Talk:Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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)

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

Waziristan War (March–April 2007 phase)
Waziristan War (2004–2006 phase)
Waziristan War (July 2007–present phase)
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)

Support or Oppose

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)
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)

Support. All fit in this article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
I support the proposal too. Both are very relevant subjects, one way or the other. 60.228.199.57 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's not the civil war because of various reasons. First, Pakistani local tribeman and local people are supporting army. The people who were made captive during Soviet-Afghan war, are fighting against the Pakistani Army. Most the fighters are come from Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Less numbers of Chechens and arabs are present in the area. Second, Local people are scared of talibans and they are blaming India and Afghanistan as well as Uzbeckistan; they are suppoting the talibans finnacially. People of Pakistan aren't fighting instead foreign elements are.

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)

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:

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.
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)

While I support the suggestion to rename the article, the use of the word "Islamic" is somewhat flawed. The much touted militants are usually referred to, in the media and publications, as "Islamist." Other than that insurgency is most certainly a better description of the ongoing conflict. Ahmedvonmuneeb (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Monodin

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)

Peace agreement scrapped

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6426885.html Please update the article. —Nightstallion 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mh. Or not: http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6427401.html —Nightstallion 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes of personnel figures

Recently both a registered and an anonymous user has changed the casualty figures (I believe as I didn't take a close enough look), however, that should really not be done where the previous figures are referenced with external sources without either removing the previous reference (which is kinda bad) or replacing it with the new one where the new numbers came from. __meco (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Please specify which edit.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

These three certainly. __meco (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's unsourced you can remove it--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Long War Journal is an excellent, well informed site that follows the Taliban insurgency. This page sheds some light on forces involved:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/01/the_pakistani_taliba.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.89.25 (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New commanders and belligerents

I have changed the names of the commanders (both sides) and belligerents to portray the current state of war. The commanders listed on the Pakistani end are the COAS, Commander XI Corps, new IG Frontier Corps Tariq Khan, and GOC 7 and 9 Divs. On the other side, I added and rearranged the list according to the commands of the respective regions. Like South Waziristan region is commanded by Baitullah Mehsud, North Waziristan by Hafiz Gul Bahadur, Bajaur by Faqir Mohammed, Swat by Maulana Fazlullah, and Khyber Agency by Mangal Bagh. Other than that, Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and Jalaluddin Haqqani are in more in a state of hiding than being the actual commanders on the field. Therefore, they are listed separately. The names of the above commanders organizations have also been listed. I dont't know if all the commanders since the beginning of the clashes have to be listed or only the current ones. If anyone has any suggestions/corrections, please feel free to state them. Razzsic (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Casualty table

**Casualties of the War in Pakistan** (According to news reports)
Period	Pakistani forces	Militants	Civilians
December 2001–March 2004 (prelude)	29 killed	Unknown	120+
March 2004–September 2006	700 killed, 11 captured (all released)	1,000	1,000
October 2006–April 2007	78 killed	100-300	N/A
July 2007–June 2008	882 killed, 40 missing, 559 captured (439 released)	1,928	1,838
June 2008–present	512 killed, 51 missing, 170 captured (116 released)	1,873	647
Sources:^{[citation needed]}

Total: 1,895 soldiers and policemen killed, 245 tribesmen killed, 831 soldiers and policemen missing or captured.

Moved from the page. I think it's not good to have those unsourced numbers. The fact tag has been here for too long. It's easier to wait for the official numbers to come out. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This reference confirms that 1,211 soldiers and policemen were killed between 2003 and 2007.^[1] So I don't think that the already given reference that states that 1,368 were killed by September 29th of this year is reliable. Only 168 killed between January and September 2008? C'mon people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

us attacks

Is there a listing of US drone attacks on this page? If not should we create one in this regard? Heck we can then start collating the casualty count too. Lihaas (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Daande Darpkhel airstrike wording

I changed the wording in the section on the Daande Darpkhel airstrike, because I felt that it gave the incorrect impression that US forces blew up a school. I commented on the talk page for the Daande Darpkhel airstrike article about how this wording should be improved to reflect the wording in the source that is being used to back up this claim, which indicates that the building in question hadn't functioned as a school for several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.214.17.20 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

US involvement section

I just removed several paragraphs from this section, which were a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, containing partisan commentary and speculation rather than actual facts. Looking at the history of this article, it seems that the same paragraphs have been repeatedly re-inserted by various anonymous users over the past several months. If they are inserted again, a period of semi-protection may be necessary. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

operation black thunderstorm

Should the Operation Black Thunderstorm have its own section? It's taking up a lot of space. Thx. Noneofyour (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Could an established user please start an article titled Operation Black Thunderstorm, because the section on the operation in this article is getting to long, here in the main article of the war we should only state the main points of the operation, not the whole battle. Somebody should start an article and we should move most of the content from this one over to that one.188.2.195.153 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody else do it. Haven't created a page yet. I know how to, just don't have the time. Noneofyour (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Excessive referencing?

