Talk:Pakistan: Difference between revisions

Balochistan

As TopGun removed content, this is the sentence to be discussed: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, until today a Baloch separatist movement is fighting a struggle for self-determination." What is your alternative suggestion, TG? JCAla (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I see grammatical errors in the sentence. Secondly, "struggle for self-determination" = WP:POV and weasel. I think it's a bit thick of you to call them some sort of angelic self-determination freedom fighters, when they're terrorists in the eyes of many others. A better (grammatically/factually/NPOV-correct) sentence would be: "Since 1948, there has been an ongoing insurgency in the province of Balochistan, driven by various seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy. Mar4d (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the term wasn't coined by me but by several academic books on the issue, so ... What about this compromise: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, there has been an ongoing separatist struggle in the province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch groups who seek political autonomy." JCAla (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Annexed? Really? You call it NPOV? There's not even an attempt here to stay NPOV, that is why I reverted you. And does this conflict even have a due weight in article? That is to be discussed first. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla: Many academic books and scholars also describe the Kashmir insurgency and various other insurgencies in the world as a fight for self-determination, that doesn't mean we go around on Wikipedia stamping their views, describing all irregular separatist movements as freedom fighting groups. We shall be conforming to NPOV standards. And regarding the usage of the word "annex", I think that's irrelevant and politically incorrect as well, since Baloch rulers willingly signed accession to Pakistan following independence. It's also irrelevant in the context that at the time of independence, dozens of territories were "annexed" by India or Pakistan. They had mini resistances/insurgencies but in the end, they ended up being part of the countries. Balochistan isn't different in that regard. Having said that, I'm going to leave my version in quotes below, we'll wait for further output from other users. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan's army invaded Balochistan in 1948, why was that? Because the Balochs were so happy to join? I propose: "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army invaded Balochistan and it was acceded to Pakistan as its fourth province, there has been an ongoing separatist struggle in the province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch groups who seek political autonomy." Balochistan is different as Balochs and scholars allege that Balochistan was forcibly annexed and until this very day there are military offensives in Balochistan against Baloch groups with thousands killed or disappearing. Balochistan is generally described by the media as "Pakistan's other war". It is noteworthy for that matter but also because the Balochistan issue is increasingly gaining international attention. JCAla (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See what I meant by POV? That description does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Even if certain POV is supported by scholar it does not automatically become neutral with respect to all parties. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla: Your comment is mostly political talk, so not going to comment on that. And on a side note, there were Baloch rulers willing to join or "accede" to Pakistan. At the time of independence, most of Balochistan had already willingly joined Pakistan by treaties or tribal referendums, it was the ruler of Kalat (a state which comprised only 23% of modern Baluchistan) who had issues. So it wasn't exactly an out-of-the-blue invasion of the whole province as you seem to be misleadingly argue. All I'm saying is that the Balochistan insurgency is just *another* seperatist insurgency, like many seperatist insurgencies in the world eg. Kashmir, Kurdistan etc. Wikipedia works on NPOV for these controversial topics and that is what is exactly require here. I henceforth attach my version of the sentence below (if this is toe be included in the article in the first place). Mar4d (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in the southwestern province of Balochistan, driven by various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy.

— Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Greater political autonomy" seems to be a euphemism for separatism (which is the actual aim of the insurgents), why not use that? And no rationale for inclusion has been given to speak of WP:WEIGHT. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all Baloch nationalists are demanding seccession, there are others who simply want increased political independence, access/control/distribution of Balochistan natural resources etc. Hence, I personally believe "political autonomy" is a better term to describe this all. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Some further improvements that could be made include:

• The Balochistan conflict is not strictly limited to Pakistan, but also includes other portions of the region (Iranian Balochistan and Afghan Balochistan). Therefore, the sentence may have to be modified in a way that factually makes it clear that as part and parcel of the conflict, Baloch seperatists seek independence from Iran and Afghanistan.
• While the situation has been fluctuating, much of the violence has also subsided and increasing national political/media attention to the issue has brought about talks underway on the negotiations table between Baloch representatives the Government of Pakistan, more scrutiny on the role of intelligence agencies etc. among other things. Maybe a follow-up sentence on that could be included. Mar4d (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, there is great controversy over the history, so I don't want to go into the details here now. Strike my above suggestion as I took some things from your version with which I actually do not agree. Your suggestion, Mar4d, is onesided speaking of pov. It is not just an insurgency, it is a conflict with several major issues, sometimes it has been driven by Pakistani army military action against Balochs at times the insurgency was sleeping. So this will be my proposal (central government of Pakistan could be replaced with "Pakistani army"):

Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan, between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy and political rights and the central government of Pakistan.

— JCAla (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that you've done away with the "annexation" fallacy. Though on the whole, I don't see much of a difference in your version so I'm going to stick with mine. Also, "political autonomy and political rights" sounds kind-a repetetive, so better to stick to just one descriptive term. Mar4d (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that you, by saying "driven by", asign the "why" of the conflict to the separatists which is a pov, while I keep it as a "it is between" since separatists would certainly argue that it is driven by the Punjabi-dominated Pakistan army repression of ethnic Balochs. JCAla (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That is another fallacy. The separatists do not represent 'Balochs' even if they claim to. And they are not simply looking for greater autonomy, so I've excluded that as one can simply judge from the sentence what separatists want... see my rephrase below. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's simplify this without any POV from either side... be impartial:

Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups government of Pakistan.

— TopGun 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan army is following orders from the government over it to minimize the insurgency so simple stating government will do. I've also other redundancies and POVs. Now, I can put this back if you explain why does this have a weight in the article and why will some one else not remove it on those basis. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you've noticed JCLA, the military section already had a line on Baloch insurgency wikilinked to details. So adding more information with comments "it was obviously missing" is plain wrong, and redundant. Now explain why another line is needed and how is it not undue. September88 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That is your sentence for the whole of the Balochistan conflict, dear September88 (?): "In 1970s, the military quelled a Baloch nationalist uprising." You can strike that sentence and we can take Mar4d's and my version to a noticeboard and ask which is more appropriate. JCAla (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than "my sentence" or "his"... rephrases will have to be made to reach a consensus. I'm still waiting for an opinion on mine above. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The point being, your "obviously missing" remains incorrect, so refrain from using wrong explanations to push pov in the article. And yep one of the two lines can stay, both are unnecessary, so if you reply to the above queries to proceed. September88 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, what? JCAla (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• TopGun, your version is grammatically and factually incorrect. Please make corrections. I propose we take Mar4d's and my version and ask on NPOV what version is more appropriate for a FA. JCAla (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong with it? There's nothing factually wrong in it... and grammar? A comma probably? I don't think I can agree with your version which is not only redundant but also POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• @JCAla: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're trying to suggest that the phrase "Punjabi-dominated army" should be introduced in the sentence as the cause of the insurgency, that would not only be POV but is also a prejudiced, one-sided and highly myopic view of the conflict. "Punjabi-dominated" is a piece of rhetoric used by a selected group of nationalists normally to direct their anger/justify their grievances at the military and the supposed majority-minority ethnic balances. However, the ground realities are different; much of the army units and Frontier Corps in Balochistan are actually Pashtun dominated, so apart from being a much-used political slogan, this argument doesn't hold much credence entirely. Recently, there have been efforts to neutralize the ethnic balance, with there being over 5,000 ethnic Baloch soldiers who were recruited into the army in 2011 [1], [2]. But that is besides the point. Your opinion that the conflict is attributable to military action is, unfortunately, not entirely correct either. Baloch seperatists have for many years been blowing up gas pipelines and infrastructure, carrying out assassinations and kidnappings, as well as systematically ethnic cleansing non-Baloch settlers in the province. This conflict is basically a guerilla-style underground insurgency, involving the military and central government against some seccesionist groups, with casualties occuring on both sides. The term "insurgency" seems better suited to define this conflict. Mar4d (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood; Mar4d. No, that is not what I wanted to include, my proposed sentence is outlined above, as is yours. The army is over 80 % Punjabi, leading officers are nearly all Punjabi. The Frontier Corps is a different matter and is predominantly Pashtun. But that is not the discussion here. I said, if you say "driven by insurgency" you have a pov in the sentence just like if I said "driven by the oppression by the Punjabi-dominated army". So, I suggest in my version to keep it neutral as "a violent conflict between" without any "driven by" as that is disputed, although I could certainly identify a majority position among reliable sources pointing to several factors, but at this moment I do not have the time for it, so I stick to my above suggestion. JCAla (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Its technically an insurgency. No how much one sugar quotes it. So I think we should add the shortest possible line which covers all the details keeping the drama out. I tried to suggest one, may be you can rephrase it. But one thing is clear, it is not about simply political rights, its about secession, typical insurgency. Btw, "I don't have time for it so stick to my suggestion" is a really telling sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you mispresenting what I said on purpose or did you simply not understand it, TG? JCAla (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not misrepresenting it... look at it as if you've not written it... it reads like that. Anyway... the intent was on the content sentence that would be added to the article... that shouldn't be having judgements like that. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some comments on the various versions: I agree that when Mar4d's version says the conflict is "driven by" the Baloch separatists it assigns blame, and unless the majority of secondary sources assigns the responsibility for the conflict only to the insurgents (which I doubt), we should avoid such claims. JCAla's version seems pretty good to me, though it could be shortened a little without changing the meaning. For example, we need not mention "the southwestern province of" Balochistan, and "political rights" seems redundant to "greater political autonomy". TopGun's version in my opinion errs too much in the opposite direction by removing all mention of the insurgents' aims (it's also missing an "and the" before "government of Pakistan", but that would be easy to fix).

