Talk:Siege of Lal Masjid/Archive 1

older entries
I am concerned that much of the text on this page has been copied wholesale from the Associated Press story at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Pakistan-Radical-Mosque-Chronology.html This needs to be rewritten so that we don't violate copyright.Nlaporte 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh, I can't access that site since it wants a username. If you can tell that parts of it are copied, don't just stand there, remove them! 68.39.174.238 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was copy-pasted wholesale and it has been removed.Drewson99 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Err?
Under "background" is this: "started to challenge the writ of the government...". Is there some special Pakistani "writ" that's different from the standard common law "writ" ? If not, wouldn't "authority" make more sense there? 68.39.174.238 13:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A persons writ is the ammount of power they have (to write down orders, this an old word when writing was rare), its perfectly good english just old. "authority" probably be used here but i really like it. ( Hypnosadist ) 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This word commonly used in Pakistani english newspapers. -216.99.15.253


 * I posted this sentence as "started to challenge the writ of the government..." because (i) whatever the students and administration of Lal Masjid were doing they were actually trying to take law into their hands. (ii) They defied the instructions of government many times. See the chronology of events that preluded to the Operation Silence. Further President Musharaf also said the same. Muhammad Shoaib 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of casulaties
I have started a list of people that have been killed in the operation. However, it seems to have been removed. I believe that a list of all the people needs to be recorded as we are maintaining the history of the event and it is important for us to note this information for posterity. We can have the list hosted separately. There are a number of disagreements about the number of people that are killed or missing after the operation. A list would be sufficient to answer this question.

Radical Salafist mosque?
The wording "a radical Salafist mosque" sounds odd -- a mosque is a building and can't be "radical", any more than you could say "fundamentalist cathedral". Is there an appropriate term for the radical Salafists in the mosque? Jpatokal 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So then "Catholic Church" doesn't make any sense either. After all, a Church is a building and can't be "Catholic" anymore than than you could say "fundamentalist cathedral." Jpatokal, why don't you do us all a favor and search wikipedia for every mention of "Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Synagogue" or any other suggestion that an inanimate building could have beliefs. -- 74.123.68.39


 * Mosque is being used as a Collective noun to refer to the Imams, Teachers and others who make up the body of learning and the type of islam they teach. ( Hypnosadist )  22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the term, being that the mosque is not salafist. Pepsidrinka 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Chnage of name
It’s ‘Operation Sunrise’ not ‘Silence’. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs)

Spanish language TV
Any explanation why the Spanish language numbers are so different from the others? Is there some connection? — Omegatron 06:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea, the headlines in Spanish use the word Matanza (massacre) as well.--tequendamia 06:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the importance of using Spanish sources who are nto on the ground? There claims should be removed until further evidence.216.99.15.253

It is "Operation Sunrise" NOT silence
Check --- A. L. M. 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reactions section
Added a reactions section where aftermath of the operation can be written about. Shashi 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Public reaction...
The Pakistani public section seems to be a slight rewording of the source material. Is this acceptable?Shehzadashiq 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the public reaction section violates the rules--it's a direct copy-paste from the BBC web site. Rewriting the section and, preferably, incorporating another source would take care of the copyright issue.


 * I think its ok, since the BBC quoted chunks of text from the Pakistani Newspaper which I put. These are direct quotes which are allowed. Mercenary2k 05:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

...Is coming from one English-language site, ripping word for word too. Are there any more sites or even Urdu-language press that has public reactions to the siege on hand? Brokenwit 03:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

International Reactions
This section has too much irrelevant information in it. What significance does it make that Musharraf was one of the first people to be contacted by Brown. It does not relate directly to Lal Majid hence it should not be here.Shehzadashiq 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Need some Pictures
Can you guys find some pictures and add them to this article... Thanks Mercenary2k 22:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the use of non-free images in this article is now excessive. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Mercenary2k 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aslo no valid fair use rational on any of them.Geni 11:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Valid fair rationale is given. Just read it the rationale. Mercenary2k 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. See WP:FU For what a rational should be about. Yours was little more than "I want to" which is not a valid fair use rational.Geni 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Weapons caches
The list of weapon is just copy paste form source that violates the rule wp:Copy.

