Talk:Husain Haqqani

Anything about post Memogate?

He was on Jon Stewart on Dec 9, 2013, and passively mentioned that he cannot return to Pakistan. Is he now a U.S. citizen and can he return to Pakistan? --GorillaManBear (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on Memogate yet?!

Surprisingly, the Mike Mullen memo controversy doesn't even have a wiki page yet. Had something like memogate happened in an English-speaking western country (America!) I bet ~100 wiki articles would have been written already ... 202.3.77.205 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

minor edits

Style, as i understand it, is "an MA degree". Also, WP and other styleboodks avoid parentheses and avoid unnec caps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Risingsun23 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

possible replacement

This section contained some very heavily non-NPOV language and is based on an unsubstantiated rumour. Once there is some legitimate source for this claim, then it could be a valid entry, but only so long as it is posted in an NPOV manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Thrace (talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Omission of important facts

I grew up with this man and boy, this article hides a lot of facts about this person e.g. he is a classic turncoat jumping from one political party in power to the other, advancing his political career. He also married many times to women of powerful political connections to advance his political career. e.g. He started his political career by winning presidential election of National College students union from the platform of "Islami Jamiat ul Tuluba", the student wing of hard line fundamentalist political party "Jamaat-e-Islami". He then joined PPP which was a left wing party in power. He then hopped to Muslim league when it came to power, and then back to PPP. To his credit, this man was an academic genius holding first positions at each level of education. Plus he was an excellent orator and always won debates. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you grew up with anyone as well as your personal opinion is completely irrelevant. Original Research is impermissible by Wikipedia standards. Besides, most politicians have changed parties at some point. It does not mean they are "turncoat" which is both misleading and patently insulting and has no place in Wikipedia. Bill Thrace (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

he is a typical hippocrate!a breed--2.89.218.239 (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC) commonly found everywhere in the world.this specie has special predilection for indo pak eg mir jaffer,mir sadiq etc.etc.mujtaba khan a colleague of mr munafiq.

Missing

This article says nothing about how most people in pakistan percieve him as an american apologist ,and he gave 7,000 visas to CIA agents with out security clearance approval. someone needs to add that --Multan47 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In order for someone to add it they would need a credible third party source to verify it. Bill Thrace (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Secret Memo

user:Mansoor Ijaz mentioned here on User:FreeRangeFrog's Talk page that I may have made some errors in the Controversy section in my first run-through.

My thinking actually was that maybe this section should be handled in a similar fashion as the E Coli outbreak] on the Odwalla page.

While these events are a very significant part of Husain's life and probably his primary claim to notability, they also took place over about 1 year (like 3% of his life-time) and there is already a separate article on it. The Odwalla strikes me as too short, but Wikipedia:Summary style seems like the way to go if we could get this down to 1 paragraph, knowing there is a whole page on it if readers would like to know more. My 2 pennies. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:

@CorporateM: Your first run through to cut the overall section down was pretty good. I only commented on organization of sentences because your cut version simply did not have the timeline right. As I lived through that whole drama myself, I just thought it was best to take the cut section you had drafted and reorganize it. The way the section is now, you could probably lose two or maybe three sentences (the last one is surely superfluous and could go into "Views" easily). In terms of importance to his overall career, I have to take issue with the simply streamlining and apportioning of time -- this drama ended his diplomatic career for all intents and purposes. Right, wrong or indifferent, it was a major factor in his life. The main article is pretty well written so your structural point is well-taken. It's always nice to see the sharp pen of a good editor. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 22:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Brilliant! But there are still some latent inaccuracies, and you took out one important sentence that was at the heart of the inquiry (I suggest it goes back in at the end of paragraph 1) -- may I suggest as follows (I did not bring in the references here just to keep syntax simpler)? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, American businessman Mansoor Ijaz said Haqqani asked him to deliver a secret memorandum to Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking for the Obama administration [NOT MILITARY BUT POLITICAL INTERVENTION] to intervene to prevent a military takeover in Pakistan.[10][11] Haqqani denied the accusations.[12] He was summoned to Islamabad by Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani to discuss the allegations and resigned shortly after his meeting with senior Pakistani leaders.[12] While a judicial commission organized by Pakistan's Supreme Court investigated,[13] Haqqani was not allowed to leave the country.[14] He sought refuge in the presidential palace and later the Prime Minister's residence, citing threats to his life by extremist groups who accused him of treason.[15] The Judicial Commission conducted its hearings by remote video link from London, and Haqqani was eventually allowed by the Supreme Court to leave Pakistan to attend.

In June 2012, the Judicial Commission released a report concluding that the memorandum was authentic and that Haqqani was its "originator and architect".[16]:119 The justices further found that Haqqani had undermined the country's security and that Haqqani misled Ijaz to believe the memorandum had the Pakistani president's approval.[17] Haqqani said the Commission's report was one-sided and defended his patriotism[18] and his innocence.[19] The Wall Street Journal said he was a capable diplomat punished for attempting to protect a civilian government from a military one that was undermining it.[20]

I didn't think the squabbling over the logistics of the hearings was appropriate for a summary. Someone else may feel differently (and if they do they should be bold and put it back in). As long as the reader gets the drift that he was somewhat uncooperative under the pretense that he felt his life was at-risk, I think that's enough for a summary style. I fixed the military reference - a mucho important correction. Feel free to get a second opinion from another editor. Maybe Freerange has an opinion? CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(unindenting) @CorporateM: Well, I will leave it to others. I have an obvious conflict of interest in making outright edits here, so I will also ask if @FreeRangeFrog: FRF would like to weigh in. Generally, your editing was superb. Well done. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

for what it's worth, the relevant point I was trying to draw out is that only because the commission held hearings in London was he allowed to leave Pakistan by the Supreme Court. That is surely relevant as it was the turning point that enabled him to avoid facing the commission's findings in a Supreme Court hearing. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: if you added this sentence at the end of the second paragraph, I think it resolves the problem: Haqqani, who had been permitted by the Supreme Court to travel to London to attend the Commission's investigative hearings, has thus far refused to return to Pakistan to face the Commission's findings. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I think I misunderstood. He was allowed to go to London for the court hearing, then he stayed there and refused to return? So that was how he escaped the country. Do I have that right? CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's correct. As I am an American citizen, I was not required to appear in Pakistan, and I received as many threats as he did. So the Commission decided, after a month-long wrangling with lawyers, etc, to record my testimony from London. Haqqani argued he wasn't getting a fair hearing (trial) and so the Supreme Court allowed him to leave on the promise that he would return within "X" period of their first demand of him to do so. He has adamantly refused to do so since the findings, which were based in the end on forensic examination of my BlackBerry devices and computers, emails, records, etc, implicated him so directly. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it - now I understand the significance. I put in the alternative you mentioned with a tweak. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. Pleasure working with you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of Name

He spells his name "Husain", not "Hussain". Shouldn't that be how the article identifies him?

— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting to the 16:41, 19 December 2015‎ content

I find the the current content highly impartial, though Hussain Haqqani`s is a very controversial figure I still believe that we need to ensure neutrality and impartiality on wikipedia. The content of 16:41, 19 December 2015 I believe fully addresses this issue.

Ask the other users reverting you to come here aswell, as they have more knowledge about what's going on then I do.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ledthenerd All I am saying is this, don`t entirely revert to the previous content, I am not against the previous version in its entirety but I do have reservations about a few sections. I also believe that the book section in the current section section has been made more impartial instead of praising or criticizing the books. Vision Hawk

@VisionHawk, According to Kautilya3's comments on SheriffisinTown's talkpage, VisionHawk is a Sockpuppet of someone.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@VLerdthenerd The content on the page says "is also a part time journalist and allegedly the originating godfather of Lifafa journalism (accepting gratification for promoting other peoples’ heinous agenda through media)" I am against such biases involved I removed such biased content to ensure a more balanced article. I am no body`s sockpuppet. Go through the current content read it entirely and read through the previous content as well. And you decide for yourself which content you find more balanced.VisionHawk (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

So, you started editing Wikipedia today and you deny allegations of sockpuppeting which means in other words that you know what sockpuppeting is? :) Sheriff | report | 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown Yes I am denying the allegation, come to the topic do you find the current version to be unbiased or impartial? VisionHawk (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what is meant by unbiased or impartial. Most of the content seems to be sourced to newspaper opinion columns, which are not considered reliable sources as per WP:NEWSORG. You can take facts, not analysis or opinions. Wikipedia does not depend on the editors' views of "bias" or "neutrality," but rather those of the reliable sources. Without reliable sources, all the content should be deleted except the bare facts. That is all there is to it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of WP:NEWSORG policy, I will have to review it and then review all these edits and then I can say anything. Sheriff | report | 19:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The reverted version to that of 23rd October seems to be reasonable. Knowing nothing of the guy or any background I can't vouch for its accuracy. But there was a great deal of content added by IP editor 91.212.53.252 that was most certainly not neutrally expressed, relied heavily on a single source that was critical of Haqqani, and had a large amount of weaselly unsourced opinion sneaked into it. It would appear that generally opinion of him is very divided. Therefore any critical material sourced to opinion pieces must be carefully evaluated and appropriately balanced, per WP:BLP. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:NEWSORG and do not see where it says not to rely on opinion pieces, it does say about attributing the opinion piece to the author thus in light of this will not support the complete removal of this information. I think whatever can be sourced should be mentioned for example his US Citizenship cannot be confirmed, only application can be confirmed, his being a turncoat and switching parties can be confirmed and should go in. Sheriff | report | 22:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It says that opinion columns are only reliable as primary sources for statements attributed to the authors. Nothing has been attributed in the IP 91's content. WP:NEWSORG also asks us to look into the identity of authors to determine reliability. Nothing has been said about the authors here. Moreover, when there are good scholarly sources available, I am not sure why they are not being used. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea of "turncoat," called "flip-flop" by the source S. M. Hali, is an extremely subjective, and possibly highly biased, opinion of a commentator. Normally, bureaucrats, technocrats and other policy makers are expected to be able to work with politicians of all political parties, and it is hardly considered a negative trait. Had Haqqani ran for political offices and switched parties, that would be a concern. But nothing has been said about Haqqani being a "politician" in that sense. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@ The nature of the content needs to be reviewed and improved, especially the content needs to be presented in a balanced way reverting back to the October content is not the solution. It only represents only one side of the picture, this issue has been taken up in the previous talk sections as well but with littel or no action. Credibility of the content needs to be ensured, all the content cannot and shouldn`t be removed under the guise of copy right violations at the same time the content which really do violate copy rights should be removed but that doesn't give anyone the right to remove all of the content . I second the edits and removals made by Escape_Orbit and that should be the way to go about it. Many people have serious doubts on the lack of the credibility and incomplete content on the issue and this should be addressed. VisionHawk (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The need to establish the so-called "credibility" is often the tactic used by people that want to push particular points of view. But Wikipedia does not have any policy about establishing "credibility" with any particular audience. It only cares about presenting facts as stated by reliable secondary sources. Copyright violation is not a guise; any text that violates copyright is always immediately deleted and editors that repeatedly violate it will be blocked. This is not negotiable. Reverting edits does not mean that that material is permanently rejected. As per WP:BRD it is an invitation for you to discuss here the issues that need discussion. Trying to repeatedly reinstate your edits without achieving consensus for them is utterly pointless. Your best bet is to start discussing the issues that you see with the article one by one and work towards agreement on them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Terms like "turn-coat" are not neutral and should only be used when clearly attributed as an opinion, and the exact words, of a notable critic. If there is significant criticism of Haqqani it is up to those contributing it to phrase it neutrally, cite excellent sources, and make it clear it is opinion, not fact. Until then it shouldn't be here. Also understand that as long as negative opinions appear, notable rebuttals of these opinions are equally valid. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

By "turn-coat", i did not mean to use the exact term, i meant that it is confirmed that he switched parties for personal benefit and it should be mentioned that he was in this party then went to this party and then that.

Sorry, i was not more clear about that. Sheriff | report | 13:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Switching political parties," is only an issue for politicians that run for political offices as representatives of political parties. For normal civilians, it is perfectly normal to work with whatever government is in power to achieve their own ends. Perhaps, Captain Hali wants to indicate that the military is beyond such power pursuits. I don't see why that is of any interest to Wikipedia. The whole thing is a smear campaign as far as I can see. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, he is a politician, when someone works for political parties and governments then he/she becomes a politician and this is not for Wikipedia, this is for readers of Wikipedia, the readers need to know about all aspects of a notable personality. What's wrong in mentioning that he once supported Islamist parties, military dictators, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto then turned anti-Pakistan, anti-Islam and anti-military and when all of this can be supported by a third-party source. I do not know if S. M. Hali is known as a critique of Husain Haqqani or he has any personal scores to settle with him until we have that type of confirmation, we should not have any problem sourcing his news piece. Sheriff | report | 15:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your idea of "politician" is not the standard interpretation of the term. It is fine to indicate facts. But repeated attempts are being made here to take value judgements, accusations, and conspiracy theories from the Hali article. And, mind you that "anti-Pakistan", "anti-Islam" and "anti-military" etc. are your own value judgements. You need to watch out for them as you edit. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what i could derive out of that column since we cannot use exact words of the author as it will be considered a copyvio, we have to read the material and then write it in our own words. That was the best i could describe without copy violation and without being too harsh as the author was. I tried my best to balance it. Sheriff | report | 16:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That he switched political parties is the only confirmed fact. Unless you have a good cite where he personally says "I did this for my own personal benefit", then that can only be an opinion of others. Unless we have a reliable mind-reader to cite, he is the only person who may state as fact why he did it. This is what I meant by avoiding mixing personal opinions in with facts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are coming from as nothing of this sort ("I did this for my own personal benefit") or ("he did this for his own personal benefit") is mentioned in the article. Did i add something like that? Sheriff | report | 16:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Above on this page you say; "By "turn-coat", i did not mean to use the exact term, i meant that it is confirmed that he switched parties for personal benefit". Only half of that statement is fact, the other half is opinion. This discussion is focused on what might be added to improve the article. If you have no intention of adding the opinion, then it would be best if you don't mention it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Escape_Orbit ask any neutral observer of what he makes out of Hussain Haqqani, he is a highly controversial figure especially in Pakistan, reason he kept on changing his political allegiances that too on extreme basis, e.g he was initially with right wing Jamat Islami , then sided with centre PML-N, then tried to gain favors with the army during Musharraf era, then joined the leftist PPP then betrayed PPP was proven in a judgment to be a traitor i.e the judgement was given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan then went on his anti Pakistan tirade. I second Sheriff let this article be a really glimpse of what Mr haqqani really is otherwise ask any Pakistani (the country of which this guy is a citizen of) and he will surely tell you that this article is highly biased.GreenBeret65 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The irony is when a realistic decent attempt is made to put things in a neutral perspective we have people with vested interest jump in citing all sorts of ludicrous reasons, to keep the article the way it is. This hypocrisy needs to end let the things be told the way they are, you cant just say that the Pakistani references are biased you need to take them into account as well. Otherwise in the views of 200 million people you have 0 legitimacy GreenBeret65 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@GreenBeret65: Please read the notice at the top of this page. Any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced will be removed immediately. This edit is a prime example of such material. Neither of your sources say what the sentence says. It is pure WP:OR. For editing a contentious subject such as this, you need mastery of the Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources and NPOV. Please familiarise yourself with the policies, and maintain a neutral, factual tone throughout. Your opinions of Haqqani or your opinions on what Pakistanis think about Haqqani are entirely irrelevant. All material should be reliably sourced. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alas, the irony of Wikipedia editing is that you learn about those people whom you have no interest to learn anything about. Now i have to read and vet out all these sources in this article :( Sheriff | report | 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. Pakistan politics are a minefield and neutral sources that aren't grinding some or other axe are difficult to spot. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Not sure what English do you read, please check the definition of "traitor" at Merriam-Webster:

Definition of traitor 1: a person who is not loyal or true to a friend, duty, cause, or belief or is false to a personal duty

Sheriff | report | 16:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not an issue of dictionary meanings. "Traitor" is a value-laden label. It can't be used unless multiple reliable sources use it, and even then it can only be attributed, not used in Wikipedia voice. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You might want to get it added to the words to watch list because it's not there. I remember working previously on an article where people wanted to add "stampede" to that list so as i recall, a specific word has to be on that list in order to avoid use in the articles. Sheriff | report | 17:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Traitor" is a BLP violation, and the way it was stuck in the lead, weasel words and all, is not acceptable. User:SheriffIsInTown, GreenBeret65, when I say "BLP violation", I mean that I am likely to block whoever sticks it back in.

  Now, what you can do here, on the talk page, is negotiate a way to get that information in the text in a neutral manner. If you can't do that, it won't be in the article. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I would also like to point out that it is well-sourced and it was added by GreenBeret65 was reverted by Kautilya3 saying it is unsourced but when i went in to check i found it to be sourced since it was removed describing it unsourced, i reverted him saying that it is sourced, if there was some other reason given for the revert by Kautilya3 then it might have been a different case but at this point i find that text as sourced and the term "traitor" not in the "Words to watch" list.

