Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Emirate of Waziristan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan
The article violates wikipedia's cardinal content policy of verifiability. Moreover it is also a duplicate of the Waziristan accord but with the twist that a newly coined term i.e. 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan' has been used in order to give the uninformed reader the illusion that there is some newly formed independent state which has been set up in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that the tribal areas or FATA have always been out of the bounds of the central government and even though the Waziristan accord binds the government to remove newly constructed security check points in the region; it does not call for the total withdrawl of government presence and creation of some separate state, as has been implied here. As such this article is a total work of fiction and is based on false foundations. The references are weak, to say the least, and thus this article needs to be removed. Red aRRow 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment The only reference, out of all the neutral references provided, which even mentions (and very briefly) this fictitious term of the 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan' is the one from Newsweek. All the other references are about the Waziristan accord or its ramifications. I won't comment on the Press Trust of India report as it is an Indian goverment mouthpiece and does not fall into the sphere of a neutral source when it comes to topics pertaining to Pakistan. Thus just writing up a new wikipedia article based on a term which has only been mentioned by one news outlet in only one of their reports is, in my opinion, not something which can be called a verifiable piece and hence will go against wikipedia's verifiability policy according to my judgement. Red aRRow 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO. As of now, the usage of this neologism seems to be limited to warblogs and such, whatever it may actually be intended to mean. The lenghty navel-gazing on this article being taken at face value by some confused reporter also violates WP:ASR. As of now, all of this probably warrants a brief mention in Waziristan or related articles, but the article may be recreated if this term comes into mainstream use (or once such a state is actually founded, of course). Sandstein 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak delete; the Newsweek article uses this term as the name these guys have allegedly given to their "state", but one media mention probably isn't enough. I still think this doesn't warrant its own article yet, but should be monitored further. Sandstein 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This looks like a borderline case. YechielMan 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. The article is not backed by any real fact and has not been reported by any media worldwide (spsrt from people quoting the article). The peice dis-credits wikipedia as a source of relaible information. 82.31.151.203 13:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the phrase is mentioned in a Newsweek article that does not cite Wikipedia:"The tribal militants call themselves "Pakistani Taliban," or members of a newly coined and loosely knit entity, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan." Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep

Despite Red aRRow’s unsupported assertion, this article does violate the principle of verifiability. Quite the contrary; the article is rather well footnoted. Red aRRow need only refer to footnotes one and two to verify the article’s introduction. As such, Red aRRow’s insertion of verification needed edit is clearly erroneous and borders on vandalism (as does the entire attempt to delete this article). The fact that a publication has printed facts which contradict an official state policy (of any government) does not render that publication irreputable.

Second, Red aRRow’s assertion that this article “is also a duplicate of the Waziristan accord” is simply incorrect. One need only compare the two articles—both their content and their citations—to discern the difference. However, one correction should be noted with respect to the article and the term “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.” The author of the article states that "The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is the name given by some commentators to an area of Waziristan, Pakistan that they say gained de facto recognition from the Government of Pakistan on September 5, 2006 as a result of negotiations between Islamabad and local tribesmen to end the undeclared Waziristan War.” (Emphasis added.) Actually, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not what “some commentators” have termed this de facto autonomous region; rather, it is the name coined by the Pakistani Taliban for their new “state.” (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13990130/site/newsweek/ at ¶ 2.)

Third, whether or not the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan exists as a de facto state is irrelevant to its validity as an article. Contrary to Red aRRow’s unsupported assertion that the article is “a total work of fiction,” the article is fully verified and factual. Unlike Red aRRow, the author makes no assertions of opinion, and also unlike Red aRRow, virtually all of the article’s facts are cited to legitimate and reputable original sources.

Red aRRow is obviously passionate about the Pakistani government’s reputation in light of the peace treaty recently signed with the Taliban in Waziristan. Nevertheless, Nationalist passion—however fervent—should not be allowed to dictate which articles remain in Wikipedia, and which are deleted. A review of Red aRRow in existing Wikipedia pages reveals a singular concern for maintaining Pakistani honor, which is perfectly legitimate as long as the arguments are factual and based on violations of Wikipedia policy. In this case, they are not.

Furthermore, as the article fortunately documents, the Pakistani government has essentially stated that it would like to have the article deleted. Nationalism is not a basis upon which to delete an article. Indeed, the irony of Red aRRow’s and the Pakistani government’s arguments is that to delete the article would itself be a violation of Wikipedia policy.

I would respectfully disagree with Sandstein’s two arguments. First, as pointed out above (and by Sandstein himself), the article is verified.

With respect to the neologism argument, I would say that while perhaps technically true, a neologism is not fatal per se. Moreover, given how recently it was “created,” the disputed nature of its status, and its geographic and cultural remoteness, to say the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is a neologism doesn’t mean a whole lot—it’s somewhat of a tautology. Likewise, given how underreported this region is, to wait until a vague “mainstream use” is attained offers no benefit other than denying the reader the opportunity to educate himself and seek out original sources. Finally, the article should not be deleted until “such a state is actually founded.” The point of the article is its “founding” according to the Pakistani Taliban, and arguably according to the terms of the peace treaty between Pakistan and the Taliban. If an entity is deserving of an article only if it has widespread international recognition, then shouldn’t the Transnistria article be deleted as well? And for that matter, the Islamic Emirate of Afganistan should as well considering the fact that only a couple of countries ever officially recognized it.

Finally, the phrase “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan” has historical and contextual significance. This new entity was founded/is attempting to be founded by the same people who founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The article should remain. Mtclvrt mtclvrt 9/21/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtclvrt (talk • contribs).
 * Comment -I thought the debate was about the article's credibility NOT mine. I haven't read the words' 'Red aRRow' so many times in a paragraph before lol. Red aRRow 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply - The debate is about the credibility of the article, which I comment upon by addressing your arguments: which is basically that the article is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it’s capable of a neutral point of view with good editorship. The arguments against this article are an obvious attempt to remove material that is personally disliked, which is illegitimate and an abuse of the deletion process. Finally, your recent likeminded colleagues below give one the distinct suspicion of sockpuppets. Mtclvrt 02:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to Mtclvrt - Please refrain from personal attacks as per wikipedia's policy. No personal attacks. Thank you. Red aRRow 08:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Without genuine sources of information the whole case is more of a novel to be read. It sounds more like someone taking their frustrations out on someone, a personal vendetta maybe. There are various elements to this case which can and are tarnishing the image of others without any just reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.20.122 (talk • contribs).


 * Strong Delete. This article's claims are completely incorrect and are based upon accidental or deliberate misunderstandings of what is reported in the links. Wikipedia will have lost all credibility if this artical is kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.82.48.56 (talk • contribs).


 * Delete this lieI am a Pukhtun, Pakistani, from the town of Parachinar. I have family that resides in Wana and having said this, i can defend in no uncertain terms, that this article is a blatant lie. Necessay steps have been taken and the Pakistani Journalist has been warned about the weak credibility of Wikipedia. Your website has become increasingly infested with indians. If the Wikipedia Managment does not take the necessary steps to stop the influx of biased and Anti-Pakistani arctles, then we will take the necessary steps to red flag this website in Pakistan and tag this website to all Pakistani Journarlists to stay away from. As the only thing this article does is to damage the credibility of Wikipedia, nothing else. The truth stands dispite the lies that may be posted on the internet by these spineless, devious indians. Dizasta - 21:16 21 September 2006 (UTC) (User:Dizasta76, Who's only edits are to this page.)

At first i thought it was a practical joke but i was surprised to find that it was being taken seriously. 132.161.221.18 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article seems like propaganda. In fact, i've never heard of anything like the 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan'.