Also there independent source such as BBC and other media organizations have question if there any Suicide belts were present as quoted in this article.User talk:Yousaf465
 * Pure facts are not eligible for copyright protection. WP:C: "... copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves." Further, proper credit to the source is given.
 * For a paraphrase, however, it's unusual that it's hardly more concise than its source. Could someone familiar with these weapons condense this paragraph to a less intimidating size?
 * Matt Fitzpatrick 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it.User talk:Yousaf465

Victory no it's not!
The PoP himself have that it's not a victory.User talk:Yousaf465
 * militarily they ended the siege and so its a victory Mercenary2k 04:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But did you read that article.The pop say that it's not a victory so why we should insist.Remember he is CnC also.User talk:Yousaf465


 * Army secures complex suffices. This wasn't a war which ended. This conflict is on-going with whats happening in FATA and NWFP. So calling it a victory is not appropriate. But the reference which you provided takes you to the main page but not to the actual article. I suggest you find that article. Mercenary2k 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave the second direct ref also.As it can be seen now.User talk:Yousaf465

Combatants in Infobox
It is enough to mention that the Pakistan army took part as a combatant. Further detail has been provided in the article as to which divisions of the Paksitan army took part. Placing all the divisions in the infobox makes it look as if they are seperate entities. Shehzadashiq 09:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually they are. Pakistan Rangers are under the Military of Pakistan but are only designated to Punjab. Mercenary2k 01:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they are under the Military of Pakistan makes them part of the single entity which is the Pakistan Army. Another entity would be the police force etc. Their designation or deployment does not make them a seperate party.Shehzadashiq 07:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Title Change
Lal Masjid Tragedy doesn't seem right. I don't doubt the result was a tragedy however I believe without the siege there would not have been a tragedy hence the title should remain Lal Masjid Siege. "Lal Masjid Tragedy" as a title just seems like dramatisation.Shehzadashiq 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the user who moved it said "This is how we most newspapers are referring to it." - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. Suggesting to move it back, personally. AllynJ 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Moved it Back. Just wondering, should we re-name the title, from Lal Masjid Siege, to Siege of the Red Mosque? Because if you look at other Siege articles on Wikipedia, they start with Siege and then where it took place. Such as Siege of Leningrad. Since this is an English article, I think calling the Lal Masjid, the Red Mosque would be better. So "Siege of the Red Mosque" as the new title? Let me know. Mercenary2k 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia should call it what it is commonly being called. If the majority of newspapers are calling it a tragedy, then we should too. If it is being called a seige, then we should to. On the topic of the English translation, I think we should maintain the title as "Lal Masjid" as it used by many English papers. Searching Google News, I got 8000+ hits for "Lal Masjid" and 12000+ hits for "Red Mosque". In my opinion, the difference is not substantial, and seeing the place is actually called, "Lal Masjid", I agree it being called so. Pepsidrinka 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those newspapers are venting out their opinion in regards to the Siege. And thus the term tragedy is not-encyclopedic.Mercenary2k 20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the people killed on both side were our own men and women.And if you goole the term LaL Masjid siege then most results you get are from Indian press.They want to call it a siege as this will allow them to prove that Pakistan have militants camps on it's lands.On our visit to India last year in November the students with whom I discuss the issue of Kashmir,they were of opinion that Pakistan should stop infiltrating the Indian territory by calling it a siege we are allowing the world this was something against a military camp or something like that.

I would say that Lal masjid is better than Red Mosque because Noun does not translate.User talk:Yousaf465


 * I think Lal Masjid is more appropriate as that is its common title.BTW what does India have to do with the article title. Let's just stick to the facts it was a siege and thus it should be called.Shehzadashiq 11:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

GA On Hold
These titles must be corrected: The seige, Pakistani public and mosque secured. Vikrant Phadkay 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pakistani public should remain (as it is redundant to say "Reaction of Pakistani public"), the other two have been corrected. Baka man  02:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it should be "Pakistani masses". Vikrant Phadkay 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and change it. Its a wiki after all. Baka man  18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The title change
It's now conflict and please rewrite it so that it starts from back in nov dec and siege should be the end of it.User talk:Yousaf465 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 04:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

casus belli
I'm pasting the casus belli here as the ref for it couldn't be found. "Ransacking and burning of Ministry of Environment building in Islamabad by Red Mosque students.

failed "good article" nomination
As one of quick-fail criteria of the GA nomination process is instability, I am failing this article. A continuing debate over the cassus belli of the conflict is not the stability desired. Otherwise, this is generally a very good article. Once this issue has been fixed, please feel free to renominate it. Contacting me might also be in order, as I support the passing of the article once it is stable. If you feel this review was in error, please feel free to take it GA review. Thank you for your work so far, Van Tucky  Talk 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC) "

POV edits?
Am I correct in assuming that these edits here are POV? As I understand it, in this context Shaheed is a Muslim honourific which imples matyrdom - not suitable IMO for an encyclopedia article. I've reverted these additions before, but they keep getting added back and I don't want to get into an edit war if I'm wrong, so I'll throw this one open... EyeSerene TALK 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) --

NPOV tag added as the article comprises mainly of disputed claims made by Pakistani authorities and military etc, and read like quite blatant propaganda. Just one example - the dead Pakistani soldiers are referred to as 'martyred'.

