO. Do you want to move that example below or put a link to it? Sunray (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible examples to work with
These references were used for this edit which was reverted quite a few times by TG who even though there is a consensus for the content still insists that the text fails NPOV and it all needs attribution. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples of use of sources listed by participants or mediators.


 * What I suggest participants do is pose examples of sources used, or proposed to be used, in articles. To do this, we need both the source and the text it would support. To be clear, I mean one source at a time and the source it would support. Sunray (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, For the Taliban article: "Pakistan through the Inter-services Intelligence agency helped to found the Taliban."

""

Are you guys going to mediate? Sunray (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to, nobody else seems to be responding though. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

""
 * Let's start with the basics with regards to Pakistan and the Taliban first. This would be: Do reliable sources say Pakistan supported the Taliban (1994-2001)?
 * This brings us back to the same old request. Per what Noleander wrote, if "editors have sources that say 'Pakistan did not support the Taliban' ... then quotes from those sources should be identified. If sources cannot be found for this opposing viewpoint ... the article must represent the other viewpoint." Please provide reliable sources that state as matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (1994-2001). JCAla (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to get some comment from TopGun at this point. It would also be good to find some examples that everyone is prepared to work on. Sunray (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay I've taken a look at it. Despite my attempt to point out that the mediation can not over ride a consensus among more than just these editors and the consensus should be used as a reference point, JCAla has denied to acknowledge that. The Pakistani support for Taliban can not be stated as a fact. If there are sources for it, good add them to the allegation. I'll not go over the debates from November again repeating the same arguments as I've already linked that debate. That's all I've to say about the example above. POVs are to be attributed... if Pakistan was not even denying, that would have been another case. Single scandal statements from a few politicians are not statements of acknowledgement when the standing source attributes denial to Islamabad. This has been pointed out by multiple uninovlved editors too. I'll also like to suggest another example from a dispute that darkness shines just started blatantly calling Pakistan's possession of Gilgit-Baltistan an occupation while in fact both Pakistan and India call each other's part of Kashmir as an occupied territory. The block that DS got for it is further evidence that this was blatant POV pushing. Yet DS is using the same terminology in a draft that another user started for a section of the article . Edits of such kind are not nearly neutral and I'll like them to be considered here as well. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right that the mediation does not override consensus. However, when the parties all agree on something, there are ways that this can be addressed with other article editors or the community. In some cases, there has been an RfC initiated as a result of a successful mediation. Successful mediations often happen when participants accept that WP:WEIGHT allows different views to be expressed in articles. The key is to find the right balance. Sunray (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is here "different views" are not being asked to be stated rather views to be stated as facts. If there was to be said that according to India Pakistan is occupying Kashmir or according to so and so / allegedly Pakistan supported Taliban... it would be completely different -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There were two RFCs, one on the Taliban article, and another one with very limited significance for other articles (as it was dealt with according to the specifics of main country articles) on the Pakistan article (which had a high number of Wikiproject Pakistan participants including socks but failed to bring many uninvolved editors to voice an opinion). Both RFCs came to opposite conclusions. Per what Noleander wrote, I am asking TopGun for the last time to cooperate in this mediation and provide reliable secondary sources which say as matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (1994-2001). Per what Noleander wrote, "If sources cannot be found for this opposing viewpoint ... the article must represent the other viewpoint." JCAla (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, we're over that debate long ago and a lone view that you're citing does not make that opinion. Let's leave the closing of discussions to uninvolved editors. Both RFCs were closed in favour of attribution... the one that allowed to put in content in it's current form also said more discussion was needed for the attribution. So I don't think there was any contradiction. The first discussion about this was also closed saying wikipedia can not state this as fact, instead attributed to who said it in line with a denial. And then the example where DS added that Pakistan is occupying Kashmir is too blatant. Such edits are very obvious examples that need to be discussed here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I take this as, there are no sources that state as matter of fact that "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (1994-2001). The RFCs have opposite results. The consensus on the Taliban RFC was for Darkness Shines' content to go into the article exactly as proposed by him stating exactly the opinion of the reliable secondary sources provided by him. As you fail to provide any sources to the contrary, I go with what Noleander wrote.
 * Sunray, you may want to explain how to continue mediation, when of one party to the conflict one editor never bothered to show up in the content discussion even once and the other completely refuses to present even a single source. JCAla (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to do the work that I don't have too already per previous consensus as I already gave sources for denials. This is not the only issue that is there in the disputes.. you further deny the consensus outright. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need sources for the policy of denial during that time, we need reliable secondary sources which state as matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (1994-2001). If there are such sources, please identify them. And, as I already told you, we have two opposite kinds of consensus on two different RFCs, the Taliban article one being far more significant as a rather limited RFC on a main country article. JCAla (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Mea culpa. We rush ahead of ourselves. Perhaps I shouldn't have speculated on the future. Here, what we will do is get some cases in point to work with. We will then simply ;) apply WP core content policies to various issues we identify. The key policies will be WP:VER and WP:NPOV. I have to go out now, but will elaborate on the process later today. Sunray (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's move back to the specific sources provided above. Begin your thoughts with that in mind and try to get past whatever discussions or disputes you've had in the past. Lord Roem (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Format for presentation of sources
JCAla responded to my request, above, to present the source and the actual text that supports a particular perspective.
 * "... Do reliable sources say Pakistan supported the Taliban (1994-2001)?