"Also, at least 857 soldiers and policemen have been reported captured by the militants since the start of the war, with at least 558 of them being released.[116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143]"

I'm all for citations, but this seems a bit over the top! 152.91.9.219 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Exaggeration of Taliban Casualties

I took out the part with the title "Exaggeration of Taliban Casualties". There was only one cited article, which itself was a POV by a well-known partisan journalist (Bill Rogio) on a partisan website (longwarjournals). There were several false or outdated claims, such as that the Taliban ARE keeping the military at bay in Swat and surrounding areas , that the Taliban are still going strong in those areas and that the military was facing harsh resistance. Obviously most of this information is outdated or false. If there are comments on this, please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.166.200 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I put it back in. If you google it there are more sources that explain it. i will add more sources to it later, I have to go to drill. (USMCMIDN (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

All right, fair enough about some of the claims, however, I have taken out the claims that the Taliban are still holding strong in the mentioned areas, or that they are offering strong resistance against the army. Neither are true, and one would know that if they were following all sides of the news. Here are some of the sources that verify what I am saying:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=229552 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040103365.html http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6938409.html

On the other hand, some of the areas mentioned, such as Mohamand, were never strong Taliban bases.

Like I mentioned, two of the three sources are severly outdated or a POV. longwarjournal is a clear cut case of that and so is indianexpress.

The third source provided (guardian.co.uk) is irrelevant as far as the exaggeration of casualties is concerned.

(24.57.166.200 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

http://www.insurgencywatch.com/2009/05/12/pakistan-claims-700-taliban-dead-yeah-right/

Sorry I forgot about this topic...anyway another source that tells of US, India, and UK believe that they are exaggerating. And why are countries that are also fighting the Taliban irrelevant? Pakistan is surely not going to admit they were exaggerating.

_____________________

Guardian article is irrelevant in that what that article is showing is irrelevant to the exaggeration of casualties.

The source you gave above again is severely outdated as the operation being discussed (Rah-e-Rast in Swat) there has been a resounding success.

If Pakistan was exaggerating the casualties then you'd have seen higher militant casualties in South Waziristan operation. There you saw 600 militants dead out of the 10,000 that were present before the start of the operation. That's a very low number, and Pakistan could have easily exaggerated that numbers there and it would be all believable. Note that Pakistan said 1,800 militants were killed in Swat in total. NATO gives numbers of around 5,000 each year. Considering this, and assuming NATO's numbers are reliable, what do you have to say about Pakistan's numbers? Pakistan army has a systematic way of keeping number of dead, thus the numbers are likely to be quite accurate.

This is nothing new as foreign media want ways to criticize Pakistan one way or another. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.166.200 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Note I'm only part-way through this article so there will probably be some more removals to come. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Same War

The Afghanistan War and the so called "War in Northwest Pakistan" are the same conflict and should not be treated as contemporaneous. The terrorists that fight in Pakistan often cross the border and fight coalition troops in Afghanistan. The terrorists no doubt consider it the same war as do the allied troops there. To not completely ruin this page by merging, it should be renamed the "Pakistani Theater of the War on Terrorism" or something like that. We should not be using names that the media makes up, and that is the case now. Even the Pakistan War would be better than "War in North-West Pakistan. The War in Afghanistan article should also be renamed "Afghanistan War" because that is official as oppossed to the term "War in Afghanistan" which is only popularly used because it flows better in a sentence. The War in Iraq article has already been renamed appropriately, these two should be next.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) article should be renamed "Afghan War". I read the news a lot and they often use the name "Afghan War". And the War in North-West Pakistan article could be renamed Pakistani Theater of the Afghan War or the War on Terror. 207.233.70.52 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Casualties sources

Also, at least 857 soldiers and policemen have been reported captured by the militants since the start of the war, with at least 558 of them being released.[147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174]

Is 27 sources really necessary...? --Metallurgist (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mujahideen

The opening sentence of this article reads:

"The War in North-West Pakistan is an armed conflict between the Pakistani Armed Forces and Islamic militants made up of local tribesmen, the Taliban, and foreign supported criminals disguised as mujahideen (holy warriors)."

My issue is with the last part of this sentence:

"...and foreign supported criminals disguised as mujahideen (holy warriors)."

The phrasing of this seems very strange to me. It seems like these should be separated into separate entities. Criminals (ie smugglers, arms dealers, drug traffickers etc), some of which are foreign supported. Some of these criminals are disguised as, or call themselves mujahideen. But "mujahideen" should be used in this alone, being basically synonymous with "Islamic militant". The current phrasing suggests that there are no "mujahideen", only criminals pretending to be mujahideen. Yet the mujahideen article describes the term as meaning "Muslim fighters". And indeed the belligerents section lists "Foreign Mujahideen", which links back to the mujahideen article.

My proposed version:

"The War in North-West Pakistan is an armed conflict between the Pakistani Armed Forces and Islamic militants made up of local tribesmen, the Taliban, foreign supported mujahideen and various criminal elements."

Almost identical, but the intro to an article is very important, every word counts. Harley peters (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Expert Needed Tag

"This article needs attention from an expert on the subject."

Ok. What does this mean and why is this tag there? That's a really stupid tag, I'm removing it. All articles could benefit from an expert on the subject. If anyone disagrees please approach me on my talk page prior to reinstating the tag. Thanks. Beam 05:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 02:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Large sections are unreferences and several cn tags are present. Sorry but its a quick fail.Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Just FYI, I have just made quite a few edits to this article, but they were mostly cleanup edits relating to wording, tense, and so forth. The actual meaning and flow of the article has not been altered. I did also remove the {{refimprove}} tag as it is of limited utility merely posted at the top of a long article that has nearly 180 refs. Information needing sourcing should be specifically tagged with {{fact}} so that specific problems may be identified and fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there are still problems with this article - what is this about a "massive communist party" - seems to refer to a March and number appear to be only around 50,000, so what is going on here? I know very little about the topic so leave it to others to clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.225.135 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be called the Pakistani civil war?"

or the AfPak War: Pakistani front?Ericl (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this should be War in West Pakistan, since Balochistan is now a more active front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.73.158 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Map does not exist

The infobox states "For a map of the current military situation in Pakistan, see here.". However this linked map, Template:War in North-West Pakistan detailed map, does not exist. Has this been moved elsewhere? If this map does not exist this sentence should be removed. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on War in North-West Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120406204918/http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2096 to http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2096

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 53 external links on War in North-West Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on War in North-West Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on War in North-West Pakistan. 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/20150929025157/https://www.globalbearings.net/2011/10/video-series-pt-1-from-osama-to-obama.html to http://www.globalbearings.net/2011/10/video-series-pt-1-from-osama-to-obama.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?sec=1&id=1008
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=2&id=14573
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/timing-to-be-decided-by-pakistan-accord-for-operation-in-north-waziristan-050
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C07%5C02%5Cstory_2-7-2010_pg7_7
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nwfp.gov.pk/ST_IT/Projects/ComputerizationofPoliceStations.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/25/pakistan.camps/

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) 03:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War in North-West Pakistan. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mipt.org/pdf/TerroristOrganizationReferenceGuide.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406083558/http://icasualties.org/oef/ to http://icasualties.org/oef/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929025157/https://www.globalbearings.net/2011/10/video-series-pt-1-from-osama-to-obama.html to http://www.globalbearings.net/2011/10/video-series-pt-1-from-osama-to-obama.html

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) 01:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on War in North-West Pakistan. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_militant_leader
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080721/wl_nm/pakistan_baluchistan_dc_1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080804/wl_nm/pakistan_violence_dc_2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080810/wl_afp/pakistanafghanistanunrest_080810132035
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/p/sca/rls/2008/106495.htmcache:Fda3_xPQYTkJ:www.state.gov/p/sca/rls/2008/106495.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Pakistan_says_five_top_militants_among_1000_dead_in_offensive/articleshow/3530363.cms
Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091029/tpl-uk-pakistan-violence-waziristan-qand-81f3b62_1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100331/wl_mcclatchy/3465984news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100331/wl_mcclatchy/3465984
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-war-on-terror-cost-pakistan-35bn-qureshi-qs-10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

^ http://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm

[1] ttp://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm

[1]