Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 5 November 2014

	Operation Zarb-e-Azb has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 13, 2014 Good article nominee Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Operation Zarb-e-Azb was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 June 2014.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 10 August 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Casualties - reliable sources

I would not consider the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations bureau a reliable source for militant casualties - they have a clear history of classifying everyone killed by the armed forces to be a militant (bomb a town, 100% militant casualties) and are a propaganda organisation, not an independent source. Look at reports from thelongwarjournal.org for examples. Sadly the ISPR is the only source cited for militant casualties. Sailfish2 (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"The civilians are being evacuated, and no operation has been started in the areas where the civilians are there, to ensure their evacuation." So those killed are most likely militants. Faizan 16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Accurate or not, we find Military claims 'most appropriate and reliable' as compared to militant claims and independent reports. For e.g., On 20 June 2014, The News International reported over 50 militant fatalities citing 'sources', AFP reported 20 fatalities citing a 'security official". But ISPR confirmed only 12 militant fatalities. Independent sources seem to exaggerate the toll. Maxx786 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The current article, with them labelled "Official sources" seems a good position. Over the years, I don't think I've ever seen an ISPR release that admitted killing any civilians, despite artillery and airstrikes on un-evacuated towns. That's why I think it's appropriate to label the source. Sailfish2 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Chronology: 21 June

I have reverted this edit of Maxx786, as the casualties reported by ISPR were part of the intensified airstrikes that took place during the strategical operation. Faizan 05:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In the infobox, the span of the operation can be extended, and for more elucidation, we can write 267 killed in North Waziristan, and 10 killed in Kyber Agency. Faizan 05:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Airstrikes in Khyber Agency are part of 'surgical strikes' to prevent attacks planned by militants. Currently, no troop movement in Khyber Agency for carrying out an offensive has been reported. Airstrikes in Khyber are a routine: See January 2014, February 2014, March 2014, April 2014, June 2014. It doesn't seem airstrikes in Khyber Agency have been 'intensified'. Maxx786 (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If they were not 'intensified', it doesn't mean they are not a part of the operation. Anyway, I am elucidating the figures as described above. Faizan 15:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Shawal is also outside the territory of NWA, and so is Khyber agency; but we included the figures of Shawal in the operation. The figures of those killed even outside the NWA will be included in the article. We agreed before that the figures provided by ISPR are most accurate, so they are going to be there in the article. Faizan 17:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

According to The Express Tribune, Dunya News, Long War Journal, BBC News, The News International, Daily Times, The Times Of India and many other sources, Shawal is in NWA. Other sources like Dawn write "...the thick forests in Shawal valley extending to South Waziristan Agency." Which sources do you have??

Is there (currently) any displacement of people from Khyber Agency? Do you have any source which says airstrikes in Khyber Agency are part of Zarb-e-Azb or you are only based on the ISPR press release which reported 10 militant fatalities in Khyber along with fatalities due to airstrikes in NWA? Your decision is unilateral and isn't the result of 'any' decision or consensus..... Maxx786 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See the interactive map of The Express Tribune, it shows both of the Shawal and Khyber Agency as out of the territory of NWA, and includes them as part of the operation. I have found this one, which says that it were not a part of the operation. Amending. Faizan 08:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the correct interactive map. Anyways, I am glad that you are finally convinced. I am removing the info about airstrikes in Khyber Agency from this article.. Maxx786 (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You did good, but official military sources of ISPR, in the latest press release, it includes those strikes in Khyber agency as part of the operation. I am elucidating and separating the figures of those killed in NW and Khyber. Faizan 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Maxx786, is there anyway we can gather these ISPR press relases into one web-page? The 7 refs including separate dozen of press releases seem too much for the infobox. Faizan 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Background section