""

TG, or Mar4d, could you use this format to present a couple of sources that support the alternate point of view? Sunray (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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."

""
 * -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Other quoted references which corroborate with this point: ""  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Pakistan government has repeatedly denied that it provides any military support to the Taliban in its diplomacy regarding its extensive operations in Afghanistan.
 * ''In contrast, the Taliban had access to more influential lobbies and groups in Pakistan than most Pakistanis. This unprecedented access enabled the Taliban to play off one lobby against another and extend their influence in Pakistan even further. At times they would defy the ISI by enlisting the help of government ministers or the transport mafia. At other times, they would defy the federal government by gaining support from the provincial governments in NWFP and Balochistan. As the Taliban movement expanded, it became increasingly unclear as to who was driving whom. Pakistan, rather than being the master of the Taliban, was instead becoming its victim.
 * ''And yet the Pakistani government has consistently denied supporting the Taliban, or at most has admitted to giving them minimal logistical support.. [...] .. Even in the middle of the July-August 1999 offensive into northeastern Afghanistan.. [...] .. the Pakistani government firmly maintained that it played no role in Afghanistan.

Those sources do not state the alternate point of view because although mentioning the policy of denial the primary message and the statement of those sources remains, Pakistan supported the Taliban (1994-2001). ""

We know that at times Pakistan followed what reliable sources describe as a "policy of denial", but that later the most senior politicians (President Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar) admitted support.

Policy of denial ""

Admitting support ""

Concluding, we have yet to see a reliable secondary source stating as matter of fact, "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (1994-2001). JCAla (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this a joke? Mar4d sources are misrepresented. Goodson, Larry P. (2001). Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban. University of Washington Press. pp. 110, 111. ISBN 9780295980508 He misses the last line for some reason, here is what it says. "even though the evidence overwhelmingly indicates the contrary" That source (which Mar4d quotes) says "or at most has admitted to giving them minimal logistical support" So this source not only belies the government claims it als osays Pakistan has admitted to providing support. I have no idea why he is citing Rashid, "Pakistan, rather than being the master of the Taliban, was instead becoming its victim" only proves that Pakistan supported the Taliban. I shall look at the HRW report in a while. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And HRW says "In this report, Human Rights Watch accused Pakistan, Iran, and Russia of providing military support to Afghan factions with a long record of committing gross abuses of human rights." Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting, 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 on several occasions apparently directly providing combat support.83 In April and May 2001 Human Rights Watch sources reported that as many as thirty trucks a day were crossing the Pakistan border; sources inside Afghanistan reported that some of these convoys were carrying artillery shells, tank rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades.84 Such deliveries are in direct violation of U.N. sanctions. Pakistani landmines have been found in Afghanistan; they include both antipersonnel and anti-vehicle mines.85 Pakistan’s army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force.86 While these Pakistani agencies do not direct the policies of the IEA, senior Pakistani military and intelligence officers help plan and execute major military operations.87 And this is what Mar4d omitted from his quote from HRW. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. As already pointed out above, the sources presented by TopGun and Mar4d do NOT represent an alternate view but all also state as matter of fact, "Pakistan supported the Taliban" (1994-2001). Rashid even writes: "The ISI played a leading role in helping the Taliban's capture of Jalalabad and Kabul ..." Consider that we have two editors that try to push a pov which is in contradiction to what Pakistan's most senior politicians have lately stated and which the most senior Pakistani research institutions themselves write. The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs published in Pakistan horizon (2006) p. 40:
 * "[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."
 * JCAla (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea
Are there any objections to having something akin to "Several historians (and studies) argue that Pakistan supported the Taliban through X Y Z, however Pakistan's government has denied these claims by saying A B C. Professor W however says that..."

