Talk:Muridke

Source discussions 1

@Gotitbro:

• Sorry, no reliable 3PARTY considers LeT to be defunct – Not true at all, pretty much every reliable source has mentioned the fact that these buildings were taken control of by the government following the ban of these organisations. This is mentioned by at the very least Al-Jazeera, BBC English articles and BBC Urdu ground journalist have mentioned this. I have yet to look through other sources, but the bottom line is LeT is a proscribed organisation in Pakistan and all their assets have been taken over by the Govt of Pakistan.
• WP:MEMRI is an issue for article content not for which RS cites it. – The Sky News article hasn't built on top of it. It's two main bases were 1. TikTok videos of the damage of the buildings, covered by unknown accounts (literally random users), and 2. MEMRI. That is not a strong source at all.
• When a past discussion(s) to remove has/have not beared any fruit that is indeed consensus against removal – On an article like this? Lol, come on. Only one long-standing user was involved in making an argument for keeping it up, and you were there in making sure it stays up – and not only here, but on other articles like Muridke.
• About Murdike, multiple experienced users edited it and added to the content – Let's discuss these "multi-experienced users". 1. Yourself, 2. Anand2202 3. Truth Layer 123 4. Kautilya3. The section at Muridke is again blatant propaganda, that not only goes against WP:POV but also WP:DUE.
• I tried to address some concerns by clearing the lead out of it, but blanking it out is itself POV. – Yet you're failing to address the elephant in the room which isn't the lede, but the entire section. It has no place in that article. The only reason why it has stayed is because the Muridke article is a niche article that hasn't garnished much attention, and these so-called "multi-experienced users" are aware of that.

-- نعم البدل (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If you can't AGF then there is no point of this discussion, "blatant propaganda" is not helping your case. They are reporting what the government claims and say that, I have read those news reports but independent analysts say otherwise [and are obviously going to supersede news media] as has been shown above; again I am not debating this here again feel free to go through the past discussions here.

Sky News is relevant, your analysis that it isn't RS in this instance doesn't hold up. Take it to RSN if the only issue is of reliability, becuase it is very due otherwise. Muridke is exclusively associated with LeT in international media and scholarly reports [even in Pakistani media it is mostly associated with the JuD], we are not blanking content, I will see what I can reduce but isn't being removed, sorry. That there militant groups are based in Pakistan is reported by most academic sources, LeT and JuD facilities were supposedly taken over in 2009 as well yet no one bought it then and no analyst buys it now. Gotitbro (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• AGF I'm not familiar with this acronym, please do clarify.
• "blatant propaganda" is not helping your case – What should I call this (over at Muridke)

Markaz-e-Taiba

— Markaz-e-Taiba is a large complex in Muridke that has a range of infrastructure established by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, leader of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and its front organisation Jamat-ud-Dawa. It includes a madrasa, a religious preaching centre, residential quarters, a school, and various administrative buildings. While it presents itself as a religious and educational institution, multiple international intelligence assessments and security reports have identified it as a hub for indoctrination, militant training and terrorist recruitment. Ajmal Kasab, one of the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11) has confessed to have trained here. It is also reported that David Coleman Headley was also trained at this facility. According to various intelligence sources and investigative reports, Osama bin Laden, the former leader of Al-Qaeda, is believed to have contributed approximately PKR 10 million (roughly USD 100,000 at the time) towards the development of the complex. In May 2025, a Sky News investigation uncovered social media videos filmed at this complex showing apparent support for two banned terrorist groups: Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Al-Qaeda linked 313 Brigade. The videos, which were geolocated to the site, featured men carrying weapons and children involved in militant-style training. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) told Sky News that Lashkar-e-Taiba has long been known to operate its headquarters from this location. The markaz was targeted in an airstrike conducted by the Indian Air Force as part of Operation Sindoor on the night between 6 and 7 May 2025. The attack was in response to the Pahalgam attack with India stating that the operation aimed to strike locations associated with terrorist organizations. It is said that the residents were anticipating such an event and the compound was largely vacated prior to attack.

• This is 5,877 bytes out of 10,130 bytes (of the total article) including references. Tell me how that isn't blatant propaganda.
• They are reporting what the government claims and say that – The BBC Urdu journalist in this video mentioned reports from locals, not just the government. The fact is, if that section was intended to be neutral, it would have very much mentioned the fact that the LeT was banned in Pakistan, and its assets have been taken over by the government – like I say, that's a bare minimum.
• Sky News is relevant, your analysis that it isn't RS in this instance doesn't hold up. Take it to RSN if the only issue is of reliability, becuase it is very due otherwise – WP:VNOT states that while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.
• Muridke is exclusively associated with LeT in international media – No, specifically by Indian Media, why is why out of the 10 references mentioned on that article, 5 of them were various different Indian media outlets, while the other 5 were articles from 3 outlets - BBC, Al-Jazeera and the Guardian which certainly didn't put as much weight into these allegations as the Indian articles did. That's not a co-incidence. Not to mention the excessive citing that was going on in that section.

Need I remind you: A common form of citation overkill is adding sources to an article without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people and organizations.

• I will see what I can reduce but isn't being removed, sorry. – You remove the Indian sources, and the Sky news media, which are evidently blatant POV, and you're left with nothing. The fact that you've stated that "Muridke is exclusively associated with LeT in international media" is honestly a bit concerning, especially if you can't differentiate between Indian sources and "international media", and still not understand that the section is POV.

