Talk:Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeInsurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 17, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 27 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map is inaccurate[edit]

As far as my knowledge goes, i am pretty sure the taliban do not control north wazirstan or swat and many of the other places put under taliban control in this map.Could someone more knowledgeable update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRMOOMOO420 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed allegations of Indian support of the Taliban[edit]

The infobox for this page contains Pakistani allegations of Indian support for the Taliban. The content is very well-cited, but is not discussed further. Shouldn't such a grievous accusation be at the very least discussed in prose? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the citations used mostly are pakistani newspapers and hence biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastbirth (talk • contribs)

India was clearly added by an IP,[1] without using non-dubious sources. I would say we need to keep this removed since many other related discussions ended up removal of this information. @Vif12vf: you too have a look. Orientls (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the sources might be biased is probably the reason why it is alleged, just like it is alleged by indian sources that Pakistan supports terrorists in India. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does depend on how many academic sources have considered those allegations to be correct. Do you have any academic references? If no, then dont include back. We really need verification by third party independent sources. Orientls (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vif12vf/Tiberius saying "just like" and using False equivalence doesn't work all the time and especially not here. That Pakistan supported the Taliban has multiple reliable third party sources saying that and with concrete evidence. Meanwhile as this Pakistani journalists states, Pakistani government invoke "indian hand" everywhere and never provide evidence. Betrayal in Balochistan.[1] --DBigXrayᗙ 18:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Akbar, Malik Siraj (17 May 2015). "Betrayal in Balochistan". The World Post. Archived from the original on 26 June 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
@Pastbirth, Orientls, Vif12vf, and DBigXray: For the record, all I was saying was that if the allegation is to be in the infobox, shouldn't it be expanded on in the article's body? No comment on where it should be in the infobox in the first place. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Guye I am in agreement with your viewpoint. I don't see this anymore in the infobox, probably someone already removed it which is good. cheers and regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  20:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


War in North-West Pakistan → Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – "North-West Pakistan" is quite difficult to interpret accurately because of the country's geographic shape. There is also already an Insurgency in Balochistan. Naming it "Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" avoids both confusion between the two different conflicts and is also less biased in terms of different people's interpretations of "North-West", also making it more accurate. The new title would also be consistent with Insurgency in Balochistan and Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Drayqueen (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should not be called an insurgency[edit]

First and foremost let’s be clear that this was an armed conflict between the Pakistani military and MANY terror groups. An insurgency is when one faction like the balochistan seperatist movement use guerrilla tactics to try and gain power. In north west Pakistan it was a WAR . Many terrorist forums were BASED in the region so it can’t even be an insurgency by defenition because multiple groups can’t all be a apart of one insurgency. I understand Pakistanis want to call this just a simple insurgency just like there are in safer countries like Egypt and Algeria but this was a war clear cut. Also the argument “north west is subjective “ is the most hilariously in thought about comment ever. The north west of Pakistan is the north west Pakistan on a map it isn’t subjective and nobody would confuse it for balochistan because balochistan is the south west no matter how you look at it if you split the region up. Most articles published by reputable websites also call this the WAR in north west Pakistan. Having the Wikipedia page say the insugrency in kpk will confuse people because if they read an article about the war in north west Pakistan they may not know what the insurgency in kpk even is and might think it’s a seperate issue like balochistan. DO NOT move this page again unless you can site a source which claims it is referred to as the insurgency in kpk . Also here are some sources that call it the war in north west https://artsandculture.google.com/entity/m09x7p1?categoryid=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/topics/War_in_North-West_Pakistan_fiction/video Thewinnerz33 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the terrorist groups fighting against Pak in KP are Islamists, so they have broadly the same goal.
NW Pak was used to refer to KP & FATA collectively. That's not needed now that FATA has been merged into KP.
Although the early years could be reasonably described as a war, during the last few years it's been a low-intensity conflict. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map is incorrect[edit]

The Map presents the situation in 2016 as having been with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in complete control over FATA, with KPK being contested territory. This is quite simply incorrect. The Pakistani Taliban, even at their greatest strength, didn't hold control over entire districts, much less control the entirety of FATA whilst contesting another province. In addition to that, they were practically flushed out of FATA too by 2016 courtesy of Zarb e Azb so all in all, the Map is wrong. 39.33.254.226 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can generate a better map with sources then you are welcome to do so. If you have sources to debunk the current map then the map can be removed. Orientls (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't generate maps so there's nothing I can do about that.

As for the current map, to begin with, KPK appears shaded as if it's contested territory. I have no idea why it appears that way and honestly, I don't know what source you want me to provide you with. It's like.. If something never happened, how do you disprove that it happened..? (with sources). There are no articles to “prove KPK isn't contested territory and it's firmly in government hands” cause that's a given fact lol. It's like being asked to provide a source that California isn't actually German territory.

As for FATA, there are plenty of articles

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/06/17/six-years-since-launch-of-zarb-e-azb/

https://ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_pub/articles/margalla-paper/margallapapers2019issueii/13-Op-Zarb-e-Azb.pdf

https://gulfnews.com/amp/world/asia/pakistan/once-terror-hit-region-now-ready-to-welcome-students-1.62810352

What's really strange is that there are even Wikipedia articles which document Pakistan's victory in expelling terrorists from the districts of FATA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zarb-e-Azb

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Khyber

103.78.135.231 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NomanPK44's editing[edit]

User:NomanPK44 is clearly faking a sources since the first edit he made here.[2] The source was being used for saying that the insurgency is 'ongoing' and NomanPK44 falsely claimed victory by using the same source.

I further removed what is unrelated to this conflict[3][4] which had no relation to this conflict and sources don't discuss Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or any related insurgency in these sources. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@42.106.4.156: if you have any source which says that it is ongoing then please mention it. NomanPK44 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[5] notes "Doval Doctrine that aims at fomenting insurgency in Pakistan’s provinces, including Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa." [6] notes "HRCP noted that forced disappearances, a major issue in insurgency-plagued Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, continued in 2019." Insurgency is not over. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will clearly require strong multiple reliable sources to claim that insurgency ended in 2017 and the government won the conflict. I don't see any until now. Orientls (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NomanPK44 and 42.106.4.156. Edit-warring is not any solution, and neither have any sources been analysed and scrutinized exactly. A note to latter that merely dropping a message on articles talk page and reverting edits, doesn't mean consensus, as you stated in edit summary. Can you both put up you valid argument's here? This would really help. I just checked history of NomanPK44's talk page, we shouldn't be disrespecting fellow editors, it is quite wrong. 42.106.4.156 please don't do this again. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I came here after seeing the discussion for the infobox on Talk:Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and saw the exact same content/refs being reduplicated here. I saw no point of its inclusion here as consensus was not reached there for the exact same content. Contrary to what the recent edit claims, consensus when concerning the exact same topic is applicable as a whole, in the same edit summary it is spuriously claimed that sock "IPs/accounts" are trying to get rid of this content. This all the more ironic since it was a [sock] IP which added the content in the first place and has been trying to re-insert it ever since which is what I initially reverted back then and now. Gotitbro (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I don't recall my previous involvement though I suspect that t was on a narrower area because I really have no in depth knowledge here. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since, the reversions were done by a now blocked sock and master and the content initially added as such as well. I will be removing it per above, till further consensus here or at the TTP page. Gotitbro (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why another editor cannot restore content previously added by a sock? Can you also explain who you or anyone else is to reject those referenced edits without a proper reasoning? Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: what is your objection to this material? Do you find the sources unreliable? Do you find the content to be a violation of WP:NPOV? VR talk 07:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some research shows that Pakistani authorities on multiple levels have alleged India of supporting TTP and these allegations are widely covered in academic literature[1][2][3][4][5] (who sometimes also note that India has strongly denied these allegations). I would support adding something like this to the list of supporters "India (alleged by Pakistan, denied by India)".VR talk 17:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pakistani authorities on multiple levels have alleged India of supporting TTP" exactly answers your question. There is no need to include false accusations that have no basis at all, just like nobody included Pakistan's role (accused only by India) at 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV requires us to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". As I (and others) have showed, this is a significant view that has been published by many reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you think it is false (see WP:NOTTRUTH).VR talk 09:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree we should include all viewpoints. We can just add "per Pakistan", some people are claiming they have consensus but there is no consensus for their removal. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadow4dark: I don't think you understand what "consensus" means contrary to your misleading edit summary. Where is the consensus to add the false claims back? We are not going to add gibberish claims. India and Pakistan have history of falsely accusing each other of things. We need third party sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy response to the ping above now that this cropped up on my watchlist again. My initial assessment is that a discrete section for alleged India's involvement in the insurgency is WP:UNDUE as evidence for the proportionate coverage in reliable sources has thus far been lacking. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Pakistan has a history of seeing Indian involvement in whatever ails their state ranging from ethnic clashes in 1950s' Sindh to attacks on school by Tehrik-i-Taliban. Obviously, no scholar finds such claims credible and hence, devoting a section is UNDUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mr. Guye and Vif12vf: I need your opinion on this as you guys were involved in a similar discussion above. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (responding to ping) My position is simply that if a sourced but potentially contentious claim is made in the infobox of an article, then there should be content in the body of the article about said claim. I don't know if it should be an entire section or a single paragraph, but there should be something. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take umbrage at the reversions being made to reinstate disputed content in a manner that games the restrictions in place as well as circumvent an active disagreement on the talk page here. The claims being made in the infobox that the Pakistani Taliban have lost "all of its territory in Pakistan" are erroneous and misleading. Scholars have shed light on how not just pockets of resistance have held out in Waziristan and Khyber agencies but also inasmuch as they continue to operate from the contiguous Afghanistan[6], I wonder what is it that the infobox is even attempting to cascade to the reader by dint of such misleading and ambiguous portrayals? Why are Pakistani establishment claims so salient as to warrant mention in the infobox, even when no scholar is ready to attest to the same? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support keeping the content regarding the 'alleged Indian involvement' in the Infobox and the article body based on the references present.Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oriental Aristocrat: Where is the "consensus" to restore the rejected claims? I am seeing fair explanation only for removing the content which never had consensus. Capitals00 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both MBlaze Lightning and TrangaBellam were clearly WP:CANVASSED here. And none of the editors made any argument to discredit the sources provided. Thus, you need to WP:DROP THE STICK and accept the consensus reached. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make claims of canvassing about users without evidence. Enough arguments have been made above to discredit the information you are adding back without consensus. India also accuse Pakistan of being involved in many things that scholars don't accept. We need secondary sources to confirm the involvement of India. Capitals00 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely ridiculous, the same arguments that applied in the TTP RFP apply here as well. Random claims with little backing dont merit mention. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can add them back if users provide non Pakistan sources Shadow4dark (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robert A. Burke. Counter-Terrorism for Emergency Responders. CRC Press. p. 290. The Pakistani military and civilian leadership have repeatedly alleged that the Indian intelligence agency RAW has been funding and training TTP members using a network of Indian consulates in Afghanistan along the Pakistani border. According the Pakistani allegations, when the TTP emerged, Afghan and Indian intelligence were quick to seize the opportunity to infiltrate and utilize some of its elements, particularly Baitullah Mehsud's kin, against Pakistan and its armed forces...Bajwa['s spokesperson], said in the aftermath of the 2014 Peshawar School attack that, "India is funding Taliban in FATA and Balochistan. He said that a banned outfit cannot function on such a big scale unless foreign powers are funding it."
  2. ^ Saloni Kapur. Pakistan after Trump: Great Power Responsibility in a Multi-Polar World. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 138. In an interview with me, Ishtiaq Ahmad (2015) of the University of Sargodha asserted that claims that India aids the TTP and the MQM—which engages in political violence in Karachi—were credible. The same year, then-Indian defence Manohar Parikar (2015) raised eyebrows when he told Hindi news channel Aaj Tak, "You have to neutralise terrorists through terrorists only," and then declined to provide further details in public, in response to a question about his administrations actions against cross-border terrorism."
  3. ^ N. Elahi. Terrorism in Pakistan: The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Challenge to Security. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 115. Indian contribution in funding the TTP had been surreptitious but tangible. In August 2008, three arrested terrorists belonging to TTP's Qari Hussain, known as 'Ustad-e-Fedayeen' (mentor of sucicide bombers) (Dawn, 2009), revealed he received Rs 680 million from 'an enemey country' (India)...Ehsanullah Eshan, the former spokesperson of TTP, and key commander of TTP's breakaway faction, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (JuA), who surrendered to the Pakistan Army in April 2017, divulged that India was providing financial and logistical support to the TTP (The Express Tribune, April 17, 2017)."
  4. ^ Shaun Gregory. Democratic Transition and Security in Pakistan. Taylor & Francis. p. 196. India is alleged [by Pakistani authorities] to have provided training, arms and funds to Baluchi rebels, as well as funds, arms, ammunition medical equipment and medicines to the TTP in the tribal areas. Both claims are strongly rejected by India.
  5. ^ Andrew D. Henshaw. Understanding Insurgent Resilience: Organizational Structures and the Implications for Counterinsurgency. Taylor & Francis. On 26 July 2017 an off-shoot of the TTP, the Taliban Special Group (TSG), launched a deadly commando-style suicide attack in Lahore, Pakistan. Twenty-six were killed and 54 injured, including police. It is Pakistan's assertion that such attacks are supported by Indian RAW and NDS with finance and training...Senior PTT Commander Latif Mehsud...was working with them [Afghan government] and Indian operatives to target LeT...
  6. ^ Weinbaum, Marvin G. (2017). "Insurgency and Violent Extremism in Pakistan". Routledge. Small Wars & Insurgencies. 28 (1): 45. doi:10.1080/09592318.2016.1266130.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insurgency_in_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa&oldid=1216215021"