Talk:Pink's War

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

Exclusively air victory?[edit]

If the ground forces submitted solely as a result of the air campaign against them, this would be one of the very few instances of a victory over/surrender of ground units achieved by air power alone, with no simultaneous or follow-up ground attack at all. Is this the case? If so, that might be mentioned. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

The article mentions how many Brits died; is there an estimate of the number of tribesmen who were killed? Madgenberyl (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser POV issue[edit]

The article says:

In the 1920s, the British were engaged in a continuing effort to pacify militant tribesmen in the province.

What does this mean? Tribesmen who challenge the imperial rule are to be pacified by war? Pacified is POV as it is make-up for an act of war, but I guess this was how the British Empire would have liked to describe its actions. –Lappspira (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to change the wording to something less POV. The article, by its nature, will be informed by older accounts from the imperialist period, so some of those attitudes may find their way into the article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains way too little information to grasp what the British were trying to do. Were they trying to disarm militiamen? Were they trying them to sign a treaty? Were they trying to assert British rule in centres of populations? —Lappspira (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded to something more specific based on the information in one of the sources, so hopefully it reads as more NPOV now. From what I've read, they were trying to put an end to raids on British Indian Army outposts. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i'm not taking a stance on the wording, i don't mind at all, but the definition of pacify includes the concept of submitting

from the merriam webster site " 1 a : to allay the anger or agitation of : soothe - pacify a crying child

b : appease, propitiate - tried to pacify the enemy with compromises

2 a : to restore to a tranquil state : settle - made an attempt to pacify the commotion

b : to reduce to a submissive state : subdue - forces moved in to pacify the country"

they also give "Examples of pacify in a Sentence

   She resigned from her position to pacify her accusers.
   Their efforts to pacify the nation by force failed.
   trying to pacify a mob of protesters"

and of these the second is the most relevant i think.

the word "pacify" has been used throughout history to describe the efforts of various rulers and governments to subdue opposition(s).

so i guess you can just leave it, but perhaps replace "pacify" with "subdue"?

hope that adds useful data to the debate! 82.9.94.243 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion! I've reworded it anyway to be a bit more specific about what the aim of the operation was, so hopefully that helps with the disputed wording. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]