I think the section could rearrange chronologically as

• Peace-negotiations
  • Peace-negotiations failure
• Jinnah Airport attack

your thoughts? --Gfosankar (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no concerns. Faizan 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Gfosankar, the reviewer below has become inactive just after starting the review. Any thoughts? Faizan 17:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how GA review works. --Gfosankar (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Faizan 15:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sailfish2 (talk · contribs) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Took over the review since reviewer became inactive. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 17:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The article and current public knowledge, depend too heavily on ISPR press releases, which are not a WP:THIRDPARTY reliable source. While the article remains so heavily dependent, directly or indirectly via other media re-reporting the ISPR's press releases, on ISPR releases, it is not a balanced, encyclopedia level, good article in my opinion. This is my first encounter with GA review, so other reviewers can take that into account. Sailfish2 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually we have to depend upon ISPR in this case. In NWA, only the militants and the security forces are left. There is no access to Independent media, they cannot confirm the casualties, but to elucidate the case I added "Official sources" for clarification. ISPR is not a third-party source but it's a government's source, and the article states that the figures are official. Other media have no option other than to re-report ISPR, and that does not prevent the article to become a GA. Faizan 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: {{GAList/check|???}

   See comments below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   See section labeled "Comments"

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Major aspects covered.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   More images would be great, but no images (well there is an image) is okay according to this policy, however you may want to get some more images when you are nominating this article to FA.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See above.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please address the comments below.

Comments

• I just have one question to ask. Is it appropriate to create a table for the Section called "Chronology", kind of like the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's table? Besides that, its a pass. I disagree with the previous reviewer's statement about ISPR being relied on too much, as it is one of the only sources out there. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am currently on a short term wikibreak and if you reply, please ping me/or send me a talkback. Thanks! .

Hey Brandon, thanks for taking over. I don't think a table would be appropriate here, it would be a very large one, and the users may find difficulty in updating it, as the chronology needs to be updated everyday. I think that prose would be better relatively, like in those of other articles like Mohmand Offensive, Orakzai and Kurram offensive, etc. If you pass the article, consider giving this award for the achievements section in my userpage. Faizan 08:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just saw your response. Thanks for answering! Pass :D Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 11:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to prophets in Islam

In the etymology section, the link to the prophets in Islam is confusing. The word means the sword of prophet Muhammad which he used in battles. Link to the prophets in Islam may create a confusion that sword belong to the prophets in Islam rather than prophet Muhammad. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed the wikilink. Faizan 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced POV pushing

User:Faizan insists on adding "Afghan militants" in the infobox but the sources (Pakistani news reports) do not even mention any Afghan militant group. Second, the United States is not involved in this operation. Finally, the subject of this article should only be the operation. Can we not fill this article with personal views of Pakistani news editors regarding Afghan politicians. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not re add this news about non-cooperation of Afghanistan, However I am looking for more references. Whether the "Haqqani Network" is Afghan or not, the provided reference clearly states that the operation is against Haqqani Network too. Agreed about the non-involvement of US. Now, regarding the use of Afghan Militants, the references provided clearly state that the militants were attacking from across the Afghan border.

I hope this solves the confusion. Faizan 14:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree...sources do not mention afghan militias...they could be pakistani or uzbek or irani...we know fazlulah of tehreek e taliban is hiding in afghanistan..militias attacking paki ...seems like his job...but CIA drones are involved in operation zarb-e-azb...i think what krzyhorse22 is trying to say is tht it hasnt been officially announced but thy are playing a big role here. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously the militants attacking from inside of Afghanistan are "Afghan militants". Even the arab, central asian, Pakistani militants operating inside Pakistan are referred to as "Pakistani". The main concerned thing is the "Area of Operations". Haqqani Network also has operations both inside Pak and Afg. The term "Terrorists from Afghanistan" used by the above source clarifies this. Faizan 15:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

pakistani militant groups attacking from afghanistan are not afghan ...they are made up of pakis to core..... ....doesnt matter where haqqani is based its still paki...just like uzbek militants...evn thgh based in paki..still uzbekSaadkhan12345 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 i think yu should let cia and u.s stay...

