Talk:Waziristan War (2004–2006 phase)

Just out of interest, has the term Waziristan War ever officially been used? --Horses In The Sky 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

no-we are the first to use it.--TheFEARgod 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it fair to call it a 'war', aren't there definitions on such things, at least in Wikipedia. The Chad-Sudan thing isn't even called a war, would 'conflict' be better? - User:Dalta

maybe also insurgency?--TheFEARgod 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

War on Terror

If there are disputes over this term, please post your factual information regarding why you are against it here. Please do not simply constantly remove it or add "this term is disputed" without a discussion here first. Thank you --Zer0faults 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tags are not to be removed. I made it as small as possible, and you know what the complaint is about. "War on terror" is a propaganda term and should not be used without quotation marks and comment. The category was already deleted as decided by consensus. Añoranza 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a concensus here or even a discussion. I am wondering if you made the changes then by mistake. If you feel War on Terror is in fact propaganda, then feel free to address the issue there. Currently by the failed tfd of the "war on terror" template it seems as though the concensus on wikipedia is that the term is allowed. If such a time comes where the war on terror page is in fact removed for being propaganda, It seems as wikipedia authors and admins have spoken on the issue. --Zer0faults 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Also I did not remove an NPOV tag, I simply removed the writing you added to the infobox. You keep stating the term is disputed however I found no dispute here or on the war on terror talk page where a dispute would be most appropriate. --Zer0faults 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I already pointed out at another discussion, there is no problem having articles on propaganda terms that are notable. But when they are used elsewhere they need to be put in quotation marks and pointed out as propaganda. You know the discussion about the term very well and I thus wonder why you pretend not to know about the criticism of the term. Añoranza 00:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it to mean you will be spending the majority of your time editting all articles that contain the phrase "war on drugs" and others mentioned in Category:War_on_something as those are almsot entirely propaganda terms and you would see fit to label all articles with such mentioning as being propaganda? --Zer0faults 16:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. commander

For some reason I don't think the Paskitan comander Pervez Musharraf would be comanding U.S. froces.

Casualties

Where did the 50 American casualties come from, as far as I know with the exception og the air strike mentioned American forces have not been engaged in Waziristan. --Jedi18 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

canada

Canada is a part of this too, even look it up on the internet. The Person Who Is Strange 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No way. See Canadians in the Taliban insurgency article--TheFEARgod 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

End of War

[1] Seems as though its nearing an end, which could perhaps be summarized as a failure to oust the warlords from power. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yep [2]. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The fighting was strengthening the warlords who are a domestic problem for Pakistan. Better to end the fighting and tackle the problem through development and politics.

The statement "if this peace treaty holds it means the end of the Waziristan conflict" is sadly just no longer valid, ie: the 2007-present Waziristan conflict. which is why statement like that are not really enyclopedic because they don't add anything. Of course if the peace treaty holds it marks the end of the conflict, you could easily add the statement on the end of that that says "but if it doesn't hold the conflict will flare up again". But of course that's silly, I have to edit it, sorry.Colin 8 19:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

copy edit

I put the copyedit template because the article is a little messy and needs order--TheFEARgod 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad Omar

Could Mohammad Omar be in Waziristan?--16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand he could be anywhere. Like OBL he's fallen off the radar. --Bobblehead 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New name.

2004-2006 Waziristan conflict - a more precise name than the previous. AFAIK war wasn't mentioned or declared by any media or government organisation--TheFEARgod 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet other sites referred to it as the Waziristan war... The Iraq War is an undeclared war but its still called a war. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Except Iraq War actually has people calling it a war and by Iraq War. The only references to "Waziristan war" that I can find via a google search are wikis that yoinked this article and put it on their own or they are related to the 1936 Waziristan War between England and Afghanistan. This is the closest I've found in regards to referring it to as Waziristan war. [3] --Bobblehead 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also this [4]. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly a WP:RS unfortunately. --Bobblehead 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose this name as an informal name--TheFEARgod (listening) 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory?

In the leader it suggests the peace treaty will include the ejection of foreign militants etc., but in the truce section with more detail it seems to suggest they will be able to say - which is correct? -- 86.128.253.74 21:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Warrior on Terrorism, are you trolling or are you retarded?

[5] impiles you are either, or both. After indisciminately reverting all and every of my edits once again (third or fourth time), you "Restored useful edits by Idleguy." And what were these "useful edits"? Putting to my ("unuseful") edit about prisoners taken and released - thing you just removed with everything else I changed or added [6], even while the other figures were obviously all sourced by then.

So, would you please answer my question? If you are only retarded, or insane, I'd get easy on you. But if you are warring on me (a terrorist) because of some unknown personal reasons, this is another thing.

Btw (to everyone interested): it's sourced now, but I guess it will be reverted right away back to the "useful" , relating to nothing. Seriously, would someone do something with the user WoT? Thanks. --HanzoHattori 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't talk to you as long as you keep insulting me. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Warrior on Terrorism 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

HanzoHattori and Warrior on Terrorism edit war

Could you guys please work this out? It's getting ridiculous. Hanzo, please make your edits a bit at a time, and discuss each major one here on the talk page. Warrior, if you take issue to a major edit, please discuss why here on the talk page. Further reverts by you two is going to get this article protected. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You got it, pal. Warrior on Terrorism 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair sockpuppets

This page is a favorite of Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets. Copperchair was placed on probation and banned from editing certain types of articles by the Arbitration Committee. He was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating his restrictions on editing. He was finally blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006. At that point he began using sockpuppets to evade his ban. Below is a list of his sockpuppets. If new editors appear on this page with editing patterns that are similar to the sockpuppets below, please let me know on my talk page or by e-mail so that I can investigate fully.

1. Esaborio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Varese Sarabande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. SPECTRE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Tony Camonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. The end is near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Don't fear the Reaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Bad Night (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Ossara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Warrior on Terrorism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Osaboramirez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you. TomTheHand 14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename article "Waziristan war"--no dates

Just wondering what people thought about changing the name a little. Basically, taking out the "2004-2006" since this war looks like it is continuing http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/23/top1.htm
Publicus 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"al-Qaeda flag"

See Talk:Al-Qaeda#flag. 190.10.0.111 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed provision of the Accords

I was going to correct some spelling in the following provision, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and removed it instead. If someone can figure out what it is trying to say (and can find evidence for it in the cited source), feel free to reword it and add it back:

Prohibition on local tradition of arms and other equipment possession with the tribal leaders autherized in vouge of Russian war in the region.

Lexicon (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this means that the arms shops that were set up and the weapons that were issued during the time of the Soviet-Afghan war are now considered illegal. So basically I think this statement refers to "gun control", the prohibition of proliferation of arms and the tradition of having arms. Not sure, but that's my guess.