Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Overhaul

I am gonna do a major overhaul of this page.

But I haven't had the time to devote to this page. Currently sprucing up and finishing up the Pakistan Army Page. The Military page is almost done, just need a couple of more pictures and thats it. History of the Pakistan Army is almost done as well just need some info on their UN duties and some pics. Then on to the ISI

"Responsible for terrorism in Pakistan"

I reverted Siddiqui's addition of the parenthetical clause "which is responsible for terrorism in Pakistan". What does this mean? If it means that RAW has performed or financed terrorist acts in Pakistan, then you must be more specific, and more importantly you must cite a source. Thanks. Babajobu 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) i m yasir ali so please i don't knowledge.

Evidence obviously is very clear from the article. ISI has a history of terrorism. It has used innocent people specially Muslims all around the world for it on disgusting acts and benefits. ISI has a only one vested interests which is to look after the benefit of few army personals and fill their pockets with wealth. ISI has used innocent people from Pakistan and trained them in name of Islam and made them Talibans. Later on just for its own interest ISI turned her back rather provided full military support to kill them. I don’t mean to say that Tiliban were right but why create them in the first place. What other proof do you need. This just one example. History of ISI is full of corruption and terrorism not only with othe nations around the world but also with its own innocent people and in the name of religion. 7/7 bombing, 9/11, killing of prominent politicians in Pakistan (Bhutto family) etc. The list is endless. You name it. They are bunch of corrupt inhuman people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasee70 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stranglehold

It seems that Indian users of wikipedia have a stranglehold on anything Pakistan related on wikipedia.

I guess I am the one who has to shoulder the burden of stopping this anti-pakistan campaign on wikipedia

I am almost done with edits on the Military of Pakistan, Pakistan Army and the History of the Pakistan Army pages.

Just need to add some references, notes, pictures and these articles are done.

Before I came along, all of these articles had some sort of "Controversy" type paragraphs attached to them.

Once the Navy, Air Force is done.

I am gonna fix up this page.

Mercenary2k 7:11 AM, 6 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

u r not an administrator, and you are from pakistan then tell me how are you going to be neutral??

220.227.152.109 10:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to fix up this page and give a neutral perspective. For example, Operation Ajax in 1953 was deemed a success in CIA and M16 but in essence it installed a dictator in Iran. So it was good for USA and UK but bad for Iran. So to present this in a neutral way, you talk about how it was beneficial for USA and UK and what strategic aims they achieved while in the same time you address what happened to Iran. Thats how. If you don't know how to do this, then I suggest you don't contribute here.

Mercenary2k March 7, 2006 19:l2 PM

Thats not a very kind way of talking to an anon. Please don't bite the newbies.-xC- 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

British support for the ISI

A statement was released by Ministry of Defence showing full support for Pakistan's intelligence services [1]. Napoleon12 October 07, 2006 12:34 PM

Indian accusations against ISI go COLD

A lack of evidence presented on the table by India has created scepticism against their accusations. Especially, looking at Mumbai police's track record [2]. Napoleon12 October 07, 2006 12:34 PM

STOP THIS VANDALISM

There is no concrete proof that ISI supports terrorism. These are just biased accusations to hurt Pakistani interests. Also, referencing from articles fill with personal assumptions is not going to cut it. Thus, I shall continue editing this article to keep it a high quality informative piece about one of the most lethal intelligence forces in the world. Napoleon12 October 08, 2006 1:13 PM

Your statement above contradicts the nature of Wikipedia. Might I ask you to read the five pillars of wikipedia? Wikipedia is not based on personal knowledge but on verifiablle sources. Wikipedia is not a source of truth but a distillation of information from verifiable sources. There is no requirement for concrete proof in wikipedia, only that the information be in reliable sources like major news organizations. --- Skapur 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not much to say accept, I will continue editing this article to expose the truth. Because, the people want the truth and not biased assusations. Napoleon12 October 08, 2006 1:35 PM

If you claim that ISI has no contacts with terror outfits, then provide a source on it. India and UK have in the past caught several terrorists who have claimed to be closely working with ISI. ISI cannot prove its innocence by refuting these claims. Anyways, major powers like India and UK raising a finger on the integrity of ISI, is an important issue and worth mentioning. Also, how do you plan to expose the truth? --Incman|वार्ता 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the sensationalist nature of today's news, a news organization is no longer a reliable source. This article is littered with various accusations by the ISI's enemies. Accusatiosn dont belong in this article. It is about the ISI.

What do you mean? The allegations against ISI were made by the Indian and UK governments. What do news agencies have to do with it? Also, the article discusses accusations against ISI and that does belong to this article. --Incman|वार्ता 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: The Indian government is an enemy of Pakistan and its routine allegations are not something to be taken seriously. The British govt has not made any allegation at all against the ISI. Its only trickster media like BBC Newsnight who fudged a document to claim the British govt suspects ISI.

I'm afraid that you cannot simply discount "sensationalist" media in favour of your own opinions. The media have always been sensationalist; that's what sells papers. What is different in modern times is that we've seen media that aren't totally sensationalist, and then assume that, somehow, the sensationalism was the more recent addition, not the ever-present flow. As a major power-player in Pakistan, which is a power in the region which a serious modern history of military coups, the ISI or its members would be odd had they not been involved in such things. Mossad in Israel is famed and feared, and might (for all I know) have had some shady dealings within Israel's democratic processes. I don't think they have much, but I guarantee that the BBC, NBC and Reuters will know more than I do.

PS Using capital letters in a title is very poor form and a good indicator of the quality of the following work.Wee Jimmy (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Media Portrayal

Does pakistani movies portray ISI in their movies??. Also anybody remember hollywood movies portraying ISI??

i added a few movies which i knew of protrayed the ISI. if you guys know of any more, please add Mercenary2k 07:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

India admits that charges against ISI not clinching

Dawn article [3] Napoleon12 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ISI successfully infiltrates the Armed forces of India

BBC article 1 [4] BBC article 2 [5] Times of India [6] Napoleon12 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Drugs

I came across this in a book titled The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson which documents all events related to the war on terror.
"Nov. 29, 1999: UN Says ISI Makes Billions from Drugs"
"The United Nations Drug Control Programme determines that the ISI makes around $2.5 billion annually from the sale of illegal drugs. [Times of India, 11/29/99]" (pg. 247).
There are a lot more interesting links between the ISI, drugs, and 9/11 documented in this book from reputable news sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.16.43 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
^that was me (just in case)Itoldalthea 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm there probably are links between ISI and drugs, as financing is required for major operations. Same goes for many other intelligence agencies. There are no links between ISI and 9/11.

---

I am sorry but that's all i can see from indian sources which always bash pakistan so that will not do.The indian media has a history of creating fictional romours about "Pakistan this..." "Pakistan that.." So if you cannot find a more reliable source,it simply cannot go there.-Vmrgrsergr 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

REALITY:

The reality is that you can not blame our secret intelligence agency without any solid proofs.no one knows what actually is going on.but the fact remains , that it is this agency that is making sure there is nothing wrong being done or is being planned which is ofcourse not in the better interest of pakistan.as far as the funding for the operations is concerned,it is the ultimate responsibility of the state which is fulfiling it as when required in a fine manner.isi is not a corrupt organization.it has never been involved in heinous fund raising as described by some of our freind(enemy to be precise).you better mend your theories which are entirely based upon fabricated stuff.

ISI

Every newspaper in Pakistan and the current Supreme Court hearings have all stated that the ISI is more involved in politics and terrorizing Pakistanis than gathering intelligence against Pakistans enemies. According to Pakistan papers ISI has bugged the judges of the Supreme Court and kidnapped anyone who stands up to the Pakistan Army, so obviously there is a lot of documentation about the so called un-intelligent agencies

trueblood 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

all of that is already mentioned in the Controversy section Mercenary2k 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ISI headquarters

ISI headquarters is next to the CDA office not next to Paksitan Parliment. Additionally the head quarters is a non desript buildings compound which is surrounded by high walls and always has army guards posted. It is not a white building like the one shown

trueblood 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

REALITY (Mr.TRUE BLOOD)

This country is running despite of so many hardships only due to secret info collected by isi.As far as the judges are concerned,they are busy in gaining personal interest.They can never be sincere to this beloved soil.They are busy in making money and gaining fame by destroying Army's image.True blood,remember one thing,it is our responsibility to protect and safeguard the image of our army.It is the only intitutiion which is working 24hrs sincerely to make sure no one dares to cause any harm to this country.And isi is making sure all is going on well and there is no obstacle in the path of success.Your opinion about isi is quite negative.When you do not know the facts then better shut up !

