Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Lal Masjid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSiege of Lal Masjid was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 15, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 16, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 13, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 22, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Cleric is dead

[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6288704.stm I'll let someone who's been working on the page add it. Akubhai 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Casualties

[edit]

Casualties are a big problem in this article. Some casualty numbers are a few days old when the numbers were still coming in and some are up to date and some are speculation and thus all casualty numbers differ from each other. And these numbers are spread all over the article. It makes it very confusing for the reader to understand how many people got killed. So we need to fix all this. Mercenary2k 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

has a difinitive total of casualties been given yet? Sue Wallace 22:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
article is looking much better now well done Mercenary2k Sue Wallace 00:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This is to point out that any religious militancy doesn't necessarily got any relationship with Al Qaida as quoted in the Information Box at the top right corner of the page. Thus, I think it leads to dispute of neutrality of the facts. Further, not always European media reports are neutral for describing events and facts about Muslim countries. Muhammad Shoaib 08:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but ISI found letters inside the mosque stating that the Red Mosque uprising was directed by Al Qaeda terrorits Zawahiri and Bin Laden and furthermore 18-20 Al Qaeda terrorists from Egypt, Central Asia went to the mosque to train the students and fought alongside the lal masjid students. And thus Al Qaeda is part of the battlebox. Mercenary2k 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Lal Masjid were so foul,they left AL-Qadea letters so that ISI would discover them later.Anyway there is such report of ISI going in to do the search operation after the operation.Nor there is any other Netural source saying the same thing.Nor Pakistani media have sad said anything about that.My experiences with "Time" are already bitter they make hell of noting.When a Pakistani aircraft was shoot down in over Pakistan they made the mess of everything.Ordinary soldiers were described as "Commando" so it's no problem for them to make People from NWFP as foreigns and belonging to Al-Qaida. If there is Iota of treuth in all this then any Government minister would have spoken that out.User talk:Yousaf465

It's also reported that that one of the Person who has been identified as foreign was actually from Balochistan.User talk:Yousaf465

The references I have cited state they found egyptians, uzbek and central asians. If you can find a reference which disproves that then that fine. This is an encyclopedia and this should not be used as an avenue of showing of our political opinions. Find me a refernence that states that no foreigners were found and I will gladly approve you adding that in into the aritlce Mercenary2k

Basically all references will say what Govt had lied about. Hence they could be even had contact with OBL, what we need is some Govt offical saying it and then some Newspaper quoting him. That is the fun of wikipedia. --- A. L. M. 08:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The government will not admit that there were not any foreigners in the Masjid hence on the governments part it is merely an allegation. Merely repeating a lie enough times does not make it proof. :) Shehzadashiq 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The Government already reported that they found bodies of 10 foreigners and are going through the rest. Once the final verdict is in, I am gonna add that into the article whether you like it or not. Mercenary2k 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And uzbkes turn out to be a man from ATTAock the Base camp of SSG.read http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2007/07/070716_shahid_usman_father_zs.shtml. User talk:Yousaf465


GA Review

[edit]

1. Well written?: Pass

Although the prose could benefit from a copyedit before going for A-Class or FA-Class, it is definitely good enough for GA-Status.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

Is very thoroughly cited throughout. Good work on this criterion!

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

Coverage is extremely broad & quite comprehensive. No objections here.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

No evidence of bias or advocacy. (just as a side-note, I'd be interested to see whether there were any governments that condemned Pakistan's response to the militants)

5. Article stability? Pass

No evidence of recent edit-warring on this article. Although this has been an issue in the past, I get the feeling that it has now subsided.

6. Images?: Pass

Those images that are within the article are appropriately tagged with copyright status, and are well-used.