I don't have much of an opinion about the "insurgency" vs. "violent conflict" dispute; "violent conflict" seems definitely accurate and NPOV, but I wouldn't mind calling it an insurgency either. That's the term used by GlobalSecurity.org, for example.

Regarding "greater political autonomy" vs. "secession", the Balochistan conflict article cites the BBC regarding the Baloch armed groups' aims, and it uses the term "political autonomy". Secession would, of course, be the most extreme form of autonomy, but I don't see that the insurgents wouldn't settle for something less extreme. Huon (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I saw the missing "and the" now... probably got removed in the editing. Anyway, What JCAla is saying about a greater political autonomy is incorrect and wouldn't represent the insurgency fully. I'm fine with adding the aims of insurgents, the idea was to kill the debate by removing them. In my opinion it will only be neutral if separatism is mentioned which is the actual aim... not simply autonomy within Pakistan (and I actually didn't fully remove the aims... the use of word separatist implied that extreme). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how's this as a compromise:

Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, insurgency in Balochistan involving various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government. This conflict has also engulfed portions of the Balochistan region in neighbouring Iran and Afghanistan. Recently, the government has undertaken efforts to subside the conflict through the introduction of reform packages and initiatives which aim to address the social, economic and political grievances of the province.

— Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This has neutral language, conciseness (with the whole conflict summarized adequately in three sentences), a bit about the conflict not being strictly limited to Pakistan but also including parts of Iran and Afghanistan, as well as the last sentence which discusses the political attention the conflict has drawn recently and subsequent initiatives on part of the government that aim to resolve the conflict. One of the citations that could be used for the last sentence (talking about government reforms) could be about the Aghaz-e-Huqooq Balochistan package. I think everything has been summarised so I don't see any reason for further opposes now. Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that is again pov, Mar4d. Baloch rebels see the situation as escalating and explicitly not being addressed. Also, I don't think what happens in Iran or what is not happening in Afghanistan for that matter is relevant here. Huon, globalsecurity wasn't considered a FA-worthy source on the RS board. Also, I do think we should geolocate the conflict to the province for the reader to better understand. I think, this is it:

Since 1948, there has been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government of Pakistan. JCAla (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If geolocating is to be helpful, then Mar4d's approach seems a better way: Explain why the location is important. If the conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan are irrelevant to that in Pakistan, why should the location of Balochistan within Pakistan matter to the conflict? We could just link Balochistan or trust that the reader will find the map in the article's administrative divisions section. Regarding "insurgency", the term is used by sources ranging from Dawn to the BBC. I'm sure the BBC is FA-worthy. Regarding separatism, the BBC article explains that demands for outright independence are a rather new development; we should not exclusively assign this goal to the entire conflict since 1948. I also don't see much wrong with Mar4d's mention of the government effort to subside the conflict. Whether it is successful remains to be seen, but the effort itself seems well-described by Mar4d's summary, though one might argue that it's overly detailed for this article. Huon (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The readers obviously know that the article is about Pakistan (they didn't come to read about Iran). So they will ask "where in Pakistan" and we need to give the answer to that.I see a lot wrong with Mar4d's mention of "government efforts" when one party to the conflict doubts said efforts. I suggest, either we mention both narratives or none. What makes the efforts more noteworthy than this first recent line by the BBC about the conflict: "Balochistan's long-running insurgency is all about greater political autonomy and the conflict has been brutal, with human rights groups accusing security forces of regularly detaining and torturing political activists."[3] BTW, as you can see both terms, "brutal conflict" and "insurgency", are being used. In another BBC article it is called a "civil war"[4], so I propose we simply stick to "violent conflict" as it is the most NPOV term. JCAla (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The answer to "where in Pakistan" is "in Balochistan", and if readers do not know where Balochistan is they can follow the link. I had no problems finding reliable sources describing the government's hopes that the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan package will "help address the grievances of Baloch people". I don't think anybody disagrees that the government has that hope - they may disagree with whether it's warranted, but we don't say so. I also could not find a source about a rejection of these reform packages; do you know one? They are more noteworthy than the BBC line because all that about a "brutal conflict" and "detaining and torturing activists" is summed up in "violent conflict" (or in "insurgency", but as I said above I'm not really wedded to either term). The idea of developmental aid, reform, and addressing grievances is, rather unfortunately, not included in those terms. Huon (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should first wait what comes out of this. I also don't think the package is more noteworthy than the parallel strategy of systematic detentions and killings, etc. Also, the efforts are highly doubted and came together only because of some U.S. congressmen making it a big issue in Congress and in the international media. See:

"It took an obscure United States congressman holding a controversial hearing in Washington on the civil war in Balochistan to awaken the conscience of the Pakistani government, military and public. For years the civil war in Balochistan has either been forgotten by most Pakistanis or depicted as the forces of law and order battling Baloch tribesmen, who are described as "Indian agents". Don't expect Baloch leaders to turn the other cheek at Mr Malik's sudden shift - the Baloch have seen too many such U-turns before. Brahamdagh Bugti, head of the separatist Baloch Republican Party and living in exile in Geneva, remains sceptical. His grandfather Sardar Akbar Bugti, the head of the Bugti tribe, was killed in 2006 on the orders of former President Pervez Musharraf in a massive aerial bombardment, while his sister Zamur Domki and her 12-year old daughter were gunned down in Karachi in broad daylight just in late January - allegedly by government agents. ... Community leaders like Brahamdagh Bugti and Harbayar Marri, a leader of the Balochistan Liberation Army who is in exile in London, have seen two major efforts by Pakistani politicians to talk to them fail in the past nine years - largely due to the army's intransigence. The first was under former President Musharraf when some of his federal ministers tried to hold talks with the Marri and Bugti leaders. They were thwarted by Gen Musharraf who was determined to deal with the issue militarily, taunting the Baloch with quips such as this time you won't even know what hit you". The second was when the present Pakistan People's Party government was elected to power in 2008 and President Asif Ali Zardari asked for a ceasefire in Balochistan for six months - which surprisingly was adhered to - and promised negotiations with Baloch leaders. However, the army was against any talks and the government's will to carry them out melted away."''[5]

I think we should leave it to the one sentence and if indeed these effort turn out as honest and substantial, then of course we should mention them. But now there is still too much controversy about them to get all facts into one sentence. Or we can try if you are insistent on adding it? JCAla (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC) and JCAla (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Stfg's admonition below, we should probably stop bickering about details such as whether "insurgency" is a better term than "violent conflict" or whether the geolocation is truly necessary. JCAla's version is not quite what I'd have written, but it serves well enough. Huon (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment II

