Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb

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)

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)

The discussion above 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.