-- نعم البدل (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

AGF means Wikipedia:Assume good faith which you are apparently not doing. It isn't concerning in the least because what I said is true, bring me one international media or academic source which mentions Muridke and is not pointing out its connection to Let etc [I know the difference between Indian and international media]. That was meant to portray Muridke as being only linked to LeT but to show that the info is very relevant. I will add Pakistani claims [and counter assesments], I will remove Sky News from there, I will see if I can find more about Muridke to add weight to the article's non-LeT coverage.

Yes, Sky News may not be relevant for the Muridke page but it is very due here. Please don't cite VNOT when you are the one overturning previous discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

So interestingly, there is an urwiki page for the Markaz, ur:مرکز طیبہ and features quite prominently on the urwiki page for Muridke. Gotitbro (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• which you are apparently not doing – I said it from the start that I respect you as a user, but if you start claiming bad-faith, then the discussion will go south very quickly, especially considering there's potential issues regarding WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:POV-PUSH with yourself and the "experienced editors". Please let's not go there.
• I know the difference between Indian and international media] – Bearing in mind that Muridke is not a significant city, and one that most Pakistanis would fail to point out on the map. It has a population of 255k in a country where the total population is 250+ million. Even for Urdu Media, I could only find around 15 Urdu news articles about Muridke prior to the conflict (none which talk about LeT), despite Urdu media having discussed this topic before. نعم البدل (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• bring me one international media or academic source which mentions Muridke and is not pointing out its connection to Let etc – Find me a tool where I can block out Indian media, because I literally cannot find any article or website, that wasn't written by a person from India, or from Indian Media. I can't even find Pakistani sources for that matter, and I don't think you're that naive that you would not be aware of Indian Media's disinformation campaign that has been active since early 2000s.

You don't think it perhaps causes an issue that the main section of the Muridke article, a stub might I remind, is one that propagates an Indian narrative? And yes that's all it is, an Indian narrative. نعم البدل (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• there is an urwiki page for the Markaz, ur:مرکز طیبہ – a page created with no references, and a total of 10 edits, last edited in Feb 2023, and before that 2012. Even for Urdu Wikipedia standards, that's the very bottom, and has a clean-up tag, which is something I've rarely seen. It's not doing you any favours. نعم البدل (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• I will remove Sky News from there,

And why not here? The article isn't reliable. If you're going to remove it from Muridke – it needs to be removed here as well.

-- نعم البدل (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think discussing this with your abrasiveness is going to bear much of anything. I am not claiming bad faith on your part, I am saying you are and with that tone things aren't going to be conducive for any discussion. If you have anything against any editor take it to ANI but stop casting Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. Pointing out AGF is no big deal, this is standard when editors appear unnecessarily uncollaborative. There is no conspiracy here. We are all seeing how we can work together, if you aren't for it then there is no point of this discussion.

Find you a tool, yes, search for books, go to academic sources and journals and don't rely on news [and finally you can always filter results by country on Google etc]. LeT is relevant to Muridke and vice verse. That it is an unimportant city with no known coverage beyond it, is of no relevance to us.

I only pointed out the urwiki page as an interesting facet that the Markaz is not some conjured up entity of no note and is clearly relevant to Muridke.

Because Sky News is RS and due here for this conflict [reliability issues should be taken to RSN, a single line mention of MEMRI does not make it unreliable], and I have already explained why, but perhaps it is not much due elsewhere [recentism etc]. You are hinging on content blanking which isn't simply what we are going to do. Gotitbro (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have expanded the Muridke article and included images, content, tables and sections, increasing the weight of non LeT content which should address certain concerns.

For the Markaz, I have limited myself to scholarly sources and analyses; removed Sky, removed Kasab, removed Headley; though I have not included the supposed ban and govt. takeover of it as academic sources all say that multiple previous bans and takeovers have never been enforced and further non-news RS, as recently as this very conflict, continue to call it LeT's HQ. This took sometime but I did the best I could to say what is accepted in academic non-news RS, this should address any of the concerns raised above.

If this still isn't satisfactory, I have another solution. Moving most of the content to the LeT or Nangal Sahdan [its exact location] page but still retaining a single line mention of the Markaz HQ at the Muridke page. Gotitbro (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have expanded the Muridke article and included images, content, tables and sections – I do appreciate that. The article was on my to-do list, and the article does seem more lively now, but I still do have points of contention with that section. نعم البدل (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am not claiming bad faith on your part, I am saying you are and with that tone things aren't going to be conducive for any discussion – Hi, I do want to reiterate that I misunderstood that – I did indeed thought you were claiming bad faith on my part. I do want to apologise for that. I only just caught that. نعم البدل (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Source discussions 2

@Gotitbro This page actually needs an administrator edit access now. Discuss on the talk page and let the evaluation be done before any addition. I just came back to check this page after a related page was tagged on a WP/reqlist.

This conversation is happening like the nth time now and it was answered about more than 10 times maybe? 5 at least without exaggeration! I contributed here actively in the discussions/article up until a week ago. I left doing so after a fake-vandalising edit based ANI discussion was raised by some user hiding behind the IP as I thought may/may not be true or let's just say an unregistered/unreliable/victim-mentality IP user. It seems to be exactly 100% similar conversation I had but worded with some reasoning here from the other side. Deja vu.

• Also نعم البدل, if you have a problem with the sources, raise it to the relevant forum. If you don't like some lines added here, check whether the sources are mentioning that. Plus, after checking edit summaries - no one is bound to find you discussions as you may still like to edit/revert with or without initiating a discussion. You can check them yourself or rather initiate a conversation again and wait for the consensus to edit. Experienced editors will point out the discussion.

HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 23:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@نعم البدل HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 23:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Sky News uses phrases like "appears to be filmed" and "sought to verify"; it does not state with definitive certainty that the videos were filmed at those locations. We cannot include a hypothesis from a source—an encyclopedia is not the place for speculation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The article lays it down pretty clearly that they were filmed at the Markaz, they temper it because they aren't physically verifying this. Your original revert was also based on notability, considering that we include the bakery incident this is much more relevant and notable than that. We aren't speculating on our part, we are summarizing what Sky News reported based on strong digital footprints. You're also overturning past discussion unanimously something which would be a no go, so please self-rv and gain consensus. If the question is of reliability we can take it to RSN. Gotitbro (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Academic sources have been cited, all of which see the bans as ineffective where the groups largely continue as before (it was banned and taken over similarly twice in the 2000s and again in 2018, which was also questioned).

On the other hand recent non-news RS (IISS,LWW) among others continue to see the Markaz as an LeT hub. The sources beyond news media on this are simply too strong.

Al Jazeera and any of the other news media haven't independently verified anything they are merely reporting on the govt./Markaz officials claims. The Jazeera reports makes this very clear.

We are going to need much better sources than news media airing govt. claims to impeach the academic content.

About consensus I cited only for removal of Sky News, when an attempt to impeach content through a long and varied discussion resulted in a go that is indeed consensus against removal. To remove that again, a unanimous decision can't get a go ahead. There is no stonewalling happening here, editors need appreciate the process here, we can't around changing stable content on what we feel is right. "Stonewalling", no if anything I have been most considerate to take into account concerns raised. If you see a conduct problem take it to whatever board you see fit but please don't go around claiming bad faith. Gotitbro (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• Academic sources have been cited – Such as? Christine Fair which Kautilya3 has mentioned previously? I don't think so – Christine Fair as a reference is problematic on its own. Please mention these other academic sources. The reference you gave was dated 7 years ago, even though steps were taken against JeM in 2019, including the imprisonment of Hafiz Muhammed Saeed. Every non-Indian article (or let's even say pro-India source), has mentioned this. This was reiterated by Dawn this month when the Punjab government released the list of proscribed organisations in Pakistan.. The MoI in 2019 also reiterated that actions were taken against JeM..
• The fact that BBC Urdu journalist reported on the ground in May 2025 and verified it from locals that the mosque and by extension the city no longer has any links to LeT or it's related organisations, should be enough to negate that.
• Al-Jazeera reported recent:

  Pakistan says LeT has been banned, however. Following an attack on Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pulwama in 2019, Pakistan also reimposed a lapsed ban on Jamat-ud-Dawa. Saeed was arrested in 2019 and is in the custody of the Pakistani government, serving a 31-year prison sentence after being convicted in two “terror financing” cases. نعم البدل (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• BBC

  Until a few years ago, it was originally used by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group which is designated as a terror organisation by the United Nations. It was later used by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which observers have described as a front group for LeT. Both groups have been banned by the Pakistani government, which has since taken over the facilities in Muridke ... One man told us the Muridke complex usually houses children from miles around who come to study at the madrasa, though it was largely evacuated a week ago. نعم البدل (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fair is a scholar and her content was published in a peer reviewed journal. Anyhow numerous other sources have been adduced which say the exact same thing including Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, you are free to go through them. These bans have always been perfunctory is noted by all academic lit (three takeovers of the Markaz have happened since the Musharraf era), Reuters noted the ineffectiveness of the 2018 takeover even back then ().

  Academic sources including ISSI are clear that these bans have never been effective and there is no evidence they have been now, sources cited in this very article (Long War Journal, International Institute of Strategic Studies etc.) are very clear on how they regard the Markaz [as LeT's HQ].

  The discussion hinges on two things though: whether mentioning the Markaz at Muridke is due, which as has been shown through multiple academic RS very much is. And second whether the LeT itself is banned/defunct and the Markaz out of its control; for the first of these almost every source tracking militants considers it to be an active organization based in Pakistan (this is not debated among independent sources news media or otherwise), and whether the Markaz is out of its control, there is no evidence in support of it beyond news organizations re-reporting govt. claims who nonetheless still note that Muridke is known as the hub of LeT, and as I say above non-news RS still consider the Markaz to be LeT's effective HQ. If you have anything beyond sources restating govt. claims and who make their independent assessment we can go ahead. But the weight of the sources is simply against that [but also note news sources are always at the bottom list of RS]. Gotitbro (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  @SheriffIsInTown: "Was" implies that the Markaz no longer exists, this isn't supported by anyone; a takeover happened in 2018 which is itself seen as perfunctory. Please participate in this discussion and bring academic sources or independent analysts which state that the Markaz is no longer linked to or connected with the LeT/JuD. News sources which are only reporting govt./local claims and aren't independently verifying anything are not what would support the inclusion of the determinative "was" when the sources themselves don't say that. The pattern moreover tells us that, after 3 prior bans all seen as unimplemented, this isn't effective either something reported by sources even back in 2018 and further affirmed by non-news RS who continue to view the Markaz as its HQ. Please continue the discussion here, BRD exists and we follow it. Gotitbro (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro We need to move the discussion about Muridke to that article. The academic sources currently cited are between 8 and 23 years old, so we cannot use a definitive "is" based on them. I believe @نعم البدل has already provided more recent news sources confirming that the organisation is defunct. Given that only older sources attest to its existence while newer sources confirm its defunct status, we should use a definitive "was"—unless we have credible, recent sources indicating that it still exists. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion can continue here. I have pointed this out twice here, the news sources are only voicing the govt. claim they aren't making any independent assessment. Your determinative insertion of "was" will have to do better than these claims questioned themselves by other news sources and who are directly opposed to what independent think tanks and reportage even contemporarily continue to say (IISS, LWJ). I believe I am repeating myself here but even if you want to bring news sources, bring ones that make an original assessmemt and aren't quoting a local official etc. The date of the academic sources is not going impeach their weight, due and reliability unless we have something absolutely credible that says something which goes against all academic sourcing on this topic. The onus is simply on proving "was" in a determinative manner not the other way around.

