Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants – As well as a notaballot tag we also need a not AFD mk2 tag as so much of the discussion, once the internecine (and may I say on occasions rather immature) bickering is ignored is an attempt to re-argue the original AFD. The undelete side argue that there are changes to the article although there seems to be no real disagreement that vast chunks of the article were simply taken from the original article that was deemed unsuitable for the project. This area of G4 is rather debatable and there is genuine disagreement on how close an article needs to be to the original to fall under G4. This tends to leave some wriggle room to the deleting admin to exercise discretion but at the same time the inclusion of additional sources usually protects a page against G4 even when there is even less added to the page than this. However, in this case, the endorsing side argue that notability wasn't the issue and challenge that the explicit NPOV and CFORK arguments given weight in the original AFD close have not been addressed. There was an argument that the previous AFD close did not have consensus but the policy is that if DRV does not overturn a deletion than that consensus is effective until another consensus overturns it. On that basis, I think the deleting admin was within policy to adjudge that NPOV and CFORK count towards G4 and the overturning side have not made a policy based argument that is strong enough to persuade me that the closing admin acted unreasonably in applying their discretion to delete. On that basis I find that the policy based argument is the one to endorse deletion. –
SpartazHumbug!13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article was speedily deleted under G4, however the deletion discussion used to get the article deleted was for an entirely different article. The fact of the matter is that the ISI has given support to and created terrorist groups. The sources used in the article were to academic publishers for the most part. But a quick google shows that this article meets all the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Council on Foreign Relations has an entire article devoted to the subject on their website
[1] The New York Times has a regularly updated section about it.
[2] The BBC
[3] The Wall Street Journal
[4] New York Times
[5] Reuters
[6] Dawn
[7] The Guardian
[8]Darkness Shines (
talk)
17:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
And of course Pakistani president Asif Zardari admitted it.
[9]
Endorse, it boggles the mind that somebody could argue that the deletion discussion referenced was an entirely different article. Comparing the opening paragraphs of the two articles should quickly lay to rest that fantasy. This article was deleted by AFD, the deletion was upheld at DRV, and was then recreated. nableezy -
19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn the deletion since the topic is notable enough. And I also think the article has (it might not seem a lot though) improved since the last AFD discussion. The topic is notable and is itself a POV but as long as that
pov is presented neutrally it should not be a problem.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)19:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
That doesnt address the reason for deletion. Or that articles that had been deleted through a deletion discussion and subsequently recreated can be speedily deleted. DRV is not AFD. nableezy -
19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
No, you're wrong. It does address the reason for deletion. The article was deleted with the assertion that it's non-neutral, to which I say arguments based on
non-neutral article names are not even grounds for the deletion of an article. You may simply move the article to a neutral title should you be able to prove that it's not neutral.
Besides,
WP:POVNAMING says “While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.”
WP:CONTENTFORK says “Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally”. In addition to the admissions by Ex-Presidents of Pakistan, ″the senior Taliban leaders meet regularly with ISI personnel, who advise on strategy and relay any pertinent concerns of the government of Pakistan.″ (says Guardian.co.uk) and "A secret Nato report seen by the BBC suggests the Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly helped by the Pakistani security service (ISI). [...]ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. The Haqqani family, for example, resides immediately west of the ISI office at the airfield in Miram Shah, Pakistan." (says
BBC-article) There is no policy that prohibits an editor from creating and maintaining an article about such a notable topic. In short the article should not have been deleted it should have been improved. AFD is not clean-up.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)11:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Multiple noes. This article was deleted because it was a recreation of an article deleted at AfD. This is not AfD round 3, much like the first DRV was not AfD round 2. Everything that you have written is completely and totally irrelevant. nableezy -
15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)reply
DRV is a process to review the previous deletions. Don't obfuscate it. All these deletions were result of tendentious editing by a specific group of editors (most of whom I have interacted with multiple times and felt the cogent vibe). You don't have to muddy water now.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)13:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)reply
All these deletions were result of tendentious editing by a specific group of editors. Uhh, no. The first deletion was due to a AFD which an admin closed as delete. That deletion was reviewed and endorsed. This most recent deletion was due to that article being re-created in violation of our policies. That decision, whether or not the recreated is substantially similar to the deleted article, is the only thing to be reviewed here. Not whether or not your feelings on the vibe of other users. But thanks for sharing. Really. nableezy -
15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, my friend. The nominations were result of what I said they were. And where does it say that "if an article is deleted once and then somehow gets a no-consensus(without due coverage and thereby favouring the deletion by default) close in the ensuing DRV, then it must not be created again no matter how many editors feel otherwise"?