Article's structure

This article is composed of a variety of lists which make it in form of trivia article. The structure of this article should be rebuilt. I think that we shouldn't divide into two distinctive sections (Major successes and Major failure) for operations, instead merging into one under the same header, for example "Major operations" and arrange the events according to timeline. The division of "success" and "failure" makes it a little biased and original research. Why is it considered a success or a failure? Further, I see that this article still lacks a lot of required citations, for example the recruitment and the training sections with no citations given. @pple 03:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The history section is also not verified by reliable sources. It has only two four citations, which appears to be from one source totse.com. Information from this site shouldn't be used on Wikipedia, because TOTSE is an forum-based site of which primary goal is to promote freedom of speech. Thus I'll remove this reference. @pple 03:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I used the R&AW template to build this article. Mercenary2k 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A thought

How ever i think so that every body is going to ignore the role of Pakistan,s paramilitry forces in Pakistan wars and in the days of peace.specialy i want to show you the one of the best and same like Pakistan Army a force which has every thing and capabalities and some where they are more then Permanenet Army of pakistan , so it is requested to Plz write down a complete feature and information on this .

Thanx

Uh.....what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.60.147 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WHY ???

Why at the start of history there is a paragraph about Narendra Modi ??

Doesnt make no sense.In the paragraph of history of ISI there should be only history about it nothing else nothing more.

Whoever wrote it does he/she have any proof of what he is talking about ??

Don't worry. It was a piece of nonsense and you were quite justified in deleting it. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

ISI - Its Notorious History and Inhuman Operations:

I have seen ISI closely and know that these are the people who have no shame and humanity in them. They are not sincere with Pakistan, Pakistani people or Islam. They are there to suppress true Islam. Pakistan is the only country who was created to look after its Army. Normally Army is there to provide security to the residents of a state. This is evident from the facilities, salaries and benefits army personal in Pakistan enjoy. Army personal are of average intelligence and trained to fight enemy but Pakistan army is trained in corruption. Army officers (both retired and in service) are honoured with civilian departments administrations like WAPDA, NADRA, CDA and not only that in the political setup as well, ie Mushraf and his gang (who would probably don’t know even the definition of GDP). How one can expect from him to administer affair of the state. ISI has used its own innocent people and people around the world in name of Islam for Terrorism. List of examples is end less. One example of this terrorism which I specifically want to quote here is astonishing which makes you think how brutal few people could become for their own greed and benefits. Early quarter of 2007 ISI launched an operation in the border villages of Azad Kashmir viz Kotli, Sansha, Rawalakot, Aabbaspur etc. The purpose of this was to harass people using ISI’s old notorious techniques i.e. brutal killings, torturing etc. ISI agents’ sprayed some type of gas which made people unconscious. Once unconscious, they cut their throats with some sharp object. They started this operation from areas nearing Line of Control like Bhimber, kotli. The moved to suburbs of Rawalakot (singalo) where 2 of the ISI agents were caught by people of Rawalakot just after they went to a primary school and sprayed gas on innocent children. They were brought to civil police administration from where they were taken by military. ISI blamed that these were Indian intelligence agents. The question is why ISI would do that? Pakistan military has never been sincere with Pakistan or its People. The recent compromise with India and opening of borders from Muzffarabad is viewed a great threat to Pakistan Army. If Line of Control between both Kashmirs is finished then this scapegoat for army would be finished. Pakistan Army takes more than 75% budget form exchequer. In return what army has given back is lost half of the country, lost 4 wars with India, Killed thousands of its own innocent people in Bluchistan, Karachi, NWFP, FATA and FANA. 75% population of Pakistan lives in villages who are still deprived from the basic amenities of life like, roads, schools, electricity, clean water, sanitation etc. A junior army officer even after retirement gets millions of dollars worth of land and money not to talk about during service and in return they rob the country. I sincerely believe that ISI is a major cause of instability in the region and provides its western Masters a highway of opportunities to launch a war on Islam and suck out resources from the Islamic Lands. It backs up, trains and funds all so called Islamic militant groups to proxy terrorism which has no place in Islam. The children of ISI officers study in universities in London and Newyork. How do they afford it. As long as ISI is fulfilling its western Masters wills, west has given freehand to them in order to commit all the brutalities against innocent people. Division of indopak subcontinent was planned by West through her agents like Jinnah and is maintained by her agents like Pakistani secret services.

ISI and Taliban

Hi,

ISI has a definite history with Taliban. I have started a new section to discuss current relationship due to Bhutto assassination. I notice that there has been a lot of text deleted out of hand linking ISI with specific terrorist attacks, put in by others; I have added it back.

You can't fund terrorists without begetting terrorism eventually.

So let's discuss this.

I will add back in this text if it keeps getting deleted, until it is properly discussed.

Each of these allegations is linked to a Wikipedia article or a news sources.

Rather than deletion out of hand I think the more responsible things to do are:

• Cite articles with different evidence
• Identify the point of view of the cited articles, i.e. wikilink to the author or organization of the article if there are already articles on those author or organizations
• Similarly edit the linked-to Wikipedia articles if they show WP:POV or lack of balance or are logically inconsistent

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ek1.jpg

Image:Ek1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ek1.jpg

Image:Ek1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admission for stdy or training

I am 15 years old and I have interest in intelligency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.70.29 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dawood ibrahim.jpg

The image Image:Dawood ibrahim.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ISI and militant groups

These accusations have been made and are sourced. There is no POV in the article as to whether the accusations have any basis in fact or not. The article is simply saying that they have been made in reliable sources. As such, they are encyclopaedic and should not be removed. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No they shouldn't but I do question the necessity of putting Indian-news media sources. Everytime there is a bombing in India, the entire media there blames Pakistan's ISI. I might remove them unless they are cited by another non-Indian source. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. All of these so called accusations come from Indian Media which is notorios for jumping the gun and blaming ISI for every single bombing that occurs in India. 216.13.76.61 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Misquoting

Under "Operations history" section, there is a paragraph reading

• (1984) ISI uncovered a secret deal in which naval base facilities were granted by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the USSR in Vizag and the Andaman & Nicobar Island and the alleged attachment of KGB advisers to the then Lieutenant General Sunderji who was the commander of Operation Bluestar in the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984.[9]

It is supposedly referenced from http://www.acsa.net/isi/index.html

But reading the page one finds this quote: "This covert colloboration between the ISI and the US intelligence community was also directed at discrediting Mrs.Indira Gandhi's international stature by spreading disinformation about alleged naval base facilities granted by her to the USSR in Vizag and the Andaman & Nicobar, the alleged attachment of KGB advisers to the then Lt.Gen.Sunderji during Operation Bluestar in the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June, 1984, and so on. This collaboration petered out after her assassination in October,1984."

So in essence, an article which states that the mentioned deal was infact a disinformation is being used as a reference for the opposite claim (i.e. that this secret deal really existed). This is against wikipedia policies and is not NPOV.

Ilija Pavlic (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden

I'm putting this POV text here until it can be corrected:

The Death of Osama bin Laden has also become a matter of controversy with many commentators over the world and especially in India suggesting that ISI must have played a role in protecting Osama,though ISI has denied these allegations and it seems unlikely that ISI played any role in protecting him because areas deep inside Pakistan would have been provided to him,not an area near the border like Abbotabad had ISI played any role.

66.251.226.2 (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ISI and Mossad links

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/08spec.htm The ISI knew Mossad would be interested in information about the Libyan, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian military. Pakistani army officers were often posted on deputation in the Arab world -- in these very countries -- and had access to valuable information, which the ISI offered Mossad.