And, how do you find out what is a "BLP violation" and what is not? Sheriff | report | 18:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You have to use the exact same words used in multiple reliable sources and attribute them accurately to those sources. No weasel words like "many in Pakistan," "some in Pakistan" or whatever. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 According to my knowledge you cannot use exact words because it becomes a copyvio, "Some in Pakistan" would be proper here since it describes that there are some people in Pakistan who consider him "traitor" even if we just imply that the commission which issued the report saying he was "not loyal" are those "some" and also please let me know how i am wrong that the word actually needs to be listed in the "Words to watch" list? It's a learning process for me as well. Sheriff | report | 18:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel Look at the source headline dude "Memogate commission declares Haqqani guilty". I think i am done with my quota of reverts for today otherwise i would have reverted you, you are removing sourced information. He was not just implicated, he was found guilty, that's what the source says. Sheriff | report | 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not what the body of the article says. And this is the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article. Furthermore we are dealing here with WP:BLP violations. Those can't be on Wikipedia for legal reasons. Different rules apply here. Please be careful. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it depends the way you read and interpret WP:BLP, i think what you removed was reliably sourced and was not in violation of that policy. Sheriff | report | 19:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not depend on the way you read the BLP. It is quite clear, and Hebel explains it pretty well below. If you think that the BLP is this flexible you should probably stay away from editing articles on living people. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC

Over the years, pepole have adopted a stereotypical view of Wikipedia's policies and they want to keep sticking to that view, I have seen editors and admins alike with over 100K edits referring to policies but not understanding them right and I had to spell the policies out for them and then their response was "oh, I am surprised the policy says that", maybe I will have to spell out WP:BLP for you guys here, who wants to bet their retirement on this? :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources don't matter that much. We can't say stuff like that about living persons unless they're convicted, and even then it depends. Furthermore there seems to be a contradiction. The body article says that the the Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared that the findings of the commission are just the opinion of that commission. So it's questionable at least if there is a guilty verdict. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Comments from Mansoor Ijaz

Link to the version being discussed.

@Hebel:

@SheriffIsInTown:

@VisionHawk:

I had posted a note on my Talk page talk when originally approached by VisionHawk that it was not appropriate for me to contribute to the editing process of the content in this section, but as I have read what seems to have been reached as consensus now, there are factual inaccuracies that require fixes, each of which I will set forth below, and certain comments that are not accurate to the extent that they essentially defame me in a manner not acceptable and which I would like to recommend be fixed.

1. The Memogate section of the Haqqani article presently states: A week after the attack on Bin Laden, a Pakistani American businessman Mansoor Ijaz wrote... This is factually inaccurate. The Financial Times article was written by me in the last days of September 2011 and published on the evening of October 10, 2011. This should be corrected -- perhaps as: Several months after the Abbottabad raid, an American businessman of Pakistani origin wrote an opinion piece in the Financial Times...

2. The same sentence further mistates a section in quotations: an opinion column in the Financial Times stating that a "senior Pakistani diplomat asked him to pass Zardari's message to the Americans that the military was planning to intervene." As quotations are generally used to quote a source exactly, this should either be fixed to quote the exact sentence from the FT op-ed piece I wrote or generalized to reflect accurately what was said. I wrote Early on May 9, a week after US Special Forces stormed the hideout of Osama bin Laden and killed him, a senior Pakistani diplomat telephoned me with an urgent request. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, needed to communicate a message to White House national security officials that would bypass Pakistan’s military and intelligence channels.

3. Later in the same paragraph, an editor has written: According to Ijaz, the military intended to stage a coup to wash off the embarrassment issuing from the raid on Bin Laden... This is not an accurate statement. I would like to note that on Page 108 of the Judicial Commission's report, in one of its section conclusions, the justices stated: Mr. Haqqani orchestrated the possibility of an imminent coup to both persuade Mr. Ijaz to convey the message [the Memorandum] and also to give it traction and credibility. I suggest that if we are sticking to facts, this is a pretty large one that needs to be accurately stated after the measure of investigation conducted by the Commission. I am happy to upload in Wikimedia a full and unredacted copy of the Commission's report if that will assist in pointing folks to the exact language used by the justices. I recognize there are primary source issues here, but either we correct the inaccuracy and cite a different set of sources, or we put the exact language in as it was stated in the report. It should not be that such a highly inaccurate and incendiary statement as is there now be left as is. It should also be noted that point (b) of the justices section conclusion stated Mr. Haqqani did not question Mr. Ijaz about the purported threat of a coup in May 2011, for the reason it suited his overall plan.

4. The final sentence of the same paragraph containing the aforementioned inaccuracies states: However, following a meeting with General Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, Ijaz changed tunes and accused the Zardari-led government of a "deceitful campaign" against Kayani and Pasha. This is a false allegation written in a book that has not been verified in any form that is visible to the public at large. The meeting with Gen. Pasha was held at his request to review the data in my possession that in my judgment, and later his and that of other senior Pakistani civil, judicial and miltary officials, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt the role that Mr. Haqqani had played in the matter. To state that I changed tunes is inaccurate and misleading.

5. Much discussion has been had over the word "traitor" as it applies to Mr. Haqqani. To my knowledge, this word was not used by the Commission in its findings. There were, however, pertinent observations made by the justices in their report that are worth noting on the Talk page of this article if not in the article itself. I agree that WP primary source issues must be respected, and those who have a view on the impartiality or validity of the Commission's conclusions are certainly entitled to discount the observations to whatever extent they feel necessary. But the observations and conclusions are clear and should at least be a part of this dialogue box in assessing how to characterize Mr. Haqqani's alleged role in the controversy:

Pages 119-121 of the Judicial Commission's Report, Section 27, Final Conclusions and Findings, Bullet Points 2), 3), 4) and 5):

2) It has been incontrovertibly established that the Memorandum was authentic and Mr. Haqqani was the originator and architect of the Memorandum. Mr. Haqqani sought American help; he also wanted to create a niche for himself making himself forever indispensable to the Americans. He lost sight of the fact that he is a Pakistani citizen and Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States of America, and therefore his loyalty could only be to Pakistan.

3) Mr. Haqqani's by offering his service as part of a proposed "national security team" to a foreign government, voicing "great fears" that Pakistan's nuclear assets are now "legitimate targets" and thus seeking to bring "Pakistan's nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime".... created fissures in the body politic and were acts of disloyalty to Pakistan, that contravened the Constitution of Pakistan.

4) The "purpose" of the Memorandum was to show that the civilian government was friends of America but needed to be strengthened to prevail upon the army and the intelligence agencies, and to be able to do so American help was required to set up a civilian national security team, to be headed by Mr. Haqqani.

