This is an archive of past discussions about Pockets of resistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A fact from Pockets of resistance/Archive 1 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The article starts by saying the term has been used in regard to the Iraq War, but there seems to be nothing about this in the article except the CNN link. Either the introduction should be changed (is the Iraq usage really of primary significance?) or the claim should be supported. -- Dhartung | Talk06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the article needs work. Several days ago, I saw it on AfD and it consisted of the one-sentence lead (regarding the Iraq war) plus the CNN link. Much of what you see here was slapped together in the next 33 minutes, from my fading memory of a college class on the European theater of World War II. Shibumi2 appears to be an expert on the Pacific theater, and perhaps experts on other wars where "pockets of resistance" appeared would like to get involved. Anyway, it's wonderful that it got "DYK" recognition; and perhaps it may now get some attention from such experts. Dino17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I voted against it in the AFD, to be honest -- I don't feel it's well defined or notable enough of a term, especially given the salients etc. article we already have. It's certainly not as notable a term of art in Iraq as e.g. "dead-enders". It's also being used in quite different ways as a guerrilla insurgency has little tactical relationship to encircled infantry. (One could potentially write an entire essay on what this says about the Pentagon's approach vis-a-vis "fighting the last war" etc.!) Anyway, I'm inclined to remove the Iraq reference if the article isn't going to go into detail about it. --Dhartung | Talk22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
