Talk:Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

What kind of nonsense is this
This is no "State" in Waziristan - Delete this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag
I added the Waziristan flag. Inkan1969 22:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.169.20 (talk • contribs)


 * The flag itself is not fake, it is likely a flag used by a Waziristan resistance movement in the 1930s, as FOTW says. Its connection to the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, however, has not been shown at all. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This "state" dose not exist
Either defacto or de jure. So delete this page please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.169.20 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, apparently it does. Do some websearches. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What a bunch of hogwash. There isn't anything remotely named as the 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan'. Who cooked this name up anyway? The lengths these Indian teenagers go to, to indulge in their wet dreams is indeed shocking and it is bringing wikipedia's credibility down to a new low. And just using google to get some links to blogs which mention this fictional 'emirate' isn't quite the way to go about verifying data. This has not been reported and/or disclosed by any news agency of repute or any government spokesperson. Just somebody discussing it in his/her blog does not make it verifiable data. Adding tag for speedy deletion.Red aRRow 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure what exactly has happened, but there was some sort of agreement between Islamabad and the rebels in this area. A de facto state is different than a de jure one.  If the rebels control the area, then whether they're recognized or not, they appear to have a de facto state.  Whether it really has a name, and whether that name is "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan", I do not know. It may be deletable, pending evidence that the rebels call themselves the "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan", but I doubt it's speedyable.  But there has been talk about rebels having de facto control of much of the tribal areas for quite some time now.

The rebels dont give orders, dont decide laws and are not involved in building anything. They may do that from time to time, it does not mean they are in control. The only authority in the region is the government of Pakistan, which is engaged in development activities like roads etc. This so called "Islamic Emirate" does not exist.


 * This link has a story about it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * MSNBC uses the term: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13990130/site/newsweek/

That link you provided sites this very article on wikipedia as the source!! All the links, or so called references, are intertwined with each other and refer to each other as a source for this 'story'. Even some journalist refering to this newly coined term does not make it a fact or a ground reality. If people are so eager to mention this term regarding Waziristan then it could be merged with the Waziristan accord article at most. The tribal area has, since time immemorial, been under de facto control of the Pashtun tribes which inhabit the area. Even the Britishers could not ascertain their control in the tribal areas during their colonization of the sub-continent. As I have said before this is hogwash. There is no credible link for this story...except for references which either seem to refer to some blog entries or some article which seems to refer to the blog entries or this wikipedia article as a source. I am proposing again for deletion as this article does not conform with wikipedia's policy of verifiability and neutral point of view regarding articles. Red aRRow 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

does it realy exist7day 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From where does the name Islamic emirate of waziristan come from?? If it is a group as mentioned then no group ever used this name. It is not mentioned in any sources out of the ones provided. The name should be changed or merged with Waziristan. It also wrongly points to other language articles on waziristan (arabic eg) which is not correct as the original article Waziristan also points to the same. Despite lot of time after this objection and no proof provided from any source, the name of the article has not been changed or merged with the original article on waziristan. I request administrators to take action.

Merge?
Should this be merged into Waziristan accord? Tom Harrison Talk 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Should Canada be merged into Constitution Act, 1867? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that there is not now any place or group generally called the "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan". The only half-way reliable source that uses this name cites our own Wikipedia article to do it. Freerepublic.com, probably not a reliable source, cites in turn an anonymous source who says "the truce refers to the region as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.”" Until there is such a named place or group, what well-sourced material there is here needs to go under Waziristan accord, which seems to be the root of everyone's concern. Tom Harrison Talk 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely against the merge, but there is an MSNBC article from July 31 (actually it appears that it may be from Newsweek, which would maybe even give it more reliability, as it's paper), which calls the group the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan: . I'll admit that one single major news source using the term once is not a great deal of evidence, but it is something to think about.  Waziristan is so remote and the people so disconnected from the rest of the world (and the rebels yet more disconnected) that it's likely that if the rebels have a name for themselves it really just hasn't gotten out yet.  But if you need to merge, eh, go ahead. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The map of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is shown wrongly
The map shows the Indian administered region of Jammu and Kashmir as "disputed", whereas the parts of "Azad Kashmir" (Kashmir under Pakistani control), and Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) are shown as not disputed. This is plain wrong. What is disputed is the Kashmir valley (including "Azad Kashmir", Jammu area, Northern Areas, Gilgit, and Baltistan. The Ladakh part of India is not disputed at all.