 * Keep for possible merge with Waziristan accord. The term is clearly in use per the Newsweek citation above, if only to a limited extent. I find the arguments for deletion heavy-handed and unpersuasive, and particularly reject User:Dizasta76's remarks above. Tom Harrison Talk 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Those who think this independent region from Pakistan does not exist should create a section entitled "Potential falsehood" or something akin thereto.--Patchouli 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As an encyclopedia the website has the right to keep this article in place, and as an independent article too i.e. not to be merged with Waziristan accord. The fact of the matter is the "Pakistani Taliban" have termed this name to their region. Their is no writ of the Government beyond Mir Ali and Miran Shah, and there never had been any government authority in the 7 Tribal agencies in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). The author has not put his personal opinion in the article but have collected the reports of reputed journalists who have expertise in reporting the matters related to Afghanistan/Taliban. To name one such journalist is Syed Saleem Shehzad of Asia Times Online, who has been working on the subject since 9/11. A number of other press resources has been conforming with Syed Saleem's reports eversince he unvieled the story in December 2005. It has been verified from a number of resources including BBC (off and on) that Taliban have the practical control on the both sides of the Pukhtoon belt i.e. in Waziristan and the Southern Afghanistan and it is believed that sometime in coming months Mullah Omer (Taliban Supreme Leader) is expected to announce the re-emergence of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. This is the covert reason behind the Waziristan accord, Musharraf's visit to Kabul and US's unpleasant watchul comments. Both Islamabad and Kabul feel threatened the way Taliban have re-emerged. Both capitals are trying every best in their own way to stop the strong rise of Taliban, this is why Pakistan has signed the accord with the Tribal elders so that they withdraw their support for the "Pakistani Taliban". So on grounds of not having personal opinion of the writer, factual reporting on behalf of different Press sources and as an Independent credible story, the article should be kept in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.213.157 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep Technopilgrim here. As originator of this article let me make some extended comments.

Regarding the claims that wikipedia is becoming "infested with indians", please take a look at the primary contributors to this article. I am not Indian. I am a 6th generation Irish American from the Midwest. Osgoodelawyer is a Canadian law student. Inkan1969 is not Indian as far as I can tell -- his edits suggest he's a fan of microstates, flags, and national anthems worldwide.

Take a look at the two main news sources underpinning the article, Asia Times Online and Newsweek. Asia Times Online is based in Hong Kong. Newsweek is based in the US. Neither have any stake in the India/Pakistan conflict. Take a look at the reporters who have provided us thes articles. Mr. Syed Saleem Shahzad, the Pakistan Bureau Chief for Asia Times Online, appears to be Muslim, not Hindu, if his name is any indication. The Newsweek reporters, Ron Moreau and Hussain Zahid, also lack Hindu names.

I am dumbfounded by the claims we are "Indian teenagers", "devious indians", and that our edits evidence Wikipedia is "increasingly infested with indians". How could anybody come to that conclusion? You've given me quite an education as to how high passions run on this topic, and how these emotions do not require an basis in evidence. It discredits you severely, if I can be frank. I thought the periodic insanity on the Tibet talk page was the epitome of irrational, emotional outburst, but by comparison it's a model of cold scientific reason...

On the topic of bias, I just took the time to check the user contributions of everyone who has voted "delete" so far in this discussion. Silly me, I took the time to check up a bit on who is saying what here. Save User:Sandstein, who votes "weak delete", I observe that none of you has made a single edit on any topics besides the topic of Pakistan or India/Pakistan conflict (that's  Red aRRow, 82.31.151.203, 62.31.20.122, 203.82.48.56, Dizasta76, and 132.161.221.18 -- all monotopic contributors). (Not quite zero actually -- one of the IP addresses made a single edit to adjust the Muslim population quoted on the demographics of Thailand page). So you guys are not exactly the model of unbiased contributorship. I also observe the eldest of you, Red aRRow, has only been contributing since July. Prior to his involvement in this article (he is the one pushing for this VfD), his edits have been limited entirely to topics pertaining to the Pakistan Navy...

I can't help but connect a dot or two. This past week the Government of Pakistan publicly stated they will take "immediate notice" of this article on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what that means, but it comes to mind that perhaps a few of you are employed by the Government of Pakistan. Nothing at all wrong with working for the Government of Pakistan and contributing to Wikipedia, but it does seem suspicious that the long-time Pakistani Wikipedians are silent from this dispute, while all these newbies are crying "lies!" and "fiction!" and repeatedly attaching POV and VfD flags to the article, without bothering to provide a single verifiable source to counter the references put up by the Wikipedians outside south asia.