  Again bans in the past were ineffective as noted by all sources, have been questioned this time around as well and non-news RS continue to call Muridke and the Markaz as the LeT hub. There is nothing to assume anything otherwise here. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  So let us see what another independent, contemporary and i depth source has to say on this.

  The Diplomat May 31, 2025:

  While the JuD’s terror-listing by the United Nations and the U.S., along with impending sanctions from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), prompted a crackdown against the charity in Pakistan in 2018, members of the LeT and JuD told me in interviews that the continued backing of the Pakistan Army for these groups was “not hidden from anyone.”
  ... So while the Pakistani state has cracked down on JuD-allied charities, and sentenced LeT leaders like Hafiz Saeed, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, and Zafar Iqbal to prison, political parties officially paying allegiance to Saeed have surfaced as part of the military’s mainstreaming of jihadist groups. ... The latest political rebirth of LeT is the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League (PMML) which contested the 2024 election. While the PMML officially denies any connection with the Lashkar-e-Taiba or any involvement with militancy, its leadership says the party backs the armed struggle for Kashmir’s independence. In a statement to The Diplomat, the PMML said the party backs “freeing Kashmir from Indian occupation” as a single-point Kashmir policy. “Not only is India involved in extreme human rights violations in Kashmir, but it is also involved in destabilizing and terrorizing the whole region,” said PMML General Secretary Saifullah Khalid Kasuri. [Sanctioned as a global terrorist] “India’s war-mongering necessitates a return to the ideology of Pakistan and cutting off of all ties with India,” he added.
  The Diplomat's investigations reveal not just the PMML's political connection with the LeT, but also the party's spearheading of the madrassa network, including the Markaz-e-Taiba in Muridke, one of the sites hit by Indian strikes. In a video shared with The Diplomat by a student of the Markaz-e-Taiba, recorded days before the Pahalgam attack, a local PMML leader Naseer Ahmad can be heard telling a gathering in Muridke that "the ideological offspring of Hafiz Mohammed Saeed will continue his jihad." In March, LeT cofounder Amir Hamza, a close aide of Hafiz Saeed, delivered a Friday sermon at the Markaz-e-Taiba urging “jihad against the kuffaar (infidels) including Israel and India.” The Markaz-e-Taiba frequently hosts Hafiz Saeed’s son Talha Saeed, along with PMML founders Saifullah Kasuri and Tabish Qayyum, both of whom were also cofounders of the Milli Muslim League. ... The funeral prayers for those who died in the Indian strike on the Markaz-e-Taiba were led by the LeT-affiliated, U.S.-designated terrorist Hafiz Abdul Rauf, who ran the group’s Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation.

  This should settle any questions of the Markaz being defunct. Gotitbro (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that Gotitbro. Even if the original organisations are supposedly banned, the Markaz-e-Taiba is devoted to propagating the Ahle Hadith sect, which has jihad as its integral part. MDI/JuD/LeT have indoctrinated hundreds of thousands of people.^[1] So even if the organisations get banned and the leaders imprisoned, the remnants will last a hundred years. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3: Yes thank you for the unnecessary religious lecture. Unfortunately, the said "Markaz-e-Taiba" does not even exist. The government took over the compound years ago, and re-organised the syllabus that was being taught in the seminary. I mentioned that in one of my sources, I believe it was the BBC one – where the ground reporter had spoken to locals. نعم البدل (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  A fair proportion of the curriculum also focused on jihad. For example, an Urdu textbook used by the classes in their second year of primary education featured the final testaments of mujahideen given before they went into battle.[27] Secondary school primers were modified such that ‘c’ is for cat and ‘g’ is for goat became ‘c’ is for cannon and ‘g’ is for gun. Teachers also had to have taken part in at least one jihad campaign or gone for military training.[28] Schooling entailed a significant physical element, including swimming, mountaineering, wrestling and martial arts. This curriculum was intended to prepare students for jihad, even though the group never intended to send all of them to fight.[29]^[2]

  -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Source date: <2011. Or precisely 14 years ago. نعم البدل (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fine. But where is the evidence that the curriculum has changed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro:

  • the news sources are only voicing the govt – Not necessarily. Not every source has claimed that this was just a Govt narrative. BBC Urdu and English have both confirmed this through locals. Al-Jazeera has also stated it as a fact, and not just as "the government says...". There was also a NYTimes source which has stated this, but I forgot to bookmark it.
  • have been questioned this time around as well and non-news RS continue to call Muridke and the Markaz as the LeT hub – Sources which I have requested for. So far, I have brought you a number of references that say otherwise.
  • So let us see what another independent, contemporary and i depth source has to say on this. – The Diplomat May 31, 2025 – The Diplomat is not an "independent" source. It is an Indian Media outlet (edit) when it concerns South Asian articles. نعم البدل (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  • The funeral prayers for those who died in the Indian strike on the Markaz-e-Taiba were led by the LeT-affiliated, U.S.-designated terrorist Hafiz Abdul Rauf – Pretty sure this was debunked, and you can guess where this was propagated from. نعم البدل (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Locals are no more an authority than people actually writing and analyzing militant groups. I have read all the news reports that you cite nowhere do they make an indpendent assessment.