Congratulations. This article has passed GA! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think there were any governments that condemned the attack on the mosque, I'll try to find one but I highly doubt it. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
go ahead with the copyedits this is a future FA--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it has potential, but I am not sure if I will be on wikipedia over the summer, so if you don't see any changes in the next 2 weeks or if you don't hear from me, than its likely that I won't respond until September. Feel free to work on it. (Also I keep getting annoyed that they delete the images I put on even though I did my best to find license-free pictures) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

Dont know how the prose part passed (although there is a caveat above), but i just edited 2 parts with some copy edits. The rest of the article may need to reviewed in this department. Doesn't seem to be poor in a general sense, just Desi English, which may or may not be most legible to other speakers of English.Lihaas (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban involvement in siege

[edit]

Can somebody explain the mention of Taliban under the belligerents in infobox? I cannot find any evidence that states that Taliban were involved in the siege. The clerics were pro-taliban and that, I believe, does not mean that they were Tabliban themselves.180.178.149.36 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC) - —  Hamza  [ talk ] 04:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troop Strength

[edit]

Why does it say 60000 under Pakistani Army Strength, for something that is not an large scale multi divisional operation? 141.70.3.106 (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Anon Blanking

[edit]

Some IP users have been blanking sections of this article. Is this part of some decision I'm not aware of? I'm assuming that these edits should be reverted, and the user page should get a Uw-delete. However, my latest reversions have been flagged as "non-autoconfirmed user making rapid reversions." I'm pretty sure that an anon IP user is less credible than an un-autoconfirmed user with quite a few edits that have been accepted as constructive, but I could be wrong. Could anyone shed some light on this so I don't feel like I'm doing something wrong here? Either way, I'm going to go confirm my account now. WikiSpamIsFun (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Siege of Lal Masjid. 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 03:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Siege of Lal Masjid. 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 03:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Siege of Lal Masjid. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 13:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Siege of Lal Masjid

[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No objection to delisting, numerous issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed near-completely since its listing as a Good Article nearly 15 years ago. It has grown in size significantly, but poor writing has accompanied this expansion. I have only recently attempted to remedy some of the typos and awkward wording littered throughout the article. The article also makes frequent use of long quotes from sources without effort to paraphrase. This is particularly notable in the "Reactions" section; I understand the purpose of the section, but Wikipedia is not a repository for entire paragraphs ripped from editorials. Speaking of editorial, some of the wording in this article would no longer be appropriate under Wikipedia's updated guidelines, such as "Securing Lal Masjid brought an end to nine days of high tension in Islamabad, normally a tranquil city that had been immune to the violence experienced in the tribal areas of Pakistan." Does this sentence have encyclopedic value? Also, the tenses of this article are also odd as most of the editing done to it followed the event itself. In a similar manner, a lot of the figures in this article are outdated, and attempts to update these numbers have led to a few inconsistencies in the article. Yue🌙 08:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue: It appears work has stalled on the article itself before you filed here; are you still planning to work on the article to bring it up to GA standard, or do you think a delisting is the most appropriate route? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: Honestly, I could probably remedy the grievances I brought up this coming weekend. If there is a deadline to this reassessment (I am not aware of one), then I believe delisting would be the best route until such work is done. I also welcome others' opinions, especially those who hold opposing views; this reassessment has gotten a lot less attention than I was expecting. Yue🌙 03:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: There is no hard deadline; GAs may be delisted after a week, but should not be as long as work is ongoing. I just wanted to see if you intended to keep going forward with improvements, no issue at all with keeping this open until you view it to be either complete or unsalvageable. Unfortunately, a large percentage of GARs sit still for seven days and are delisted; an unfortunate situation, but this is better than allowing truly atrocious articles to remain GAs indefinitely, as many were before our recent changes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: It may be evident to you already, but I was unable to find the time to work on the article last weekend. Reading over the article again, I do not think that this article would pass a Good article nomination with contemporary guidelines and expectations, and so it should be delisted, at least for now. To paraphrase a comment made on this article's Featured article candidacy archive: There are glaring prose issues which require a thorough copy edit to remedy. Yue🌙 01:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be worth mentioning that the sourcing is awful; I may be mistaken, but it seems there is not a single scholarly source provided, and nearly all the citations given are reports of the incident published within a year of its occurrence. As a result, a lot of the links are dead, and quality-wise many are opinion pieces. Yue🌙 01:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Lal_Masjid&oldid=1256746144"