Talk:Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

First and foremost let’s be clear that this was an armed conflict between the Pakistani military and MANY terror groups. An insurgency is when one faction like the balochistan seperatist movement use guerrilla tactics to try and gain power. In north west Pakistan it was a WAR . Many terrorist forums were BASED in the region so it can’t even be an insurgency by defenition because multiple groups can’t all be a apart of one insurgency. I understand Pakistanis want to call this just a simple insurgency just like there are in safer countries like Egypt and Algeria but this was a war clear cut. Also the argument “north west is subjective “ is the most hilariously in thought about comment ever. The north west of Pakistan is the north west Pakistan on a map it isn’t subjective and nobody would confuse it for balochistan because balochistan is the south west no matter how you look at it if you split the region up. Most articles published by reputable websites also call this the WAR in north west Pakistan. Having the Wikipedia page say the insugrency in kpk will confuse people because if they read an article about the war in north west Pakistan they may not know what the insurgency in kpk even is and might think it’s a seperate issue like balochistan. DO NOT move this page again unless you can site a source which claims it is referred to as the insurgency in kpk . Also here are some sources that call it the war in north west https://artsandculture.google.com/entity/m09x7p1?categoryid=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/topics/War_in_North-West_Pakistan_fiction/video Thewinnerz33 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

All the terrorist groups fighting against Pak in KP are Islamists, so they have broadly the same goal.

NW Pak was used to refer to KP & FATA collectively. That's not needed now that FATA has been merged into KP.

Although the early years could be reasonably described as a war, during the last few years it's been a low-intensity conflict. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The Map presents the situation in 2016 as having been with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in complete control over FATA, with KPK being contested territory. This is quite simply incorrect. The Pakistani Taliban, even at their greatest strength, didn't hold control over entire districts, much less control the entirety of FATA whilst contesting another province. In addition to that, they were practically flushed out of FATA too by 2016 courtesy of Zarb e Azb so all in all, the Map is wrong. 39.33.254.226 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can generate a better map with sources then you are welcome to do so. If you have sources to debunk the current map then the map can be removed. Orientls (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't generate maps so there's nothing I can do about that.

As for the current map, to begin with, KPK appears shaded as if it's contested territory. I have no idea why it appears that way and honestly, I don't know what source you want me to provide you with. It's like.. If something never happened, how do you disprove that it happened..? (with sources). There are no articles to “prove KPK isn't contested territory and it's firmly in government hands” cause that's a given fact lol. It's like being asked to provide a source that California isn't actually German territory.

As for FATA, there are plenty of articles

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/06/17/six-years-since-launch-of-zarb-e-azb/

https://ndu.edu.pk/issra/issra_pub/articles/margalla-paper/margallapapers2019issueii/13-Op-Zarb-e-Azb.pdf

https://gulfnews.com/amp/world/asia/pakistan/once-terror-hit-region-now-ready-to-welcome-students-1.62810352

What's really strange is that there are even Wikipedia articles which document Pakistan's victory in expelling terrorists from the districts of FATA

https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Operation_Zarb-e-Azb

https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Operation_Khyber

103.78.135.231 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:NomanPK44 is clearly faking a sources since the first edit he made here.[2] The source was being used for saying that the insurgency is 'ongoing' and NomanPK44 falsely claimed victory by using the same source.

I further removed what is unrelated to this conflict[3][4] which had no relation to this conflict and sources don't discuss Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or any related insurgency in these sources. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@42.106.4.156: if you have any source which says that it is ongoing then please mention it. NomanPK44 (^talk) 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

[5] notes "Doval Doctrine that aims at fomenting insurgency in Pakistan’s provinces, including Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa." [6] notes "HRCP noted that forced disappearances, a major issue in insurgency-plagued Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, continued in 2019." Insurgency is not over. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It will clearly require strong multiple reliable sources to claim that insurgency ended in 2017 and the government won the conflict. I don't see any until now. Orientls (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

NomanPK44 and 42.106.4.156. Edit-warring is not any solution, and neither have any sources been analysed and scrutinized exactly. A note to latter that merely dropping a message on articles talk page and reverting edits, doesn't mean consensus, as you stated in edit summary. Can you both put up you valid argument's here? This would really help. I just checked history of NomanPK44's talk page, we shouldn't be disrespecting fellow editors, it is quite wrong. 42.106.4.156 please don't do this again. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 01:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ssg operation in waziristan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the discussion for the infobox on Talk:Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and saw the exact same content/refs being reduplicated here. I saw no point of its inclusion here as consensus was not reached there for the exact same content. Contrary to what the recent edit claims, consensus when concerning the exact same topic is applicable as a whole, in the same edit summary it is spuriously claimed that sock "IPs/accounts" are trying to get rid of this content. This all the more ironic since it was a [sock] IP which added the content in the first place and has been trying to re-insert it ever since which is what I initially reverted back then and now. Gotitbro (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• @TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning, North8000, and Mx. Granger: Inviting the participants from the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan discussion (ironically again started by another sock) to weigh in here . Gotitbro (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't recall my previous involvement though I suspect that t was on a narrower area because I really have no in depth knowledge here. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Since, the reversions were done by a now blocked sock and master and the content initially added as such as well. I will be removing it per above, till further consensus here or at the TTP page. Gotitbro (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Oriental Aristocrat: Can you describe why you are restoring those sock's edits that have been already rejected above? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain why another editor cannot restore content previously added by a sock? Can you also explain who you or anyone else is to reject those referenced edits without a proper reasoning? Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: what is your objection to this material? Do you find the sources unreliable? Do you find the content to be a violation of WP:NPOV? VR _talk 07:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Some research shows that Pakistani authorities on multiple levels have alleged India of supporting TTP and these allegations are widely covered in academic literature^{[1][2][3][4][5]} (who sometimes also note that India has strongly denied these allegations). I would support adding something like this to the list of supporters "India (alleged by Pakistan, denied by India)".VR _talk 17:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pakistani authorities on multiple levels have alleged India of supporting TTP" exactly answers your question. There is no need to include false accusations that have no basis at all, just like nobody included Pakistan's role (accused only by India) at 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires us to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". As I (and others) have showed, this is a significant view that has been published by many reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you think it is false (see WP:NOTTRUTH).VR _talk 09:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree we should include all viewpoints. We can just add "per Pakistan", some people are claiming they have consensus but there is no consensus for their removal. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark: I don't think you understand what "consensus" means contrary to your misleading edit summary. Where is the consensus to add the false claims back? We are not going to add gibberish claims. India and Pakistan have history of falsely accusing each other of things. We need third party sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy response to the ping above now that this cropped up on my watchlist again. My initial assessment is that a discrete section for alleged India's involvement in the insurgency is WP:UNDUE as evidence for the proportionate coverage in reliable sources has thus far been lacking. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Pakistan has a history of seeing Indian involvement in whatever ails their state ranging from ethnic clashes in 1950s' Sindh to attacks on school by Tehrik-i-Taliban. Obviously, no scholar finds such claims credible and hence, devoting a section is UNDUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  • @Mr. Guye and Vif12vf: I need your opinion on this as you guys were involved in a similar discussion above. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    • (responding to ping) My position is simply that if a sourced but potentially contentious claim is made in the infobox of an article, then there should be content in the body of the article about said claim. I don't know if it should be an entire section or a single paragraph, but there should be something. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• I take umbrage at the reversions being made to reinstate disputed content in a manner that games the restrictions in place as well as circumvent an active disagreement on the talk page here. The claims being made in the infobox that the Pakistani Taliban have lost "all of its territory in Pakistan" are erroneous and misleading. Scholars have shed light on how not just pockets of resistance have held out in Waziristan and Khyber agencies but also inasmuch as they continue to operate from the contiguous Afghanistan^[6], I wonder what is it that the infobox is even attempting to cascade to the reader by dint of such misleading and ambiguous portrayals? Why are Pakistani establishment claims so salient as to warrant mention in the infobox, even when no scholar is ready to attest to the same? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
• I support keeping the content regarding the 'alleged Indian involvement' in the Infobox and the article body based on the references present.Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Oriental Aristocrat: Where is the "consensus" to restore the rejected claims? I am seeing fair explanation only for removing the content which never had consensus. Capitals00 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Both MBlaze Lightning and TrangaBellam were clearly WP:CANVASSED here. And none of the editors made any argument to discredit the sources provided. Thus, you need to WP:DROP THE STICK and accept the consensus reached. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't make claims of canvassing about users without evidence. Enough arguments have been made above to discredit the information you are adding back without consensus. India also accuse Pakistan of being involved in many things that scholars don't accept. We need secondary sources to confirm the involvement of India. Capitals00 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely ridiculous, the same arguments that applied in the TTP RFP apply here as well. Random claims with little backing dont merit mention. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  We can add them back if users provide non Pakistan sources Shadow4dark (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)