  About The Diplomat (magazine) it isn't Indian, that is false, and it is widely considered RS on enwiki (see WP:RSP). News media merely airing official/local claims isn't going to make them anymore credible. I came at this from an open mind but the sources are simply against what you propose. You are free to take this to RSN, DRN or any other noticeboard but I consider this a settled issue on the weight of sources alone.

  And Hafiz Abdur Rauf (LeT sanctioned member) wasn't debunked, some media outlets incorrectly identified him as Abdul Rauf Azhar.

  I consider this the end of the discussion for the Markaz being defunct. We have a very high quality RS from a day ago laying out in explicit terms how it absolutely isn't. Then you have other sources which say the same, from this very month or year. News bites are not going to impeach these.

  PS: Your assesment of Fair and public criticism against her are not relevant to how her work has been received academically. To do that we look at journal reviews etc. which have been positively receptive to it. You cannot impeach scholarly work because the authors have expressed views considered controversial. Take John Mearsheimer for e.g., controversial and recently publicly derided but widely respected for his scholarly work. Even if you remove C. Christine Fair we have other academic sources that say the same. Gotitbro (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  • About The Diplomat (magazine) it isn't Indian, that is false ... And Hafiz Abdur Rauf (LeT sanctioned member) wasn't debunked, some media outlets incorrectly identified him as Abdul Rauf Azhar. – I clarified it that when it concerns that South Asian topics, it is indeed an Indian Media outlet, not necessarily based in India. The fact that the article mentioned the cleric who led the funeral prayer supposedly being Hafiz Abdur Rauf actually proves this point, because that point was tunnelled through Indian outlets, and it is only being spread by Indian sources, or ad-hoc Indian media sites. The identity of the cleric has not even been clarified anywhere to my knowledge.
  • it is widely considered RS on enwiki (see WP:RSP) So is Indian Media generally, but what you don't seem to be grasping is my point. If you had to put your sources on a scale, with one side being pro-India, and the other being pro-Pakistani propaganda, your sources regarding Muridke would indeed be more on the end of pro-India, no? There is a reason why there is an extra emphasis on 3rd party sources for Indo-Pak articles, which evidently The Diplomat is not.
  • We have a very high quality RS from a day ago laying out in explicit terms how it absolutely isn't. Then you have other sources which say the same, from this very month or year. News bites are not going to impeach these. If I'm correct, you've brought three sources: 1. Christine Fair, 2. The Diplomat, 3. Stephen Tankel's assessment which is at least 14 years old, where "Markaz-e-Tayyaba" being taken over by the government and the revision of the syllabus taught in the seminary was in the last 6 years. "Newsbites" may not seem as strong, but when several independent sources have stated it, they do tend to be reliable enough.
  • I consider this the end of the discussion for the Markaz being defunct. – The lack of a consensus would say otherwise... 3 users object. نعم البدل (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

    The Diplomat is not an Indian source it is 3PARTY, your claims are simply untrue and I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion; the journalist himself is from Pakistan. There have been multiple discussions over it on RSN and it is considered generally RS; if you have an issue with it take it to the RSN board. We are not re-litagating its reliability here.

    BBC Urdu is merely reporting the official status, and has a single line mention of it. Al Jazeera makes it explicit that these are government claims. These are not independent verifications. Something which the Diplomat did above and which is in line with what Reuters reported earlier when the ban initially happened, it is just like the previous ones i.e. unenforced. That the bans have always been like this is noted also by the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad.

    It is time to put this dicussion to an end. The earlier objections may have been valid when recent sources weren't adduced. They have been now.

    PS: Here is Daily Ausaf confirming Abdur Rauf's identity (though it doesn't note him to have been a designated terrorist). Gotitbro (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

    Gotitbro:

    • The Diplomat is not an Indian source it is 3PARTY – Again, I didn't say it's based in India, nor that the newspaper is Indian media. I said that that its South Asian division, which is led by an Indian-origin journalist, is – it is, in effect, an Indian outlet based in the US. Like I said, this point about the cleric was tunnelled through Indian Media, something which wasn't echoed by actual 3PARTYs.
    • BBC Urdu is merely reporting the official status, and has a single line mention of it. Al Jazeera makes it explicit that these are government claims – Both have included quoted locals to say it wasn't.
    • The mosque isn't even known as "Markaz-e-Tayyab", it is known as "Masjid Ummul Qura". It's also important to mention that the surrounding medical complex were also taken over by the government.
    • Your source from The Tribune was already refuted since it was written in 2018, the takeover was done in 2019, as I've said several times now.
    • Daily Ausaf confirming Abdur Rauf's identity Slightly perplexed as to why you've brought this reference in, when it 1. Categorically states that point about the cleric being a supposed terrorist, Indian propaganda, which negates your source of The Diplomat, and 2. doesn't even accept the cleric was the militant and was just an ordinary cleric of the mosque. نعم البدل (talk)

    نعم البدل (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

    First about Abdur Rauf, I did provide the link to him being on the sanctions list above (here again). Ausaf was used just as a source verifying his identity. The Diplomat is now merely independently reporting on and verifying it.

    The takeover procedure had started in 2018 of course never happened as is noted by our later sources here.

