Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan - Wikipedia

Hello,

I reverted this diff due to a large claim with only one source. I'm not sure that the source is reliable but I feel like this change in the wording violates both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, possibly WP:RS. Thoughts on this edit?

-- Dane2007 ^talk 06:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

So for some reason, an edit to the article to depict the conditions as in 2017 was reverted because the cited references of compiled data of terror incidents in 2017 did not satisfy one editor who said "We need more conclusive evidence on that before you remove content. discuss on talk page". So what kind of more conclusive data do we need other than the compiled data itself? I mean the stats do speak for themselves. Just to be clear, the edit was not about long term impacts of the recent operations by the Pakistani military(Other than the reversion of the word has from had, which I am okay with), it was about the immediate impact which is visible beyond a doubt in a sharp decline in terror attacks, number of fatalities etc. What does pass for being more "Conclusive" than this?

Hi, your change was in two parts. First part, you claimed that terrorism "had" from "has" which indicates that terrorism is no longer an issue in Pakistan. Also in this sentence you attributed this to Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Second, you added a sentence which stated numbers correctly(per your source) but did not specify that it was still October and said it was in striking contrast to earlier years. There are issues with both these additions. The very first one is WP:OR that you are arriving on a conclusion which is not stated in your sources. Please provide a source which states what you have stated and attributes the reduction in terrorism(if any) to the a specific Operation. Second, although the numbers are correct you should mention that it is only till October and not use the words stark contrast. That can mean different things for different people and you need to be careful of Wikipedia:Peacock. One should clearly state the numbers with the caveats and not add more information then what is not provided by the provided source. Lastly, I would hold off on the 2017 numbers since the year is not over yet. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Snowded, I propose:-

On July 2, 2013 in Lahore, 50 Muslim scholars of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) issued a collective fatwa against suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people, bomb attacks, and targeted killings declaring them as Haraam or forbidden.^[1] Others have also issued fatwas declaring that terrorism is kufr under Islamic law.^[2][3][4]

-Karumari (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Where do you want to insert it?-----Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anywhere you deem fit. I propose we create a sub-section titled, "Religious opinion" and put it under that!-Karumari (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Its not worth a section and I'm not here to do your job for you -----Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Captainllama, Ammarpad, Acad Ronin, and JamesBWatson:, Snowded has been reverting this insertion of mine that you can see above, repeatedly. He asked me to propose what I want to do, but has now said that he is not here to do my job for me. Please tell me how we can insert what I have proposed above into this article, according to the rules, so that nobody feels like reverting it. Thanks!—Karumari (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Karumari, your problem is that you want everything your own way without listening to helpful advice. Snowded has given you reasonable advice and reverted you for good reasons. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 08:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm also loosing patience - if this carries on I'll propose a topic ban or similar at ANI -----Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The sentences above have been incorporated into three other articles, if you don't want me to have these sentences here, at least let me create a link like the first sentence here.—Karumari (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Specify the edit you want to make, simply inserting a look up reference doesn't make sense -----Snowded ^TALK 05:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that the sentences above and their references should be incorporated or a link like this should: Fatwas have been issued declaring terrorism as Haraam or forbidden. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Make a specific proposal as to the text and its exact location - stop setting tasks for other editors -----Snowded ^TALK 11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that the sentences above and their references should be incorporated or a link like this should: Fatwas have been issued declaring terrorism as Haraam or forbidden. It can be at the beginning of the, "War on terrorism" section or under a sub-section that we create, titled, "Religious opinions" at the bottom of that section. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

A sub-section is way over the top for this and you can't have a plural title for a single quote. Inserting it the beginning provides no context. The whole paragraph is problematic so I have removed all incited material. If you can find reliable sources for the assertion that religious extremism is a cause (that shouldn't be difficult) then a phrase such as "However this has been condemned by ...." with the reference would make sense; but only then. Seeking out articles to insert text that you favour is generally a bad policy. You might be better editing some articles in which you are less personally engaged to learn your trade here -----Snowded ^TALK 05:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wish you had not removed that material. Anyway, I shall try to find and cite references and re-insert that. Can I insert this at least, "However this has been condemned by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) of Pakistan which has issued a collective fatwa against suicide bombings, the killing of innocent people, bomb attacks, and targeted killings declaring them as Haraam or forbidden. Others have also issued fatwas declaring that terrorism is kufr under Islamic law." and cite the above references at the end of the, "War on terrorism section"?-Karumari (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I could find this online, "The US has conveyed to Pakistan that it wants Islamabad to cooperate fully in the war against terrorism as it is a matter of "extraordinary importance" to America, President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton has said.

During his visit to Islamabad last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had pressed the new Pakistani government led by Prime Minister Imran Khan "to do more" to rein in terror groups operating from the country's soil. The Trump administration has recently cancelled USD 300 million in military aid to Islamabad after it failed to take actions against terror groups. It was done knowing well that Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, and the risk that the government could fall into the hands of terrorists that would get control of those nuclear weapons was particularly serious," Bolton said. Early this year, Trump had ordered suspension of all military aid to Pakistan arguing that it has failed to take satisfactory actions against terrorist groups." from here.—Karumari (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here and here, more of the same can be seen. Can we incorporate this stuff into this article?-Karumari (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This cites some of what we have here already in the lead. Can we cite it here as a reference?-Karumari (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Material not supported by third party reliable sources gets deleted. You can't use Trump's political statements to support a factual statement about the Pakistani government. Please STOP just randomly putting material up and saying "can we incorporate this"make specific proposals - you might want to use a sandbox on your talk page to try things out and I'll happily comment there. But the talk page of a serious article is not a training ground for new editors. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please add that "Pakistan faces joining FATF's 'Dark Grey' list". This is according to the latest news which can be found online! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2819:6296::1 (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please provide a reliable source that directly supports your proposed addition. Afterwards, write an encyclopedic sentence that should be added to the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree:This can be cited as a reference: https://www.m.timesofindia.com/world/pakistan/pakistan-isolated-by-all-countries-in-fatf-on-verge-of-being-in-dark-grey-list/amp_articleshow/71586863.cms

The sentence may be, "Pakistan is on the verge of strong action by the international terror financing watchdog Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the country may be put in the 'Dark Grey' list, the last warning to improve". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2819:6296:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The is no official statement stating that it is in 'Dark Grey' list. Official announcement could come on 18 October. Your source could not confirm. Request you to wait till the official announcement comes. Brown Chocolate (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply