Talk:Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

message: This is no "State" in Waziristan - Delete this page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of nonsense is this 

message: Should this be merged into Waziristan accord? Tom Harrison Talk 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Canada be merged into Constitution Act, 1867? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely against the merge, but there is an MSNBC article from July 31 (actually it appears that it may be from Newsweek, which would maybe even give it more reliability, as it's paper), which calls the group the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan: .  I'll admit that one single major news source using the term once is not a great deal of evidence, but it is something to think about.  Waziristan is so remote and the people so disconnected from the rest of the world (and the rebels yet more disconnected) that it's likely that if the rebels have a name for themselves it really just hasn't gotten out yet.  But if you need to merge, eh, go ahead. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: As I said this 'article' is a total joke. Based on hearsay and blog entries. Also seems to be that the over eager writers failed to check up the references they were providing. I have removed biased references i.e. Indian sources regarding an issue related to Pakistan are not considered reliable sources. Also the name 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan' has been used unnecessarily (wasn't even mentioned in the reference which was being quoted).
So until and unless there is some major source of information regarding this piece of fiction, I am for this article to be thrown in the dustbin. Red aRRow 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A source cannot be considered biased simply because it comes from India. You need to give evidence why it is biased.  Your removal of sources was just wrong--you can put verification and fact tags and all that jazz on the page, but to remove the sources could be seen as a very hostile act.  I will not revert because I don't have the time right now to re-add tags properly, but it appears you have removed two sources in your edit, which might make it difficult to try to verify the accuracy of those sources, don't you think?  I suggest someone who has the time to figure out just what you did and why revert and add verification tags without "destroying the evidence" as you have. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indian sources regarding Pakistani matters are mostly, if not always, biased. It's nationalistic paranoia which creeps in and takes the form of 'facts'. To ascertain the truth a neutral source is required free from poisonous hate and bias. The second link 'removed' is still present on the page. It was being quoted as a reference in the wrong place. The reference did not corroborate the claim where it was being cited as a reference and was thus removed. The link is still present on the page where it has been cited in the correct location as a reference. Red aRRow 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major need  of unbiased and verifiable sources

message: I've created a new section, "Leadership structure of the Pakistan Taliban" but I recognize I'm touching a broader topic than just Waziristan.  If someone wants to start a Taliban in Pakistan article it would be a most worthwhile contribution to the Wikipedia.  In the meantime, I've added this section to the IEoW page because it gives a more precise sense of how much military control the Taliban are exerting in Waziristan. There's a definite structure, there's a guy in charge, etc., but there are militants outside of the Taliban scope of control as well. Most importantly, as per the June 22 Dawn news piece, the Taliban was calling the shots in leading the ceasefire in South Waziristan earlier in the year (and criticizing those militias that did not fall in line with the ceasefire), while pointedly continuing the fighting in North Waziristan, in order to press for an agreement there (what ultimately would become the Waziristan Accord, and would give them their weapons and imprisoned fighters back). -- technopilgrim 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that Mullah Haji Omar was the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan? Inkan1969 08:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have time to do that myself right now.  But check out the PBS show "Frontline"'s episode "Return of the Taliban".  The website for the episode has a lot of useful information about the situation in Waziristan.  According to the website, Jalaluddin Haqqani leads the Taliban in North Waziristan while Haji Omar leads the Taliban in South Waziristan. Inkan1969 04:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leadership structure of the Pakistan Taliban

message: I'm removing it, at least for now. It clearly violates WP:ASR, and it makes a large chunk of the article about a region revolve around some questionably notable event on an online encyclopedia. Also, some of the references in the section do not mention Pakistan rejecting the article, they merely say that a wikipedia article was created about the topic. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: "The Pakistan government formally objects to this Wikipedia article" 

message: There's a consistent trend in trolling and vandalism of this article. 
For example, user "Alihasnain" added this tidbit in the article:
This article was termed as "sheer propoganda"by a pakistani minister in 2006
I hope there is greater vigilance against ideological, bias POV.
(AnkhX100 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda? 

message: This page above states that after discussion on deletion of this article it was decide to "keep" but this is not true. Where was it decided to keep it??
--91.172.125.141 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Information 

message: The link no longer works and just redirects to newsweek
--Justdelegard (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation number 2 

message: This is an interesting article in that we are debating what it is.  Is the Emirate a rebel organization?  Is it a de facto state?  Is it a special autonomous region?  Is it nothing at all?
The article needs independent arbitration by an expert on Pakistan.  Marechal Ney (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what is it?