    You are broaching flimsy territory when you want to impeach an RS source based on the supposed ethnicity of its editor and circular reasoning. I would gravely suggest you stop here. If you have problems with The Diplomat litigate them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, this isn't the place to overturn prior RSN consensus for specific source considered generally RS. Gotitbro (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

    • to impeach an RS source based on the supposed ethnicity of its editor and circular reasoning – Point to be noted is that it is not based on the ethnicity, but rather the source of the information. I'm saying bring me other 3PARTYs which have echoed this point. You brought in Ausuf which is calling the same point "Indian propaganda".
    • I did provide the link to him being on the sanctions list above That is WP:OR, because your conjugating two sources which are claiming two different things. You stated that Ausuf doesn't note him to have been a designated terrorist, not it actually claimed the opposite of that. You can't take one half of an article and excuse the rest.
    • If you have problems with The Diplomat litigate them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard – Suppose, we ignore the source of the information, and I agree that you have supposedly two (dubious) sources which say it isn't defunct, I have two sources BBC and Al-Jazeera, at a minimum, which say they are defunct on the bases that BBC claims it as a fact, and Al-Jazeera quotes locals and the government. You're dismissing them on the bases that it's "news-bites", which is basically what Wikipedia is based on. This is ignoring several other points that I've made.نعم البدل (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

      By the way, the captions of pictures of Muridke in NYTimes stated the compound

      Rescuers searched for victims in the debris of a damaged government complex.

      as well as

      At a government health and educational complex in Muridke, about 20 miles from Lahore, Pakistan, on Wednesday.

      and as far as the funeral was concerned just stated

      Pakistani soldiers attending a funeral.

      نعم البدل (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

      Rauf is a sanctioned terrorist, and the Diplomat has correctly reported on this. I was merely addressing your claim that even the identity isn't verified. Ausaf did not cover the verifiable fact that he is sanctioned and I myself noted it, again I used the source only to verify his identity.

      Captions and headlines are never considered reliable, we rely on article content. Single-line news mentions (including the previous ones cited) aren't going impeach an indepth RS magazine article. And no Wikipedia is explicitly WP:NOTNEWS we are biased for and towards academic sources. You are calling the Diplomat article Indian propaganda based on your own circular reasoning. Take it to RSN, but I am sure the conclusion would still be that it is RS and better than the the perfunctory news articles that you weight this against. Gotitbro (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

      It wasn't just a one-liner, though. The BBC article explicitly states:

      It was later used by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which observers have described as a front group for LeT. Both groups have been banned by the Pakistani government, which has since taken over the facilities in Muridke ... One man told us the Muridke complex usually houses children from miles around who come to study at the madrasa, though it was largely evacuated a week ago.

      The in-depth Al-Jazeera article discussing whether it was actually a "terror base" or mosque, while explaining the different areas of the compound states:

      The Pakistani government took over the facility from the JuD in 2019, at a time when the country was under international pressure to crack down on Saeed and the LeT or be placed on a “grey list” of countries deemed as not doing enough to stop financing for banned armed groups.

      • than the the perfunctory news articles that you weight this against – What you call "perfunctory news articles", would be news organisations reporting on skirmishes and strirkes carried out by two nuclear powers. Even the absence, or lack of confirmation of [t]he takeover procedure [which] had started in 2018 of course never happened as is noted by our later sources here and only claimed by compromised sources is nothing but dubious at best, especially when 3PARTYs do not cover these points.
      • of course never happened – This is also not true, whether or not these organisations operate covertly or not is one discussion, but these take-over did certainly take place, with the Reuters source stating:

        A sign outside describes the site as a government health and educational complex, but India says it is associated with the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

        – which meant that a takeover did in fact take place. This is also backed by the captions on the images shared by Associated Press.

      These are not just "perfunctory news articles" that haven't alleged whether the likes of JeM is still active, but explicitly denounces them as defunct, and states that the govt did in fact take charge of the compound (and not just the mosque).

      • Also in regards to the cleric, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the Reuters article also states this:

        Azhar, who has not been seen for years, and his brother, Abdul Rauf Asghar, deputy head of the group, did not appear to have attended the funeral prayers.

      Of course, it's not just a matter of RSs, it's also the fact that there isn't actually a consensus for the edits. نعم البدل (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Source discussions 3

You are again confusing Masood's brother for Saeed's aide. Moving on, signs and all don't matter much when you have articles and sources explicitly stating that the Markaz us still in the hands of the LeT/its fronts. When you are baselessly calling RS sources compromised, this is an RS issue. BBC and Al Jazeera simply reporting on govt. actions isn't what an independent assessment constitutes with them making no determininative judgment. The consensus is not the one needed for inclusion, the onus for removal is on you, since you were changing stable content at three articles (LeT, Muridke and here); especially when the weight of the sources, academic and otherwise, are against whatever you propose. The HQ simply isn't defunct, it hasn't been in oqst takeovers before (read the ISSI report, and read LWJ) and there is no evidence for it now (we are going to need much better indepth sources to change that assessment). I think I have said what I needed to say and believe we are going around in circles, if you still have sourcing issues (news bites over indepth investigation are also RS issues) take them to RSN because litigating them here isn't going to lead to much of anything. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• • Fair is a scholar and her content was published in a peer reviewed journal – Christine Fair:

    Fair's work and viewpoints have been the subject of criticism. In 2015, journalist Glenn Greenwald dismissed Fair's arguments in support of drone strikes as "rank propaganda", arguing there are "enormous amounts of evidence" showing drones are counterproductive, pointing to mass civilian casualties and independent studies ... Pakistani media analysts have dismissed Fair's views as hawkish rhetoric, riddled with factual inaccuracies, lack of objectivity, and being selectively biased. She has been accused by the Pakistani government of double standards, partisanship towards India, and has been criticized for her contacts with dissident leaders from Balochistan, a link which they claim "raises serious questions if her interest in Pakistan is merely academic."Further, her assessment of Sikh militant movement has been interpreted as highly partisan and parroting the official Indian view to malign the militants.