5) There can be no two views that terrorism needs to be contested, terrorist fought, nuclear proliferation opposed..... however, what is not acceptable is for Pakistan's Ambassador to beseech a foreign government to with impunity meddle in and run our affairs.

Hopefully these observations and comments will assist you, the editors and contributors, in sharpening up and removing materials that are both inaccurate and reduce the encyclopedic value of the overall article. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ijaz, thank you for your comments as well as for making the correct decision to voice your concerns here rather than by editing the article text.

Most of the issues you mention are with the new text I added yesterday, sourced to the Ayesha Jalal and Imtiaz Gul books. I will self-revert the new content for now, review it carefully against the sources, and reinstate it after revisions.

Please note that our guidelines state that once historians begin to study a subject, only scholarly sources should be used for sourcing content. All news sources should be replaced by scholarly sources. All government sources, including the Supreme Court, are primary sources, and nothing will be taken from them except for amplification of secondary scholarly sources. Best regards. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: here is my position on the various issues you have raised:

1. I will correct the dates.

2. The quotation marks are for our source, Ayesha Jalal, in this instance. I will remove the quote marks because they could be misconstrued as quoting you.

3. The passage from the Imtiaz Gul's book is as follows:

"Mansoor Ijaz became central to what is meanwhile known as Pakistan's Memogate by alleging through media--and an article he published in the Financial Times in October 2011--that the Pakistani government had sought American support against pre-empting an impending coup by the army which, Ijaz claims, would have used the coup to wash off the embarrassment and humiliation it had faced in the aftermath of the raid on the Bin Laden compound."

It clearly supports what I have have written.

4. The passage from the Ayesha Jalal's book is as follows:

"After his meeting with the ISI chief, Ijaz changed his stripes, accusing the Zardari-led government for the deceitful campaign against Kayani and Pasha that led to a worsening of the US– Pakistani relationship."

which again supports what I have written. Ayesha Jalal is a top historian of Pakistan, and this is a book published by the Harvard University Press, which is the highest quality of source that Wikipedia uses. I can remove the phrase "changed tunes" because the it is commentary. But the information needs to stay.

5.The word "traitor" will never be used in Wikipedia voice. It can only be used in attribution to a judicial source, and as you note, there is no such source available. Best regards, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me also add that there are about a dozen scholarly sources on the memogate (books and journal articles). None of them cite the Judicial Commission report. So, as per WP:HISTRS, we cannot use it as a source for anything. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for your response. The only difficulty I have with what you have written is that knowing there is another point of view (factual data from a judicial body that whether you respect it or not, agree with it or not, wish to acknowledge it or not, is there). The hard facts in support of what I have posited as the other side of this complex equation should have some weight in balancing the sources you have cited, which are decidedly one-sided even if scholarly in your view. The purpose of an encyclopedic entry (this is after all, not an opinion page) is to insure there is a balanced point of view on these matters. I am the person affected. I state categorically that there was never any change of stripes or whatever words some author wants to put in my mouth. Didn't happen. Not true. Just because Harvard publishes it and the lady is a top historian does not make the words true..... Suggest we find a better resolution. You cannot slander me in this way. I strongly object to the characterization and at minimum request that there be the point of view put there that balances the equation. Thank you 217.169.43.94 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can never claim to know what the facts are. Its goal is merely to provide verifiable information. The scholars have had access to all the sources you mention. If they chose to discount them, we are not going to claim better knowledge and override their judgement. I can understand that you feel aggrieved, but what you regard as "slander" is not necessarily slander from the general point of view. If I were you, I would start looking for other scholarly sources that support your point of view. This debate is being watched by a number of editors including a senior administrator Drmies. I am sure they will weigh in if I am saying anything wrong. You can also raise an issue at WP:BLP/N. For my part, I won't reinstate my edit until after Christmas, so that the others have a chance to review it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: This is not a HISTRS article, this is a BLP and at its current state does not represent a neutral point of view. Commission's report is very new for the scholars to mention it and scholars you are citing here might not have been even given access to that report, that could be only reason why they don't even mention the commission report because they didn't even read the thing. I think it's perfectly okay to cite press sources to balance the article because even HISTRS says "press sources should be replaced with scholarly sources", it does not say that they must be replaced. In English language there is a difference between "should" and "must". As for the word traitor, let's replace that original text with the text from the secondary newspaper source and quote it like this "According to judicial commission's report "Husain Haqqani was not loyal to Pakistan" in writing that memorandum", no "traitor" there although "not loyal" means "traitor" by the way whether someone agrees or not. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Mind you, these scholars are known to adopt a dissenting point of view which is usually different than the mainstream view when they right their books, I mean who is going to read the book if they say the samething which every body is saying? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but you are wrong. The Jalal book is from 2014 and there are other recent journal articles too. I will upload a new version after Christmas with updated info. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have gone to the passage in Ms. Jalal's book, and the entire section where she discusses Memogate and the intersection of civilian-military affairs can best be described as hearsay upon opinion upon hearsay. She may be a top historian, but the paragraphs you took your wording from are written like an opinion piece with a significant slant towards her clear desire to defend a civilian government, regardless of its flawed actions. I would also question your point of whether the scholars have "had access" to all the sources. While the Judicial Commission's report was publicly available at the offices of the Registrar in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it is unlikely that it was a widely held or widely read document other than at the headquarters of television stations and newspaper outlets that had to report on its contents (we will leave out discussion of whether they did so reliably or not).

Ms. Jalal, for example, writes about the BlackBerry devices without once mentioning that they were forensically examined by an independent and reputable UK firm and found to confirm the messages which took place. Rather, she implicates the ISI in having released the transcripts to the press, which is factually not true, but does serve her purpose to slap the ISI on the wrist for one or another thing.