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose: Currently it is stated precisely to the facts bypassing the debates related to POV (as explained by regentspark, even explaining what genocide means from an NPOV in this case will be debatable). If further POV details are introduced, they'll need to be balanced for NPOV and that will make the article loose the comprehensiveness. Currently the article is up for FAC, such an addition is clearly not going to help. It been discussed in much detail above why this is not appropriate. Even the details about Pakistan's own independence movement have been covered in a very comprehensive way. This is about a single war which is not as much prominent for the country and to be included in the country article. These details are already covered in the war articles and those dedicated articles. There's no place for such debatable content to be included in the article which will only invite further POV. Completely WP:UNDUE and even WP:POV. I'll also oppose this per WP:SNOW as an RFC before with POV addition could clearly not gain any consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Genocide is a term with multiple definitions and not everyone can agree that a particular situation is or is not an instance of genocide. A summary article is not well suited to discussing all the caveats and nuances and whether a particular incident was or was not a genocide. A simple JSTOR search for "Genocide in Bangladesh", for example, reveals this article that differentiates genocides from political mass murder and lists the Bangladesh episode as an example of the latter not the former. The point is that while we should not downplay or sanitize the actions of a nation on wikipedia, we should also choose our words with care. This is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a forum for airing grievances or scoring political points. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   So all the sources which call it genocide can now be discounted because you find one study which says it is Politicide? We can discount Samuel Totten, Steven L. Jacobs, Adam Jones, Wayne Morrison the Encyclopedia of genocide: A - H., Volume 1 is obviously a waste of paper, Robert Seitz Frey obviously has no clue what he is writing about in The genocidal temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda, and beyond and what would historian William Rubinstein know in Genocide: a history There are literary thousands upon thousands of sources which call this a genocide, and you wish to discount the mall for one paper? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   I am also curious were you get the peculiar idea that genocide has multiple definitions? As I have only ever seen the one. From the OED the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure whether there's much point in replying (since you appear to be on a mission here) but what the heck. The United Nations Genocide Convention defines genocide as ""acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group". Which, as you can see, is different from your definition in the explicit inclusion of "intent to destroy". I suspect that, whether or not the Bangladesh atrocities were genocide hinges on the intent to destroy question. The point of my quoting the study (btw, the author Barbara Harff is also an expert on genocide, as I presume are the scholars you quote) was that there are differing views on whether or not this was genocide and we can't discuss all these views in a summary article. The particular study I quote was the second result of the search. (Ironically, and this underscores the point that the term genocide is easy to use but hard to define, the first result argued that Bengali settlement in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh are acts of genocide (for completeness [6].) But, I'll leave it to the RfC to figure this out. --regentspark (comment) 22:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I got a request to comment on my talk page. The debate about whether to call this a genocide is adequately covered at the more appropriate location, 1971 Bangladesh atrocities#Genocide debate. Certainly some intelligent observers believe it to have been genocide, but others would claim there was no actual intent to destroy the Hindu religion or the Bihari ethnic group, etc., but only to kill many members. Killings are always horrible, but "intent" to destroy an entire group is required to call something genocide by most definitions. (The article on genocide covers the different definitions people have for this politically loaded term.) I think that here we should simply use the term "1971 Bangladesh atrocities", which is the article title, after all, and leave to that other article any discussion about what political terms do or do not apply to the situation according to various observers. Here is not the place for that. – Quadell ^(talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Genocide is a really loaded term to use for a civil war type of conflict like this. There are extensive arguments, as per Quadell and RegentsPark, that would oppose the use of this complex word, in many different contexts, to describe the events in Bangladesh. The debate itself is an entirely different chapter and is best kept out of this article. The article should only focus on factual, not objective (and debatable) information. Mar4d (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose The section 1971 Bangladesh atrocities#Genocide debate clearly shows debate on the subject. If there was an academic consensus on the issue there would not need to be a section in the article on the debate. meitme (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose Term cannot be stated as fact and is debatable with no consensus. Plus inclusion of such pov will lead to further pov's in an attempt to balance, unnecessary length and npov issues. September88 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose: the vague words like "genocide" and "terrorism" should not be used in encyclopedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose genocide is vague word. I agree with Dmitrij and Quadell. It should keep in only atrocities article. --Highstakes00 (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

• Why can't we say something like "some sources have criticized the events as genocide"?VR _talk 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Demographics

There are about 1.4 million to 2 million Persian people (which includes Tajiks) in Pakistan, which by numeric accounts, makes Pakistan home to the fifth largest population of Persians in the world. Maybe there should be a brief mention of this major ethnic group in the demographics section. Mar4d (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There was also a small, but vibrant, community of Jews in Pakistan. I think there should be one sentence in demographics mentioning something about Jews having been a historical community, but that their current numbers are believed to be negligible. Mar4d (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest figures show pakistan population is vastly under estimated, it may be as high as 197,362,000 compared to the estimate of about 170,000,000. http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/30/pakistans-population-up-by-46-9-per-cent-since-1998.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.174.218 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

As there are still no to mention of the support given to the Taliban the article remains POV Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you consider that necessary. It is not customary to include every foreign alliance in the article of a nation. --regentspark (comment) 14:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Highstakes00 and regentspark that the "Military" section need not mention the Taliban to be neutral. The paragraph whose removal triggered the tagging was at best tangetially related to the Pakistani military. Furthermore, support for foreign militants is usually not mentioned in country-level articles unless the country dispatched its own troops. For example, the Iran article does not mention their support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan or of the Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the United States article only mentions the Contras because of the Iran-Contra affair while the Bay of Pigs is not mentioned at all. Huon (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan did dispatch troops to fight with t he Taliban, and gave military support in the form of aircover. Pakistani commandos have fought alongside the Taliban and the ISI have helped them massively. So yes, it does need a mention. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that, especially the "air cover"? Cover from what? It's not as if the Taliban's opposition had much of an air force of their own. Huon (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Help yourself[7] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I just read the supposed "source" (p. 54) for the Pakistani Air Force's involvement. The source does not mention Pakistani air strikes, and the claim of any Pakistani involvement in that action was by Abdul Rashid Dostum; your very own source dismisses it as propaganda. I am not impressed. Huon (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are looking at and your link leads to African Americans at War There is no mention of propaganda on page 54 of the source[8] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That title image is wrong; if you check the actual text, it's the same one you linked to: Conflict in Afghanistan: A Historical Encyclopedia by Frank Clements. Apparently Google screwed up when they added the title image. Anyway, the relevant lines of p. 54 are: "On 1 August, the Taliban began an offensive against Sheberghan, Dostum's major military base; the area was taken, largely as a result of Hekmatyar's Islamic Party fighters colluding with the Taliban. Dostum, however, maintained that the fall of his base was due to the participation of the Pakistan air force and 1,500 comandos who had taken part in the assault." So firstly, I had missed that indeed the Pakistan air force is mentioned, and secondly, the author gives a reason for the fall of Dostum's base which differs from Dostum's: According to the author, Dostum is wrong. Whether that wrongness extends to the presence of Pakistani troops or just to their relative effectiveness is unclear, but I see no reason to trust Dostum more on one than on the other. I also have to note that a variety of articles, including Taliban and Northern Alliance, give Dostum's reasons for his defeat but not those given by the reliable source itself. That's hardly NPOV. Huon (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of these allegations got into the Taliban article itself with a marginal consensus with the few unrelated editors who commented favouring a different NPOV version I proposed. I guess We'll need a reboot of that RFC too given your analysis. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Afghan Taliban are not so important to get published in Pakistan article. It does not need mention. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In continuation of Huon's first comment: Neither do the India article, which is a featured article mention support to LTTE. --SMS ^Talk 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Pakistan/Archive 15#The Taliban and Talk:Pakistan/Archive_13#"... especially after Pakistan ended its support of the Taliban regime in Kabul.". --lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tag has no validity,it should be first removed and discussion continued.Justice007 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please delete this tag when I remove he put it somewhere else --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Try following the actual instructions on the tag, do not remove till dispute is over. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Dark,please read you too,instructions,may you have long ago read.You cannot entire article tag.Justice007 (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tag on lead means all sections of the article falls under WP:NPOV???.Justice007 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus here that any support, referenced or not, by Pakistan of the Taliban does not merit inclusion. I'm going to remove the tag. If Darkness Shines believes that the consensus is mistaken, I suggest taking this to another DR venue (an RfC perhaps). --regentspark (comment) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Been out drinkink do quite simply fuck you, your wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the globalize tag as well. DS, you need to note a few things. First, a tag is not something put on an article to satisfy the whims of an editor. Second, simply changing one tag to another is a violation of your 1RR restriction. Third, I don't really care what sort of words you use but you should think about seeing someone about your drinking problem. --regentspark (comment) 12:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• A {{Globalize}} tag was added at the top of the article after RegentsPark removed the POV tag [9]. Just a suggestion, instead of inappropriately making pointy tag bombs into the article, it'd be a better idea to discuss all outstanding issues on the talk page first. Mar4d (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pakistan's support to the Taliban is more relevant for this article than many other things mentioned such as the involvement of what ... six Pakistani airplanes fighting in the Israeli war. According to major sources and analysts such as Ahmed Rashid (Pakistani himself) from 1994-1999 between 80,000-100,000 Pakistanis fought alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda inside Afghanistan. According to Peter Tomsen until 9/11 thousands of ISI and other Pakistani fighters were involved in the fighting in Afghanistan. According to witness testimonies by humanitarian aid workers inside Northern Afghanistan during that time Pakistani airplanes were circling the skies over Ahmad Shah Massoud-controlled territory. According to the United Nations thousands of non-Afghans were involved in the fighting on the side of the Taliban mainly from Pakistan. The UN Secretary General accused Pakistan of providing direct military support. According to Russia, Pakistan was planning and spearheading the Taliban's expansion in Northern Afghanistan with its own personnel, part of which was captured by the United Front (Northern Alliance). According to Iran, Pakistan's Air Force conducted major bombings in advance of Taliban offensives. According to the United States and the European Union, Pakistan was in breach of UN sanctions against the Taliban because of its military support to the Taliban. According to a majority of Afghanistan analysts, the Taliban would have vanished in 1995 without the military support by Pakistan, as they had been utterly defeated by the Islamic State of Afghanistan military forces. According to Human Rights Watch, the Taliban after their crushing defeat in 1995 were already believed to have run their course as a movement. According to major Afghanistan analysts the Taliban could not have survived without the military support by Pakistan. According to Human Rights Watch, Taliban forces lost battles in which Pakistani forces were not involved and suddenly improved their battle skills when Pakistani generals and forces were involved. The Taliban never established an army independent of Pakistan. They had no independent training centers. According to major Afghanistan experts, Pakistan from 1994-2001 conducted a creeping invasion into Afghanistan through and alongside a proxy force. If you are interested in the sources, help yourself under Taliban#Role_of_the_Pakistani_military. If the pro-ISI lobby wants to censor that, this article remains a censored article far from even GA and wikipedia is being censored by fans of the Inter-Services Intelligence. Cheers. JCAla (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely unimpressed by the sources in the Taliban article. There are lots of sources, sure - but few of them actually support the statements sourcerd to them, and sources that actually disagree with official Pakistani involvement (for example, one stating "There is no evidence to support claims that recent Taliban military victories are the result Pakistani troop participation in Taliban battles.") are happily used to support the impression of Pakistani support. If you actually have sources that support your claims, please present them here instead of pointing to the morass that is Taliban#Role_of_the_Pakistani_military. Of course there's no doubt that many Pakistani nationals supported the Taliban (though the Taliban article inflates the numbers, supporting a statement of "28,000-30,000 Pakistani nationals" with one source I cannot read, one whose page number leads to the index, one which talks of 8,000 madrassa students and one which mentions 10,000 Arab, Pakistani and Central Asian militants), but that's not relevant enough to Pakistan to be mentioned here. As an aside, I don't think ad-hominem attacks and accusing your opposition of censorship will help your cause, and I doubt any intelligence organization whatsoever has "fans". Huon (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you want to be extremely unimpressed. You cite a statement of one cable, out of many, which during the time it was written (mid-90s) cited a lack of evidence, when later cables published inside the same documentation say "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented. ... Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased. ". Also, the cable was published as part of a documentation called "Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"? Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists". That is self-explanatory. The sources in the Taliban article state exactly what is written in that article (no matter how casual you want to treat them) i. e.:

"According to Ahmed Rashid, 'Between 1994 and 1999, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistanis trained and fought in Afghanistan ... This is an astonishing figure by any standard." (The Afghanistan Wars by William Maley, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 221)

"Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support." (Pakistan's support of the Taliban by Human Rights Watch)

JCAla (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Human Rights Watch article mentions lots of logistical support and a few dozen military advisors, but not "Pakistani forces". It bases many of its assertions on interviews with undisclosed "observers"; I'm not sure that makes it a reliable source at all. Regarding the other quote, I have no idea where Rashid said that; the relevant part of Maley's reference section is not included in Google Books' preview (our Taliban article gets the page number wrong, by the way), and for all I can tell, Rashid hasn't written anything at all in 1999; his personal website doesn't list anything for that year. Rashid's 2000 book about the Taliban mentions the number 100,000 only thrice, and the most relevant instance is in the context of all Muslim radicals involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not just Pakistani nationals. Anyway, those are Pakistani nationals, but not official Pakistani troops, and I could not find precedents for mentioning anything less than official troop deployments in Wikipedia country articles. Try finding something on the foreign volunteers in the Spanish Civil War, for example. Huon (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Google Book preview of Prof. William Maley's book does show the page. And it explicitly talks about Pakistan.

" ... [the Taliban] was ultimately not a manifestation of resurgent Afghan tradition, but rather an example of 'creeping invasion'. Creeping invasion occurs when a middle power uses force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, but covertly and through surrogates, denying all the while that it is doing any such thing; and this use of force is on a sufficient scale to imperil the exercise of state power, by the state under threat, on a significant part of its territory, and is designed and intended to do so. (Maley, 2000c: 2) A very large proportion of those Taliban who fought in Afghanistan were not Afghans. According to Ahmed Rashid, 'Between 1994 and 1999, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistani trained and fought in Afghanistan' (Rashid, 1999: 27). This is an astonishing figure by any standard."

Human Rights Watch is regarded as a reliable source on wikipedia. Furthermore, besides the radicals, the ISI, Pakistani Frontier Corps troops and even some regular army personnel (especially generals) were fighting alongside the Afghan Taliban. What is there not to understand when Human Rights Watch writes: "Pakistan ... directly providing combat support." or "Direct Military Support - Observers interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan and Pakistan have reported that Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support." This news article from January 2002 speaks for itself: "In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban’s staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.)" JCAla (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the status of Human Rights Watch as a reliable source is debatable. I just checked the archives of WP:RSN, and while certainly HRW is a reliable source for its own opinion, there was no consensus whether it's a reliable source of facts. Compare for example this thread. Secondly, I was aware of the Maley quote you gave: He cites "Rashid, 1999". What is that? Why don't we cite Rashid directly but use Maley instead? Thirdly, while the Pakistani support may have greatly increased the Taliban's efficiency, is it relevant enough to Pakistan to mention it here? I am not saying that we shouldn't mention this support anywhere on Wikipedia, but this is the wrong place. As another precedent, our China article does not mention Chinese involvement in the Korean War. The Chinese strength in that war was estimated at more than 900,000; the 80,000+ Pakistani volunteers in Afghanistan are insignificant in comparison. I still do not see much of a precedent for mentioning low-level interventions of this type (volunteers, here admittedly in rather large numbers, a handful of advisors and massive logistical support) in country articles. Volunteers and logistical support are not significant enough, and the official military involvement was pretty low-key. Huon (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the comments above, apart from the one directly above by Huon, and just as a passing-by comment, I'd like to reiterate the same point regarding the relevance of this topic to this article. Not only the Chinese example, but as someone previously pointed out, even the India article (which is FA) does not mention anything about Indian backing of the LTTE (the first militant organisation to use suicide bombing). It ought to be recalled that the Research and Analysis Wing had an instrumental role in arming, training and providing logistical support to the Tamil rebels; there is photographic evidence of this, with LLTE leaders picturised in Indian training camps, yet this has not warranted a mention on that article. We must follow the precedent set elsewhere and evaluate everything keeping in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE sensitivities. Mar4d (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Huon, haha, compared to Chinese numbers other numbers will always seem "insignificant". China has other dimensions, if we say only if a country provides what China did (900,000 troops) it is significant enough for wikipedia, most country profiles would hardly mention any wars. If the China article truely does not mention the intervention in the 1953 Korean War (I take your word for it, didn't check) that is however a major shortcoming. The Chinese intervention let to the push-back of U.S. & South Korean troops and to the final stalemate at todays border. The USA article by the way mentions the Korean war. Back to the Taliban issue. A number of up to 100,000 is by no means insignificant. The current U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is less than that. This is not a low-level intervention, it changed the course of history and presents a major invasion into another country. Without that intervention the Taliban would never have come to power in Kabul (and that is according to the sources). (I read the book by Maley, that is why I quoted him not Rashid. I have no problem with quoting Rashid instead.) We have the Pakistani interior minister saying: "We created the Taliban." I propose we have one sentence about the direct involvement in Afghanistan from 1994-2001, and one about the allegation and denial of continued support. Afterall that support is influencing the course of Asia and the whole world. JCAla (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, even relative to the population the Chinese effort in Korea was about twice or thrice the Pakistani effort in Afghanistan. Secondly, those 80,000+ Pakistanis were not all active in Afghanistan at the same time. Comparing that number to the current US troop strength is comparing apples to oranges. Thirdly, while the Pakistani support may have been relevant to the Taliban and to Afghanistan as a whole, it is certainly not as relevant to Pakistan. The official direct involvement was insignificant to Pakistan, and volunteer efforts are not usually mentioned in country-level articles (I have not found a single mention of volunteer support in a foreign war). The Taliban, at least those in Afghanistan, are simply not relevant enough to be mentioned here per WP:WEIGHT. Pakistan's own conflict with Islamic militants, on the other hand, is duly mentioned. Huon (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Taliban's first attack was supported by artillery fire from Pakistan. Pakistan supplied munitions, and training. ISI and Pakistani military officers gave support in planning. The Pakistani air force provided close air support. The Airlift of Evil was only accomplished by the Pakistani air force. Military personal from Pakistan have fought alongside the Taliban. It most certainly needs to be mentioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is happening in Afghanistan is not relevant for Pakistan? Are you kidding? What happens in Afghanistan is certainly besides India the utmost occupation of Pakistan's military and intelligence services. And what are you talking about? The Air Force, the Frontier Corps, the generals, they are not volunteers. There were thousands of Pakistani Frontier Corps soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And all the other of the up to 100,000 Pakistanis were recruited and trained by the Jamaat-e Islami and the ISI and were send on purpose to Afghanistan. That too is direct involvement. U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan stayed below 10,000 up until 2003 and below 20,000 up until 2006. Yet, that was mentioned in the country profile during that time. According to various estimates in the year 2001 alone, Pakistan had more nationals fighting in Afghanistan than the U.S. up until 2006. JCAla (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are reliable academic sources which state Afghan support to Pashtun nationalists as being the root cause of Taliban and other religious/nationalist problems that persist in Afghanistan today (putting it bluntly, as you sow, so shall you reap). Any sentence about the Taliban that is to be added into the article (if that is what consensus dictates) should be preceded by a sentence discussing Afghanistan's previous misadventures inside Pakistan: that includes strategic support (moral, physical and ideological) to separatist insurgent groups within Pakistan. According to the Institute for the Study of War:

After Pakistan’s independence in 1947, Afghanistan objected to its admission to the United Nations. The Afghan government of the time decided not to recognize Pakistan as the legitimate inheritor of the territorial agreements reached with the British India. There were several ambiguous and often changing demands from Kabul centered around the aspirations—as Kabul saw it—of the Pashtun and Baluch ethnicities inside Pakistan. For intermittent periods between 1947 and 1973, Kabul extended support to Baluch and Pashtun nationalists inside Pakistan and even called for the creation of a new state called “Pashtunistan.

Ironically, Afghan Pashtuns are a minority. The number of Pashtuns in Pakistan has always been double their size. Nevertheless, the Afghan ethnic ultra nationalist/irredentist factor has played an influential role in regional politics. Mar4d (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally. Thank you very much, Mar4d. I appreciate the bluntness. An open discussion without all the double game and denial. We have three reasons for Pakistan's support to the Taliban: 1) the border dispute, 2) economic reasons and 3) backyard against India. And we have a fourth reason, Islamism is being used as a strong identity against Hindu India and a common bond with Arab extremists and Saudi Arabia. This leads to an ideological dream of controlling the "Black Banners from Khorasan" (the future army of Islam originating from Taloqan, Khorasan - today northern Afghanistan - according to Islamic prophecy, which the Taliban are not but claim to be). Dr. Fazal-ur-Rahim Marwat, University of Peshawar (Pakistan):

"In short, an articulate section of the [Pakistan] middle class ... supported an ideology which used religion to create Pakistani nationalism and militarism [vs India and Pashtun nationalists] in the society."

Now, for the first reason, the border dispute which you mentioned. Yes, indeed, Pashtun nationalists have not given up their dream of Loy Afghanistan (A Greater Afghanistan/Pashtunistan). Your source, however, is about the period 1947-1973, a different era. When Pakistan directed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezb-e Islami to bomb the post-communist Islamic State of Afghanistan into chaos and lawlessness after the communist defeat in 1992, Afghanistan had voiced no such ambitions and the Islamic State was not interfering anywhere inside Pakistan. When Hekmatyar failed to gain control in Kabul and Pakistan introduced the Taliban, it were again not the Pashtun nationalists who were in power but the Islamic State which had no interest whatsoever in making any Pashtun area of Pakistan part of Afghanistan. Somewhere along the way, however, Pakistan reached the conclusion that it needs a Pashtun puppet to rule Afghanistan to integrate the Pashtuns under Pakistan's leadership. For that matter it sought to control the Afghan Pashtuns through Pashtun Islamists as the Islamists are 1) dependent on Pakistan and 2) Pashtun Islamism (promoting a bondage to Muslim Pakistan) is promoted by Pakistan as an alternative identity to Pashtun nationalism (which challenges the legality of the Af-Pak border). Then they preoccupied the Pashtun Islamists (Taliban, Hekmatyar) with fighting the other ethnic groups of Afghanistan (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbek) opposed to Pashtun Islamism as well as non-Taliban Pashtuns. 60 % of Afghanistan's population are non-Pashtuns and today only an estimated 10% of the 40% Pashtuns are active Taliban supporters. Dr. Fazal-ur-Rahim Marwat, University of Peshawar (Pakistan):

"... to ensure that any Afghan nationalist ideas were kept to a minimum, Pakistani government gave the Islamists a stronger voice in the educational program in the [Afghan refugee] camps, and later on in the cross border transfer of educational materials and establishment of schools inside the Afghan war zone.... if the Afghan war politically damaged the cause of Pashtun political nationalism in Pashtunkhwa for the time being, it accelerated and regenerated the cultural nationalism [against other ethnic groups in Afghanistan], which will prove more effective [internally divisive to Afghanistan] than politics in the future. ... ”The new [Afghan] generation is forgotten and their future is dark. Now the two monsters of militarism and Mafia have opened their mouths to swallow them. They are forced to feed only by the means of war [although] the majority of the Afghan youth themselves wish to get education so that they should have a good standing in the new world order.”"

What a policy, to keep a country forever in a terrible war in order not to let it become independent and strong because there is a border dispute. Why kill millions of human beings, destroy the future of whole generations and endanger peace worldwide as the extremists trained in Pakistan are going to Central Asia, the US, Europe, India and even China? How about simply resolving the border dispute once and for all and in front of the whole world? Further, one should not ignore that the border issue is not the only reason for Pakistan's support to the Taliban. For controlling Afghanistan through the Taliban, Pakistan has two other reasons also. "The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Mass Mobilization, Civil War and the Future of the Region" by Neamatollah Nojumi:

[Pakistan's strategy is a] combination of pan-Islamism and market orientation policy. [...] three ultimate goals.

The first goal was to pacify the threat that could rise from a strong Afghan government. In this context, such a government in Afghanistan might pursue the cause of independent Pushtonistan and the rejection of the Durand line. In time of conflicts, this government could form an alliance with India and cut off Pakistan from the Central Asian Republics (CAR), a crucial energy source and a prosperous regional market economy. Influencing Afghanistan’s national politics by selecting who should run the government in Kabul became very critical for Pakistani circles. Thus, an ehtnic Pashtun ally in Afghanistan would help Pakistan intergrate the Pushtons on the other side of the border and make them important in the process of Afghan forward policy. Achieving such a goal would reduce the future tension over the Durand issue and could create a psychological integration of the Pushton population in the Pakistani state.

Another priority of the depth strategy was to rescue the collapsing economy by providing economically efficient energy to the fast growing population of Pakistan and having free and fast access to the CAR. The CAR’s energy and market economy would not only help Pakistan economically, it also would provide a free hand for this country to compete with Iran and India in the regional power game. In this case, Pakistan would be able to contain Iran’s influence in the CAR as well as eliminate this influence in Afghanistan. [...] Having access to the Central Asian market became very crucial for the economic growth and industrialization of Pakistan. For Pakistani leaders, controlling the economic road between Central Asia and Pakistan became an important task. In this case, the establishment of a national government, in particular a nationalist one in Afghanistan that could have firm control over the economic highway connecting Pakistan to Central Asia, would not be acceptable to Pakistani leaders. Therefore, the disintegration of the Afghan Mujahideen and the local and regional armed and political groups during and after the Soviet invasion can be viewed in the interest of the Pakistani forward policy toward Afghanistan. Establishing a government with passive military ability in Afghanistan under the influence of Pakistan was considered the most favorable alternative for Pakistani leaders. [...]