  Not really a source I would consider credible. نعم البدل (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think you should abandon these arguments. Whatever opinions she might have expressed about drone strikes have no bearing on her Oxford University Press-published academic work. If you don't find her "credible", Wikipedia has nothing to do with them. Please keep it to yourself or raise it at WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: I'm coming back to this after a few days, as I've been busy recently.

• When you are baselessly calling RS sources compromised, this is an RS issue ... we are going to need much better indepth sources to change that assessment - Fair's tweets on X and personal opinons are enough to show that her works shouldn't be qualified here. What I don't understand is why this is a "my way or the highway". Yeah this is a RS issue, but it's not one-way. It's a two-way street. You're dimissive tone with my sources means you're also rejecting my sources which are much more recent than yours and more comprehensive (specfically the Al-Jazeera article, which is attempting to tackle this very topic). The same can be said to you, especially when it's clear you can't establish a concensus on this discussion, that if you have an issue with my sources then you should be the one going to WP:RS as well.
• You have no arguments against the "news bites", other than essentially a personal dislike for them.
• the onus for removal is on you, since you were changing stable content at three articles - Something that has been pushed by several users across several pages, and then also disputed isn't "stable content" and also problematic, that too on articles which are continiously being edited and worked on due to a high-profile event - again you've been here long enough to know that that would not be considered "stable content".
• The HQ simply isn't defunct - the building and compound is still running. No one denied that. LeT isn't using that place. That's the issue. One thing that baffles my mind is that you can't even bring yourself about to accept the fact that even a frontal takeover by government has indeed taken place, which, putting everything aside, has taken place. Ground sources say that, and prove that.
• (read the ISSI report, and read LWJ) - Are you going to start bringing in every random article written by every Dick and Tom, on every random website, while simoltaneously ignoring the sources that are in front of you?

-- نعم البدل (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an RS issue not a content one, sources already considered RS and non-RS per policy and by community consensus (academic and others) should not be litigated here. Take it to the RSN is all I have to say at this point. Gotitbro (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Sharing a quote from The Diplomat article:^[3]

Conversations with those associated with the PMML, and evidence reviewed by The Diplomat, reveals continued advocacy for armed jihad at these madrassas. However, there is little evidence of militant training at these locations, including at the Markaz-e-Taiba, which was once a major LeT camp.

In the first sentence, The Diplomat names itself. So it is not correct to label this as a "guest article". The second sentence is most likely false or at least misleading. All the scholarly studies of LeT (Christine Fair, Stephen Tankel, Samina Yasmin) as well as journalist Arif Jamal have only described Markaz-e-Taiba as the "headquarters" of LeT/MDI/JuD. The LeT training involved three courses, of which the basic course was taught at this place for everybody (militant or non-militant). The more advanced weapons training was given somewhere close to the border. Both the LeT convicts Ajmal Kasab and David Headley had their basic course at the Markaz. The Indian government has been using the term "terrorist infrastructure", which covers all such places. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

• In the first sentence, The Diplomat names itself. So it is not correct to label this as a "guest article". - I never had an issue with the specific author, I had an issue with The Diplomat, overall as it has had a history of parroting Indian propaganda, with articles using (and not simply 'mentioning') biased language such as "PoK" and whatnot. The Diplomat is not a 3PARTY source, and there is a reason why its reporting or similar reporting hasn't been done by actual 3PARTYS.
• Christine Fair, Stephen Tankel, Samina Yasmin - These are your sources, 2 of which are problematic and definetly not neutral, and 1 (Stephen Tankel) is out-dated.

Bulk of the weight is on The Diplomat, a newspaper, which certainly isn't as "esteemed" as other newspapers. Yet we're ignoring the likes of Al-Jazeera, BBC English, BBC Urdu (inc. on ground sources), and NYTimes.

@Gotitbro: Take it to the RSN is all I have to say at this point. - I will, but your unwillingless to even consider my sources are a little puzzling. نعم البدل (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The Diplomat article also notes that Amir Hamza gave a Friday sermon at Markaz-e-Taiba in March this year, well after it was supposedly taken over by the Government and branded as an "Administrative block". (Pity I don't have an emoji to put here.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to quote The Diplomat all you like, and employ as many emojies as you'd like - my stance on The Diplomat is clear, and for good reasons. I'll even go deeply into it at WP:RS, should we fail to make any progress here. نعم البدل (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

@Gotitbro: You need to tell me your position on the Muridke#Markaz-e-Taiba because from what it seems, it is nothing more than an Indian propaganda piece on Wikipedia, while users unapologetically bring in WP:POV sources to WP:CITESPAM sources, such as Christine Fair, Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, as well as niche references like the "The Diplomat (magazine), Le Figaro", "Le Monde", "South Asian Terrorism Portal", which is quite literally an Indian source (which seeks to expose "Islamist extremism & terrorism in South Asia", or quite literally anything seen as "anti-India"), among other references, while failing to acknowledge recent sources, or any source that doesn't convey an Indian POV. These are only issues with the sources - the wording, and issues with WP:SYNTH, not to mention the fact that several sources which I've mentioned here, have been used in the article, yet the full context hasn't been mentioned at Muridke - such as the Al-Jazeera source, which as I mentioned earlier was meant to tackle this very issue, which you even fail to acknowledge. I am proposing the following compromise on the topic, because even with your edits to other sections of Muridke, it's still evident that the article is not even about the city itself but JeM. If not, then I will be starting an RFC for this, because for some reason my IP keeps getting blacklisted and I can't edit anything until my IP cycles and I'm not waiting several weeks to be able to contribute to any discussions while the Indian POV that Muridke is the centre of global terrorism is pushed across all of Wikipedia (p.s feel free to read up on WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:POV-PUSH), and I don't see a concensus on the removal of the entire section among us. Here is my proposal:

• Markaz-e-Taiba is a compound and headquarters of the proscribed militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, located in the suburb of Nangal Sahdan. The centre has a range of infrastructure, established by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed in 1990, which includes the Umm al-Qura Mosque, a seminary, a hospital and various administrative buildings. In 2009, the Punjab government took over the complex, but JuD continued to operate from there, whereby in 2019, the Pakistani government took over the facility from the JuD and has maintained control since.
• The mosque was targeted in an airstrike conducted by the Indian Air Force as part of Operation Sindoor on the night between on 7 May 2025. The Government of Pakistan has maintained the claim that the complex is a civilian facility run by the Government.

