Talk:Second Battle of Swat

recentism?
I think it's a bit premature to suppose that this battle will go into the history books under the name Second Battle of Swat. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news source. Shouldn't this be moved to Wikinews? --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(response to the above comment) Please people do not talk about the religion of Islam without enough knowledge,please,it is not a hollywood movie going on in Afganistan with those people who are being called the west as a islamic terrorist, but it is a matter of how to live their lives. so please,do not analyse every small bit of news you see in anywhere,even in wiki,without enough knowledge. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.133.80 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Um...wow. Okay, are they terrorists? Yes. Do they believe in fundamental, radical Islam? Yes. So...they are Islamic terrorists. Why would you even try to defend the Taliban? They beat people for singing in public...that pretty much sums it all up. - Ryan P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.91.239 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I don't see how that's a response to my comment.  I said nothing at all about Islam.  My point is that it's premature to have an article called Second Battle of Swat for a battle that's just over, if in fact it is even over.  How (or really, even whether) the history books will refer to this battle we don't know.  Encyclopedias are supposed to follow the histories, not precede them. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but at least part of the point of wikipedia is that it's up to date. So for the moment I think second battle of Swat will do, when the history books come up with a better name we'll use that Billsmith453 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Up to date, but not a news source. The two things are constantly in tension, which is OK.  But this is too much to the news side. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Displacement
3.4 million civilians displaced? Because of approximately 2000 Taliban militants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.90.148 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed that as it seems excessive and wasn't sourced. Muad (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The people were displaced by Pakistani Army attacks, not by 2,000 militants. I'm restoring the figure and giving a reference. --Againme (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

casualties
Why is nowhere mentioned that the death tolls are in fact numbers given by the pakistani military and not independently confirmed? http://www.france24.com/en/20090601-pakistan-closing-another-key-nw-town I'm putting a POV tag.-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 08:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * probably would have been simpler to add a mention that the numbers are from the pakistani military, I've done this and removed the POV tag. Billsmith453 (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Second Battle of Swat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001184701/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD9AQVNJ03 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD9AQVNJ03
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013205302/http://www.voanews.com:80/english/2009-10-07-voa41.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-07-voa41.cfm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Second Battle of Swat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614004619/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD98GGEEG1 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD98GGEEG1

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)