The third goal was to contain India in the Kashmir fronts with the avoidance of friendly government relations between India and Afghanistan. Using the Afghan soil as a camping ground for the Kashmirin militants would help the Pakistani army to balance its positions against India in that region. According to sources in Pakistan, in the past five years (1995-2000) 60,000 to 80,000 Pakistani nationals were trained in Afghanistan and went back home [to fight in Kashmir]. […] In addition to this, many Islamic militants from around the world gathered in Afghanistan and participated in battles in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the CAR. All this would be different if there were friendly government relations between India and Afghanistan."

JCAla (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a constructive critique JCAla, keep your comments short. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break: Taliban

Suggestion Guys, obviously a huge chunk of text on Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban, its history, causes, and continuing rationale is not going to work because it'll be overkill in a summary article. On the other hand, this discussion has the potential of generating several dissertations and lasting longer than the lifetime of most nations! So here is a suggestion. I note that there is a mention of the war of terror in the article: Pakistan's involvement in the war against terrorism has, according to its own estimates, cost up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68]. Perhaps that is the right place for a mention of Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban as well. Something along the lines of: Pakistan, with its proximity to Afghanistan, has had a complicated involvement in the war against terrorism. According to its own estimates, the war on terror has cost it up to $67.93 billion,[66][67] thousands of casualties and nearly 3 million displaced civilians.[68] On the other hand, there are credible allegations that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India. I'm assuming all this can be sourced, and perhaps 'Pakistan's Army' is more accurate than government, but this is one way of including the Taliban in the article and providing balance in the article. --regentspark (comment) 19:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, both are different shoes. Pakistan's "war against terror" is against the TTP not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban, while Pakistan is supporting the Afghan Taliban. Also, the sentence would miss the large scale intervention until 9/11. What about adding it to "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." Something like "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues. There are widespread allegations (denied by Pakistan) that Pakistan's army continues to support the Afghan Taliban. From 1994-2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban for its own geostrategic reasons." JCAla (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. I think 'credible allegations', if backed up by credible sources, is better (and stronger) than widespread allegations and denial but if you want to say "there are widespread allegations (denied by Pakistan)" then I'm ok with that. I'm not sure if we need include pre-sept 11 Taliban support though my first formulation did contain a reference to that. The Taliban were the legitimate government of Afghanistan at that time and Pakistan's relationship with them was not necessarily troublesome. And, do we really need to distinguish one Taliban from another (it was news to me that there are more than one)? Either way, let's see what other opinions are. We need to keep the text here really short, really simple, and we need a compromise (that is accurate, neutral, and not undue) of some sort here so let's try to work toward it.--regentspark (comment) 20:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't know a lot about this do you? Pakistan helped the Taliban get into power, the Taliban would have been ground into the dirt without the help they got from Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I don't know a whole lot about this. But I do know what is neutral and due, I do know how to use reliable sources, and I can recognize pov pushing when it shows up. The important question is: do you want to get this logjam out of the way or would you rather see a continued lack of stability in the article? --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I also recognize POV pushing when I see it. And editors saying there should be no mention of the Taliban in an article on the country which created them is POV to the max. I would like to compromise, but the fact that Pakistan founded the Taliban needs a mention. Or at least a line of support given before 9/11 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

RP, yes, we do need to distinguish the Taliban, just like Pakistan does. :) As experts on the subject write, the common name is misleading as they greatly vary in their goals, in their leadership and in their history. TTP fight the Pakistani state. Afghan Taliban are reliant on the Pakistani state and have repeatedly tried to convince the TTP to stop fighting the Pakistani state. And wait a minute, the Afghan Taliban were not the legitimate government of Afghanistan, never were. They were recognized by three countries only (namely by their supporters: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE). The legitimate government of Afghanistan was the anti-Taliban Islamic State of Afghanistan effectively led by its Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud and President Burhanuddin Rabbani which always kept the seat at the United Nations and the embassies worldwide. And yes, the sentence about before 9/11 is crucial, as without Pakistan there would have been no illegitimate Taliban rule in Kabul and beyond. JCAla (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. How about: On the other hand, Pakistan supported (?) the (Afghan?) Taliban during the 1990s (or after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan). After the September 11th attacks, the government joined the US led war against the Taliban. However there are credible allegations that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as terrorist groups active against India. I think it makes sense to include the Taliban in the context of the war on terror. Independently, it makes no sense because every government supports all sorts of not so nice people. Does saying "Taliban in Afghanistan" distinguish it from the Tehrik-i-Taliban? --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Support that proposal, and you can just say Taliban ) Most people do not even know there are two. A wikilink will suffice for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion because, this will only decrease the article's stability due to its POV nature. Even in this case, saying "credible allegations" when "allegations" are already enough to give the meaning. Emphasis is being given to the allegation, the government has been vigorously denying it, even the main Taliban article says that... that is not mentioned. In overall, why does this need inclusion in an article when over the seventy years this is only a small undue part of politics. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I want to stay neutral, but if I may make this one suggestion, which you can ditch if you don't like. It seems to me that the debate is polarised between those who want to have something specific said about the Taliban, and those who don't want it mentioned at all. My suggestion is simply to arrange for the article to include a wikilink to Taliban, an article that has plenty to say about all this, and leave it at that.

• To those who would like the present article to say more than that, I would suggest that the Taliban article already addresses this element of history, and to try to have it covered in this (or any other) article just duplicates it.
• To those who are arguing on the basis of WP:UNDUE, I would say that this argument looks a little absurd in an article that mentions, for example, snooker. Everybody and his dog knows that there is some relationship that matters, though of course we don't know exactly what, so just a mere mention doesn't denigrate Pakistan in any way, and it's hard to see how the article could get to FA without even mentioning it. Note that I am not asking you to admit any statement about what that relationship is or ever was.

Perhaps the best way to introduce such a link would be in a resuscitated "See also" section, or by use of a {{See also}} in one of the article sections, such as "Politics" or its "Military" subsection. This would avoid issues of sourcing and deny any opportunity to slip in some POV. Just a suggestion. As I say, if you don't like it, just ditch it. --Stfg (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I can ofcourse agree to including a link (though the see also section was altogether removed some time ago with a silent consensus). The mention of support for Taliban and then denials are already stuck at the Taliban article itself (see the top post at WP:NPOVN) since January. If we brought that here, it will only disrupt the efforts for FA. A bare mention is fine if it is impartial and I would be open to that discussion. Hope you see my reason now. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Stfg, hm, I am not so sure about that ... RP, why "on the other hand"? I think the sentence should definitely be added to this one which already mentions the "war on terrorism": "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." After that sentence we could have a mix of your and my suggestion: "From 1994-2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban for its own geostrategic reasons. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as terrorist groups active against India." JCAla (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is way too much. I agree with Stfg that not mentioning the Taliban is a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room but we need to take a minimalist approach here. For example, "the relationship was strained", "geostrategic reasons" both require explaining and possibly counterviewpoints. In a summary article we should only include material that is not nuanced and does not need to be qualified or explained. That Pakistan has had a history with the Taliban is both factual as well as important. That there are (credible) allegations of elements within the Pakistan Army supporting the Taliban as well as terrorist groups is also reasonably certain. (Here, for example, it says that the Mumbai terrorists were abetted by the Army. An editorial in the NYT is a credible allegation. I'm sure similar sources for Pakistani support for the Taliban can also be found.) We state that these are "allegations" which automatically means that they aren't necessarily true so that doesn't need further qualification. But, anything more would be overkill. (This applies to all the suggestions below.) --regentspark (comment) 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RP, the sentence about the "War on Terror" with the "strained relations" is already in the article for some time now. I was just proposing to add any sentence after that already existent one. So it's really only these two sentences (combination of your and my suggestion) I am proposing: "From 1994-2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India." That's concise, actually more concise than your proposal. ;) What do you say? JCAla (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, minimal, and due (Between 1994 and 2001 Pakistan provided direct military support to the Taliban. There are credible allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Afghan Taliban as well as terrorist groups active against India.) Perhaps we could fit it into the text by moving it into a separate paragraph along with the estimate of the cost of its involvement in the war on terror. TopGun, what do you think? --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I like regentspark's suggestion of including one or two sentences in our coverage of Pakistan's involvement in the war on terror, and his wording seems a good basis. I would suggest a couple of changes, though: Firstly, we should add the Taliban sentences before the current sentence on the war on terror; that's the chronological order. Secondly, I wouldn't call the military support "direct". There is no doubt that Pakistan did provide military support, but the closer we come to what I'd call direct support the less reliable our sources (with Gen. Dostum's "1,500 commandos and air strikes" at the extreme end of the spectrum). Thirdly, calling the allegations about continued support "credible" would require extremely good sources; otherwise it's editorializing. Huon (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources which allege continuing support are easy enough to find and from academic publishers, would they be credible enough? I agree with your suggestion of the chronological order. Instead of direct support how about "heavily supported"? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

