Talk:Federally Administered Tribal Areas: Difference between revisions
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Federally Administered Tribal Area" to "Federally Administered Tribal Areas") Tag: Manual revert |
John Leach (talk | contribs) (→Links: new section) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::The correct official name of the region (which was terminated in 2018) was the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (plural, as HCB said) and, as it was unique, did not need a qualifier. [[User:John Leach|John]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 06:17, 13 February 2024 (CST) | ::The correct official name of the region (which was terminated in 2018) was the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (plural, as HCB said) and, as it was unique, did not need a qualifier. [[User:John Leach|John]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 06:17, 13 February 2024 (CST) | ||
== Links == | |||
Apologies for this becoming an orphan. I terminated them temporarily to sort out related topics and forgot to restore the needed ones. I've reset the links from NWFP and KP. | |||
I think we should keep the article for its historical significance. It has potential for expansion. [[User:John Leach|John]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 17:29, 15 February 2024 (CST) |
Latest revision as of 17:29, 15 February 2024
Name of the article is a problem
Unfortunately, there is no formal entity called "Pakistan's Tribal Areas". There are the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The confusion may come from starting the article from a newspaper account rather than more formal studies of the area, a few of which I have cited.
Further, if it discusses terrorism and politics, it also comes under the Military and Politics workgroups.
May we start by moving the article so its title is correct? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I have no ego attachment to the current name. George Swan 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Links
Apologies for this becoming an orphan. I terminated them temporarily to sort out related topics and forgot to restore the needed ones. I've reset the links from NWFP and KP.
I think we should keep the article for its historical significance. It has potential for expansion. John (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2024 (CST)