Basically, something that gives both points of view while not offering a concrete announcement of fact. I think that would work for both parties, and is consistent with policy. Thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Does "several" reflect that all reliable secondary sources state as matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban from 1994 to 2001? Note, although sources for a policy of denial explicitly identified as such by reliable sources, have been presented, not one source has been presented which states "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" in that period. JCAla (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify: my idea is to reflect in the sentence/paragraph what seems to be the consensus of historians on the question, but also state that Pakistan denies it and any arguments or examples Pakistan has used to rebut that. For context purposes, let me create a random example:

An analysis of primary documents by Professor John Smith of the University of Sunray concludes that Hawaii gave arms and funds to the Coconut Defense Force. Robert W. Johnson, former head of the Hawaiian Intelligence Ministry, has denied Hawaii ever provided such support. Johnson told a CNN reporter in 1854 that "Hawaii absolutely abhors the Coconut alliance. We've always been against it." Professor Smith has countered such statements with audited reports from the Hawaiian budget office, where he says money 'slipped out' of the funds in too coincidental of a manner".


 * -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL. However, your example makes it seem like as if Professor John Smith of the University of Sunray was lonely in arguing that Hawaii supported the Coconut Force. How can we adequately describe that John Smith says what is being said by all reliable sources? Also, we need to remember that senior officials of Hawaii have later admitted they did indeed support the Coconut Force. JCAla (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's definitely the question, yes. But at least a tentative agreement to follow this formula (consensus says this, they deny, rebuttal) would be a good start. Sound good? Lord Roem (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is identified as consensus, yes, then it sounds good. JCAla (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the agreement, but let's not make it conditional on you being right. If agreeable to all parties, it should be predicated on this balance and our joint determination of consensus... in the future. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Number one priority is that we don't start to misrepresent the sources. Per what Noleander wrote, as long as not one reliable secondary source has been identified saying "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" (1994-2001), the article must reflect the other view (for which dozens of sources have now been provided). This can happen either by appropriate description of this being consensus (a compromise, but a lot of extra work and I am not even sure we can find such a way) or by directly writing exactly what reliable sources are writing (as all other articles on wikipedia do when there is not one reliable secondary source stating the opposite). JCAla (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree. I just want all parties to show their open-mindedness by agreeing to follow whatever we all determine as the consensus of sources, even if it isn't your starting position. That would be a tremendous showing of good-faith. -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are TG and Mar3d ever going to respond to us here? They gave some sources which were thoroughly debunked, should they not now respond? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem, excuse me for taking so long to answer. I had to think about it and didn't want to be the only one, besides DS, discussing here. In the Taliban (1994-2001) case reliable secondary sources make a clear statement of fact and not one reliable secondary source has been presented to state the opposite as matter of fact. We could think about your suggestion for those issues in which sources say different things. But to finally bring this forward we should just start with exploring the sources already presented on the Taliban issue, shall we? JCAla (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem, your suggestion on the top was almost what the versions I was adding were. JCAla and DS reverted to stating them as facts. If it is changed to "several sources allege Pakistan supported Taliban and Pakistan strongly denies it", that is some thing I agreed to long before this mediation. I didn't see any reason to reply here though I was keeping tabs on the discussion because only the already presented arguments were coming forward. Should I assume JCAla and DS now agree on this idea? From above I see that might not be the case. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)