Changing gears, let me add a few more points to the thoughtful contributions made above in defense of this article:


 * 1) The text of the Waziristan accord is secret. The press in Pakistan is regulated by the government.  The area in question is remote and very dangerous, as Mtclvrt points out.  Combining these conditions, it is unrealistic to expect the same level of news investigation we expect for stories unfolding in the US or Europe.  When we get two independent and unbiased sources, such as we've got here, uncountered by sources to the contrary, we should take the story to the bank.  Note that domestic Pakistan news organizations are not likely to take the lead in uncovering the details of an accord the Government wants kept secret.  Not good for business. My personal interpretation of the Dawn News article, which reproduced most of the Wikipedia article verbatim, is that the Islamabad journalist was are keeping their readers informed by letting Wikipedia do the speaking, meanwhile keeping his head down by letting the Pakistan Foreign Office have a free swing at discrediting it.


 * 2) Two independent sources attest to the existence of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. No verifiable source claims contrary. While I realize that few sources have the broad knowledge of the area required to conclude no such organization exists, we are fortunate to already have input from the organization best suited for understanding the situation, the Government of Pakistan. When the Daily News brought the Wikipedia article to the attention of the Foreign Office, it would have been easy and natural for the Office to trivialize this group if the group did not in fact exist. Fantasies! However, the Foreign Office did not take that opportunity.  Instead it only maintained that it did not cut a deal with the Taliban.  Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article did not claim the IEoW was the Taliban.  Somehow the Foreign Office considers the IEoW to be the Taliban.  That's a fact in itself.  How is it the Foreign Office could know this independent fact about the IEoW, if the IEoW didn't exist?


 * 3) For those of you that don't keep a close eye on current affairs, note the Musharraf government is in the midst of a major spin effort regarding the Waziristan accord. One of his Brigadier Generals told ABC News the accord would give sanctuary to Osama bin Laden under certain conditions.  The general apparently confused the domestic message on the accord (civil war is over, forgive everybody) with the international message (war on terror is important). The blogosphere went crazy.  Musharraf now has to pull out all the stops to reconcile what is inherently unreconcilable.  All of which makes it very hard for fact-finding anywhere near this radioactive topic.  All the more reason to listen carefully to any outside journalists who are able to make contact with the players in Waziristan.

Finally, on merge vs. keep: Tom harrison's suggestion to merge the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan with Waziristan Accord is not an unreasonable one, if we take a certain view of what's happening. That particular view is that the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is important primarily in light of the Waziristan accord. That view probably has the best odds of prevailing in the end, but it is not the only view out there. Another view, and this argues for keep, is that the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is essentially a branch of the Pakistan Taliban, and it has impact and influence apart from this accord. The very name "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan" has strong Taliban overtones, as 203.81.213.157 points out (it directly evokes the name the Afghanistan Taliban used for itself). If the Pakistan Foreign Office statement is taken at face value, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is a Taliban organization which was not party to the accord. If so they were not partty to the accord, they should not be consolidated onto the accord page. technopilgrim 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sorry, but as far as I see it only the Newsweek article is mentioning this term of 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan'. Both the articles from Asia Times Online do not even mention this term and definitely do not support the assertions which this article is making about some sort of a State or Emirate. The Asia Times Online articles are related to the 'war on terror' generally and the Waziristan accord specifically. So putting that as a reference in this article is incorrect to begin with.
 * As for your assertion that since the text of the Waziristan accord is a secret plus, in your opinion, the press in Pakistan seems to be regulated by the government (a claim which I personally reject as anybody with an internet browser and an internet connection can see by going over to the websites of Pakistani publications and see the blasting they are always handing out to the government e.g. here is what I found in 1 minute flat, ....doesn't seem to be 'regulated' to me) do not hold true as a justification for this article to be stamped as verifiable and be given a place on wikipedia. In fact this should serve as a basis for deletion because until and unless more verifiable evidence has been found regarding this fictitious Emirate, this article is unverifiable and violates wikipedia's cardinal policy.
 * Moreover, speaking of being in touch with current affairs, I don't know which General you are referring to when accusing the Pakistanis of a spinoff, but as far as I see it there is no free pass for Osama bin Laden or other targets of high importance as a result of the Waziristan accord as you can see at the following links.  - Red aRRow 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the press laws imposed in 2002 that caused the International Federation of Journalists to write:

"The International Federation of Journalists, the world's largest journalists' organisation, representing over 500,000 journalists worldwide, is deeply concerned over the recent adoption of three new press laws that it believes will seriously impact on the freedom of the press in Pakistan."

"According to our information, the Pakistani government adopted the new press laws on August 31 2002 that increase the penalties for defamation, impose a system of prior authorisation for the news media, and create a government controlled press council, despite objections from Pakistani journalists."

"We understand that the new defamation laws allow for penalties ranging from a minimum fine of US$800 through to prison sentences. We also understand that the Press Council is not independent of Government, with four representatives, including its president, appointed by the Government."

This constitutes government regulation of the press by my standards, if not by yours.

Regarding the general who spoke to ABC News, my mistake, he was not a Brigadier General. He was a Major General, which would be one step up from Brigadier General I'm guessing. This is not the first time my memory for detail has failed me. It was a General Shaukat Sultan who told ABC News on Tuesday, September 5th, that bin Laden would not be taken into custody "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen". Here's the follow up story at ABC News.

technopilgrim 17:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [Must Be Deleted] The article does not have any fact and is compltely Fake so it should be deleted. . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.99.51.174 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep or Merge with Waziristan accord. As it currently stands right now, there are only sockpuppets who have mostly voted in the delete section or Redarrow. Redarrow has been known to remove information outright that he doesn't personally like even when the statements and lines are fully referenced. See this in the 2004-2006 Waziristan conflict where I have used Pakistani sources for the casualty claims and a FOX news report that gives its comment on the outcome of the war, yet he went ahead and removed it, before I reverted again. Going by past interactions with him, he is likely to remove those irky figures and statements. Having started this request for deletion with the main reasing being "verifiability", he continues to violate the policy by removing statements elsewhere (related to this article) that are easily verifiable. Double standards, anyone? The article doesn't mention it is a state as a matter of fact, but just that some call it so, therefore it should be kept accordingly or merged with the peace accord article. Regarding my sockpuppet suspicion, most of the anons who have voted here have made zero contributions outside voting here. A red flag. Idleguy 06:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Your accusations are unfounded and baseless. The casualty figures needed to come from a neutral source and as you can see now I have added one. Although Fox News is a vehemently right wing media organization and is known for propagating the American neo-con agenda, still I have left your 'contribution' to the article which is sourced from that biased media organization. Plus as I have said before the article's credibility and verifiability is being debated here...not mine. Red aRRow 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Neutral" sources are hard to come by on a regular basis given that what appears to be neutral to one person may be contested as "a vehemently right wing media" by another. For all you know the one (DW link) you have added only adds half baked information which you haven't fully read yourself. If you had done that then you would probably have noticed that the 400 casualty figure mentioned in the Deutsche Welle source is for one year only and not the full duration of the conflict. I have now added the original source for the casualty claims for both sides. Further the casualty quotes I provided came directly from eminent Pakistani authors, which you removed twice before some sanity prevailed. Idleguy 06:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * btw, the FOX news article doesn't come from them. It is syndicated from Associated Press and a similar story ran in Pakistan's Daily Times. You might want to check your facts first before calling anyone that doesn't subscribe to your POV as biased. Idleguy 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verifiable enough. Good evidence given by a couple editors above for why further evidence is not easy to come by, and no reason to side with sockpuppets who oppose simply because Pakistan tells them to. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verifiable enough.  References are about as trustworthy as you can get.  And the article makes clear that Wikipedia isn't sure what's really going on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.110.228 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 September 2006


 * Keep or merge, but take care of making it correct as well... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.