Another part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is the Shaksgam valley which has been ceded by Pakistan to China in the 1963 Shaksgam treaty accord is also not shown - that part is also disputed by India. The map of Kashmir also omits any reference to Aksai Chin, an area that is disputed beteen India and China.


 * Any part of Kashmir not claimed by Pakistan won't be shown on the map, as this is a map of Pakistan. So the parts of Kashmir only disputed between India and China are completely irrelevant. The parts of Kashmir administered by Pakistan and claimed by India are also not shown as "special" because they are, as far as a map of Pakistan goes, completely Pakistani.  The only part that needs to be noted is the part of Kashmir claimed by Pakistan but administered by India. The border looks like it might not be perfect over near Aksai Chin, but the rest, as I said, is irrelevant for purposes of this map. All that matters is what Pakistan claims. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 03:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Osgoodelawyer, but your statement goes against Wikipedia's neutrality principal. The map that is currently being shown is not neutral.


 * Sorry anonymous user, but that's not true at all. First off, what's disputed between India and China can't possibly be important on a map of Pakistan.  Should the map also include disputes between, oh, Chile and Bolivia? As for not showing the part of Pakistan that's disputed betwen Pakistan and India, well, we could show it, but not doing so is not a violation of neutrality.  The map shows what is a part of Pakistan (that is, what Pakistan controls), and also shows what Pakistan claims.  If this were a map of both India and Pakistan (or a map of Kashmir for purposes of showing territorial claims), then it would be a violation in showing what one country claims as disputed while showing what the other country controls as not disputed.  However, this is a map of Pakistan. Let me put it this way.  The map is:
 * a) Of all land claimed by Pakistan
 * b) Marking which part is controlled by Pakistan
 * b) Marking which part is controlled by India
 * └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 05:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A further comment -- this map graphic comes from the subdivisions of Pakistan article. I linked to it because it happens to color in Waziristan so beautifully, giving the reader an immediate picture of where N/S Waziristan is.  Anonymous user, if you have a beef you should take it up there, although the arguments User Talk:Osgoodelawyer will be equally valid over there and I don't think you'll make much progress.  I agree with OzLawyere that  it would be HIGHLY confusing to readers if we added colored India/China dispute zones on a map of Pakistan. In any case, pleae take it up on the original subdivisions of Pakistan page, and if an improved graphic comes out of it, we can use it here too. In the meantime I will remove the disputed tag from this article. technopilgrim 06:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Major need of unbiased and verifiable sources
As I said this 'article' is a total joke. Based on hearsay and blog entries. Also seems to be that the over eager writers failed to check up the references they were providing. I have removed biased references i.e. Indian sources regarding an issue related to Pakistan are not considered reliable sources. Also the name 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan' has been used unnecessarily (wasn't even mentioned in the reference which was being quoted).

