Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Biased editors not READING facts

Instead of beating it in the comment space I welcome all talk here. The intro words for the paragraph were composed based on a couple of Pakistani authors who were less biased than anon editor is. Also I dont see why all intro articles should be cut and copies from an existing one. The original intro for this article was just used as a placeholder. The current one talks both on diversity and the real underlying issues backed with statistics. The presentation for each articles differs considerably because two nations are not essentially the same. In Terrorism in India, the format is to present it on a state basis whereas in Pakistan the ground reality is different (which someone not in subcontinent wouldn't know). Thus the way the article develops too is different. People can't be like horses with blinders. If anon user does revert this again, I'll have to go for arbitration where his brand of POV without any backed up sources will be cut short.

Note to anon:Please READ the sources before jumping up and down. Your comments too showed that even after me changing the words to "state sponsored terrorism" from "state terrorism" you were still crying in your comments calling others as kids. Don't ignore the log in your eye before pointing the speck in others' eyes. Idleguy 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, it was written by one guy, me, and I'm not Pakistani. I copied the basic format for Terrorism in India because I thought it was appropriate. I think we should keep the basic layout with the sections based on geographic location since the article is specific to terrorism of the specific country. This endless reverting has got to stop. Please settle your dispute on the talkpage. freestylefrappe 21:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Time and time again, Idleguy's limited ability to understand the simplest of reasons and the simplest of wikipedia policy has proved that he is interested only to put anti-Pakistan bias into every article possible. What's even funnier are his threats for arbitration, which I see as a futile attempt to get back at me for my initial warning that I will request arbitration if he continues to revert edits, which he has done several times more than me and without any compromise. A simple read of the edit history over the past few days will prove this. Here are several actions he has undertaken within the last few days that prove his ability to act neutral is non-existent:

• calling all separatist movements "terrorists"

• giving an Indian source with only 3 lines worth of material and then expecting us to keep this statement: "however some statements made by Kashmiri militants showed the involvement of Pakistan in establishing terror camps." I compromised and still kept his statement despite the poor quality of his source and changed the statement into a more NPOV version: "Some Indian sources claim that statements made by Kashmiri militants indicated involvement of Pakistan in establishing "terror camps"." Even after my compromise, he reverted.

• later when he gave a better source for the above quote, he still wanted to keep the phrase that "however some statements made by Kashmiri militants showed the involvement of Pakistan in establishing terror camps." whereas I proposed a new sentence saying that "However, recent statements have surfaced which accuse the Pakistani information minister of having supported the separatists in the conflict in the early stages of the war." This was precise and also according to what the source he provided said. It only accused the Pakistan INFORMATION minister of supporting separatist groups when he was young. Idleguy reverted and assumed that one individuals actions should be applied to the whole nation!

• He also changed the introduction drastically and into a very POV version and then kept reverting when I asked for a reason. The introduction he created attempted to hint that the Bangladesh Liberation war and the Bulochistan tribal conflict was a reason for terrorism and "90% of all reported terrorist activities worldwide were located in Pakistan", which is ridiculous from even an Indian perspective. He did not give a page number for his "source" and it is very likely that he made it up.

• He also wanted to put "Alleged State Terrorism" as a heading for Pakistan's alleged support of the Kashmiri separatist movements and support for various Anti-Soviet groups during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I repeatedly asked him to learn that monetary support to outside non-governmental organizations is NOT state terrorism. Later "alleged" was added to this, but he still kept reverting the intro with his edits and WITHOUT any discussion. I proposed that we "leave the article like this (the way that is closer to how it was originally) and you discuss what you want to add on the talk page. Then we can review your "sources".)" NO DISCUSSION WAS MADE BY IDLEGUY, BUT OFCOURSE HE REVERTED AS USUAL. This came as no surprise to me and it became clear that he was just here to argue and push Indian pov. He said "r u obsessed with maintaining the same intro para across all nations? are you afraid of the truth? a person who rubbishes sources should be rubbished.)"

Idleguy, isn't only like this on this article, but also other articles where he sees India as a "magnificent rich cultured country that never harmed anyone in it's history" and Pakistan as the "evil occupiers who kill Indians". He sees kashmiri separatists as "terrorists" and claims that they are "Indians" only when they are not resisting the Indian occupation. He prefers blaming the victims for all the deaths. Unfortunately his POV has drifted over to this article too. Hopefully he will now read wikipedia policy, admit his mistakes and start improving the article in a constructive way. I am glad to see that a couple of new editors are also editing the article now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Shows that you still want me to spoonfeed you in asking the exact lines where Hasan Abbas quotes that line. Well, I've got some info for you anon and you'll probably eat your own words for "it is very likely that he made it up." on the 90% figure. It's in page 112 of the book but i'd expected that ppl who use these would automatically search on amazon or Google Print but I guess that's a habit only those who READ books would know.

As I see it Anon editor is one of the most biased POV pushers I've seen where he deletes statements outright, and against Wikipedia norms marks them as "minor" and constantly accuses others of bias. He also fails to add any sources himself and expects others to follow his rules else everyone is accused. He also fails to differentiat a news article that would anyhow be the same be it Indian or Pakistani from a editorial or opinions. While he eagarly chides others for indulging in personal attacks he uses subtle statements like "limited ability" and assumes ppl would not get wind of his negative dig.

His accusation that somewhere I've included "magnificent rich cultured country that never harmed anyone in it's history" & "evil occupiers who kill Indians" (as his quotes suggests) should either be proved or should be taken back with an apology since I was the one who created sections in Terrorism in India as well as in other articles that don't boast of India. au contraire, his obsession with pakistan/islamic topics is now beginning to show that despite a lack of ground knowledge he presumes to know all. I think he's still smarting from his failed attempt to somehow mask facts in Kargil War and his opinions were formed then.

He is not even interested in improving any article and taking it forward and uses that "state terrorism" edit as his only straw. If he was really about improving the article he should have atleast changed those words and discussed issues here. Until i started a talk page here, it seems he wouldn't even thrash out the differences. It is the same story across almost all articles where he is either afraid of facing the truth in the talk page or simply like to revert. Even after providing neutral sources for his arguments and making changes to neutralise POV comments in Terrorism in Kashmir he just "feels" it has an Indian bias without providing any more of biased lines to correct. Shows that one is interested in moving things forward while other wants status quo.

His accusations of my being POV and mine similarly on him would go nowhere but atleast I always (mostly) quote mine while he refuses to first read them as he feels that fellow muslims don't kill blah blah. then he demands that i babysit and read the exact lines out to him. then the grudgingly accepts, but not before a scene and accuses that just because there's been some edit wars that the instigator is always wrong. Open up your mind and READ anon. Idleguy 04:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Anyone who reverts the restoration I did on October 30, 2005 will be blocked for 24 hours. I'm tired of the vandalism and undiscussed reverts. I took the time to restore the info-you can take the time to growup. freestylefrappe 23:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Pakistan

This article is not based on facts. There is a need to balance this article.

Here is an example:

"Religious fundamentalism has also believed to have played some role in contributing to the rise of terrorist activity. The 7 July 2005 London bombings was carried out by people who are believed to have visited a Pakistani madrassa at some time in their life"

These terrorists were born and bread in UK. They might have visited Pakistan for few months. But, was it going to change their thinking altogether? What is the percentage of few months say in 28 years?

Are you accusing Pakistan for training these terrorists?

Maakhter 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh duh, they were extremist from the start, but terrorists only when they got training.