There is a growing credibility problem with the way you have approached the edit. I strongly urge other editors and contributors to this particular process to go and read the sources and determine for themselves whether the sources being relied upon are balanced and present a neutral point of view. As I am a concerned party, I can only leave my voice at the level of the Talk page and leave you folks to sort this out. But I feel strongly that you are relying on only one slant of opinion and sourcing that gives you the angle you want to take. That's fine in opinion pieces. It does not work when you have to balance the arguments on both sides of such a controversial issue. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Ijaz, please note that sources for Wikipedia are expected to be reliable, but not necessarily neutral. See WP:BIASED. You are welcome to bring other sources to the table, which provide alternative points of view. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Equally, the sources are expected to be factual and truthful. It is not for me to bring alternative sources to the table as I am not a qualified editor on this subject due to the obvious and noted conflicts of interest -- it is for you, as the person who chose to make whatever edits you did, to insure the proper dispensation of what you write. I have pointed out in clear terms why the source you cite is wrong -- you have so far blustered in responses but failed to provide any reason why the source should not be challenged other than it was published by Harvard and written by a noted historian of Pakistan. Shall I cite the number of times in journalistic history that the New York Times and Washington Post had to retract or restate? You have no idea and cannot prove whether the author ever even read the Judicial Commission report. You have not made clear whether YOU have read or understood the content of the report. If you are going to contribute on such a subject that involves the complexity and sensitivity it does, it is only fair to the Wikipedian community, the person about who you write and those who are affected by your edits that you know the subject matter of which you speak, or you should simply not make the edit where knowledge of the subject matter doesn't reflect a critical level of understanding. There is no room in Wikipedia editing for biased points of view. I would say the version that is there now is accurate, fair and does not devolve into any biased points of view, for whatever my opinion on this matter is worth. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, we do not arrogate to ourselves the ability to decide whether the sources are right or wrong. Sources can only be challenged by bringing other reliable sources. Your conflict of interest in no way prohibits you from bringing in sources. The Judicial commission report is a primary source and there is no point in discussing it further. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• For the sake of transparency, let me note that the edit or two I made just now were prompted by a conversation I had on my talk page (User_talk:Drmies#Husain_Haqqani_again) with Mr. Ijaz. You are welcome to have a look at that conversation. I assure you I have no dog in this fight, if a fight it is. Fact is, I most likely agree with Mr. Ijaz that the Gul book is to be taken with a grain of salt--it does not appear to be published by a press that does their fact-checking properly. I do have to disagree with Mr. Ijaz on two other sources: I do not yet see any grounds to discredit the Jalal book, and Wikipedia is not likely to accept the judicial report as a reliable source. It may cite it, or its conclusions, but it should do so with proper attribution. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a ground to discredit the Jalal book. I doubt that there won't be any personal affiliation between Jalal and Haqqani. Haqqani has been a faculty member in a university in Boston from 2004 to 2008 while Ayesha Jalal has been living in Boston for a very long time now. I am pretty sure that it cannot be possible that Pakistani intellectuals living in the same city at the same time and they never met each other. It is quite possible that Jalal might have even consulted Haqqani when writing this book, they must have each other's contact numbers. It might be just my opinion but don't these expatriate scholars have regular get-togethers where they exchange ideas while their area of expertise or the subjects they write about are all the same. Just thinking out of the box. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Dear editor/contributor, I have taken note of your remark and would like to add that a simple Google search of "Husain Haqqani Ayesha Jalal" brings up some interesting contact points between the two individuals, the most interesting of which is a YouTube video of Haqqani hosting Jalal at the Hudson Institute (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsmrbNduVC4, http://www.hudson.org/events/1201-the-struggle-for-pakistan112014). I make no comment about the content -- that is for each reviewer to decide for themselves. But there is irrefutable evidence of contact at a fairly robust level. I leave it to you to source and find others to bring to attention on this Talk page. Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Welll, check this out, here the editor says that "Haqqani, Jalal and Siddiqa ganged up on him during a seminar", so it's clear that there is a connection and they attend seminars together and i am sure when they write their books, they seek help from each other. As the video above proves that they both know each other, it's hard to believe and quite impossible that "Haqqani hosts Jalal" but they do not share their email addresses and phone numbers and i am pretty sure when Haqqani resigned, Jalal must have picked up the phone or typed an email to him asking for the inside scoop and then when she was sitting in her drawing room, concocting up a story and reached to the point when she wanted to write about "Memogate", she must have picked up the phone or wrote an email to Haqqani telling him that "she is writing a book and she wants to mention "Memogate" and whatever you can tell about it is welcomed". I am just imagining this but considering Haqqani and Jalal's area of authorship being the same, cities of residence once being the same and both being associated with top universities of Boston, attending seminars together and hosting each other, it's quite possible that something like that would have happened. So basically, sourcing Jalal here in Haqqani's article is sourcing Haqqani himself, it's one-sided story, the way told by Haqqani. She also mentions "Mansoor Ijaz" as a "controversial american businessman" but does not mention "Haqqani" as "controversial", he was equally part of this controversy if not more than Ijaz. I call this "scholarly bias". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting, this proves the bias and leaves little room for any mention of Jalal`s work due to conflict of interest. There is now irrefutable evidence of contact between the two, especially the article written by Ethan Casey "We are free to choose peace" published in Dawn on december 2, 2011 further enforces this belief. GreenBeret65 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Honestly, I'm a little surprised that Mansoor Ijaz is spending so much time trying to influence a Wikipedia page. SheriffIsInTown is "pretty sure that it cannot be possible that Pakistani intellectuals living in the same city at the same time and they never met each other"? This is embarrassing for the Wikipedia community and really challenges the credibility of this page all together. Bill Thrace (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead wording

It seems to me that the source that is quoted in the lead is an article from a newspaper. The source quoted in the body article, from the same newspaper, contradicts the source in the lead. I have restored language about implication and conclusion, replacing language that speaks of guilt and verdict. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me which specific source inside the article contradicts the source in the lead because there are many sources inside the article? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The body says Pakistan's Supreme Court noted that the commission was only expressing its opinion. Only the Court has the authority to hold somebody "guilty." - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, basically reference no 25, which is in the article of the body, doesn't say the same thing as reference no 1, which is in the lead. They can't both be true and as they are published by the same newspaper, no 25 looks like a retraction of no. 1. And of course they are newspaper articles. Biographies of living people should take more care than that. Please be careful.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Husain Haqqani hasn't been a journalist for almost 30 years. He's also not a "political activist." Maybe he was when he was in college, but that was decades ago. Please stop editing the lead and the info box to say otherwise. Bill Thrace (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The source you, yourself added from Democracy Journal says he is a "journalist" and "political activist", no source says that he has not been both of these for 30 years. Please stop CHERRYPICKING. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