02 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.39.34 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shaheed and 'martyred' are both pov honorifics and should be removed always, i've removed the ones i can see, feel free to remove any you find. ( Hypnosadist )  15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that Hypnosadist - I thought so, but not being familiar with the culture I wasn't sure. I'll keep this on my watchlist ;) EyeSerene TALK 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, they should be removed, but don't get carried away. Remember that it would be perfectly sound to use the term 'martyred' in the context of anyone who clearly believed that they would become martyred and in a context that indicated that it is their intention or how they were actually treated as martyrs rather than the authors judgement that is the issue.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Still expanding
evevtns are still not over more in line.User talk:Yousaf465 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

don't use Times for ref it's only indulging in fiction story telling.User talk:Yousaf465

Judicial Enquiry?
In this paragraph ita says about a 'copy' sent to the judiciary. A copy of what?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead link(s)
Please attend to dead link(s) - since many of these references are news stories, many of the news organizations remove links from free public access after a period of some months. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirection
This page redirects from Hassan Ghazi. Hassan Ghazi was a character in Byron's poem The Giaour and according to the Oxford World's Classics edition of that poem broke the rebellion of the Arnauts in Morea. The term Hassan does not appear in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.149.84 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Unfortunately, this article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time. There are a few issues that should be resolved:


 * 1) Much of the article (including several direct quotations) is unreferenced. Thorough referencing is required for GA status.
 * 2) The references do not contain sufficient information. There must be at least a title, publisher, url and accessdate. For many of them, a date and author are also available, so they should be included as well.
 * 3) The main image is being considered for deletion.
 * 4) The picture of the eight men who were killed has several problems: it needs to be renamed, it is missing information about the image itself, and the fair use rationale should be more specific (including stating the article in which it is being used). I strongly recommend a temple for the rationale.
 * 5) There are a couple of dead links in the article, which have been tagged.
 * 6) The article contains point of view statements: "a remarkably bloody nine days", "Although, of the 164 elite army commandos", "extremist violence", "who had continued to harass the residents of Islamabad", "They engaged in violent demonstrations, hateful speeches", etc. (I added the emphasis to these statements to show the problems).
 * 7) The article needs copyediting. There are some punctuation problems throughout, and some of the prose needs tweaking ("instances of various TV crews, being beaten up by govt") stands out, as an abbreviation like "govt" should not be used here.
 * 8) There are several places in which the article needs more wikilinks. From the second paragraph of the "Background" section, "al-Qaeda" and "Osama bin Laden" stand out. In the sentence that follows that, the September 11 attacks have an article, so the wikilink should go to that rather than just to the date.

I think it's going to take some hard work to copyedit, remove POV, and deal with fixing and adding references, so I am going to fail the article. Please address these issues (and then preferably place the article for peer review) before renominating. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Name
Well the article name needs to be changed according to WP:MILMOS. Should it be Siege of Lal Masjid or Lal Masjid Conflict, since that article has info about other stuff other than the siege. Any comments would be welcome. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This cannot be considered a war or conflict, that should be sourced. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 08:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * standoff or siege is much more correct-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 08:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was siege but the article also has other information so I renamed it to Conflict. I suppose Siege of Lal Masjid is more fitting than Lal Masjid Standoff. Also could you link me to the Wikipedia policy that requires a source for war or conflict? Thanks--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * everything that is being put into question must have a source. See WP:V. Thanks for giving it. Which other information? -- TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * also, see other conflict articles for capitalization: Kashmir conflict, 2007 Lebanon conflict -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Judicial Inquiry and Attack on Musharraf's plane are some information not on the siege but I suppose they are relevant to the attack on the mosque. We should name it Siege of Lal Masjid? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, that would be the best option, regardless the other info. The siege and assault are most importance.-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I messed up on the move but it should be done soon. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article?
Did you fix the issues presented above? The article should continue its way to GA. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm laughing right now because I was putting it for GA nomination and had a feeling you were about to say something. Just a odd coincidence. Otherwise it should do good. I went over the Quick Fails for GA to make sure it doesn't fail that. All other previous concerns are addressed. Lets hope it does good! --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)