By the early 1980s, the US had discovered Pakistan's Kahuta project. By then northwest Pakistan was the staging ground for mujahideen attacks against Soviet troops in Afghanistan and Zia no longer feared US objections to his nuclear agenda. But Pakistani concerns over Israel persisted, hence Zia decided to establish a clandestine relationship between Inter-Services Intelligence and Mossad via officers of the two services posted at their embassies in Washington, DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.134.18 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ISI closes its political wing

Pakistani newspaper Dawn has broken the news that ISI has closed its political wing. Therefore, the DG Counter-Intelligence who was entrusted with monitoring political activities within the country in addition to to the original job of counter-intelligence will from now on perform only the latter. Since, the administrators have blocked editing of the article, could anyone of the admins please insert this segment in the article. Thanks. Razzsic (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Future?

Abhe, yaar, first, what did ya'll do to lock this article?

Anyway, here something to effect the future of ISI (politically). Can be added on to this page. Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

controversial political wing dissolved

Please updated the article: The controversial "political wing" of the top secret service agency has been disbanded. 202.75.197.38 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, the THIRD entry in here saying the same thing. Please read previous discussion, people.CSHunt68 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict deletion

Ok, I'm just following up to User:Xprtthinking's massive deletions here. I'm going to assume good faith as to his rationale but I want to make sure things are at least mentioned before moving on. The Kashmir conflict text doesn't have a mention of ISI other than a possible connection to Operation Tupac that isn't stated. The only connection seems to be some vague unsourced allegation about the ISI Director General and the results of the military conflict in general. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that there had been a section under "Controversies" Xprtthinking deleted here with good reliable sources about allegations regarding the Pakistan-side forces fighting in Kashmir, which I've inserted back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Mumbai attack source

I've reverted User:Xprtthinking's massive deletions here as to the 2008 incidents. Both seem to NY Times as reliable sources. For the fact that nothing has been provided to Pakistan, we should be able to find fresher sources that indicate Pakistan's (or from others) response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Godfathers of Taliban" addition

This silly little sentence is sourced from a single POV of a single Columnist Julian West in a op-ed how on earth it merits inclusion into the article is beyond me its basically just taking the title of the article and pasting it on the article it must be removed however wikivandal41 is convinced that Julian west represents the worlds view and what she says is "considered" by everyone pathetic attempt at a pov push 86.153.132.40 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I observed an edit war between you, (86.153.132.40) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikireader41). Apparently this post at talk page wasn't answered and the edits were reverted and edit was enforced by making the article restricted. I discussed this issue at chat with few administrators. Moreover, I moved the "Godfathers of Taliban" to Afghanistan section. This is too rational and inappropriate to include right on the top in introduction. It is exactly like the introduction of CIA mentions "Osama Bin Laden used to work for CIA". Plus, every intelligence agency in the world keeps his contact door open for other organization. To be simple, the statement "ISI is God father of Taliban and met with osama bin laden" was included in a move to defame the intelligence agency rather than improve the article. The statement now has a good location 1982-2007 and thats where it should belong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadhassan (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

selective quote

The quote made in the article is a brilliant example of selective and dishonest use of quoting:

"The Inter-Services Intelligence has long possessed the world's finest and most accurate human intelligence."

I think not.

The actual quote from the article: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/1341405/Pakistans-godfathers-of-the-Taliban-hold-the-key-to-hunt-for-bin-Laden.html)

"The Inter-Services Intelligence has long possessed the world's finest and most accurate human intelligence within Afghanistan."

I think all would agree it gives just a slightly different meaning to the quote. Change it.

Darkisthenight (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

you are right. I have edited the quote as per reference. Sarmadhassan (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

News report: "Brig Imtiaz reveals CIA plots"

Just want to bring this report to the attention of those editing this article, in case they are not already aware of it. Link:

• http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24241

--Hj108 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mossad Relations with Pakistan and ISI plz add it is fact <pplz must know it

In a September 2003 news article, it was alleged by Rediff News that General Zia-ul-Haq, the then President of Pakistan, decided to establish a clandestine relationship between Inter-Services Intelligence and Mossad via officers of the two services posted at their embassies in Washington, DC. The article further claimed that the ISI had offered Mossad information about Libyan, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian military which it had acquired through officers on official military deputations on those countries.

George Crile, of the ‘Sixty Minutes’ program, presents the story of a congressman who became the foremost champion of the CIA campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A closer reading tells of how Mossad actually used Charlie Wilson to penetrate the CIA’s Afghan campaign, and thereby the ISI and the Pakistani government at all levels.

Charles “Nesbitt” Wilson is a 1956 Annapolis graduate who worshipped Winston Churchill and entered politics in 1961 at the age of 27 as the Texas State Representative. Wilson won a seat to Congress in 1973 as a Liberal. He regularly voted against Vietnam and eventually became of strong defender of Israel. Wilson’s appointment to the House Appropriations Committee and a strategic alliance with CIA veteran Gust Avrakotos ignited the covert actions that gave Mossad the opportunity to infiltrate the ISI.

Wilson had a close relationship with the Israeli embassy’s congressional liaison officer, Zvi Rafiah. According to George Crile, “Rafiah is a short, very smart Israeli who Wilson always believed was a highly placed Mossad agent... [he, Rafiah] had always acted as if he owned Wilson’s office. One of the staffers kept a list of people he needed to lobby. He would use the phones, give projects to the staff, and call on Charlie to intervene whenever he needed him.”pg 159 Crile’s account suggests that Rafiah was the dominant figure in this partnership.It can be said that events unfolding before our eyes today usually have roots deep in the past. Wilson’s loyalty to Israel and his association with Mossad made him closer to the sympathizers of Israel in the United States. Dick Cheney, who stands accused by a growing number of analysts for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, played a key role in having Wilson appointed to the White House Select Committee on Intelligence. This fact may suggest that Cheney was also an important player in the pro-Israeli network.In summary, the Israelis became major players in the exchange of information and commodities with Afghanistan and Pakistan, not by interfacing with the CIA, which opposed their involvement, but via Mossad, the Israeli lobby in the United States—using Congressional delegations to establish their own direct connections—and by direct interaction with the ISI in Pakistan. The Israeli/Pakistan connection was crucial for infiltrating the ISI and providing Israeli intelligence with a very secure footing inside Pakistan’s intelligence agency.In her second term in power, Benazir Bhutto also intensified the ISI’s liaison with Mossad in 1993, and she too began to cultivate the American Jewish lobby. Bhutto is said to have had a secret meeting in New York with a senior Israeli emissary, who flew to the U.S. during her visit to Washington, DC in 1995. Since his days as Bhutto’s Director-General of Military Operations, Pervez Musharraf has been a keen advocate of Pakistan establishing diplomatic relations with the state of Israel.After Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif’s government, the ISI-Mossad relationship deepened. This close interaction set the tone for Israeli-Pakistani relations until 2001, regardless of who was the incumbent in Israel, or whether a civilian or military regime ruled Pakistan. The most important contacts were between Mossad and the ISI, and the traffic the information. Pakistan passed intelligence about the Gulf States and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and Libya, whose programs Pakistani scientists had helped to build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.129.232 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam Yahiye Gadahn

Adam Gadahn was not captured, yet this was rumored in early March. This section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtechnocrat (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New Section proposal named "india's baap"

Disruptive, WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest a new section for the ISI named India's Baap, as the ISI is India's baap and will remain India's baap for decades and decades to come. Thank you. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.210.84 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest you find who is your your baap and then add stupid commentsManakattu (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Western involvement in terrorism inside Pakistan

Most of the information comes from one blog posting, hardly a reliable source. It also promotes a ridiculous conspiracy that the U.S. wants to do this to get Pakistan to get rid of it's nuclear weapons. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

yes I agree. and how in the world does this relate to ISI ? the section needs to be deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.Twobells (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories against ISI

I removed some of the conspiracy theories against ISI and Pakistan military that were posted, such as ISI opening 'hundreds of training camps' and whatnot. The source being provided does not state that, and in addition to that what the source does say is mere allegations supported by no evidence. One of the users Wikireader41 (talk) (He's an Indian as it's obvious from his profile) keeps removing these edits under the name of 'vandalism', even though if any one is doing vandalism, it's this user.

you are removing cited info. please refrain otherwise you will be blocked.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a citation which you might want to read[7] to further understand role of ISI is supporting Kasmir militants.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is not cited in this article. You're claiming things about hundreds of militant camps opening. Please mention where that is stated in this article. Secondly, this article contains word of mouth (i.e. mere accusations) and no solid evidence to support that. I can also add cited info that US is involved in terrorism by the same logic if you consider this a good citation.

