The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
The sentence may be, "Pakistan is on the verge of strong action by the international terror financing watchdog Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the country may be put in the 'Dark Grey' list, the last warning to improve". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2819:6296:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The is no official statement stating that it is in 'Dark Grey' list. Official announcement could come on 18 October. Your source could not confirm. Request you to wait till the official announcement comes. Brown Chocolate (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is pov about it? You said content "should not be written in Wikipedia's voice" and it's not since words like "accused of" suffice for neutrality, does it not? Uzek (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is abjectly untrue that NPOV and BLP only require you to insert "accused" before levelling a string of allegations and leaving out large parts of the story that do not align with those allegations. The whole paragraph is written with sources that stick to the pakistani stance. It ignores his mistreatment, lack of fair trial, retirement from military service, the refusal to allow consular access, intervention of the ICJ, so on and so forth, all of which is central to his case. The whole paragraph was a gross violation of our BLP and NPOV policies. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A follow-up sentence like "a charge India denies" sourced from Indian sources would be enough for WP:BALANCE. Details about his "mistreatment" etc are not relevant for this article per WP: NOTEVERYTHING and should rather go to his BLP. Just as irrelevant details about his arrest, alleged espionage activities etc are not included here. Uzek (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: You have not yet brought forth any sources to that contradict the current factual statements about the conviction based on the New York Times, a WP:RSP, nor the confession, which also seems fairly straightforward. Any details additional to that, allegations of mistreatment, etc., are exactly that: additions, which also just need sources from you. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing BLP here. A dude was convicted in court, as factually reported according to an WP:RSP. The only thing POV here is the tendentious deleting of the same; adding context is something that can be done at any point without deleting the core facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was convicted by military trial, without fair representation, denied consular access, possibly tortured. A conviction that was overturned by the International court of justice for being "internationally wrongful acts of a continuing character" , alongside the repeated denial of consular access.
How is replacing a New York times and a Pakistani source with exclusively Indian sources balanced and NPOV? You also deleted the previous content and replaced it with a whitewashed WP: CENSORED version. Uzek (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read WP:NPOVHOW to avoid senseless edit wars in the future. No such rule exists that just because you think material is not balanced, it MUST be deleted. Uzek (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war carried out because people kept trying to force the content without a sense of balance, including you. It only ended when I opened this section for discussion, though the the onus was on you to discuss and get consensus. In future, do not attempt to force changes through without gaining consensus first. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That pakistani source is a transcript, not an analysis; the content was available there already. I have no issues with using New York times, but the content for it is already there and is cited.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one about ICJ making the current conviction null and void, and about lapses from pakistan's side? Thats for BLP, we are required to be careful while making allegations against suspects. While he was indeed "convicted", as stated above, it was nullified by the ICJ. It is important to clarify that part.
Also you said it was too much, would you say what is appropriate? Because right now we state the Pakistani POV as fact, and Indian POV as Indian POV.
Before making any further edits to the article, please seek consensus by proposing the edit you want to make, here. Multiple editors have already asked you to avoid adding unnecessary details. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oriental Aristocrat: You are warned not to edit war to restore the version everyone except you agrees is wrong. You are only disrupting the dispute resolution process. This is sanctionable behaviour.
You are also lying when you call it the status quo version. You are inserting your own revision, made on 9th April, against consensus, which you have since then edit warred in trying to introduce. I would advise you to self revert immediately, and if not, I will be reverting it myself. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
my request is that Pakistan neither promotes terrorism nor support terrorism but terrorism is thrown from outside on Pakistan and as you mentioned that from year 2000 terrorism is started in Pakistan, which your words indicate that from western world waves of terrorism come on Pakistan. 2401:BA80:A120:7515:17AE:ADF6:A681:4D25 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cannolis (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)