This is a more neutral setting for which WP:RS can be found. I am also not settling for any version which does not emphasise on the fact that the government has maintained, or at least has claimed to have taken over the compound as a civil facility (in contrast to the claims of JeM or any auxliary group maintaining control of it (and not just a one-liner)). The mention of the compound should also be a brief mention to keep it WP:NPOV, because the article is about Muridke, not Markaz-e-Tayyaba, regardless of the fact that Kautliya3 decided to add a redirect of Markaz-e-Taiba to Muridke#Markaz-e-Taiba. Also pinging @HilssaMansen19, Orientls, and SheriffIsInTown: who have commented here before. نعم البدل (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally decide what is and isn't RS when community consensus already exists for it, you were told to take this to RSN but you persist. The Diplomat, Figaro and Le Monde aren't fringe, bizzare for anyone to claim this. South Asia Terrorism Portal is a well known terrorism database for the region, anyone who has read anything about militant groups in South Asia knows this. Fair and Chaudhury are scholars and have been published in 3PARTY RS, personal accusations of POV are irrelevant. Finally in-conflict news sources making no assessment of their own (Al Jazeera etc.) are definitely at the bottom end of what we would need as RS for adding material going against academic consensus. Government claims, in wikivoice no less, are definitely not going to be the last word on anything when independent sources and the militant group itself say otherwise.

I had already proposed moving the bulk of the content to the LeT or Nangal Sahdan article and only keeping a brief mention of it at Muridke (in the discussion above) and am still open to it. I cannot agree with reduction of it where moved elsewhere or giving prominence to governmental claims or with the continued attack on RS.

When a proposal begins with "propaganda" and ends with behavorial accusations that is itself telling of how not to approach making proposals. RfC can be starting point but when your fundamental premise is based on attacking community-decided RS, that is not how you want to approach things.

PS: Please learn to differentiate between JeM and LeT. Gotitbro (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• You cannot unilaterally decide what is and isn't RS when community consensus already exists for it - You're backtracking from your words. Which consensus? It has been disputed by a couple of users even apart from those who are already a part of this discussion. You and Kautliya3 have shot down any attempts of trying to change those POVs, and when I stated there is no consensus, you argued that a consensus was irrelevant. So I ask you again, which consensus are you referring to? There is no "community consensus", and no consensus here.
• You cannot unilaterally decide what is - And you do? Because at the very least, I've acknowledged the sources that you've brought, and presented my issues with them, which other users have agreed with. Your reasoning for discarding and dismissing my sources was not that they're not credible, rather because you insinuated you didn't prefer them. As far as that's concerned, you should be the one going to RS as well.
• The Diplomat, Figaro and Le Monde aren't fringe, bizzare for anyone to claim this - Really? Come on, I've given you some reasons. Have the decency to at least acknowledge them, some of them which are literally Indian sources, not to mention that out of all the possible sources, you bring them, while shooting down Al-Jazeera, BBC, NYTimes and whatnot? Yes that is bizarre.
• Academic sources may have their credit but they need to be reliable and neutral. Christine Fair is not. Feel free to open up a consensus in that regard.
• personal accusations of POV are irrelevant - It's not personal if they're on the record and even stated on the author's Wikipedia article, as I've shown you. The vast majority of three sources are either outdated or weak/unreliable. You're telling me you'll put up "South Asian Terrorism Portal", (which is based in India, and you've been here long enough to know that we have the decency of not using Indian sources for pro-Indian POV against Pakistan and vice versa), against other reputable source, and find no issues with that?
• I cannot agree with reduction of it where moved elsewhere or giving prominence to governmental claims or with the continued attack on RS. - Well, the bulk of it as you said needs to be reduced, not moving, and curtainly not expanded as some users as hell bent on doing.
• When a proposal begins with "propaganda" and ends with behavorial accusations - I stand by my points, feel free to refute them and explain or they don't against the wikipedia policies that I've mentioned. You can beautify 3-4 sources into a note and attach 3 other sources to prove a point but it would still go against WP:CITESPAM.
• you were told to take this to RSN - And fyi, I was going to take it RS, but my IP refreshed and was blacklisted. I only came back to see if you were willing to compromise or not, since I hadn't put forward one. نعم البدل (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not deciding anything here, whatever has been stated here is based on WP:RS policies and precedent. Take it to RSN, this is inherently a sourcing issue where you want to overturn community consensus decided for WP:RSP "generally reliable" sources by that board. It is not going to be litigated here, sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Actualy this seems to be more of a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Which has been addressed, but the main contention which has occupied this enlarged section is the unevidenced labelling of community-decided RSP sources. Gotitbro (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• Which has been addressed, but the main contention which has occupied this enlarged section is the unevidenced labelling of community-decided RSP sources. - In what way was it addressed? It was nothing more than a unilateral decision by yourself to decide what is and what isn't. You've been instructing various things, yet aren't willing to budge yourself? نعم البدل (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)