Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb

Islamic State

I think we should remove Islamic state from belligerent...read here

“ Even Baghdadi has not had the time to reciprocate Pakistani militants’ overtures to open up an IS branch office in Pakistan. ” — DAWN

Casualties - reliable sources

I would not consider the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations bureau a reliable source for militant casualties - they have a clear history of classifying everyone killed by the armed forces to be a militant (bomb a town, 100% militant casualties) and are a propaganda organisation, not an independent source. Look at reports from thelongwarjournal.org for examples. Sadly the ISPR is the only source cited for militant casualties. Sailfish2 (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"The civilians are being evacuated, and no operation has been started in the areas where the civilians are there, to ensure their evacuation." So those killed are most likely militants. Faizan 16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Accurate or not, we find Military claims 'most appropriate and reliable' as compared to militant claims and independent reports. For e.g., On 20 June 2014, The News International reported over 50 militant fatalities citing 'sources', AFP reported 20 fatalities citing a 'security official". But ISPR confirmed only 12 militant fatalities. Independent sources seem to exaggerate the toll. Maxx786 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The current article, with them labelled "Official sources" seems a good position. Over the years, I don't think I've ever seen an ISPR release that admitted killing any civilians, despite artillery and airstrikes on un-evacuated towns. That's why I think it's appropriate to label the source. Sailfish2 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Chronology: 21 June

I have reverted this edit of Maxx786, as the casualties reported by ISPR were part of the intensified airstrikes that took place during the strategical operation. Faizan 05:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In the infobox, the span of the operation can be extended, and for more elucidation, we can write 267 killed in North Waziristan, and 10 killed in Kyber Agency. Faizan 05:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Airstrikes in Khyber Agency are part of 'surgical strikes' to prevent attacks planned by militants. Currently, no troop movement in Khyber Agency for carrying out an offensive has been reported. Airstrikes in Khyber are a routine: See January 2014, February 2014, March 2014, April 2014, June 2014. It doesn't seem airstrikes in Khyber Agency have been 'intensified'. Maxx786 (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If they were not 'intensified', it doesn't mean they are not a part of the operation. Anyway, I am elucidating the figures as described above. Faizan 15:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Shawal is also outside the territory of NWA, and so is Khyber agency; but we included the figures of Shawal in the operation. The figures of those killed even outside the NWA will be included in the article. We agreed before that the figures provided by ISPR are most accurate, so they are going to be there in the article. Faizan 17:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

According to The Express Tribune, Dunya News, Long War Journal, BBC News, The News International, Daily Times, The Times Of India and many other sources, Shawal is in NWA. Other sources like Dawn write "...the thick forests in Shawal valley extending to South Waziristan Agency." Which sources do you have??

Is there (currently) any displacement of people from Khyber Agency? Do you have any source which says airstrikes in Khyber Agency are part of Zarb-e-Azb or you are only based on the ISPR press release which reported 10 militant fatalities in Khyber along with fatalities due to airstrikes in NWA? Your decision is unilateral and isn't the result of 'any' decision or consensus..... Maxx786 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See the interactive map of The Express Tribune, it shows both of the Shawal and Khyber Agency as out of the territory of NWA, and includes them as part of the operation. I have found this one, which says that it were not a part of the operation. Amending. Faizan 08:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the correct interactive map. Anyways, I am glad that you are finally convinced. I am removing the info about airstrikes in Khyber Agency from this article.. Maxx786 (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You did good, but official military sources of ISPR, in the latest press release, it includes those strikes in Khyber agency as part of the operation. I am elucidating and separating the figures of those killed in NW and Khyber. Faizan 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Maxx786, is there anyway we can gather these ISPR press relases into one web-page? The 7 refs including separate dozen of press releases seem too much for the infobox. Faizan 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Background section