Besides, that DRV was fucking 8 months ago and closed as no-consensus. Please mention these in future when you use them as primary rationale for endorsing deletion. Also, the old way of thinking may not always be correct; this is where your rationale fails to gain my trust. Don't argue. Just don't argue. You and I both know that simply because it's about Pakistan you guys have nominated this for deletion. Don't argue. There can be no argument.
TWO, not one but two, PRESIDENTS OF PAKISTAN have explicitly admitted that ISI helped militants to enforce their terror-backed coercion on countries (that Pakistan sees as enemies),
numerous reliable sources (i.e. leaked US-military report, Nato-report) state that ISI is indeed backing the taliban and that Taliban members regularly meet with ISI.
Pakistan ambassador to US Husain Haqqani said, Osama Bin laden indeed had a "support network".
United state president, Barack Obama as well as the Prime minister of Britain, David Cameron have earlier cogently implied that Pakistani high-ranking officers knew where Osama Bin Laden was and intentionally kept it (not "him", Osama was a pest) safely hidden. One must understand that when an incumbent President of USA and Prime Minister of UK make substantial claims like that which may have international ramification, they are actually being courteous or polite and/or even secretive.
Use common sense. They are not allowed to make whimsical or unfounded assertions.
In short, this subject merits an article as strongly as anything else on Wikipedia. And you guys won't let be here with all sorts of useless chicaneries just because it rubs your sentiments.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)09:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I cant seriously believe that after repeated attempts to explain to you what DRV is and why this isnt the place to discuss whether or not Pakistan really really really really really is all these bad things that you cant understand that I have zero interest in discussing what Hussain Haqqani said. As far as the excessively ABF line You and I both know that simply because it's about Pakistan you guys have nominated this for deletion. Don't argue. There can be no argument. actually no, that is, to be blunt, horseshit. I nominated this article for speedy deletion because it was, contrary to Wikipedia policy, a recreation of an article deleted through AFD. The only thing that counts here is whether or not this article is substantially similar to the previously deleted article. You have filled this DRV with completely irrelevant noise, spurious accusations, and barely intelligible rambling. Please stop doing so. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy -
15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)reply
It's not about the truth, it's about notability. Besides, I think that you as an editor have to come to terms with the fact that your personal opinion (like what is superfluous and what is not) counts very little when PRESIDENTS and PRIME MINISTERS are implicating fait accompli. All the so called "problems" in that page are easily
surmountable.
Poorly written articles don't need to be deleted. They can be balanced/improved. Most articles start their journey with little conformity to the guidelines and policies but many emerge as Good/Featured articles because Wikipedia is a work in progress.
Of all this information, the most troubling concerns the duplicitous double dealing by Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. While some of the intelligence seems wildly implausible (surely the ISI did not plot to poison Kabul-bound beer, an enormously complex operation with limited pay off since US troops are not allowed to drink alcohol in Afghanistan), the WikiLeaks documents show a continued relationship between the ISI and the Taliban. This is not surprising. In the 1990s, the ISI helped create the Taliban and Pakistani support was decisive to the Taliban's capture of Kabul in 1996.
You guys seemed to be arguing that just because that article used the words "terrorist" and "ISI" together in a sentence, it must be deleted. You
may not like something, may even feel
offended by it, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should not write about it. As responsible editors of Wikipedia it is our duty to
preserve the notable and verifiable content at any cost. Why are you blurring this part. If there is a surmountable problem then fucking
fix the problem instead of shouting "delete!!!!!" And you should know as well as I do that
shouting things loudly does not make them true. Your highlighted comments below (which visually are quite disruptive or rather irritating to a person with a delicate pair of eyes like me) actually lend credence to my contentions. Minor tweaks (e.g. changes in phrases and inclusion of more references) were enough to retain that article.
And nableezy, trust me, you need to learn about what
WP:DRV actually is as soon as possible before you again start groping for random excuses to divert the attention from the core issues here (enough is enough).
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)09:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Only somebody who has nto paid any attention to what I have written would write You guys seemed to be arguing that just because that article used the words "terrorist" and "ISI" together in a sentence, it must be deleted. You
may not like something, may even feel
offended by it, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should not write about it. Pay attention this time, I dont care about India, I dont care about Pakistan, I dont care about the ISI, I dont care about Kashmir, I dont care about any of the things that you think are important. None of them. What matters here, and the only thing that matters here, is whether or not this recreated article is substantially similar to the previously deleted article. Thats it. Lecturing me on what the purpose of DRV is when you so clearly do not understand what that purpose is is cute but not all that well thought out. Got it? nableezy -
15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Even though I don't think my comments here have urged anybody to violate anything, I would politely ask you to use
common sense, wikipedia has no firm rules. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, I mean, this is one of the times when it is better to ignore a rule as opposed to
pettifoggery. Deleting notable topics is not going to help wikipedia.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)19:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is a total no-brainer, but I just want to ensure that everyone is clear that the article with "terrorism" in the title is certainly under the purview of the original discussion, and as such it will be deleted again once this review is concluded.
Basaliskinspect damage⁄
berate20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn. This is a complicated case. In the original discussion there were several arguments to delete, including that the title was not neutral, and that the article duplicated existing material. If the closing statement had specified that the article could be deleted even if the title were ignored, then the second article would be speedy-able per G4, but as the original discussion made no such distinction we can't use it. We can't assume that the result of the first discussion would have been the same if the title had been different. I suggest we restore the second article and then run another AfD to establish consensus on whether the actual content merits inclusion.
Basaliskinspect damage⁄
berate20:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn because
WP:CSD#G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and it is clear to me the pages are not substantially identical—in substance, they say different things. At the same time, I agree with the criticism Nableezy makes that the nomination is inaccurate in claiming the articles are "entirely different". However, because this is not the criterion for avoiding G4 speedies, I draw a different conclusion.
Thincat (
talk)
22:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn. At the very least, this article satisfactorily addresses the specific concern of title neutrality raised in the AFD, and its neutrality has been improved upon by various editors. The article therefore can be said to be substantially different so as to exclude G4 from applying. I must note that I am uncomfortable with Nableezy's sole edit to this article being a request for speedy nomination and that he has not expressed anywhere any outstanding neutrality concerns. Coming on the back of a
disagreement with Darkness Shines, this recent nomination of an article created in March by DS seems unduly combative. Ankh.Morpork15:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah, when you removed material repeatedly shown to be in the source that you hadnt read. That was recent, wasnt it? nableezy -
22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - to prove the rather obvious case here of game playing, just look at the sequence of events. On 21 March, the AFD for the
Inter-Services_Intelligence_support_for_terrorism is closed as
deleted. It's first paragraph at that point was
The Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI) agency has long used terrorists to conduct
Proxy wars against it's neighbors.[1][2] There has been increasing proof from counter terrorism organizations that militants and the Taliban continue to receive assistance from the ISI, as well as the establishment of camps to train terrorists on Pakistani territory.[3] All external operations are carried out under the supervision of the
S Wing of the ISI.[4] The agency is divided into Eight divisions.[5]Joint Intelligence/North(JIN) is responsible for conducting operations in
Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan.[6] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau(JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir.[6]
The
Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI) agency has long been accused of usingdesignated terrorist groups and
Militantsto conduct
Proxy wars against it's neighbors.[7][8][2] James Forest says there has been increasing proof from counter terrorism organizations that militants and the Taliban continue to receive assistance from the ISI, as well as the establishment of camps to train terrorists on Pakistani territory.[3] All external operations are carried out under the supervision of the
S Wing of the ISI.[4] The agency is divided into Eight divisions.[5]Joint Intelligence/North(JIN) is responsible for conducting operations in
Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan.[6] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau(JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir.[6] According to
Daniel Benjamin and
Steven Simon both former members of the
National Security Council the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalizing young men in the the Madrassas in Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into
Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks.[9]
Besides the added explicit attributions, there is exactly one sentence that is different between the two leads. But wait, there's more. The second paragraph of the support for terrorists article was, at the time of the AfD close, was in a section titled Support for terrorists. That one said:
The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.[10] The ISI have close ties to
Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[11] The ISI have also given aid to
Hizbul Mujahideen.[12] The ISI has a long history of supporting terrorist groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[13][14] The ISI also helped with the founding of the terrorist group
Jaish-e-Mohammed.[15] The ISI also founded
Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.[16]
The new articles second paragraph, in a section now titled Support for militants, said:
According to Stephen P. Cohen and John Wilson the ISI's aid to and creation of designated terrorist groups and religious extremist groups is well documented.[17][10] The ISI have been accused of having close ties to
Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[11] The ISI have also given aid to
Hizbul Mujahideen.[12] Terrorism expert Gus Martin has said the ISI has a long history of supporting designated terrorist groups and pro Independence groups operating in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[13][14] The ISI also helped with the founding of the group
Jaish-e-Mohammed.[15]
Again, a few attributions added, and one sentence difference. The "new" article removed the last two sections, something like 10 total sentences, and added two others, about five sentences in total. Thats the difference. Thats it. And, as a final point, if the author of both articles did not believe that they were substantially similar, could he please explain
this? Whose speedy nomination he also objected to on the grounds that it needed to go to RfD because it was now a redirect and so doesnt qualify for speedy deletion. This article has something like 6 sentences that are not essentially straight from the other article. This is a game being played to make people re-argue the same article, but with him shifting the burden from consensus needed for recreation to consensus needed for deletion. Yall want to let him go right ahead, but youre getting hoodwinked, and not very cleverly I might add. nableezy -
00:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. @Nableezy, do you realise that your argument adds strength to the feeling that speedy deletion was inappropriate and the deletion needs to be reviewed?
Thincat (
talk)
10:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
How pray tell does showing that nearly the entire article is copied from the previously deleted article showing that the speedy was inappropriate? There are a total of 6 sentences in the article that were not in the previous article. Even DS apparently thinks they are substantially similar, otherwise there would be an explanation for
this. In what world is the difference of 6 sentences enough to make it so the article is not substantially identical to the deleted version? nableezy -
15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse 95% of the new article is copied verbatim from the previous version which was deleted based on consensus. This is an attempt to float up a topic again which has previously been decided ineligible of having an article by the community. If anything, this game of re-arguing the same article is gaming the system. Mar4d (
talk)
10:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse the major portion of the content remains the same, as was in the old article. Even with the new additions, the
reason for deletion still applies to this article. So I see CSD#G4 pretty much applicable here besides I find that the closer of the AfD also stated that CSD#A10 applies to the older article, which again is applicable to the new article too. And I also find that the nominator didn't discuss the deletion with the deleting admin, which is a requisite for starting a deletion review. --
SMSTalk09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
^Kaplan, Eben; Jayshree Bajoria (July 9, 2008). "The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations". The Washington Post. Council on Foreign Relations.
^
abHussain, Zahid (2008). Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam. Columbia University Press. p. VII.
ISBN978-0231142250.
^
abForest, James J. F. (2007). Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century: International Perspectives. Praeger. p. 83.
ISBN978-0275990343.
^
abMcGrath, Kevin (2011). Confronting Al Qaeda: new strategies to combat terrorism. Naval Institute Press. p. 138.
ISBN978-1591145035.
^
abGrare, Frédéric (2009). Reforming the Intelligence Agencies in Pakistan’s Transitional Democracy. Carnegie Endowment. p. 15.
^
abcdCamp, Dick (2011). Boots on the Ground: The Fight to Liberate Afghanistan from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, 2001-2002. Zenith. p. 38.
ISBN978-0760341117.
^Bajoria, Jayshree; Eben Kaplan (May 4, 2011). "The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations". Council on Foreign Relations.
^Laruelle, Marlène (2011). Mapping Central Asia: Indian Perceptions and Strategies. Ashgate. p. 203.
ISBN978-1409409854. {{
cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
^Caldwell, Dan (2011). Seeking Security in an Insecure World (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 103–104.
ISBN978-1442208032. {{
cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
^
abWilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 80.
ISBN978-8129709981.
^
abGreen, M. Christian (2011). Religion and Human Rights. Chapter 21: Oxford University Press.
ISBN978-0-19-973345-3.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^
abSisk, Timothy D. (2008). International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets. Routledge. p. 172.
ISBN978-0415477055.
^
abMartin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. p. 189.
ISBN978-1412970594.
^
abPalmer, Monte (2007). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 196.
ISBN978-0742536036.
^
abWilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 84.
ISBN978-8129709981.
^Schmid, Alex (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 540.
ISBN978-0-415-41157-8.
^Cohen, Stephen P. (2011). The Future of Pakistan. Brookings Institution. p. 130.
ISBN978-0815721802.
Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants – As well as a notaballot tag we also need a not AFD mk2 tag as so much of the discussion, once the internecine (and may I say on occasions rather immature) bickering is ignored is an attempt to re-argue the original AFD. The undelete side argue that there are changes to the article although there seems to be no real disagreement that vast chunks of the article were simply taken from the original article that was deemed unsuitable for the project. This area of G4 is rather debatable and there is genuine disagreement on how close an article needs to be to the original to fall under G4. This tends to leave some wriggle room to the deleting admin to exercise discretion but at the same time the inclusion of additional sources usually protects a page against G4 even when there is even less added to the page than this. However, in this case, the endorsing side argue that notability wasn't the issue and challenge that the explicit NPOV and CFORK arguments given weight in the original AFD close have not been addressed. There was an argument that the previous AFD close did not have consensus but the policy is that if DRV does not overturn a deletion than that consensus is effective until another consensus overturns it. On that basis, I think the deleting admin was within policy to adjudge that NPOV and CFORK count towards G4 and the overturning side have not made a policy based argument that is strong enough to persuade me that the closing admin acted unreasonably in applying their discretion to delete. On that basis I find that the policy based argument is the one to endorse deletion. –
SpartazHumbug!13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article was speedily deleted under G4, however the deletion discussion used to get the article deleted was for an entirely different article. The fact of the matter is that the ISI has given support to and created terrorist groups. The sources used in the article were to academic publishers for the most part. But a quick google shows that this article meets all the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Council on Foreign Relations has an entire article devoted to the subject on their website
[1] The New York Times has a regularly updated section about it.
[2] The BBC
[3] The Wall Street Journal
[4] New York Times
[5] Reuters
[6] Dawn
[7] The Guardian
[8]Darkness Shines (
talk)
17:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
And of course Pakistani president Asif Zardari admitted it.
[9]
Endorse, it boggles the mind that somebody could argue that the deletion discussion referenced was an entirely different article. Comparing the opening paragraphs of the two articles should quickly lay to rest that fantasy. This article was deleted by AFD, the deletion was upheld at DRV, and was then recreated. nableezy -
19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn the deletion since the topic is notable enough. And I also think the article has (it might not seem a lot though) improved since the last AFD discussion. The topic is notable and is itself a POV but as long as that
pov is presented neutrally it should not be a problem.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)19:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
That doesnt address the reason for deletion. Or that articles that had been deleted through a deletion discussion and subsequently recreated can be speedily deleted. DRV is not AFD. nableezy -
19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
No, you're wrong. It does address the reason for deletion. The article was deleted with the assertion that it's non-neutral, to which I say arguments based on
non-neutral article names are not even grounds for the deletion of an article. You may simply move the article to a neutral title should you be able to prove that it's not neutral.
Besides,
WP:POVNAMING says “While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.”
WP:CONTENTFORK says “Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally”. In addition to the admissions by Ex-Presidents of Pakistan, ″the senior Taliban leaders meet regularly with ISI personnel, who advise on strategy and relay any pertinent concerns of the government of Pakistan.″ (says Guardian.co.uk) and "A secret Nato report seen by the BBC suggests the Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly helped by the Pakistani security service (ISI). [...]ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. The Haqqani family, for example, resides immediately west of the ISI office at the airfield in Miram Shah, Pakistan." (says
BBC-article) There is no policy that prohibits an editor from creating and maintaining an article about such a notable topic. In short the article should not have been deleted it should have been improved. AFD is not clean-up.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)11:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Multiple noes. This article was deleted because it was a recreation of an article deleted at AfD. This is not AfD round 3, much like the first DRV was not AfD round 2. Everything that you have written is completely and totally irrelevant. nableezy -
15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)reply
DRV is a process to review the previous deletions. Don't obfuscate it. All these deletions were result of tendentious editing by a specific group of editors (most of whom I have interacted with multiple times and felt the cogent vibe). You don't have to muddy water now.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)13:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)reply
All these deletions were result of tendentious editing by a specific group of editors. Uhh, no. The first deletion was due to a AFD which an admin closed as delete. That deletion was reviewed and endorsed. This most recent deletion was due to that article being re-created in violation of our policies. That decision, whether or not the recreated is substantially similar to the deleted article, is the only thing to be reviewed here. Not whether or not your feelings on the vibe of other users. But thanks for sharing. Really. nableezy -
15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, my friend. The nominations were result of what I said they were. And where does it say that "if an article is deleted once and then somehow gets a no-consensus(without due coverage and thereby favouring the deletion by default) close in the ensuing DRV, then it must not be created again no matter how many editors feel otherwise"?
Besides, that DRV was fucking 8 months ago and closed as no-consensus. Please mention these in future when you use them as primary rationale for endorsing deletion. Also, the old way of thinking may not always be correct; this is where your rationale fails to gain my trust. Don't argue. Just don't argue. You and I both know that simply because it's about Pakistan you guys have nominated this for deletion. Don't argue. There can be no argument.
TWO, not one but two, PRESIDENTS OF PAKISTAN have explicitly admitted that ISI helped militants to enforce their terror-backed coercion on countries (that Pakistan sees as enemies),
numerous reliable sources (i.e. leaked US-military report, Nato-report) state that ISI is indeed backing the taliban and that Taliban members regularly meet with ISI.
Pakistan ambassador to US Husain Haqqani said, Osama Bin laden indeed had a "support network".
United state president, Barack Obama as well as the Prime minister of Britain, David Cameron have earlier cogently implied that Pakistani high-ranking officers knew where Osama Bin Laden was and intentionally kept it (not "him", Osama was a pest) safely hidden. One must understand that when an incumbent President of USA and Prime Minister of UK make substantial claims like that which may have international ramification, they are actually being courteous or polite and/or even secretive.
Use common sense. They are not allowed to make whimsical or unfounded assertions.
In short, this subject merits an article as strongly as anything else on Wikipedia. And you guys won't let be here with all sorts of useless chicaneries just because it rubs your sentiments.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)09:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I cant seriously believe that after repeated attempts to explain to you what DRV is and why this isnt the place to discuss whether or not Pakistan really really really really really is all these bad things that you cant understand that I have zero interest in discussing what Hussain Haqqani said. As far as the excessively ABF line You and I both know that simply because it's about Pakistan you guys have nominated this for deletion. Don't argue. There can be no argument. actually no, that is, to be blunt, horseshit. I nominated this article for speedy deletion because it was, contrary to Wikipedia policy, a recreation of an article deleted through AFD. The only thing that counts here is whether or not this article is substantially similar to the previously deleted article. You have filled this DRV with completely irrelevant noise, spurious accusations, and barely intelligible rambling. Please stop doing so. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy -
15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)reply
It's not about the truth, it's about notability. Besides, I think that you as an editor have to come to terms with the fact that your personal opinion (like what is superfluous and what is not) counts very little when PRESIDENTS and PRIME MINISTERS are implicating fait accompli. All the so called "problems" in that page are easily
surmountable.
Poorly written articles don't need to be deleted. They can be balanced/improved. Most articles start their journey with little conformity to the guidelines and policies but many emerge as Good/Featured articles because Wikipedia is a work in progress.
Of all this information, the most troubling concerns the duplicitous double dealing by Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. While some of the intelligence seems wildly implausible (surely the ISI did not plot to poison Kabul-bound beer, an enormously complex operation with limited pay off since US troops are not allowed to drink alcohol in Afghanistan), the WikiLeaks documents show a continued relationship between the ISI and the Taliban. This is not surprising. In the 1990s, the ISI helped create the Taliban and Pakistani support was decisive to the Taliban's capture of Kabul in 1996.
You guys seemed to be arguing that just because that article used the words "terrorist" and "ISI" together in a sentence, it must be deleted. You
may not like something, may even feel
offended by it, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should not write about it. As responsible editors of Wikipedia it is our duty to
preserve the notable and verifiable content at any cost. Why are you blurring this part. If there is a surmountable problem then fucking
fix the problem instead of shouting "delete!!!!!" And you should know as well as I do that
shouting things loudly does not make them true. Your highlighted comments below (which visually are quite disruptive or rather irritating to a person with a delicate pair of eyes like me) actually lend credence to my contentions. Minor tweaks (e.g. changes in phrases and inclusion of more references) were enough to retain that article.
And nableezy, trust me, you need to learn about what
WP:DRV actually is as soon as possible before you again start groping for random excuses to divert the attention from the core issues here (enough is enough).