These sentences about Pakistan involvement are already there. Only thing that is missing are the Taliban. I think the current support for the Taliban needs to be after that sentence however, as Pakistan claims those figures for the past years despite the current allegations. We also have enough sources for the "direct". See the George Washington University archives i. e. which talk about the Frontier Corps troops fighting alongside the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all proposals, until..... I still do not see any mention about Afghanistan's involvement inside Pakistan via support to separatist groups and it's myopic foreign policy post-1947. As I said earlier, that was a turning point (the driving point, I should say) that defined regional politics. This era precedes all other events and all academic sources discuss this in great length. Mentioning Taliban or Mujahideen yet excluding earlier events is like bread without butter. I suggest having a separate section for foreign relations, in which a small summary-style paragraph can be allocated to Afghanistan. The paragraph should start of with Afghanistan not choosing to recognize Pakistan and providing material support to Pashtun/Baloch/nationalist groups (which created a strain in relations), followed by a sentence on the Taliban regime (as proposed above), and concluding with a sentence on the current War on Terror. This entirely complies with historical chronology, provides a background, and ensures that nothing is left out. Mar4d (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Also oppose mentioning India, as that is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the Afghan conflict. Secondly, the phrase as well as terrorist groups active against India is ambigous. Where in India? If it's Kashmir, then the sentence should be more specific and say "Kashmir" instead of India. Also, "terrorist groups" especially when discussing the Kashmir conflict is a loaded term, following the old saying that one man's terrorist can be another man's freedom fighter. "Separatist groups" or "pro-indendence groups" is better. But on the whole, I really do not see the point of mentioning India in the article in the first place. I don't see anything about Tamil Tigers in India, after all. Mar4d (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Support to the mujahideen is already in the article, obviously people here had no problem mentioning that ... I had proposed "for geostrategic reasons" because mentioning all the reasons will get quite long. Then you would have to mention why Afghanistan's Pashtuns do not accept the Durand border, as they say it was forced on them, etc. And because popular Pakistani Pashtun leaders such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan also favoured one "Pashtunistan". We could have something like ... supports Taliban "because for different geostrategic reasons including a simmering border dispute over the Durand Line, Afghanistan presenting the route to Central Asian natural resources and the need for strategic depth versus India, Pakistan conceives the need for an Afghan Islamist government favorable to Pakistani interests." The moral support of the Afghan monarchy 1947-1973 to Pashtun people in Pakistan really has no place in this article. Were there ever tens of thousands of Afghan forces in Pakistan? No, never. As I also pointed out to you above, when Pakistan supported the rise of the Taliban in 1994, the then non-Pashtun dominated Islamic State of Afghanistan was not involved inside Pakistan and certainly had no interest in having the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. JCAla (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock

Sock trying to distract

Hey guys I dont know much about this taliban issue however USA has supported many terrible regimes in the past more than the pakistanis could ever dream off why does not the USA page contain this information and why must pakistan page cater for certain pov of a user? as I can only see two people who are actually supporting its onclusion like I said I am not an authority on the issue just think it would be pov to add about taliban when other countrys do the same Ruffruder0 (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) And here they come again the single purpose accounts/socks to create distraction from a content-based discussion. Above user has been editing since today. No further comment on that from me. Why it needs to be mentioned has already been explained at length above. JCAla (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Actually his question is still valid. SPAs still do get proper weight when they point out something new or with a new approach. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC) ::: Single purpose? [10] considering this comment your only on wikipedia for pakistan baiting yourself keep your personal vandettas to yourself dude ah yes socks well file a request thenRuffruder0 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) ... JCAla (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC) :::::: And? your pov is evident and your proposals are crap at best Ruffruder0 (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC) "Thumbs up for Ahmad Shah Massoud was not the enemy of Pashtuns!!! Death to devil Musharraf's erroneous and unprofessional statement!!! FUCK PORKISTAN!!! FUCK PORKISTAN!!! FUCK PORKISTAN!!!" your video from youtube just highlights your crap pov pushing just take a deep breathe and try to be neutral for once? Ruffruder0 (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) We all know that youtube videos do have comments below them. I showed you the video (the content) not the comments which are obviously not by me. Maybe someone should remove this editor's posts as they are clearly meant as a distraction from the content discussion. JCAla (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC) :: Looks like your getting nervous so you want me silenced to avoid a rational neutral decision 109.149.63.26 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Yes thats my ip and you cant work your way out of this one 109.149.63.26 (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC) You showed me a video from a unreliable user I showed you news from a news agency thats the difference your biased and thats all there is to it just make another redundant article about Pakistan that may help you feel better Ruffruder0 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) RP, or we could say: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." And then: "From 1994-2001 up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals including members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps were fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are credible (or widespread) allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan today." JCAla (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC) "From 1994-2001" support was also denied by Pakistan. Congratulations, you've just spilled the full dispute from Taliban article which has been waiting due to the disagreement at that talk page and at the top of WP:NPOVN since January or before. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [11] America has changed more regimes and supported regimes than any other country on the planet around 25 yet Jcala seems to be fixated on the Taliban this is massive POV pushing I propse we ditch this whole crappy statement and leave out jcalas inherent pov against pakistan Ruffruder0 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) again why doesnt the USA page mention any of this? I am extremely disappointed that this discussion has failed to mention this huge pov its shocking (im not anti american so lay off) Ruffruder0 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC) TG, we have had that and the RFC on the Taliban talk resolved that in favour of DS's proposal which said there needs to be no attribution on the pre-9/11 period as Pakistan's support to the Taliban is - for that period - a majority position among reliable sources. Not to forget that former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and former Interior Minister Babar both admitted to it. Ruff, if you want to improve the USA article, this is the wrong place. India and Afghanistan are the two foreign policy priorities of Pakistan and as thus need to be mentioned. Also, the "war on terror" (in Afghanistan) is one of the most important contemporary issues. JCAla (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC) That still doesnt answer the question why single out Pakistan for its so called "support" of taliban while USA and other nations who have changed many countries are not mentioned on the country page this is POV Ruffruder0 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC) No, that RFC was for a specific section and that specific content. Other wise that dispute wouldn't be holding up at NPOVN still. The sentence to be added in the lead of Taliban isn't even resolved and you've suggested your version of it to be added here. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Topgun and other users I suggest you close this discussion and not cater to pov pushing by Jcala I have read the above discussion and EVERYONE has challenged jcala on why it is so important to mention taliban while other countrys are free of this pov Ruffruder0 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [12] looks like the USA also "supported the taliban" straight from hillary clinton a bit of advice JCala I would try and be more neutral with edits so far you have shown me nothing except pov pushing Ruffruder0 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC) RP, or we could say: "The U.S. war on terrorism initially led to an improvement in ties between the two countries; however, the relationship was strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism related issues." And then: "From 1994-2001 up to 100,000 Pakistani nationals including members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps were fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are credible (or widespread) allegations (denied by Pakistan) that the Pakistani government continues to support the Taliban in Afghanistan today." JCAla (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC) This is the same as your first post in the section above, repeating it won't make it more eligible. Moving forward, I suggest we solve the pending dispute on NPOVN so that we can decide on those basis. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [13] now see my video since you sent yours and since your fond of Youtube Hillary states the obvious 109.149.63.26 (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC) "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan. Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the United States too had a share in creating the problem that plagues Pakistan today. problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan, she said. "Lets remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea lets deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and lets go recruit these mujahideen." you stated that some interior minister said so and so now read the above Ruffruder0 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Clearly the situation Jcala is trying to create is not as simple as "Pakistan made taliban and destroyed all of afghanistan and is a evil country" it is far more complex he just wants to whitewash with blaming pakistan while USA had a HUGE role in its creation Ruffruder0 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC) :@highstakes Pakistan page is being targeted by people with agendas and pov that's why its astonishing that USA which supported vast amounts of groups and regimes does not mention it while Pakistan with the help of usa (again usa!) is being singled out by one user Ruffruder0 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break 2: Taliban