When you originally edited you did not include the source. You can't accuse someone of CHERRYPICKING if you don't cite the source. Bill Thrace (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bill Thrace: You mentioned with surety that "Haqqani has not been a journalist for almost 30 years. He's also not a "political activist." Would you please tell us about source of this information as it is not supported by any sources in the article? Maybe if you can tell us your source of information then we might be able to adjust the content more appropriately. We might be able to establish authenticity if you knew Mr. Haqqani personally or he himself told you so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsIntown: My statement was based on the fact that the page says he worked as a journalist from 1980-1988 and I was unable to find any examples of him working as journalist since then. Based on the way the page reads, it certainly sounds like he WAS a journalist a few decades ago but he hasn't been one for a while. I also have not been able to find any evidence of him being a "political activist" as that phrase is normally understood. I don't know Husain Haqqani so I can't help establish authenticity that way. I was basing my edits purely on what seemed to be a logical and reasonable reading of what was already on the page and what I could find with internet research. I don't really have the time or the energy to waste debating with you about it any more. Apparently it's something you're extremely passionate about, so just leave it there. Bill Thrace (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Memogate section

I have rewritten the Memogate section based on multiple scholarly sources, books and journal articles. As recommended by WP:HISTRS, when a subject begins to be studied by historians, the content should be rewritten based on scholarly sources and news media should be replaced. I hope all involved editors will cross-check the sources and raise policy-based issues if any. (Please note that you cannot discount a scholarly source because it disagrees with your POV. You can bring in other scholarly sources that represent other POVs). - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Such a goodlooking man, such a poor article. The entire biography needs much better souring--a flip-flop editorial and a few CVs don't suffice. I removed a very negative paragraph based on a single sentence in Dawn; that content/affair may be worth mentioning if it is phrased more neutrally and based on more sourcing; for now it's one man's word, in one newspaper article. What else--this Memogate section is very, very long. I'll be transparent and declare my POV here: I'm a total fan of the BLP. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Drmies. I agree that the memogate section is very long. I hope to condense it in future, as well as to write more about his scholarly work, which will bring down the weight. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

This article is suffering from serious sourcing problems. Aside from blatant vandalism, a growing number of citations are sourced to columns by individuals whose neutrality is questionable at best. Those include opinion pieces authored by Ikram Sehgal and Sultan (SM) Hali, both retired Pakistani military officers who write opinion pieces published in a Pakistani press that is reportedly being managed by the military. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/world/asia/pakistan-military-expands-its-power-and-is-thanked-for-doing-so.html and http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34637358. Academics have also raised questions about the "Media Management Wing" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and alleged covert operations to defame and discredit critics of Pakistan's military, including Husain Haqqani: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/c-christine-fair/pakistans-war-on-scholars_b_9286542.html Notably, Mr. Hali is named in these reports. Going forward, special attention needs to be paid to any sources that appear from Pakistani publications, particularly with regard to the authors. This is an unfortunate situation, but Wikipedia cannot risk its credibility on the credibility of Pakistan's media which is known to be managed by the country's military (see above). Wikipedia should not become a propaganda tool for the Pakistani military's "Media Management Wing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Thrace (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion regarding sources from Pakistani press. Wikipedia does not work on people's personal opinions. The information you are trying to remove is sourced to two major and credible Pakistani English language newspapers, notably The Nation and Pakistan Today both notable per Wikipedia standards. We cannot discredit all Pakistani sources just because of some random reports about military's control over media. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not my personal opinion regarding sources from the Pakistani press, nor are they "some random reports." Honestly, I think you're giving yourself away, there. As reported in the news articles I cited above, the Pakistani press is being managed by the military. I think it also needs to be pointed out that some of the information I removed would barely qualify as hearsay. Just because someone says, "So-and-so is working for India," that doesn't make it true or even noteworthy. It is becoming increasingly worrisome that you are more concerned with managing the tone of this page than making it a credible resource. Consider that your personal feelings about Husain Haqqani are irrelevant. There are plenty of places on the Internet to post articles attacking people. Wikipedia is not one of them.Bill Thrace (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sheriff, I thought we had agreed that the opinion columns can only be used with in-line attribution as per WP:NEWSORG. That should be especially the case with Army-connected columnists. And, if other editors say they are unreliable, they should be discussed rather than reverted.

@Bill Thrace, The reports you have unearthed about the Army management of the media are extremely concerning, and bring to doubt the entire wisdom of using Pakistani news sources on Wikipedia. We need to take this to WP:RSN. However, I note that the reports you mention are from more recent times than the ones used on this page. So this issue is not directly relevant to this page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya, We never agreed on anything like that, that was your opinion. That does not mean i agree to it but i am okay to attributing them properly. I am not okay with removing that information completely and never agreed that if someone will call them unreliable then they won't be reverted, yes, we can discuss them but the article has to stay in WP:STATUSQUO until we are done with the discussion.