You'll agree that the claim about hundreds of militant camps is not true and not cited. Hence I am removing that particular claim. We can discuss the other claims and whether they should be put here or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.53.163 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree that these claims need to be qualified as 'allegations', since they are not supported by any solid evidence but just word of mouth?70.27.53.163 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. ISI is widely believed to support terrorism not only in Kashmir but also elsewhere including Afghanistan and this is well documented by RS. what solid evidence would satisfy you ??? the current head of ISI is wanted in a criminal case filed in New York.[8] If he fails to appear I think it would be reasonable to assume he is guilty as charged. the FAS clearly states that ISI runs terror training camps in Kashmir. Some ISI operatives were recently shot by a US diplomat after trying to illegally intimidate him.[9]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that something being 'widely believed' is not really evidence that something is true. That's a logical fallacy. What is RS btw? Can you provide links, etc? A lot of people believing something is NOT solid evidence that something is true. Whatever FAS is, it needs to provide some sort of evidence - pictures, admission statements - to support their claims. So still, you're stuck on word of mouth it seems. Now as far as case against ISI head, that doesn't establish anything because it is a case filed by jewish families who believe ISI was involved in some terrorist attacks. It establishes zero as far as your argument is concerned. Not sure what the ISI operative intimidating (yet another conspiracy theory?) has to do with what we're discussing here. 70.27.49.88 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

At WP what is reported in WP:RS is what is important NOT the truth. please read WP:TRUTH for some guidance. also wikipedia is not a court of law where we argue endlessly about what is the truth and what is not. we report what is published in RS in a neutral fashion per WP:NPOV. well TIME does not think it is a conspiracy theory. The fact that the head of ISI is a wanted man needs to go into the introduction as does te fact that ISI is widely believed to support terrorists. you want to do the honors or would you like me to add that bit of important info which is currently missing.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So how are you exactly publishing this in a neutral fashion? It is clear that these are mere allegations because there's no solid physical evidence backing them up. Answer me this. Can you prove without any doubt that ISI is doing what you claim? If not, then you need to qualify your claim as allegation. You are presenting it in such a way that it makes it sound like an established, proven fact. So to be neutral, you should add the 'alleged' qualification. Well TIME doesn't have to think it's a conspiracy theory. 9/11 conspiracy theorists also don't believe it's a conspiracy theory. What you need is some sort of evidence, not these kinds of mere words of mouth. As far as the case against ISI head is concerned, please go ahead, however you should make it absolutely clear that this is a case by a few jewish families in the US. And again, allegations against ISI needs be qualified as 'allegations' if you put it in the introduction. (Btw, just FYI, pretty much only Indians read these types of articles on Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.49.88 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said that we are not a court of Law. Prove to me that Pakistan is a sovereign country ?? We report what is given in RS. why do you think that what TIME puts ii its columns is not reliable. The last part of your statement is utter and complete nonsense as Wikipedia is read around the world not just be Indians. Why is Pasha not showing up in New York to face the allegations ???? --Wikireader41 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed wikipedia is court of law. However, you need to speak facts here, and the fact is that it's not been established that ISI does what you're claiming it does. If something is not proven, you need to present it accordingly, i.e. show that you're making allegations. You're presenting allegations as facts, and lying straightforward to anyone who reads this. You report what is given in RS by manipulating it. It is making allegations, you're presenting it as a fact. Your source makes allegations and does not provide evidence, hence to be neutral you see that these are allegations. You do not take either side. Right now, what you want to do is not reporting the article in a neutral fashion, it is taking one side and publishing from that viewpoint. As far as wikipedia, I am talking about this particular page. I can guarantee you that pretty much only Indians read it. Where is the TIME source, though? I only see BBC. As far as Pasha goes, that's not relevant. You do not decide whether he's guilty or not. Those that do decide have not done so yet. 70.27.51.150 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

non of the three sources provided [10] [11] or [12] talk about "Hundreds of Training Camps" as being reflected in old revision. The First reference comes from an NGO a Think Tank. The article cites other sources to reflect its interpretations which cannot be taken as universal facts. ISI has been supporting militancy not terrorism in Kashmir territory as per other two references with the word using "allegedly" Key quotes from a leaked Ministry of Defence think-tank paper which alleges that Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, has indirectly helped the Taleban and al-Qaeda and should be dismantled or Pakistan has long been accused of supporting militant groups operating in Kashmir. I have edited the sentence to "ISI is widely believed to train and support militancy in Kashmir region." to keep a balanced view on the subject. Hope this argument will finish here. Sarmadhassan (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Section 4.3.10 US

* (2011) Following the killing of two innocent Pakistani civilians by American CIA agent Raymond Davis, the ISI had become more alert and suspicious about CIA spy network in Pakistan, which had disrupted the ISI-CIA cooperation,[36] and led to the arrest of an American in Pakistan.[37] And at least 30 suspected covert American operatives have suspended their activities in Pakistan and 12 have already left the country.[38]

This section is extremely POV and the sources given are either spurious to the content of this section, or complete fabrications not found in any of the sources. For example:

innocent Pakistani civilians

, notice "innocent" and "civilian", these two words are not found in ANY of the sources. In fact, the shooting incident itself is sparsely mentioned in only two of the sources, neither of which give any details or mention of those who were actually shot. I'm going to edit this section so it conforms to the information actually given in the sources.Napkin65 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also deleted the sentence that describes a connection between the Raymond Davis shooting incident and the arrest of an American that had overstayed his visa. None of the sources indicated a link and the source about the arrest of an American for visa issues had nothing to do with the ISI.Napkin65 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead (taliban ties)

The sentence in the lead "ISI has ties to militant Islamist groups and supported the rise of the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s" is supported by a New York Times overview. An IP has removed it twice. They seem to think it is undue. Can you please provide evidence that contradicts this? We are supposed to present all majority and significant minority perspectives published in accordance to their weight. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was removed again. I restored it again. Please use the talk page. Jesanj (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

[13] [14] [15]

You can search more for yourself. It's inadequate to add this line in the first paragraph as it gives a bad impression which is wp:pov. So I'm removing this leading sentence. If you have to include this information without pushing pov, you can create a separate section about the topic (if its not already there) and attribute the pov to its origin. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Before you get revert happy, maybe you should read my argument below and discuss things first. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed your source. Refer to my reply below. NY Times also mentions Pakistani govt denying like it mentioned the US and the Indian govt accusing of the ties. So you are just pushing POV. Also read Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" & WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As per now, I'm editing the article to my last edit. I think I've given more than enough sources to prove it as a POV issue, so instead of edit warring, review those sources and attribute the US view to US in a separate section with relevant sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I replied below, FYI. Jesanj (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you finally placed the text in a section. Please attribute it to the POV holder (read US govt). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai Attacks

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/asia/30pstan.html [16] [17] [18] [19]

Pakistan govt denies any ties with these attacks. So its WP:POV to add this to the last sentence of first paragraph. For Indian view point and accusation, there is already a section present. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the New York Times is a reliable source for this statement. Just because the Pakistani government denies something, doesn't mean we have to reproduce their opinion always. Doing so would give undue weight to the Pakistani government. They are a government. Wikipedia articles, however, are to be "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The NYT qualifies. The GoP does not. Jesanj (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My first source is NY times itself. I've reviewed the NY times article you cited and it refers to US govt. accusing ISI. Now as per your words, US govt. isn't any more reliable source than Pakistan govt? For US accusation (like there's a section for Indian POV on the issue), if necessary can be mentioned in an appropriate section. But saying this in the first paragraph is definately wp:pov. Also, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to introduce a govt agency like this. Such ties, even if we say are true for the sake of argument, are better off in relevant sections). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you should read the source again. The sentence does not attribute the statement to U.S. officials. If you think it is definitely POV, you can always as for a WP:3O or bring it up at WP:NPOVN to generate a more robust consensus. Take a look at WP:LEAD, that should ease your misguided concern that we should censor the lead. Jesanj (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no issue of bring up user contribution or dispute resolution. You need to check the source again. Quoting from your source:

"In the minds of many American officials.." (start of the article)

"In September, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that the ISI had aided the insurgents who attacked the American Embassy.."