I think the section could rearrange chronologically as

• Peace-negotiations
  • Peace-negotiations failure
• Jinnah Airport attack

your thoughts? --Gfosankar (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no concerns. Faizan 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Gfosankar, the reviewer below has become inactive just after starting the review. Any thoughts? Faizan 17:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how GA review works. --Gfosankar (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Faizan 15:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sailfish2 (talk · contribs) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Took over the review since reviewer became inactive. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 17:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The article and current public knowledge, depend too heavily on ISPR press releases, which are not a WP:THIRDPARTY reliable source. While the article remains so heavily dependent, directly or indirectly via other media re-reporting the ISPR's press releases, on ISPR releases, it is not a balanced, encyclopedia level, good article in my opinion. This is my first encounter with GA review, so other reviewers can take that into account. Sailfish2 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually we have to depend upon ISPR in this case. In NWA, only the militants and the security forces are left. There is no access to Independent media, they cannot confirm the casualties, but to elucidate the case I added "Official sources" for clarification. ISPR is not a third-party source but it's a government's source, and the article states that the figures are official. Other media have no option other than to re-report ISPR, and that does not prevent the article to become a GA. Faizan 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: {{GAList/check|???}

   See comments below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   See section labeled "Comments"

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Major aspects covered.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   More images would be great, but no images (well there is an image) is okay according to this policy, however you may want to get some more images when you are nominating this article to FA.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See above.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please address the comments below.

Comments

• I just have one question to ask. Is it appropriate to create a table for the Section called "Chronology", kind of like the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's table? Besides that, its a pass. I disagree with the previous reviewer's statement about ISPR being relied on too much, as it is one of the only sources out there. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am currently on a short term wikibreak and if you reply, please ping me/or send me a talkback. Thanks! .

Hey Brandon, thanks for taking over. I don't think a table would be appropriate here, it would be a very large one, and the users may find difficulty in updating it, as the chronology needs to be updated everyday. I think that prose would be better relatively, like in those of other articles like Mohmand Offensive, Orakzai and Kurram offensive, etc. If you pass the article, consider giving this award for the achievements section in my userpage. Faizan 08:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just saw your response. Thanks for answering! Pass :D Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 11:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link to prophets in Islam

In the etymology section, the link to the prophets in Islam is confusing. The word means the sword of prophet Muhammad which he used in battles. Link to the prophets in Islam may create a confusion that sword belong to the prophets in Islam rather than prophet Muhammad. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed the wikilink. Faizan 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced POV pushing

User:Faizan insists on adding "Afghan militants" in the infobox but the sources (Pakistani news reports) do not even mention any Afghan militant group. [1] [2] Second, the United States is not involved in this operation. Finally, the subject of this article should only be the operation. Can we not fill this article with personal views of Pakistani news editors regarding Afghan politicians. [3]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not re add this news about non-cooperation of Afghanistan, However I am looking for more references. Whether the "Haqqani Network" is Afghan or not, the provided reference clearly states that the operation is against Haqqani Network too. Agreed about the non-involvement of US. Now, regarding the use of Afghan Militants, the references provided clearly state that the militants were attacking from across the Afghan border.

Extended content
From this one: "a group of terrorists crossed over from Afghanistan and attacked the Dandi Kuch post in Spinwam area of North Waziristan." From that one: "70 to 80 militants attacked the check post in the cross-border attack at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border."

I hope this solves the confusion. Faizan 14:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree...sources do not mention afghan militias...they could be pakistani or uzbek or irani...we know fazlulah of tehreek e taliban is hiding in afghanistan..militias attacking paki ...seems like his job...but CIA drones are involved in operation zarb-e-azb...i think what krzyhorse22 is trying to say is tht it hasnt been officially announced but thy are playing a big role here. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously the militants attacking from inside of Afghanistan are "Afghan militants". Even the arab, central asian, Pakistani militants operating inside Pakistan are referred to as "Pakistani". The main concerned thing is the "Area of Operations". Haqqani Network also has operations both inside Pak and Afg. The term "Terrorists from Afghanistan" used by the above source clarifies this. Faizan 15:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

pakistani militant groups attacking from afghanistan are not afghan ...they are made up of pakis to core..... ....doesnt matter where haqqani is based its still paki...just like uzbek militants...evn thgh based in paki..still uzbekSaadkhan12345 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 i think yu should let cia and u.s stay...

Belligerent (definition) noun 1. a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law. " Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The source says "MILITANTS FROM AFGHANISTAN" and "MILITANTS FROM ACROSS THE BORDER", which just implies that it is talking about "Afghan Militants". Faizan 17:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The basic rule is that we only put verifiable information, no opinions, speculations or implying. There has never been any Afghan militant group fighting against Pakistan. Why would they? They are only against NATO presence inside Afghanistan and that's their reason for fighting in that country. These militants all belong to a group, there are no lone wolf militants. Faizan, "militants from Afghanistan" only has one meaning, and is not a reference to Afghans. It is referring to the listed militants who sometimes hide in mountains of Afghanistan and sometimes in Pakistan, they should not be labelled Afghans. The term "Afghan" refers to a citizen of Afghanistan. We should avoid listing the wrong people.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Haqqani network, it has 4000-15000 members. All we know is that the founder and a few top leaders were born in Afghanistan. We need to verify if this group is actually involved or not. Not long ago this is what top US officials told the media, "There is evidence linking the Haqqani Network to the Pakistan government." [4] I'm not saying Pakistan is not fighting with this group but we need a reliable source to prove it. This Pakistani news report [5] is only addressing that Afghanistan helps catch leader of TTP, Fazlullah, which is a different group from Haqqani.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Faizan...hope this clear up your view that militants attacking from afghanistan are afghans ...

“ Local security officials put the death toll far higher, saying that about 150 militants died in the air strikes, which primarily targeted Uzbek militants in a remote area of the tribal agency. ”

http://www.dawn.com/news/1112909/pakistan-launches-zarb-e-azb-military-operation-in-n-waziristan (line 32- 38)see how it says Uzbek militants? + the operation is based only in pakistan ...not over the border

“ the Pakistan Army launched a comprehensive operation against foreign and local terrorists who were hiding in sanctuaries in North Waziristan tribal region. ”

“ intelligence sources suspect that Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Mullah Fazlullah-led militants based in Kunar and Nuristan along with factions based in Bajaur and Mohmand tribal areas may be involved in the cross-border attacks. ”

http://www.dawn.com/news/1110515Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I move to dispute your revision because they are Afghan militants if the reference is saying that they are from that country. You can not defend your country on Wikipedia you have to go and take real action if a fact like this is upsetting you. Wikipedia is only trying to report journalism. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I said it before that it does not matter that the Haqqanis are Pakistanis or Afghan or Uzbeks. All that matters is that the Pakistani security officials have declared that the operation is also against them. And so, Haqqani Network would be included in the infobox. Secondly, according to the reliable sources given above in the "Extended Content", the intruders attack Pakistan from "across the border". Across the border simply means that it is the Afghans. The wording used by the source is exactly "Militants from Afghanistan", so this is undisputable. Faizan 11:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OMG ...bro if they attack from across the border thn hows the operation based against them? the operation is against foreign and local terrorists who were hiding in sanctuaries in North Waziristan tribal region ....BTW one of the reference to "afghan militants" is from lower dir which is far away from north waziristan. (separate districts).....Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah... Even killing of terrorists in Khyber Agency is reported under the heading of Zarb-e-Azb. Yes, as the forces which are stationed for the Operation Zarb-e-Azb are attacked by Afghan terrorists, the counter attack simply makes it a part of the Operation. Regards. Faizan 17:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Faizan is POV pushing and this is simply unacceptable. He's engaged in the blame game. Like most Pakistanis, he rejects the idea that Pakistan itself is known globally as a major terrorist training ground. I mean look at every terrorist attack that was carried out in USA and the UK, they all involved Pakistani terrorists. Instead, he wants to portray Pakistan as a peace loving and civilized country such as USA that is being attacked by Afghans. This sort of thinking is just weird and un-comprehensible to any person of ordinary intelligence. In other words, he's trying to falsify well established fact. Some Afghans are possibly enrolled in the listed groups but that's something to address in the articles of those groups. Why specifically list Afghans and not Arabs, Uzbeks from Uzebkistan, Chechens, Tajikistanis, and the so many others? I think we all know, based on news reports, that Pakistanis hate Afghans and Indians but Wikipedia is not the place for this. We need to interpret the sources accurately, without exaggerating or adding personal opinions. Anyway, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, as well as Afghanistan's government and others, have been claiming for the last decade or so that Pakistan is using certain militant groups (i.e. Haqqani network) to carry out attacks inside Afghanistan in order to weaken the Afghan state and NATO forces. [6] There are countless RSs to support these claims. However, Pakistan always denies it. So this is the complicated issue here. Do we trust what NATO leaders say or do we trust Pakistanis?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Krzyhorse22, please refrain from personal attacks and harassment. You are trying to blame and harass entire Pakistanis, please do not mock to ownership of articles and try to get consensus for your non-popular uni-lateral nationalistic changes. And I don't want to discuss the merits of Afghanistan here. Faizan 18:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment? Every knowledgeable person about this region (Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) agrees with my statement. It is recommended that people with knowledge edit this article. You called Afghans terrorists in your statement but we never seen terrorist attacks done by Afghans inside Pakistan. Therefore, you're the one with the problem. I didn't even edit this stinky article since November 2, so regarding ownership of articles, what are you talking about? The discussion here is not about Afghanistan, it's you wrongly adding "Afghan militants" in the infobox due to your personal feeling and using the old falsification of sources method, which is blockable if you keep repeating it regardless how long you've been editing Wikipedia. Accept the fact that Pakistani terrorists are killing Pakistani citizens [7] and that Pakistan's government started this operation against them (and the few foreigners that may be with them). Most of us editors don't give a rats ass about Pakistani, Afghan, Indian, American, or our own nationality, we only come here to improve articles based on WP:NPOV and WP:ACCURACY. I say that because in Wikipedia there is no nationality, we could claim to be a citizen of any country.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Faizan im going to have to remove "afghan militants" because its TTP that is involved in crossborder attacks.. http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/13/securing-the-durand-line/. ill quote the line...

“ Before and after Salala, the Pakistani Taliban used the ungoverned (and ungovernable) areas of Afghanistan as safe haven and as areas to regroup and launch attacks on Pakistani security forces posted at the border as well as deployed in FATA. These attacks increased after the TTP nominated Mullah Fazlullah as its leader – Fazlullah had mostly spent his time in Afghanistan’s Kunar and Nuristan provinces after being ousted from Swat in Malakand district. ”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadkhan12345 (talk • contribs)

Do not edit war or you will be blocked. Discuss dispute first. --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed my own View which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...User:TheSawTooth and User:Faizan view that "afghan militant" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute here first and thn make an edit regardiing this.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

i think afghan militants should be changed to militant because theres a difference between "Afghan militants" and "militants from Afghanistan...Like the uzbek militants based in pakistan are known as Uzbek militants not pakistani militants ...according to user:Faizan and User:TheSawTooth uzebk militants based in pakistan should be called Pakistani militants but thats not how they are refereed to in Dawn.com newspaper articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadkhan12345 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any view on CIA drones. That tag was removed because you always add one more tag in same edit. That is not compromise. --TheSawTooth (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The rational given by the edit-warring users above in the section "Unsourced POV pushing" was that this term is not supported by references and actually the militants attacking are Pakistani.

The provided references are enough to support the use of this term. Why would all of these sources use this term as misrepresentation? The sources clearly depict that the militants attacking Pakistan are from Afghanistan, based in Afghanistan. Awaz Today says Afghan militants attack Pak army post." Wall Street Journal says: "Militants based in Afghanistan attacked Pakistani paramilitary troops.". For more detail, please make use of the references provided above. Faizan 12:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a case of source misrepresentation. Why the hell would Pakistan condemn an attack from Afghanistan and lodge protest with Kabul if it was by Pakistanis? Faizan 12:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree...they are militant from afghanistan. not afghan militants. Uzbek militant are known as Uzbek militants not pakistani just because they are based in pakistan. "Local security officials put the death toll far higher, saying that about 150 militants died in the air strikes, which primarily targeted Uzbek militants in a remote area of the tribal agency."

http://www.dawn.com/news/1112909/pakistan-launches-zarb-e-azb-military-operation-in-n-waziristan (line 32- 38) Theres a difference between militants from afghanistan and afghan militants. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use this Rquote template again. It may confuse the readers, at least here. Why not use commas? As far as the Militants are concerned, why not take a look at the References provided above. I provided a source which clearly says that the attackers were "Afghan militants". Another source says: "Militants based in Afghanistan". Faizan 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say "Afghan militant"? please remove afghan and leave militant. What the "reference" is saying is that the attackers attacked from afghanistan. That does not make them afghan. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

They say Afghan Militants, specifically based there. Faizan 13:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Faizan and User:TopGun adding the term "afghan militant" to the infobox when nowhere in the 5 referenced article says it. Afghan militants suggest that the groups are ethnically comprised of Afghans. "Militants" would be a more suitable term since all of they are merely based in Afghanistan. Even one of the referenced article says "No group claimed responsibility for the attack till the filing of this report this one.

“It is imperative that complementary actions are taken by the Afghan authorities on their side of the border. Elimination of terrorist sanctuaries and handing over of TTP elements that have taken refuge in Afghanistan are the first important steps in that direction,” the spokesperson said. this one. Pakistan and Afghanistan share a volatile and porous border that is often the scene of cross-border attacks. Militants from both countries also cross to use the neighboring country's soil as a safe haven. Pakistan is a key ally of the United States. The latest cross-border attack came as the army is carrying out a major offensive against Pakistani Taliban and foreign militants in the troubled North Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan.this one. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Saw the references given in the top? They clearly use the word "Afghan militants", if you cannot see, I can repeat the links here again:

Faizan 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean? How the readers would know that who are these "Militants"? The references explicitly say that these are the Afghan militants. Faizan 15:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

my son I have told you so many times. If you read the reference for exmple here:

The latest cross-border attack came as the army is carrying out a major offensive against Pakistani Taliban and foreign militants in the troubled North Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan.this one. “It is imperative that complementary actions are taken by the Afghan authorities on their side of the border. Elimination of terrorist sanctuaries and handing over of TTP elements that have taken refuge in Afghanistan are the first important steps in that direction,” the spokesperson said. this one. you think you know more the spokesperson. Can you not understand that when a Pakistani militant (TTP) or any other foreigners/unclaimed attacks from Afghanistan...that does not make them Afghan. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This heap of nonsense is a "good article"?

• Claims only 86 killed, citing an article from October 22 not even claiming anything like that: [10] (Something about a... cricket match?!?)

• Claims only 3 civilians were killed/injured in the fighting, which is completely ridicalous for a massive insurgency/counterinsurgency that allegedly killed mover 1000 combatants. "Citing" 2 random articles about some clashes in June.
  • Meanwhile, for example, The army statement gave no details of civilian casualties, but reports from residents fleeing the fighting have indicated numerous civilians have been killed. After one set of air strikes in Shawal Valley in July, multiple accounts by residents said 37 civilians were killed, including 20 women and 10 children.[11] There many other similar reports of mass civilian casualties especially from the Army artillery and air strikes, and the Taliban landmines (which is nothing new[12] and American drone strikes also are quite infamous for allegedly killing many[13] Pakistani civilians). But the total figures for civilian losses are, of course, completely UNKNOWN. (Also because the independent access there is so limited.)

And I stopped reading this "good article" right there, on the infobox (which btw isn't even properly construced, only names of the actual commanders of the operation should be there, instead of the bolded out leadership roles in the entire country, and their ranks also shouldn't be there), because this stuff is just ridiculous, even for Wikipedia. And the the infobox is also not a proper summary of the entire article. And probably so many diferent things are also wrong too, but I didn't even look at it beyond the first page. It's just a bad article. --302ET (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the full article but I do agree about listing the field commanders or Generals incharge (may include army chief or any significant other leaders iff any RS credit them with major operation related decisions). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

SaadKhan12345

References have been provided already but if you want to earn the consensus by calling others as "my son", then it's impossible. Faizan 09:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

From —User talk:Faizan

Look brother...i told you once before. if you ignore the invitation to form a consensus on this than i will take it as a yes. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Stop calling me your brother and son, and stop your claims of ownership. I am open for a discussion at the article's talk. Faizan 09:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC) I am open to a civil discussion, last time in your comment, you called me as "my son". Do you still think I will reply to such rudeness? Faizan 09:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC) yes and I apologized for that and also "brother" is not an offensive term. I do not know where you got ur dictionary from. Remember you blackmailed me that if i do not do this that than blah blah blah will happen. You do not seem interested in forming a consensus anymore. If you are, I am open. And claims of ownership? Have you forgotten about the following disccussion: here. Now its not wise to point fingers and blame each. I do request you to stop with that and lets stop wasting each others time and I do not have to apologize every time for something like calling you a "brother" and so remmber to assume good faith and my sincere apology for any harm that I may have caused whether in words or any other form. 16:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadkhan12345 (talk • contribs) @Saadkhan12345 I am open to a discussion too. Please reply at the article talk and explain why you think that the references provided for "Afghan Militants" are wrong? If you think we can change it to more precise wording such as "Militants based in Afghanistan" or "Cross-border attacking militants", then you are welcome too. Faizan 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should stop blaming each other and wasting each other's time. I think that the best neutral term for them would be "Cross-border attacking militants", do you agree? If not, then we can get third party comments. Faizan 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

at User talk:Faizan. Faizan 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand English?

82.11.33.86 do you or are you actually stupid? How can you revert inf which is sourced? I am warning you again to stop attacking me and my edits:

This is what the source which is still in the article says:

The chairman said that his country will stand by Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and extremism for stability in the region. “Our relations are independent, more consistent and will further grow,” he added.

This is the source that I have added and you reverted:

Gen Bajwa in his tweet quoted Mr Narishkin as having said that Russia “will stand by Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and extremism for stability in the region. Our relations are independent, more consistent, and will further grow”.

Some onether sources:

“Russia will stand by Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and extremism to ensure stability in the region,” Director General Inter Services Relations Major General Asim Bajwa quoted Naryshkin as saying

He said Russia will stand by Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and extremism for stability in region.

Stop insulting. Was mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.33.86 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Was mistake"- Can you explain how it was? And TripWire is not insulting you. Faizan (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

read wrong source calling me stupid and asking about my english is insulting 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

References

It seems the Operation is over

It seems from recent coverage that this operation has reached a stable conclusion and combat operations are over. Following a few recent excerpts I found: "The military operation lasted for two years to recover the North Waziristan agency from terrorists’ control. “In total, the army found 310 tonnes of explosives, 25,000 rifles and more than two million bullets. The military uncovered a terrorist infrastructure that included a media centre hidden in the basement of a mosque, secret prisons where kidnap victims were held, and deep tunnels to protect fighters from precision bombs,” said Major General Hassan Azhar Hayat. Oborne said the Pakistan Army was persuaded that it has won the war on terror after 15 years of horror in its tribal regions and the statistics also supported their stance since violence in Pakistan has fallen by three-quarters in the past two years." [Source: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1344937/peter-oborne-visits-north-waziristan-see-pakistan-managed-survive-terror/.] Also, "91 percent of those displaced have returned" [source: https://www.geo.tv/latest/136720-A-trip-to-North-Waziristan]. Finally, the government of Pakistan is now officially referring to this Operation in the past-tense, signalling that the actual combat operations are over. [Source: http://www.radio.gov.pk/19-Apr-2017/rs-5-2-bln-disbursed-as-compensation-amongst-terrorism-affected-people-of-tribal-areas]

Given all the above, I think we should update the info box which currently says the operation is "ongoing". Not only has the area been cleared of militants, 91% of the displaced population has returned. I do not see any reports of active combat operations. It seems there is no "belligerents" anymore, and as there is no opponent for the Army left in the area. The TTP have either left, surrendered or have been killed. cӨde1+6^TP 23:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

changing the number of fatalities

please not that these figures were outdated for updated details go to this link http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39191868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardon146 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There are some expand section tags here, but I am seeing deeper problems. Mainly relating to the articles focus. The timeline is massive and not that great a read. I would suggest splitting it out to a timeline article and summarising it here in prose. The use of templates in it makes it exceedingly difficult to edit as well. AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the timeline is a problem here. It is awkward to have separate sections for each following month (...August, September, October, November...). Not sure who will fix this. The article is otherwise well written. It will be a sad event if the GA statue is revoked. -AsceticRosé 17:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The best solution I can think of is to split the timeline into a Timeline of operation Zarb-e-Azb article and then summarise it here. That keeps all the information and makes this one so much more readable. The timeline uses some weird template system that makes it a bit trickier to cut, paste and edit, but it would be doable. I am unfamiliar myself with the operation so not sure how accurate the update section tags are, but given the last cited entry was in 2015 and it is still in the news now[14] I would say it needs quite a bit. Unfortunately the main editor is under an indefinite block (I didn't realise until I left a message n his talk page). It does not seem an indefinite indefinite bloc so maybe they will return. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delisting per above. If the issues are resolved it can always be renominated at WP:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Pakistani claims of scoring a "phenomenal victory".

The scholars do not take these dubious claims at face value. Their account is at variance with the state claims, and so it is the former that will assume precedence on Wikipedia. Scholars state that the Pakistani army has had a tainted track record of proclaiming premature victories. Notwithstanding such proclamations, the operation continues to be ongoing, with not just active pockets of resistance in the areas concerned, but also with the majority of militants having taken refuge in and operating from Afghanistan. I have added a scholarly source to that effect in the article.[15] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is that source supposed to show? It confirms that "most territory across the tribal areas was free of organized resistance" and only "pockets of fighters" remain. It says, in its own voice, that "Independent figures later confirmed Zarb-e-Azb’s progress" and then backs that with data. And the source is 5 years old, from 2017, so more recent sources, even if less scholarly, will obviously be preferred.VR _talk 22:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The Pakistani army appears to consider the operation a success. And while the operation did come at significant humanitarian cost (displaced people, civilian casualties etc), there does appear to be other sources that agree the operation was successful. For example, the Atlantic Council says the operation gave Pakistan "a position of strength and victory". Another source also says that the operation was a "significant success" against militants, and "success of this operation has also been acknowledged through international reports". Same with another source that says "This invasion, known as Operation Zarb e Azb, after a holy sword used by the Prophet Muhammad, was a success in driving out the Pakistani Taliban factions that had blatantly ruled the region for over a decade." VR _talk 23:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

OP is correct in what they have said and done. As Wikipedia does not recycle press -releases of Pakistani military and relies on analysis by reliable sources, removing POV from the infobox was the right thing to do. Weinbaum's negation of the specious claims of a phenomenal victory by Pakistani military, which is used to disseminate such hoax does burst the Pakistani bubble that has driven POV pushing on this page. His work assumes relevance, as it came after the army tom-tommed victory, the latest in the series of such self-vaunting and playing to the gallery. I note that while casting aspersions on the source based on its publication date, you show us a cherrypicked blog and a book making passing mention of the operation from 2017, not knowing that infobox already captures the ground progress that have occurred over time, which also occur in the later sections, and which was never in dispute, making it a red herring, and a strawman. However there is more to this than just freeing up ground as scholars note in the same breadth of a continuing resistance from Afghanistan, an ongoing Pakistani effort despite military claims of wrapping it up in "three weeks", Pakistani army double-talk on "good" and "bad" terrorists, their efforts to insulate the former despite open rhetoric to the contrary,[16] an unattenuated ability of the Talibani belligerent in targeting soft targets, a guerilla warfare continuing from Waziristan and Khyber, and the disaster implications of the going after the Pakistani Taliban, financial and otherwise. Thus infoboxes are not the place for such charade and POV pushing based on cherrypicked blogs, passing mentions and military claims. Editorkamran (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't quote press releases by the Pakistani military - even though the view of the Pakistani military is clearly WP:DUE in this scope. I quoted scholarly sources that are WP:INDEPENDENT of the Pakistani military sources above. Also the google books link you presented above doesn't work for me.VR _talk 00:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pakistan Army clearance operation.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)