So until and unless there is some major source of information regarding this piece of fiction, I am for this article to be thrown in the dustbin. Red aRRow 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A source cannot be considered biased simply because it comes from India. You need to give evidence why it is biased. Your removal of sources was just wrong--you can put verification and fact tags and all that jazz on the page, but to remove the sources could be seen as a very hostile act.  I will not revert because I don't have the time right now to re-add tags properly, but it appears you have removed two sources in your edit, which might make it difficult to try to verify the accuracy of those sources, don't you think?  I suggest someone who has the time to figure out just what you did and why revert and add verification tags without "destroying the evidence" as you have. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indian sources regarding Pakistani matters are mostly, if not always, biased. It's nationalistic paranoia which creeps in and takes the form of 'facts'. To ascertain the truth a neutral source is required free from poisonous hate and bias. The second link 'removed' is still present on the page. It was being quoted as a reference in the wrong place. The reference did not corroborate the claim where it was being cited as a reference and was thus removed. The link is still present on the page where it has been cited in the correct location as a reference. Red aRRow 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Leadership structure of the Pakistan Taliban
I've created a new section, "Leadership structure of the Pakistan Taliban" but I recognize I'm touching a broader topic than just Waziristan. If someone wants to start a Taliban in Pakistan article it would be a most worthwhile contribution to the Wikipedia. In the meantime, I've added this section to the IEoW page because it gives a more precise sense of how much military control the Taliban are exerting in Waziristan. There's a definite structure, there's a guy in charge, etc., but there are militants outside of the Taliban scope of control as well. Most importantly, as per the June 22 Dawn news piece, the Taliban was calling the shots in leading the ceasefire in South Waziristan earlier in the year (and criticizing those militias that did not fall in line with the ceasefire), while pointedly continuing the fighting in North Waziristan, in order to press for an agreement there (what ultimately would become the Waziristan Accord, and would give them their weapons and imprisoned fighters back). -- technopilgrim 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that Mullah Haji Omar was the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan? Inkan1969 08:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the BBC report you mention and re-reading the Dawn article, I absolutely must agree with you. I've re-read the Dawn article and I see where I went wrong. It describes the elder Haqqani as having delegated military responsibility for Waziristan to his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani, but it  does not necessarily follow that the elder Haqqani had a broader scope of control than the military branch of the Taliban in Waziristan. Another explanation is that military control is passing from father to son, but both are under the Mullah Haji Omar. Can you fix the article? -- technopilgrim 23:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do that myself right now. But check out the PBS show "Frontline"'s episode "Return of the Taliban".  The website for the episode has a lot of useful information about the situation in Waziristan.  According to the website, Jalaluddin Haqqani leads the Taliban in North Waziristan while Haji Omar leads the Taliban in South Waziristan. Inkan1969 04:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Section: "The Pakistan government formally objects to this Wikipedia article"
I'm removing it, at least for now. It clearly violates WP:ASR, and it makes a large chunk of the article about a region revolve around some questionably notable event on an online encyclopedia. Also, some of the references in the section do not mention Pakistan rejecting the article, they merely say that a wikipedia article was created about the topic. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda?
There's a consistent trend in trolling and vandalism of this article.

For example, user "Alihasnain" added this tidbit in the article:

This article was termed as "sheer propoganda"by a pakistani minister in 2006

I hope there is greater vigilance against ideological, bias POV.

(AnkhX100 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

False Information
This page above states that after discussion on deletion of this article it was decide to "keep" but this is not true. Where was it decided to keep it?? --91.172.125.141 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

From where does the name Islamic emirate of waziristan come from?? If it is a group as mentioned then no group ever used this name. It is not mentioned in any sources out of the ones provided. The name should be changed or merged with Waziristan. It also wrongly points to other language articles on waziristan (arabic eg) which is not correct as the original article Waziristan also points to the same. Despite lot of time after this objection and no proof provided from any source, the name of the article has not been changed or merged with the original article on waziristan. I request administrators to take action.

Why does such article exist that has never provided any single source for this name?? --91.172.125.141 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also tried to find any source for this name but could not find any. No such organization exists. The organization committing acts of terrorism in Waziristan is called Tehreek Taliban Pakistan. It is really strange that an article with an organizations name exists on wikipidea which does not exist; I suggest to change the name or give reference to any organizations publication or website that claims to have this name.--Ivazir (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation number 2
The link no longer works and just redirects to newsweek --Justdelegard (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So, what is it?
This is an interesting article in that we are debating what it is. Is the Emirate a rebel organization? Is it a de facto state? Is it a special autonomous region? Is it nothing at all?

The article needs independent arbitration by an expert on Pakistan. Marechal Ney (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)