"The agency faced scathing criticism within the country as well. In July, Obama administration officials said they believed that the I.S.I. ordered the killing in late May of a Pakistani journalist.."

Clearly NY Times' source is the US govt. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote from the NYT is It has also worked closely with groups that have conducted terror attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. What makes you think that their source for that sentence is the U.S. gov? Jesanj (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

For your quote, the article started with the US govt's point of view hence the reader takes it as inclusive. Not to mention the very sentence before it and every time it starts a paragraph it shouts out loud that it is saying what American govt says. NY times also being based in US, makes it not so neutral on this issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No no no. The article starts off with "The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate is Pakistan's military equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency." The beginning of the next sentence is not an attribution of everything to the U.S. government. It would be illogical to think that. The NYT is a journalistic outfit. They use sources other than the U.S. government. It's unfortunate you don't yet understand that or the fact that despite being based in the U.S., the publishing is considered separate. Jesanj (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are defending it blindly. They have not mentioned any other source. They have not refered to any other party. If you read the full article in a flow, the only impression you get is that they are conveying US govt's POV. Its about presenting a neutral POV. See Wikipedia:PRIDE.

[20]

Now this article presents a neutral source (even though you might question the neutrality like me since the publisher is based in Pakistan, but the source it gives is neutral unlike NY Times). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to continue your arguments about the NYT not being reliable (because it is only representing the U.S. government) for its statements you can do so here, FYI. Jesanj (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That is one argument (but by taking it to the reliability notice board, you seem to be deviating from the point and making it an issue of NYT's reliability which counts second). The first thing to notice is, its reporting per US gvt. according to the article. So whether it is neutral on its own is a question for later.

Before we talk about NYT's reliability, the part you quote is in the paragraph starting from:

"In the minds of many American officials..." (hence referred to US gvt)

NYT has credited US gvt all along the article.

I guess attributing the accusation to the US govt resolves this dispute. (refer to my comment on above section). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't resolve the dispute. You're arguing that the lead should be censored when you misguidedly argue it is

“ inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to introduce a govt agency like this. Such ties, even if we say are true for the sake of argument, are better off in relevant sections ”

I'm concerned you may be here to "help Pakistan" example without understanding how things are supposed to work around here WP:NPOV, etc. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict or call into question the NYT when they say: "The agency helped bring the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the 1990's ... It has also worked closely with groups that have conducted terror attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks"? If you've linked something that calls that into question please quote it directly so everyone can see it to discuss. Then we can discuss WP:NPOV. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not try to get other editors prejudiced by valid wikipedia activity. Now that is called canvassing! What I did was through wiki's talkpage. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan is a valid wikipedia project to help on articles related to Pakistan. Donot take wikipedia's awards and projects as a prejudice against editors.

Your own source NYT is referring it to US govt! before you go all rolling to different notice boards, read the text again. Its crediting that information to US officials. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So you've changed your mind about censoring the lead? That's progress. I assume you're also dropping the POV issue. You didn't quote any source questioning the NYT conclusions. And not everything in that profile is attributed to the U.S. government. Are you hard of hearing? As I've already said, the thread at RSN is probably (if anyone will ever comment) the place for that silliness. And canvassing is a form of attracting editors to a discussion that can bias the sample through selection bias. Try again. You seem to be here to advocate on the side of Pakistan vs. India. But Wikipedia is not a battleground between anything, including two countries. We're here as an exercise in scholarship, to reflect high-quality reliable sources. Jesanj (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I didnt drop anything. I just said, NYT itself credits US govt of its story. Yes, even the lines you claim. Read again, ask other editors. It starts by telling its what US officials think. Since you are referring to it, I think you need to properly review WP:HEAR yourself.

You are misusing the statement about WP:Canvassing. Read the appropriate notification section:

"On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)..."

Misleading claims such as this come in WP:Harassment.

Also That comment was about articles that needed POV balance, which is what one should do. You seem to be wiki-stalking me already. You should know that wiki-stalking and/or wiki-hounding result in permanent blocks. You should avoid misleading statements and blaming me for canvassing. It is scene as a personal attack when you wrongly accuse another editor. You are not assuming WP:Good Faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This talk page really is for discussing improvements to the ISI article, by the way. (Maybe I should have saved some of what I said above for your talk page.) So you do believe in censoring the lead? So you do think everything the NYT reported is sourced to the U.S. government? Those ideas are pretty clearly silly to me. Jesanj (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You should have thought of that before attacking me for all that.

I don't believe in censoring the lead. I believe in putting it in under the US govt's reception of ISI in the reception section and attribute it to them rather than the encyclopedia telling the fact for US govt. Now that I guess is progress towards solution if u are really assuming good faith.

NYT is basing the story and all its facts on US officials' theories, so let US govt bear the credit too and not NYT. you should read through the NYT article again. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We should probably wait for RSN to bear that one out. Repeating something over and over does not make it consensus. Jesanj (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RSN is only relevant to the neutrality of NYT. You should read what I wrote about the POV in my last comment. You have failed to give any reference that says ISI has ties with any such organizations. I'm shifting that para to the US reception of ISI section as per NYT citation. You can comment here or call an RFC if you have any valid reference. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RSN is for the reliability of the NTY's work. The NYT is not the U.S. government, so that would be inappropriate in my opinion. Check out my most recent edit.[21] It adds some nice info I think. Jesanj (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a totally inappropriate edit, in my opinion. It violates WP:V and WP:NPOV in my opinion. That is not what the NYT said. Jesanj (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I said, RSN is for NYT. NYT is not US govt but its editorials might have a hint of nationalism.

As far as this case was concerned, my first claim was that NYT isn't even taking credit for that information but only reporting about US govt. You can call an RFC if you think it violates WP:POV & WP:V.

Your new edit is fact based. Now thats progress. We're good now.

PS. you should check if what you just added to the lead isn't already mentioned in the article, for the sake of avoiding redundancy. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're making some progress somewhere. =) I posted again at RSN for now. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, FYI. Did you mean something else? Jesanj (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

it's quite amusing to follow this discussion , and i'm glad you guys are making some progress. here's my two cents:

• the lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article
• the article, however, is a total mess. in addition, i suspect that there are copyright violations as well.

i would like to add that we all are here to create a reliable, and thus neutral and informative, internet encyclopedia (so please stop the talk of "selection-bias" or whatever). the current version is clearly neither neutral nor reliable, independently of what is written in the lead or not. i suggest that you and topgun/hassanhn5 clean up this article, through collaboration and discussion. that's what wiki is all about. the lead is the last thing you need to discuss. speaking of the lead, a side note: the cia and saudi-arabia, together with isi, did in fact also support and build the taliban...that should be mentioned in the lead too. there are many excellent sources to consult (as per rsn), like this book [22]. there are two-three others that i'm aware of.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you got what I meant. Yeah, its up to you to see if its good enough since you added the detail. I do assume WP:Good Faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation overkill on the Pakistani govt. opinion on foreign govt. opinions

Five citations are Wikipedia:Citation overkill for a denial on the Pakistani govt. behalf. One would be sufficient. Jesanj (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we're already having a long discussion on this, it would be good to prevent another such discussion. I won't call it an overkill if I look at above conversation. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely a different topic. It deserves another section. Citation overkill is citation overkill. One citation is sufficient. Jesanj (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its a different issue. But you didn't get my point. What I mean is, this fact probably needs more citations since many editors would be challenging it.

Easy solution: The denial of claims phrase is in both Indian & US versions' sections. I suggest two citations each be given (but different from each other so as to extend scope of further reading and verification). Note that both phrases have been tagged with the same five references. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT markwellman

seriously they cannot be used as neutral sources when talking about Pakistan ISI. Markwellman so called report has been proven has fabrication and New York times has 0 credibility after its role in the iraq war and blaming Al Qaeda for the Norway massacre. Also even the US Govt,British and Tony Blair has rejected that Pakistan ISI was involved in mumbai attack.why are indian conspiray theories still here ? i dont see anything on the CIA page accusing them of 9/11 ??--Ambelland (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a mess... Conspiracy theories have to go in a single section and not all over the page. That's why we need massive fixing of this article. Please tag this article with appropriate tags, so that interested users can contribute. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

there should be a special section about ISI's great contribution and success in the war on terror . I dont think Indian allegation should be on this page. iran accused the CIA of causing drought but no one takes those claims seriously . Also I dont see why in the very first paragraph ISI role in Soviet-Afghan war, and Afghan Civil War is discussed, they should be discussed in relevant section , the first paragraph should just talk about organization objectives,mission,structure and great role in caputring Al Qaead militants . --Ambelland (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Soviet war was one of the main roles, even achievement of ISI, so it was summarized in the start. I'll let Jesanj comment on the issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New content

• JCAla, Do not add the already deadlocked content. If that discussion is completed on Taliban article then we can decide where to put it here (since you seem to be adding it on two locations). Duplication isn't good. The quotes you added were undue. Discuss this, it will be confusing to further engage in related changes while we have this RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• What are you even talking about? That is totally new content, which has been fully attributed (thereby has nothing to do with above RFC) and sourced. You think just because something is in the Taliban article it would be a duplication to also have it here? Provide valid reasons for your general revert. JCAla (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, this is not completely new content... the part about allegations and denials is deadlocked at Talk:Taliban.. can we solve that there first (to keep discussions in one place)? And then, you added it to two places (or corrected it at one and then added it to the US reception as well). About the quotation.. there's already one quotation... wikipedia is not a quotation farm. And anyway, that quotation is undue. Care to discuss part by part? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion, how about taking the pre 2001 denial to WP:NORN? That is the most relevant board I can think of. For the rest... we can start a discussion here... I think some might still find its way in.. but not in this form. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

1. I strongly suggest to you to not generally revert the edits of other editors when you have only some issues. Rather you should talk or correct the few issues you have.
2. I did not write as a matter of fact, that the ISI supported the Taliban. Rather I wrote, "it is widely accepted" that the ISI supported the Taliban pre 9/11. That is keeping with the consensus version of the allegation/denial sentence. We even have the acknowledgement of that fact by Pervez Musharraf himself. Nothing to discuss here.
3. So you take issue with the fact that as an introduction to the Taliban issue, under U.S. gov, we have "It is widely accepted that from 1994-2001, the ISI provided military support to the Afghan Taliban. International officials have accused the ISI of continuing to support and even lead the Taliban today. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen stated: ..." because the Afghanistan section also mentions the same support?
4. I added the Mike Mullen quotation which is the most relevant citation that can be cited in this regard. Do we now need an RFC on that also?

JCAla (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not a general revert. I specifically objected here on talk page explaining why I objected on all additions. You changed "alleged" to "widely accepted", you also removed the denial completely. Don't think that has a consesnsus. Yes, given that it was already covered above where you made amends, it was redundant to put it all again in the US sectin. About Mullen's quotes, I don't think it is in due weight to put quotes repeatedly. Actually Mullen's allegation is listed and sourced if you read the section. If you want an RFC for that, you can do that.. but let's clear up the allegation mess first as that is spill over both Talban article and here. Do you want to take the pre 2001 denial to NORN (or may be NPOVN)? We can both add the sources (which actually are conflicting) and leave a comment on the Taliban article where it was being discussed. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

1. You objected on all additions, ok ... In your general revert, you also restored quite some funny unsourced stuff such as with regards to the CIA and ISI: "The Relationship was a positive and Strong one." or the favourite: [President] "Barack Obama said The president [Obama] said ..." What is that?
2. Yes, I changed to "widely accepted" as we have established this as "widely accused" or "widely alleged" as a preliminary consensus version on the Taliban article. I removed the denial (as was written on this article) completely because it is factually inaccurate when the president of Pakistan himself admitted to the support BEFORE 9/11.
3. Nah, Mullen's allegation is not properly explained and since the whole thing is about his statement, it is the most relevant thing to actually provide a quote on what he said in the article. Anything else is simply censorship.
4. What exactly do you want to ask with regards to pre 9/11 support at the original research board?

JCAla (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the improvement of sentences such as the ones quoted to you above, I adjusted the denial/allegation thing in line with your objections. Have removed the 1994-2001 support from the US gov section for now. I think what now remains disputed by you is the addition of Mullen's quote, right? JCAla (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting was not the solution again... you've simply added back everything with the edit summary that you adjusted according to my objections (the only thing you fixed here was the repetition?).

• This happens when you revert a large chunk of content. It is nearly impossible to fix intermediate edits, and a revert just because of that is not called general revert.
• "Widely accepted" is different from "widely alleged" and you removed the denials again. I gave you sources for Pakistan denying this on that article. You didn't need to spill the dispute here and editwar.
• No, this is not a quote farm. We already have one quote there and then we have Mullen's accusation already in the text. This is undue.
• About the pre 9/11 allegation, we have a debate deadlocked on whether Pakistan denied this or accepted this (as you give citations for Musharaf and I provided for official versions), that needs to be cleared... whether on NPOVN or NORN... now that I think of it, it is a POV issue more than original research. Let's list it at WP:NPOVN.

--lTopGunl (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I restored two things: the things you didn't explicitly name as objecting to and the Mullen quote because it is all about that statement. Everything else was not a revert. As already pointed out to you above, I added the denial and I explicitly differentiated: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." That is a 100 % according to the sources. Do you want to object to that? We can take the Mullen quote to an RFC or noticeboard, though that is simply ridiculous. JCAla (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:NPOVN#Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001. I explicitly objected to the allegations (and removal of denial) and Mullen's quote. Let's have some input about both there. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see that you added "Pakistan rejects" in front of the current accusations (kindly add the denial source to it too, it is added in the US section I guess). Also, you acknowledged that Pakistan officially denied it... can you add the sources which I provided on Taliban page with quotes (so that there's no further disagreement)? Musharaf's autobiography is not official so that can be discussed at NPOVN. Also if you agree that the official position actually was denial then you also need to reflect that at Taliban where it states dropped implying other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• If you replace widely accepted with widely alleged as on Taliban article, that part would be fine (we came to that consensus after much work.. don't go over that again). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Reclosing this again, per the section above's consensus, and a third administrators opinion has been provided that this should be closed. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the article have separate sections for the following.

1. ISI support for the Taliban. This is well documented.
2. ISI human rights abuses. These are well documented. .
3. ISI creation of and aid to terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups. This is well documented.

References in here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussion

• Oppose all: Those are WP:POINT details of the same RFC started again after not getting a consensus above in the RFC above. And we have a separate article on human rights in Pakistan. This article is about the agency. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support 2) and 3), 1) could be placed under 3). JCAla (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment 4

{{rfc}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should the article have separate sections for the following. (Relisting RFC) Facts, not fiction (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

1. ISI support for the Taliban. This is well documented.
2. ISI human rights abuses. These are well documented. .
3. ISI creation of and aid to terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups. This is well documented.

References in here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

— Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Strong oppose all: See my comments on above two RFCs which were closed 5 times, with consensus from 3 admins, if I remember correctly and an article for the same was AFD'd. There's no consensus for adding such POV content which means WP:POINT should be kept in mind while considering this discussion yet again... per WP:SNOW, this content has no place in the article being hardly neutral and another discussion would be counter productive. I guess speedy closures are usually requested at such RFCs, but I'll leave it to admins or other editors who comment to voice this. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, links to previous RfCs that are hidden in the archives will speed things up. siafu (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it just got archived. Here's the link [23]. The other one is right above. Here are the closures: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and the AFD. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose.... and close. Per previous discussions and also per the WP:POINT, WP:SNOW and "I didn't hear that" (for the RfC initiator) arguments. Mar4d (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support, provided they are written in a straightforward, factual and unbiased manner, all claims are backed (not SUGGESTED) by reliable sources, and they are reasonably concise (that is, don't use EVERY source listed here!) Just the facts. No conjecture, no comparisons, no quotes. Otherwise, No Opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC Comment: Repeatedly opening the same RFC could be construed as gaming the system. If an earlier RFC didn't result in the underlying content issue being resolved, dispute resolution can be continued in mediation. In the instant case, I don't have access to the books listed as sources, but to the extent they're written by experts in the respective field and criticise the ISI (not Pakistan in general) for abuses, then such criticism must be included in the article. In my opinion in this case a single "Criticism" section would suffice, where each significant (=covered in RS) criticism would be presented neutrally, probably using some kind of attribution. The size of the "Criticism" section in the article should be in rough proportion to the mindshare the criticism has in RS. If criticism for abuses amounts to a significant aspect of treatment the ISI gets in reliable sources, then no editorial consensus can validly exclude the criticism from the article, since not presenting it would violate WP:NPOV. --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments.

