Jump to content

Talk:Second Battle of Swat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

recentism?

[edit]

I think it's a bit premature to suppose that this battle will go into the history books under the name Second Battle of Swat. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news source. Shouldn't this be moved to Wikinews? --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(response to the above comment) Please people do not talk about the religion of Islam without enough knowledge,please,it is not a hollywood movie going on in Afganistan with those people who are being called the west as a islamic terrorist, but it is a matter of how to live their lives. so please,do not analyse every small bit of news you see in anywhere,even in wiki,without enough knowledge. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.133.80 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...wow. Okay, are they terrorists? Yes. Do they believe in fundamental, radical Islam? Yes. So...they are Islamic terrorists. Why would you even try to defend the Taliban? They beat people for singing in public...that pretty much sums it all up. - Ryan P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.91.239 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't see how that's a response to my comment. I said nothing at all about Islam. My point is that it's premature to have an article called Second Battle of Swat for a battle that's just over, if in fact it is even over. How (or really, even whether) the history books will refer to this battle we don't know. Encyclopedias are supposed to follow the histories, not precede them. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but at least part of the point of wikipedia is that it's up to date. So for the moment I think second battle of Swat will do, when the history books come up with a better name we'll use that Billsmith453 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Up to date, but not a news source. The two things are constantly in tension, which is OK. But this is too much to the news side. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement

[edit]

3.4 million civilians displaced? Because of approximately 2000 Taliban militants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.90.148 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that as it seems excessive and wasn't sourced. Muad (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people were displaced by Pakistani Army attacks, not by 2,000 militants. I'm restoring the figure and giving a reference. --Againme (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

casualties

[edit]

Why is nowhere mentioned that the death tolls are in fact numbers given by the pakistani military and not independently confirmed? http://www.france24.com/en/20090601-pakistan-closing-another-key-nw-town I'm putting a POV tag.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

probably would have been simpler to add a mention that the numbers are from the pakistani military, I've done this and removed the POV tag. Billsmith453 (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Second Battle of Swat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second Battle of Swat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Battle_of_Swat&oldid=1226048508"