Talk:War in North-West Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Biased article sections

The background section is definitly baised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.42.121 (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How so? El_C 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"War in Waziristan and the attempt of USA to enter Pakistan in order to get control over this." The U.S. is not trying to gain control of Pakistan or waziristan. The conflict is between a rebal faction in control of the province and the Pakistani government. Thats how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.10.58 (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

What do people think about merging these 4 articles into just the Waziristan War article? Please add a suppport or oppose with your comments. Thanks

  1. Waziristan War (March–April 2007 phase)
  2. Waziristan War (2004–2006 phase)
  3. Waziristan War (July 2007–present phase)
  4. Waziristan War (March–April 2007 phase)(added to merge proposal 9/17/07)

Publicus 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Waziristan War (March–April 2007 phase)? This should obviously be part of the same merge-or-not discussion. —Nightstallion 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't know about that one-which kind of supports putting all these together to better track them. I'll expand the merge proposal. Publicus 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support or Oppose

  1. Support. These three articles are just different portions of the same war. I don't really see why they are split into three articles. It would be much easier to reference/edit the war if it all in once place. Publicus 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. There have been long time-spanes between the phases making them different conflicts all together even if they are part of the overall Waziristan war. Each of the phases was initiated for a different reason and had different aspects to them. If it would be merged into one article the article would be to long or major important things would not be mentioned. It should be left like it is. Think of the phases ass diferent campaigns of the war.Top Gun 31 August 2007
How about treating them as separate campaigns within a single war. We could still keep the various articles as campaigns, but we would make the Waziristan War the main article for all the campaigns. Publicus 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support. All fit in this article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, no reason to split this article in this way. —Nightstallion 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal has being going on long enough to be closed and to merge the three split articles into this one. —Nightstallion 10:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's close this off--I'll take off the merge tags. Publicus 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Waziristan War (March–April 2007 phase) redirected. All contents included here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone reverted you, but I reverted him. What about the other two articles? —Nightstallion 13:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First period also redirected, the last period has some info that should be moved either here or in Terrorism in Pakistan--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What info should be moved? The remaining rest of the article doesn't look as if it contains too much new info... 2007 Taliban Waziristan Offensive should also be merged here, but I'm not sure whether there's actually too much to do with it. —Nightstallion 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge the 2007 Taliban offensive it is a seperate battle in the campaignox of the war. You should mention in the main article something about the overruning of the outposts and the captured of the soldiers but put a link to the main article of the offensive.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.174.132 (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Topgun, sounds fine to me. Also, I like your edit on keeping the phases distinct in the article, much more workable than the generic year order I had put in. Publicus 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the last part to this article, as there was no information there which we hadn't already got here. The merger is thus complete. —Nightstallion 22:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on title change

Any thoughts on changing the title from "War in Waziristan" to "Waziristan War. Publicus 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose it looks more descriptive now. Waziristan War would look more like a given name (as Iraq War) and that would need sources. The current doesn't need as War in Afghanistan, War in Bosnia, War in Abkhazia etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFEARgod (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. Let's let it alone then. Publicus 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

we need new thoughts, as the war now has spread to the whole FATA --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bbcnews24 bhuttokilled.jpg

Image:Bbcnews24 bhuttokilled.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No multiple war-boxes

Why?

  • Makes people think there were several wars.
  • Not a thing endorsed by Wikiproject MilHist.
  • Details from them repeats (except casualties)
  • casualties can go into the new box in the casualties section.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name factual accuracy issue

We saw in the last year that the conflict spread beyond Waziristan: Swat valley, Bajaur and the rest of NWFP. So I think it's not appropriate to use only Waziristan. I suggest War in Pakistan (2004-present), Islamic insurgency in Pakistan (like Islamic insurgency in Saudi Arabia) or War in Pakistan's Tribal areas. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of War in Pakistan (2004–present). —Nightstallion 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
War in Pakistan (2004–present) sounds like a good name. I like the word war more than insurgency, and there has been fighting in Islamabad and Swat, away from the tribal areas. What is the neutrality dispute, just the name? Narayanese (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
fixed--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So, why don't we just move it, then? —Nightstallion 08:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Narayanese (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really up to us to decide what the name of this article is, the name "waziristan war" is used a lot more [1] than "war in pakistan"[2]. I vote for chaning it back to waziristan war, and then adding "later better known as the war in pakistan" or something. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with War on Terrorism in Pakistan

...any thoughts? With the latest name change - it's the same. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First two paragraphs predates this war, the third is about Afghanistan, and most of the fourth is already is this article (United States role). Narayanese (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
the first two fit into "background", the third is off topic (Pakistan's alleged support to terrorists shouldn't be in both of the articles). --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, merge it.--Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. "War in Pakistan is a bit of misnomer since Pakistan has been involved in international wars not intranational ones.Bless sins (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the merger. War on Terrorism and Wars in north-western Pakistan are not isolated events, rather linked on every front, therefore it will greatly help the users to identify the causes and actions of the War. Razzsic (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

A) Why is this not called a Civil War? B) Why does the article name suggest it started as late as 2004? From a different POV it started in July 2002.

Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A) the term civil war should need a source--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
B) Open warfare started in 2004 --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2004 Time Line - Peace deals with Taliban:

I question the implication of the statement (without context) that the 2004 peace deal was “immediately abrogated once Nek Muhammad was killed by [an] American Hellfire missile in June 2004”. This discussion ignores the fact that the militants failed to acknowledge certain aspects of the agreement as well as their public proclamation, following the agreement, to renew their jihad against the Americans in Afghanistan. See chapter five segment (Making Deals with the Taliban) of PBS Frontline “Return of the Taliban” :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/main.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amasa696 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with civil war. Even insurgency is not an appropriate term. "Violence" would be a better term, since this refers to violent incidents in a limited region involving a limited people.Bless sins (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be called Islamic Insurgency in Pakistan (2002 - present)

I believe the ongoing war in the tribal areas in general and the NWFP in particular, and its implications on the rest of Pakistan can be better addressed if the article name should be changed to Islamic Insurgency in Pakistan (2002 - present) rather than War in Pakistan (2004 - present). The reasons are twofold:

  1. The term "war" implies that the whole of Pakistan (including Punjab, Sindh, Azad Kashmir and even Hindko speaking areas of NWFP {Malakand Division}) is in a state of war, which they are clearly not. Army is not deployed in the settled areas, and rest of Pakistan features an occasional terrorist attack, after which the militants go into darkness. The actual fighting is going on in the tribal areas, Swat and the closest it has been to the Indus river is Darra Adam Khel.
  2. Secondly, even though the user theFEARgod persists that the actual fighting started in 2004, there were many Army, civilian and militant casualties (upto 200 in all; as mentioned in the article itself) when the troops entered Tirah Valley in July 2002, and hence the start time frame of 2002.

Therefore, the article name should be reverted as above, much on the same lines as Islamic Insurgencies in Saudi Arabia and the Maghreb, as mentioned before by a user. Razzsic (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i support u , its the exact title indeed and users will reach easily , Insurgency is the exact word rather than war . but the article is a good work , should be getting a star .:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the name "Islamic insurgency" in the Saudi Arabia and Maghreb articles either, their opponents are also Ismalimists and there's no such thing as "christian insurgency" is there?
Again I propose to change the name back to "Waziristan war" or "War in Waziristan" per my arguments above. They are popular titles and its not up to us to decide what the war is called. - PietervHuis (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I like Razzsic' s idea and acknowledge Pietervhuis's concern by saying the most appropriate title would be Insurgency in Pakistan (2004-present). I would like to see sources for 2002.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Insurgency in" is less specific than "War in Waziristan" or Waziristan War" which is used the most, that would be best IMO. If the problem is that insurgency also happens outside waziristan then this can be noted intro, because waziristan is still the biggest conflict area it seems. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
my choice is War in Pakistan's Tribal areas - most descriptive. Please give sources for War in Waziristan --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
How about conflict instead of war? Ex. Conflict in Pakistan Tribal Areas--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
why not war?—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFEARgod (talk • contribs) 08:19, May 21, 2008
If you read the comments by Razzsic and the $un$hine, you will know why. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
neither is whole Afghanistan in a state of war and still...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope the current name is a good compromise: Insurgency in Pakistan's Tribal areas (2004–2008)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't move a page without there actually being a compromise. There was a reason as to why I didn't suggest the term Insurgency. Insurgency applies that people are using guerrilla tactics. In this case they are but they are also openly resisting (the militants have control over some areas and they walk freely). The term is also not universal, as it is mostly used in the United States. (On a side note, you should have capitalized the "a" in "areas"...in Pakistan's Tribal Areas)--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
you may be right on using insurgency. I changed it now by using sources. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the current name doesn't work. "Pakistan's Tribal areas" is not a valid demonym; either describe the location, that would be "Pakistan's tribal areas" (note the capitalisation), or use the official name, that would be "Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas" or just "Federally Administered Tribal Areas". What would you prefer? —Nightstallion 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

War in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (2004–2008) I think that would win Wikipedia's award of the longest article name, if we had one. How about War in FATA or War in Pakistan's FATA (and remove the date as there is need for the it unless I'm missing a policy) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have far, far longer names regularly... —Nightstallion 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool..can you link me to some, I always find it interesting as to why articles have long names instead of short and precise ones.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks and Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu, for instance. I'd prefer to have this article at War in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, as "FATA" is not really a good name to use in the title, I think. —Nightstallion 06:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
and North-West Frontier Province? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Blergh. Then I'd go back to War in Pakistan (2004–present). —Nightstallion 11:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well that article has information mostly on the tribal areas so we should leave it at War in Pakistan's tribal areas --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Or War in North-West Pakistan--TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's my favourite so far. —Nightstallion 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)