The reports that Bill Thrace have unearthed has nothing of that sort which he claims that they have in them. There is no mention of Army management of media the way you both are portraying it to be. The New York Times article mentions in context of directing media not to report something which supports the terrorists and that directive should be taken in that context and nothing more, even western media such as CNN and BBC does not report anything which can be seen as a support of terrorists and that is also done through Goverment, at least that is what NYT article says. As for the BBC article, it talks about Raheel Sharif's popularity among masses and media carrying into the same wave and that should be an understandable fact. Media is basically part of masses and the fabric of society. If media shows that General is popular among the masses and when is fact he is popular for fighting against terrorists then they have to report that fact. What's wrong in it? As for Fair article, that is totally unfair, to say the least. She is just portraying her personal vendetta and hatred for Pakistani military or ISI and standing up with her American buddies, espacially Haqqani and his wife because her article does not carry a tone of a scholar in any way. That should be also considered a hearsay. She is just defending herself and accusing the other party only because she thinks that the other party did not treat her and her buddies well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, That's a fair point. I will take up the issue of the Pakistani military's manipulation of the national media at WP:RSN. The references I cited were just some recent ones – my intention was to preempt claims that the problem was an old one, I hadn't thought about the issue of it being too new! I will conduct further research to better address the timeframe.Bill Thrace (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown, I'm not really sure how to respond to your comment other than to say I think you need to really think about whether your personal feelings about the subject will allow you to be objective in your assessments of the information on this page. This sentence in particular, "[Dr. Christine Fair] is just portraying her personal vendetta and hatred for Pakistani military or ISI and standing up with her American buddies, espacially Haqqani and his wife because her article does not carry a tone of a scholar in any way," is deeply concerning. It suggests a strong POV about the subject, which is what we're trying to avoid.Bill Thrace (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I expressed what I felt after reading her article. The article is in no way something which carries neutral language. It's her personal story, WP:PRIMARY filled with hate language because she was declared persona non grata by Pakistan and because she received an email from someone portraying as representative of ISI threatening her of gang rape. Anybody who would claim in an email that I am ISI and I want to rape you would not necessarily mean that person is what he/she is portraying to be. It seems like written by a person who is very angry on Pakistani military and ISI. I am not sure what investigations she has done which made her think that the email was sent by ISI and Twitter or Facebook accounts which she calls trolls and bots of ISI are in fact what she thinks they are and not just the regular people who love their country's military and might be angry because of her spiteful language in her works as she used in this article. You cannot blame people of a country just for loving their military. I don't think if there is any country whose citizens do not love their military. Does she think Americans do not love their military or Indians or anyother nation. I watch American and Indian news channels, I never heard them criticising their military then why should Pakistani media be an exception. Anyway, you cannot discredit sources from Pakistani media just because of someone's hatred. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but we shouldn't go too far down this line. @Sheriff, no matter what your personal feelings might be, the fact remains that, Christine Fair, being a scholar that publishes in peer-reviewed sources, carries weight on Wikipedia whereas the numerous newspaper columnists don't. We should be cautious in using opinion columns for sourcing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't call them as my personal feelings. I would call it my fair assessment of Christine Fair article. I think she has come out as a strong critique of Pakistan and its military institutions and she got carried away with her personal feelings in that article. I think after writing this sort of article, she should lose her credibility and weight as a source and even if she is sourced, she should be attributed as "According to Christine Fair, a known critique of Pakistan Army", and same for others of her sort, Haqqani and Jalal. They should be replaced with more neutral sources where possible especially when we know about Jalal's personal association with Haqqani and after the way Fair showed her strong support for Haqqani in her article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This is indicative of the problem. Certain editors seem to consider anyone who criticizes the Pakistani military as unreliable or unsuitable as a source, and are using Wikipedia to disparage them by filling a page with opinion pieces attacking them by retired Pakistani military officers. As I said from the beginning, Wikipedia is not a Pakistani military propaganda outlet, nor should it be turned into one. If SheriffIsInTown or anyone else feels that the Pakistani military is unfairly criticized, they should defend them in op-eds or articles for foreign affairs journals, not Wikipedia. Bill Thrace (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea of a reliable source is fairly well-defined, and it doesn't particularly matter what certain editors think. Any disputes need to go WP:RSN or higher if need be. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new "Controversy" section

There's clearly a need to address the controversies surrounding the subject while appropriately preventing this page from becoming a place for people to air grievances. I suggest that the page content be rearranged to include a "Controversy" section that can address that information. Under this heading, I recommend including a link to direct to the existing Memogate_(Pakistan) page rather than selectively repeating parts here. Additionally, this could be an appropriate place to discuss allegations. If it's going to include allegations by former Pakistani military officers, it should also include the responses from civil society such as this: http://tribune.com.pk/story/966751/who-is-afraid-of-husain-haqqani/ and this: http://tribune.com.pk/story/387841/what-did-husain-haqqani-write/. Present both sides and let the readers decide for themselves. If we can't prevent people from trying to use this page as a personal or political forum, at least we can try to contain it. Bill Thrace (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Experienced editors generally frown on "Controversies" sections, because they are magnets for POV pushers. Rather, any controversies should be discussed within the overall context of the narrative. In this particular case, the "Memogate" section has become prominent because that is the only thing that the contributors seem to care about. If we can find more general information about Haqqani, we can add it and the weight of the Memogate section would automatically reduce. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate that. I guess my concern is that this page in its entirety seems to be a magnet for POV pushers. Bill Thrace (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Association with IJT

The article currently says that Husain Haqqani was "President of Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba." I looked up the Islami Jaiat-e-Talaba website and they provide a list of past presidents. Husain Haqqani does not appear. It looks like one of the sources is an opinion piece by a former military officer, and the other is a journal article by Kumar Rupesinghe and Khawar Mumtaz. I was able to find a copy of the journal article on Google Books and it says that he was President of the Karachi Student Union, not the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba. It does refer to him as a member of Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba, though. I think the way the article is currently worded is misleading and suggest the following change:

"Haqqani started his political career at the University of Karachi, where he was a member of Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba and President of the Student Union."

I suggest the reference to the 1996 article by Kumar Rupesinghe and Khawar Mumtaz stay, but the op-ed by Ikram Sehgal be removed.

Bill Thrace (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, both sources are valid and current statement about his IJT association is according to the sources. Jamiat website is WP:PRIMARY and does not count. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a misuse of the WP:PRIMARY policy. The policy asks us not to cherry pick from primary sources. It doesn't say that we can't verify factual information by referring to primary sources. Anyway, the IPPR source is saying "IJT's Husain Haqqani as President of the Student Union," which confirms Bill Thrace's interpretation. I have added another source which says the same thing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Husain Haqqani. 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/20120619082347/http://www.geo.tv/important_events/2011/mullenmemo/page108to121.pdf to http://www.geo.tv/important_events/2011/mullenmemo/page108to121.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)