1. I'm new to this issue on Wikipedia. Looking at the previous material, I see that the AfD close in March 2012 said, " Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism ... is already covered in the other articles, or should be covered there. This is not disputing the right for the information to exist (except where previous consensus has been made),"
2. I see that the same few editors have been involved in this from the start, and wider attention might help.
3. I also see that the extremely fair-minded admin who closed this has also closed all or most of the previous RfCs, so I do not see that the number of them is relevant. I consider them all to be consistent, as I would expect them to be: they give strong support for including the sections.
4. Therefore I think that this content can and should be included. Some of the language used is a little prejudicial, and should be modified--the situation is just as well expressed by neutral wording. I am not sure of the relevance of the books--we would need page numbers and proposed quotations; I suspect they are most of them based on the same material and express the general consensus, but may not necessarily be to the point about each individual item.
5. .I don't think the level of section headings makes much difference.
6. I call attention to Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants which I think has no justification for existence as a separate article. It seems to be mainly a rewording of the deleted article. I'd support G4/A10 on it. If there is any unique but usable material, it could be first integrated. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception and allegations

I think this can go under reception while the contents in reception can go under allegations as they are all described as allegations. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. -- SMS ^Talk 07:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140517152926/http://www.dailymailpost.com/?p=640 to http://www.dailymailpost.com/?p=640

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110512184639/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7149089.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7149089.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141220233035/http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079528,00.html to http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079528,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120112213626/http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=24183/ to http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=24183/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

False Allegations against ISI

Hi,

I have been adding text regarding False allegation on ISI in recent times which proved to be wrong (Facts and figures included), but i do not know why some people and deliberately reverting my edits because their country's allegations proved wrong. Mow, tell me what should i d?? Is not text regarding "Allegations for Support of Terrorism" included in ISI??? Si why not "False Allegation proved wrong is not being added???? Please Answer because i think its Double Standards. Thanks AKJatt (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem content

@Wiki id2: I found this text inserted by you a couple of years ago. The first citation is a dead link. I can find it on the web. It is a 5-minute video dealing with Al-Qaeda, nothing about ISI there. The second citation is available, but the cited pages 183-185 don't have anything about ISI. So, where does this content come from? Why is there a bot inserted parameter in your addition? Can you solve this mystery? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=39058
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113140533/http://www.pbs.org:80/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/05/coll-likely-bin-laden-successor-will-struggle.html to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/05/coll-likely-bin-laden-successor-will-struggle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611053322/https://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/ to https://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611053322/https://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/ to https://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/news/1142664/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/05/coll-likely-bin-laden-successor-will-struggle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606235137/http://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/politics.html to https://fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/politics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620234943/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/ties-with-bad-guys-help-get-bad-guys-us-960 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/ties-with-bad-guys-help-get-bad-guys-us-960
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415112807/http://www.acsa2000.net/isi/index.html to http://www.acsa2000.net/isi/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1079528%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613083146/http://southasiaanalysis.org/papers15/paper1425.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers15%5Cpaper1425.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517153030/http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=68597&Cat=6 to http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=68597&Cat=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

In the History section, Please change the line:
The ISI was the brainchild of the former British Indian Army Major General Sir Walter Joseph Cawthorn, then Deputy Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army and selected Colonel Shahid Hamid to set up the agency.
to:
The ISI was founded by the former British Indian Army Major General Sir Robert Cawthome, then Deputy Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army. He selected Colonel Shahid Hamid as the first director general of the agency and also served as the 2nd director general for nine years.

Reason: According to The News, Dawn and The Telegraph (India) and many other sources, Robert Cawthome was the founder and 2nd DG of the ISI. The sources in Walter Joseph Cawthorn article say that Walter served Pakistan Army for a few years and left Pakistan in 1951.

Sources: The News (includes another source fromThe Australian), Dawn, The Telegraph India

So please remove the wrong information.--139.190.118.184 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704195306/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LANCER/idr00006.htm to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LANCER/idr00006.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406125840/http://www.asianage.com/india/intel-reveals-isi-naxal-link-583 to http://www.asianage.com/india/intel-reveals-isi-naxal-link-583
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626103526/http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/main/14-Nov-2009/13-killed-60-injured-in-peshawar-suicide-attack-terrorists-strike-isi to http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/main/14-Nov-2009/13-killed-60-injured-in-peshawar-suicide-attack-terrorists-strike-isi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018

Please add "by Robert Cawthome" after 1948, in the "Founded" tab of the infobox. He was the guy who founded ISI and it will be great if we have a wikilink to him in the box. Thank you in advance. 202.163.125.35 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: He is already linked in the History section of the article body. Not everything can or should be squeezed into infoboxes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ISI which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• COAS visits Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent mass changes

Hi @Ahbullo: Can you please discuss your edits here first before editing the page. You are adding a lot of content which is unsourced, removing sourced content and changing the tone violating WP:NPOV. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of article claiming ISI is the top intelligence agency in the world

In the opening paragraphs there is a statement that the International Business Times voted the ISI the best Intelligence agency in the world. However the article here does not provide any criteria and literally just says it is number 1. This is not credible and either the statment should be removed or a better source should be found. ReccesWashout (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed. I removed the claim. (My guess is that it was the result of a readers' survey done by somebody.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Freedom struggle Kashmir

Kashmir struggle is now in decisive stages. Every Pakistani is obliged to help all the Kashmiris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADEEL AHAMAD (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant claims

Hello. At the very beginning of the article, there is a sentence that claims the ISI to be the 'worst intelligence agency of Universe'. In the information box to the right, its annual budget is listed as '$0 billion dollars'. These need to be removed and replaced with accurate statements and figures! Laziness Elemental (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2019

122.8.151.0 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

sir my name is Hunain Ali i want to join Inter services Intelligence Agency because i want to give our life for Pakistan

 Not done: This is a Wikipedia talk page. Wikipedia is not associated with the organization discussed in this article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ayubnewarmychief.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The editor is an indian tu the article will be biased

The editor is an indian tu the article will be biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.87.105 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The removal of citation 19 and replacement with . The footnoted source is an academic comparative study of cognitive development among children and is unrelated to the content of the paragraph, which concerns human intelligence activities. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishdoesedits (talk • contribs)

 Done. I deleted the whole paragraph. Thanks for pointint it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

want to add additional content and more authenticated information 39.45.173.50 (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Logo of ISI

The logo shown on the page is absolutely not the real logo of ISI. You can see the real logo here and follow through the thread to see the logo emblazoned on the flag behind PM of Pak in ISI HQ and DG ISI wearing a patch of the same logo. While this logo is new, even the old one was different. The caption was same while the device was the tri-service logo you see on ISPR logo. 103.255.6.245 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Director-General !Start of term !End of term Anasalaskari (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be edited in that table? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anasalaskari:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gaioa (T C L) 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

2401:4900:463B:BFA6:39EE:BD16:9BF9:52F6 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

this site must be closed on net......

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021 - change incorrect link

Change line under "Departments" heading of "Organization" subsection:

• SS Directorate

to

• SS Directorate

As written, hyperlink redirects to unrelated Twilight Zone episode. Aurignacian (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noticing this. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Articles to be updated

• Hamid Mir
• Faiz Hameed
• Draft:Aroosa Alam
• Akleem Akhtar (General Rani)

Bookku (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

122.161.16.209 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Raw is way better than ISI. I know from where everybody comes to think that, and here is my point to it - FINALLY THE LIST-This question and several other similar ones are a result of a dumb uk based research group (its too dumb too even deserve getting named here) releasing a list of ‘top 10 best spy agencies’ in 2011 with ISI,CIA,RAW,MSS etc at 1st, 2nd, 6th and 9th positions. It never released the criteria which was used to create the rank list. Several proxy websites took up this list and it still shows up everywhere in the internet. The funny thing behind the research group is that 9 out of its 12 key members are Pakistanis.

ISI vs CIA , RAW and MSS? CIA probably uses the money equivalent to ISI’s yearly budget to pay for refilling coffee machines at its stations worldwide and RAW probably uses it pay for LTC air tickets/AC 2 tier tickets for its employees and their families visiting relatives during summer vacations.

China-soon the world’s largest economy, 3rd largest military super power cannot afford an intelligence agency as good as the mighty ISI.Really?

Pakistanis claim ISI to be better than RAW although Islamic State, the worlds best human rights organisation, regularly books tickets for direct non stop one way trips to heavens in Pakistan and has failed to provide such offers in India, despite trying consistently for several years now. I wonder how…

Every Pakistan tries to chest thump about their deep state intel agency but can any pakistani assure me in writing that they will never become a victim of a terrorist attack, NEVER?

As an Indian, I can…..Thats all I have to say about RAW

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

US accusation/description

• Donot add this content because there's no consensus as of yet. There are WP:NPOV issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:NPOV, the content is attributed. I have restored it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Attributed or not.. this has WP:NPOV issues with the wording as well as the tone. You've added the content without consensus. This article was previously protected due your addition of such content. You've resumed your editwar now. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no POV issues that I can see, please explain what is POV about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in previous sentences along with the US president's remark in the end... 1) bad usage of English language by using however twice making it look a confused statement. 2) Inconsistency among authorities which should be stated in a manner as before and not in self contradicting way. 3) Repetition of allegations is WP:UNDUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in previous sentences No, it has not. Were is the Inconsistency? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Already been mentioned: "However in 2011 The top U.S. military officer Adm. Mike Mullen publicly accused ISI, for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan". Inconsistency: "However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more". The solution here is to simply add these references along with Mullen's allegations instead of restating what is already done in NPOV way. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Learn to read. There is a world of difference between giving aid to the terrorists and being called a terrorist group. These are not the same thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks. You've been persistantly commenting on me in every discussion. There's disagreement among the US authorities of this. And it is not the same thing.. but repetition of same matter. This can be added in the same sentence. "ISI is accused by U.S. authorities like Adm. Mike Mullen, for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan and being as dangerous as those organizations invovled." --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they are two different things, try reading it a little slower. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion covers both regardless. What do you have to say about that? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is a BLP violation so remove it. Mullen never called the ISI a terrorist group. Again, these are two different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP? Where did I attribute Mullen to be making that accusation? I said 'authorities' like him so that his accusation can be inclusive. In short Mullen and his accusation are being given as an example of the greater accusation. Recheck the sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, read the sources. [29] Mullen has not said what you are attributing to him above. He spoke only of one group. He did not call the ISI a terrorist group. You are conflating two different things and creating a BLP issue were none need exist. The content is reliably sourced and verified. There is no reason within policy to remove it. So it shall stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue here (you also need to confirm what that means). Mullen is not being attributed to having said that. I'll modify it again to make it clearer: "ISI is accused by U.S. authorities of terrorism, Adm. Mike Mullen accused ISI in 2011 for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more. Pakistan categorically denies all the allegations.^{(cited denial of BBC report which had such allegations)}" --lTopGunl (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the content in question from your proposal. Which is US authorities describe the ISI as a terrorist organization They do not accuse, they have described. As I said, the content is fine. I have also separated this from the RFC as it is a different issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That amounts to an accusation. It has been fully attributed here. Their description is their view. Accusation stands well in this case. "Describes" brings WP:WEIGHT issues along with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources which describe this particular incident. Weight is not an issue, there is of course that Pakistan cannot deny US authorities describe the ISI as a terrorist organization as it would, well be stupid of them to do so. So I will not bother with this nay further, the edit is attributed, is is reliably sourced, it has been verified. There are no policy reasons at all for removing it, so it shall stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The description is an accusation. Simple now? Pakistan denies the accusation not that they described it at all. That was obvious. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sick of this also, you may not use a denial of Pakistani support for terrorism as a denial for the US government calling the ISI a terrorist group. Pakistan cannot deny it Why do I have to explain the same thing over and over and over and over to you? Is it a WP:COMPETENCE issue? Or perhaps you are going deaf? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Come back when you can base your argument on something not a personal attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? You have used that WP:HEAR on me quite a few times. There are no personal attacks in anything I have written, once again you go block shopping and deflect from the issues at hand with spurious allegations of personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? You mean to go around calling people deaf and link it to a legit policy to white wash it? This page is for content dispute anyway. What US authorities describe is an accusation or their view (which amounts to a claim). Pakistan denies terrorism claims. Pakistan certainly has rebutted this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do not try this again [30] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? How many times do you want to use "however" in a paragraph? The block quote is giving undue weight to Obama, it should be rewritten inline. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's quote was grossly misrepresented, the full quote is better for those reading the article to see what he actually meant, instead on someone sherry picking certain parts out. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not add that quote. You should better watch your edit summaries when you revert. The full quote is not even attributed to the paper published in or to the interviewer or whatever. It is a copyvio. And even if it is fixed, it has WP:UNDUE issues. The article is about ISI. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A quote is not a copyvio, you did not revert to the last standing version, you reverted to your preferred version. A gross misrepresentation of a source attributing something to a BLP has to be fixed, which is what I did. You have reverted 4 times since 09:07, 3 February 2012‎ so stop now please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

From BLP to copyvio version, really? You should have fixed the issue inline. See my above comment. And don't tell me about the reverts, you're far ahear of that (I don't think reverting some one who removed the translation counts to any editwar). Reverting copyvios is not editwar either. Your current quote has copied text attributed to no one. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A quote is not a copyvio, go ask someone if you do not believe me. If you are going to attribute statements to a BLP they have to be accurate, the source was grossly misrepresented on what Obama actually said. Do you honestly think it is OK to misrepresent what people have said? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not defending the previous version which was quoting Obama, I didn't add that sentence. But my revert was for your copyvio version. If you think there were issues you should have fixed them... not introduce more. Adding quotes is not a copyvio, but not telling where they are from is. Currently it is simply chunks of copied text with no attribution to the interviewer or the publisher. Better to rephrase it inline (since adding a complete quote even in attribution is undue here). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama said in an interview regarding this that is attribution. A blockquote is not a copyvio, like I said go ask someone. I have asked for further eyes on the BLP board. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(out)Look, go read it yourself Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you have only attributed to the direct statements of Obama... you have not attributed to the copied statement from the publisher "Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it."[31] which was not a direct quote. Get it now? And even if this is resolved a full quote about a single event is undue here. The article is about an organization not that event. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the policy again, read it slowly and then a little slower the third time around. Quotes are not a copyvio. I will not discuss it further, just read the policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

These are not quotes I'm talking about. This is a passive statement you copy-pasted from the source which was attributed to Obama but not in direct quotes. Check the source. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Finally that you do get my point, the next issue is that a block quote is undue. Even if this article was about that specific event having a full block quote would have to be considered for due weight. This article is about ISI, a blockquote from Obama about specific allegations related to a single timeframe is WP:UNDUE. Adding it inline in a rephrase or even with parts of quotations will be a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No I just did it to shut you up. It was not a copyvio. The full quote can either remain or the whole lot can go, you will not misrepresent what a BLP has said. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

How you can add this section with references from news paper articles and in the air accusations. How you can declare a reputable organization a sponsor of terrorism at the conclusion of introduction. Every agency do stuffs out of law for their own interests. If you talk about Kashmir, how you can't see Indian autocracies their. Do i consider this page is manaaged by an Indian or a vigorous American. WoolsValley (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Owen Sirrs

Strange that Owen L. Sirr's comprehensive volume is not used even once. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022 (typo)

Change "overseas" in paragraph 5 of lead to "oversees". 117.247.149.21 (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Already done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)