I was the guy who removed POV tag. Why this article need Taliban detail? I repeat Ruffruder question why USA article not say this stuff? --Highstakes00 (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is becoming a bit of WP:COATRACK, don't you think? First it was about Taliban only, now support for "terrorist" (which is a weasel term) groups in India. Does India mentions it is alleged to support insurgents in Balochistan conflict? We have no precedence here. RP, your suggestion is apparently minimal, but you're not aware of the background of this dispute... it has been lingering from November or so at Taliban and kind of stuck on these very lines since January... is there a reason to believe that it will not bring more counter arguments and explanations from each side to be put in (which I guess is already happening)? I think the bare mention here would be sufficient with emphasis over international relations. This is my counter proposal: "Pakistan and United States relations have been fluctuating because of both nations' interest in Taliban." Yes, that is really minimalist now, but this is the country article... --lTopGunl (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  TopGun (and Mar4d), while I was initially against the addition of the Taliban, on reflection I think it is a salient point that needs to be included. Like it or not, the fact is allegations of Pakistan's relations with the Taliban and with various terrorist groups is a much discussed aspect of Pakistan today and it would be a disservice to our readers to not include some reference to those relationships. The question we should be addressing is how best to phrase it so that it stays neutral, doesn't sound like we're pushing an anti-Pakistan POV, and is due in the article. I believe that the phrasing above goes quite a way in that direction. The one doubt I have is the reference to the Pakistani government in the 'continuing support' part. My understanding is that the allegations are less against the government and more against the army or parts of the army that may be acting without the knowledge of the government. Perhaps that could be rephrased. The terrorism against India part I added after seeing an editorial in the New York Times ([14]) that linked, unqualified by the word 'allegation', the Pakistani Army to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. That seems fairly credible to me. Perhaps we can reword the Pakistani government part and we can drop the 'direct' for the pre-2001 support as suggested by Huon. But, other than that, the two sentences proposed above appear to be due, necessary and neutrally worded.--regentspark (comment) 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  Pakistan also denied of providing support before 9/11 (which is being disputed at NPOVN for Taliban article), these sentences don't mention that. About the terrorist groups, is it being done so in other country articles... a question raised above by Highstakes and later me and Mar4d. How about, we wait and see if the dispute is resolved on Taliban first (where the same users are involved)... See WP:NPOVN#Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001, because I have a feeling I'll have to repeat the arguments given there. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We are having a good discussion here, while that is not the case on the NPOV. Further, the point you keep mentioning was already resolved on the Taliban RFC. Afghanistan is not just about support to a terrorist group but about a major intervention/interference (with own military forces) in a current and very relevant war. Also, for Pakistan, Afghanistan and India are the foremost foreign policy issues and as such have a high priority. The U.S. provision of only 10,000 soldiers until 2003 in Afghanistan on the side of the United Front (Northern Alliance) was mentioned in the USA article as a U.S. War in Afghanistan. I think Pakistan is fairly good off with just saying they provided such and such support when they provided more Pakistani fighters than the U.S. at that point. In Afghanistan 1994-2001 is also referred to as Pakistan's War in Afghanistan. So, as RP said, the two sentences are fairly neutral and can be sourced with hundreds of reliable sources. They also reflect properly what is the majority position among reliable sources which wikipedia is all about. RegentsPark, there is no problem with changing government to army. That's good to go, as the army is taking such decisions as you mentioned. JCAla (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I would attribute that stuck dispute to long comments and lack of unrelated users' participation. Well if you want to mention this.. it wont obviously go without denial. I've previously provided sources that Pakistan has denied supporting Taliban both before and after 9/11. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: Fair enough, but what makes you believe that the 2008 Mumbai attacks are significant enough to be included here? It was just a single event, and more significant (historically) for India rather than Pakistan, so covering it here would really be pushing it way too far. I believe an appropriate place to mention the Mumbai attacks would be the India article. And you still have not quite responded to Tamil Tigers not having a mention in the India article. We still need to see the precedent laid out in other articles. Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  OK. Let's say we include the terror groups part only if there are reliable sources for pakistani support for groups other than the mumbai attackers. That's fair. I don't think anyone is saying we should specifically mention the mumbai attacks but rather we should keep this information only if it is general. I'm not sure what to say about Tamil Tigers. That is a discussion for the India talk page (though, my impression is that allegations of India's support for the Tamil Tigers is nowhere near as salient as allegations of Pakistan's support for the Taliban). --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Prospect of useful GOCE copy edit

September88 made a request for a GOCE copy edit of this article. I would like to do it, but it's pointless to copy edit articles whose content is not agreed, and the ongoing bickering -- what else can one call it? -- about how to word the Balochistan conflict, and what (if anything) to say about Pakistan's relationship (if any) with the Taliban, just convince me that any copy editing work done right now would end up wasted. Wikipedia ought to be able to put together a fine article about a country as major as Pakistan, especially with such able editors around. I hope you guys get it together one day and manage to agree what the article should say. Until then, I am marking the GOCE request as on hold.

I have no position on any of the issues you disagree about, and would be happy to copy edit the article without disrupting whatever final agreement you reach. But do you all actually want to reach one? Because there's an awful lot of insisting going on here, on both sides. And a certain amount of making it harder to close off debates by introducing new issues. For example, both Mar4d's and JCAla's initial proposed wording for the Balochistan conflict used the phrase "southwestern province of Balochistan"; not awfully controversial and both sides were agreeing about these four words at least. So why did that have to become an extra bone of contention?

Anyway, if you ever reach stability, please would TopGun and JCAla both pop a note on my talk page and I'll remove the stopper from the GOCE request. --Stfg (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free copy edit the article, I've withdrawn from the Balochistan conflict dispute in favour of the current version and the discussion about Taliban is about inclusion of new content and doesn't look like it has much chance. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, TopGun, for that concession in favour of progress. Thanks also to Huon for his concession in the same direction. These things certainly make the copy edit, and the Featured status we're all hoping for, a closer prospect.

I am not quite ready to go ahead yet, because the present discussion between Mar4d and JCAla is a good one, with substantive points being made by both, and I'd like to see where it leads. My protest above was against bickering, and the current discussion cannot be described as that. I'm not convinced that citing WP:SNOW is apt just yet. It would be most helpful if you would allow that discussion to take its course without criticising their conduct in it. You won't lose support by doing that. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment about WP:SNOW was based on two previous discussions with the same users involved which resulted in exclusion (and by agreement in the latter - so I don't see the point in digging it up): Talk:Pakistan/Archive 15#The Taliban and Talk:Pakistan/Archive_13#"... especially after Pakistan ended its support of the Taliban regime in Kabul.". I have no problem otherwise with the current discussion though I see some insisting there but I'm trying to follow up. I'll trust your judgement over deciding when a copy edit would be suitable. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, April 2012

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

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

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

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

• See also: Talk:Pakistan/Archive 13#Overhaul for a detailed discussion on mostly non controversial edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Please also keep in mind that this article uses Pakistani English which is mostly same as the British English (some times includes archaic words). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for both the above, TopGun. If I transgress on either, please go ahead and restore. I'll understand "PE" as an edit summary, should you need it. --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Empires and Dynasties

In the second paragraph of the lead section, we have several examples of very general expressions (like "Indian empires") being used as pipes to very specific links (here, "Mauryan Empire", but one shouldn't normally pipe to a redirect). I propose to remove the pipes, so that this example would look like Mauryan Empire. Is there any objection to this? (Another approach could be to retain the generalised "Indian empires", but not link to anything.) --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think using the actual article name as suggested will do fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Slaughter of Afghan Tribes in Hazara(NWFP) in 1837 by Dogra Rajput Chief Rajah Ghulab Singh

The slaughter of Afghans in 1837 in NWFP was one of the biggest slaughter of 19th century , over 12,000 afghans(all men were killed) all those Tribals who were loyal to Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh was given pardon but the leader of revolt Painda Khan Afridi along with his whole family was slaughtered. Thousands and thousands of Women and Children who were given pardon by Rajah Ghulab Singh were sold at lahore and Jammu, i dont think such a big incident can be ignored. Many of afghans left NWFP and went back to Afghanistan(on the opposite side of Khyber Pass) some afghan tribes returned in 1846-1850AD when sikh rule was ended by British Empire through Anglo-Sikh War. The main reason behind slaughter was revolt of afghans as they wanted to take advantage of hari singh nalwa death at khyber pass however it failed as Prince Akbar Khan of kabul fled on arrival of Wazir Dhyan Singh and the revolt of NWFP tribes who expected support from afghan armies was shattered122.161.253.183 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)