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)09:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Only somebody who has nto paid any attention to what I have written would write You guys seemed to be arguing that just because that article used the words "terrorist" and "ISI" together in a sentence, it must be deleted. You
may not like something, may even feel
offended by it, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should not write about it. Pay attention this time, I dont care about India, I dont care about Pakistan, I dont care about the ISI, I dont care about Kashmir, I dont care about any of the things that you think are important. None of them. What matters here, and the only thing that matters here, is whether or not this recreated article is substantially similar to the previously deleted article. Thats it. Lecturing me on what the purpose of DRV is when you so clearly do not understand what that purpose is is cute but not all that well thought out. Got it? nableezy -
15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Even though I don't think my comments here have urged anybody to violate anything, I would politely ask you to use
common sense, wikipedia has no firm rules. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, I mean, this is one of the times when it is better to ignore a rule as opposed to
pettifoggery. Deleting notable topics is not going to help wikipedia.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)19:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is a total no-brainer, but I just want to ensure that everyone is clear that the article with "terrorism" in the title is certainly under the purview of the original discussion, and as such it will be deleted again once this review is concluded.
Basaliskinspect damage⁄
berate20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn. This is a complicated case. In the original discussion there were several arguments to delete, including that the title was not neutral, and that the article duplicated existing material. If the closing statement had specified that the article could be deleted even if the title were ignored, then the second article would be speedy-able per G4, but as the original discussion made no such distinction we can't use it. We can't assume that the result of the first discussion would have been the same if the title had been different. I suggest we restore the second article and then run another AfD to establish consensus on whether the actual content merits inclusion.
Basaliskinspect damage⁄
berate20:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn because
WP:CSD#G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and it is clear to me the pages are not substantially identical—in substance, they say different things. At the same time, I agree with the criticism Nableezy makes that the nomination is inaccurate in claiming the articles are "entirely different". However, because this is not the criterion for avoiding G4 speedies, I draw a different conclusion.
Thincat (
talk)
22:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn. At the very least, this article satisfactorily addresses the specific concern of title neutrality raised in the AFD, and its neutrality has been improved upon by various editors. The article therefore can be said to be substantially different so as to exclude G4 from applying. I must note that I am uncomfortable with Nableezy's sole edit to this article being a request for speedy nomination and that he has not expressed anywhere any outstanding neutrality concerns. Coming on the back of a
disagreement with Darkness Shines, this recent nomination of an article created in March by DS seems unduly combative. Ankh.Morpork15:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah, when you removed material repeatedly shown to be in the source that you hadnt read. That was recent, wasnt it? nableezy -
22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - to prove the rather obvious case here of game playing, just look at the sequence of events. On 21 March, the AFD for the
Inter-Services_Intelligence_support_for_terrorism is closed as
deleted. It's first paragraph at that point was
The Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI) agency has long used terrorists to conduct
Proxy wars against it's neighbors.[1][2] There has been increasing proof from counter terrorism organizations that militants and the Taliban continue to receive assistance from the ISI, as well as the establishment of camps to train terrorists on Pakistani territory.[3] All external operations are carried out under the supervision of the
S Wing of the ISI.[4] The agency is divided into Eight divisions.[5]Joint Intelligence/North(JIN) is responsible for conducting operations in
Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan.[6] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau(JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir.[6]
The
Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI) agency has long been accused of usingdesignated terrorist groups and
Militantsto conduct
Proxy wars against it's neighbors.[7][8][2] James Forest says there has been increasing proof from counter terrorism organizations that militants and the Taliban continue to receive assistance from the ISI, as well as the establishment of camps to train terrorists on Pakistani territory.[3] All external operations are carried out under the supervision of the
S Wing of the ISI.[4] The agency is divided into Eight divisions.[5]Joint Intelligence/North(JIN) is responsible for conducting operations in
Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan.[6] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau(JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir.[6] According to
Daniel Benjamin and
Steven Simon both former members of the
National Security Council the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalizing young men in the the Madrassas in Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into
Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks.[9]
Besides the added explicit attributions, there is exactly one sentence that is different between the two leads. But wait, there's more. The second paragraph of the support for terrorists article was, at the time of the AfD close, was in a section titled Support for terrorists. That one said:
The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.[10] The ISI have close ties to
Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[11] The ISI have also given aid to
Hizbul Mujahideen.[12] The ISI has a long history of supporting terrorist groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[13][14] The ISI also helped with the founding of the terrorist group
Jaish-e-Mohammed.[15] The ISI also founded
Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.[16]
The new articles second paragraph, in a section now titled Support for militants, said:
According to Stephen P. Cohen and John Wilson the ISI's aid to and creation of designated terrorist groups and religious extremist groups is well documented.[17][10] The ISI have been accused of having close ties to
Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[11] The ISI have also given aid to
Hizbul Mujahideen.[12] Terrorism expert Gus Martin has said the ISI has a long history of supporting designated terrorist groups and pro Independence groups operating in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[13][14] The ISI also helped with the founding of the group
Jaish-e-Mohammed.[15]
Again, a few attributions added, and one sentence difference. The "new" article removed the last two sections, something like 10 total sentences, and added two others, about five sentences in total. Thats the difference. Thats it. And, as a final point, if the author of both articles did not believe that they were substantially similar, could he please explain
this? Whose speedy nomination he also objected to on the grounds that it needed to go to RfD because it was now a redirect and so doesnt qualify for speedy deletion. This article has something like 6 sentences that are not essentially straight from the other article. This is a game being played to make people re-argue the same article, but with him shifting the burden from consensus needed for recreation to consensus needed for deletion. Yall want to let him go right ahead, but youre getting hoodwinked, and not very cleverly I might add. nableezy -
00:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. @Nableezy, do you realise that your argument adds strength to the feeling that speedy deletion was inappropriate and the deletion needs to be reviewed?
Thincat (
talk)
10:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
How pray tell does showing that nearly the entire article is copied from the previously deleted article showing that the speedy was inappropriate? There are a total of 6 sentences in the article that were not in the previous article. Even DS apparently thinks they are substantially similar, otherwise there would be an explanation for
this. In what world is the difference of 6 sentences enough to make it so the article is not substantially identical to the deleted version? nableezy -
15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse 95% of the new article is copied verbatim from the previous version which was deleted based on consensus. This is an attempt to float up a topic again which has previously been decided ineligible of having an article by the community. If anything, this game of re-arguing the same article is gaming the system. Mar4d (
talk)
10:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse the major portion of the content remains the same, as was in the old article. Even with the new additions, the
reason for deletion still applies to this article. So I see CSD#G4 pretty much applicable here besides I find that the closer of the AfD also stated that CSD#A10 applies to the older article, which again is applicable to the new article too. And I also find that the nominator didn't discuss the deletion with the deleting admin, which is a requisite for starting a deletion review. --
SMSTalk09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
^Kaplan, Eben; Jayshree Bajoria (July 9, 2008). "The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations". The Washington Post. Council on Foreign Relations.
^
abHussain, Zahid (2008). Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam. Columbia University Press. p. VII.
ISBN978-0231142250.
^
abForest, James J. F. (2007). Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century: International Perspectives. Praeger. p. 83.
ISBN978-0275990343.
^
abMcGrath, Kevin (2011). Confronting Al Qaeda: new strategies to combat terrorism. Naval Institute Press. p. 138.
ISBN978-1591145035.
^
abGrare, Frédéric (2009). Reforming the Intelligence Agencies in Pakistan’s Transitional Democracy. Carnegie Endowment. p. 15.
^
abcdCamp, Dick (2011). Boots on the Ground: The Fight to Liberate Afghanistan from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, 2001-2002. Zenith. p. 38.
ISBN978-0760341117.
^Bajoria, Jayshree; Eben Kaplan (May 4, 2011). "The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations". Council on Foreign Relations.
^Laruelle, Marlène (2011). Mapping Central Asia: Indian Perceptions and Strategies. Ashgate. p. 203.
ISBN978-1409409854. {{
cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
^Caldwell, Dan (2011). Seeking Security in an Insecure World (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 103–104.
ISBN978-1442208032. {{
cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
^
abWilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 80.
ISBN978-8129709981.
^
abGreen, M. Christian (2011). Religion and Human Rights. Chapter 21: Oxford University Press.
ISBN978-0-19-973345-3.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^
abSisk, Timothy D. (2008). International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets. Routledge. p. 172.
ISBN978-0415477055.
^
abMartin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. p. 189.
ISBN978-1412970594.
^
abPalmer, Monte (2007). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 196.
ISBN978-0742536036.
^
abWilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 84.
ISBN978-8129709981.
^Schmid, Alex (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 540.
ISBN978-0-415-41157-8.
^Cohen, Stephen P. (2011). The Future of Pakistan. Brookings Institution. p. 130.
ISBN978-0815721802.