Belligerent (definition) noun 1. a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law. " Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The source says "MILITANTS FROM AFGHANISTAN" and "MILITANTS FROM ACROSS THE BORDER", which just implies that it is talking about "Afghan Militants". Faizan 17:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The basic rule is that we only put verifiable information, no opinions, speculations or implying. There has never been any Afghan militant group fighting against Pakistan. Why would they? They are only against NATO presence inside Afghanistan and that's their reason for fighting in that country. These militants all belong to a group, there are no lone wolf militants. Faizan, "militants from Afghanistan" only has one meaning, and is not a reference to Afghans. It is referring to the listed militants who sometimes hide in mountains of Afghanistan and sometimes in Pakistan, they should not be labelled Afghans. The term "Afghan" refers to a citizen of Afghanistan. We should avoid listing the wrong people.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Haqqani network, it has 4000-15000 members. All we know is that the founder and a few top leaders were born in Afghanistan. We need to verify if this group is actually involved or not. Not long ago this is what top US officials told the media, "There is evidence linking the Haqqani Network to the Pakistan government." I'm not saying Pakistan is not fighting with this group but we need a reliable source to prove it. This Pakistani news report is only addressing that Afghanistan helps catch leader of TTP, Fazlullah, which is a different group from Haqqani.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Faizan...hope this clear up your view that militants attacking from afghanistan are afghans ...

http://www.dawn.com/news/1112909/pakistan-launches-zarb-e-azb-military-operation-in-n-waziristan (line 32- 38)see how it says Uzbek militants? + the operation is based only in pakistan ...not over the border

http://www.dawn.com/news/1110515Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I move to dispute your revision because they are Afghan militants if the reference is saying that they are from that country. You can not defend your country on Misplaced Pages you have to go and take real action if a fact like this is upsetting you. Misplaced Pages is only trying to report journalism. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I said it before that it does not matter that the Haqqanis are Pakistanis or Afghan or Uzbeks. All that matters is that the Pakistani security officials have declared that the operation is also against them. And so, Haqqani Network would be included in the infobox. Secondly, according to the reliable sources given above in the "Extended Content", the intruders attack Pakistan from "across the border". Across the border simply means that it is the Afghans. The wording used by the source is exactly "Militants from Afghanistan", so this is undisputable. Faizan 11:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OMG ...bro if they attack from across the border thn hows the operation based against them? the operation is against foreign and local terrorists who were hiding in sanctuaries in North Waziristan tribal region....BTW one of the reference to "afghan militants" is from lower dir which is far away from north waziristan. (separate districts).....Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah... Even killing of terrorists in Khyber Agency is reported under the heading of Zarb-e-Azb. Yes, as the forces which are stationed for the Operation Zarb-e-Azb are attacked by Afghan terrorists, the counter attack simply makes it a part of the Operation. Regards. Faizan 17:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Faizan is POV pushing and this is simply unacceptable. He's engaged in the blame game. Like most Pakistanis, he rejects the idea that Pakistan itself is known globally as a major terrorist training ground. I mean look at every terrorist attack that was carried out in USA and the UK, they all involved Pakistani terrorists. Instead, he wants to portray Pakistan as a peace loving and civilized country such as USA that is being attacked by Afghans. This sort of thinking is just weird and un-comprehensible to any person of ordinary intelligence. In other words, he's trying to falsify well established fact. Some Afghans are possibly enrolled the listed groups but that's something to address in the articles of those groups. Why specifically list Afghans and not Arabs, Uzbeks from Uzebkistan, Chechens, Tajikistanis, and the so many others? I think we all know, based on news reports, that Pakistanis hate Afghans and Indians but Misplaced Pages is not the place for this. We need to interpret the sources accurately, without exaggerating or adding personal opinions. Anyway, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, as well as Afghanistan's government and others, have been claiming for the last decade or so that Pakistan is using certain militant groups (i.e. Haqqani network) to carry out attacks inside Afghanistan in order to weaken the Afghan state and NATO forces. There are countless RSs to support these claims. However, Pakistan always denies it. So this is the complicated issue here. Do we trust what NATO leaders say or do we trust Pakistanis?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dawn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. http://www.dawn.com/news/1112909/pakistan-launches-zarb-e-azb-military-operation-in-n-waziristan

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Warfare good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• GA-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• GA-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors