Talk:2011 NATO attack in Pakistan/Archives/2011/December

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Number of deaths

The number of deaths claimed on this page is 28, although AlJazeera claims 25, The Guardian claims 24 and the BBC claims 24. Ambiguous, yes, but perhaps we should go with the more founded number of 24?--S.devincenzi (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The most recent statistics for the death toll have been precisely numbered to 28 in various report including this one on Guardian. The Pakistani media is also reporting 28 deaths and another 12 injured, totally the affected to 40. I will find more sources for this though. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, the toll increases over time. We take the latest figures. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however, since then the Guardian has gone back to 24 and Al Jazeera's most recent report still says 25. Well, your call.--S.devincenzi (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

News papers make mistakes. The figure can be changed if some one presents enough citations to challenge the current citations (which also some where are varying). But this is the right venue for that discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Review: Seeing so many different figures, I think this needs another review to get the most reliable figure. The sources seem to have no dispute on the total figure of ~40, 13 injured or the two officers but KIAs are getting a different figure everywhere. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Surprised to still see 28 here. AlJazeera - 24, BBC - 24, CNN - 24 , El Pais - 24 , Le Monde -24 and Reuters - 24. This is on the main page, it shouldn't be wrong!--S.devincenzi (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The figure is 28 or 26 in many Pakistani news papers. Lets compare those too. Esp, the ones cited in the article should be compared with these before we change the figure. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ive just given 6 links all from different parts of the world that all say 24. The only ref in the article which says 28 is the guardian, which now says 24 itself. Where is it that they still say 28? What newspapers?--S.devincenzi (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) EDIT; sorry, didn't see you said 'Pakistani' Newspapers. If you think that they are more reliable than, from as far as I can see, what all media from the rest of the world is saying, then fair enough.--S.devincenzi (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

All news paper make mistakes, and this has nothing to do with reliability WP:NEWSORG. But you seem to be correct 24 seems to be the more recurring no than the rest. I'm changing it to that, if some one objects, we'll see about it then. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Superseded by move to 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. Knight of Truth (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has a clearly biased title given what is currently known about the incident. More importantly, given the topic, very little reliable information will even be reported on the matter. To that end, I propose we move this article to 2011 Salala incident, as it is not currently clear if this was an attack by NATO, a defensive attack by Pakistan, or some combination of the two. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: It's been made clear in news. The title is accurate. It can be changed if there are obvious developments. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose If you check the news, it's been made rather obvious by now. Mar4d (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Support: By current the title, it insinuates that it was an intentional attack targeting Pakistani forces.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And where does it say that it was not intentional? (other than an apology of 'we didn't mean to'). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Per most neutral WP:Reliable sources, this was an intentional breach of territory (i.e. NATO had knowledge that it was inside Pakistani airspace) and an act initiated from security forces in Afghanistan. The title should reflect accordingly. Mar4d (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here, how well is the Durand line defined, isn't it possible that it was an unfortunate mistaken identity case. To me at least, you two seem to be going on the Idea that the U.S./NATO went with the intent of targeting Pakistani soldiers. Common sense would dictate otherwise (General: "Hmm, we get about half of our supplies from through that country...how can we piss them off?" Colonel: "I know! Let's bomb them!"). Targeting Pakistani forces makes no strategic sense whatsoever. Why don't you Pakistani editors criticize me some more.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think in this age of technology the borders can be mistaken with GPS and satellite tracking. But just to reply to what you explained, is actually forum talk and isn't a proper argument. Also, see WP:TRUTH. No one knows what actual motives they had for the attack, neither are they going to tell. But as Arun Reginald said, it can also be assumed that they want to destabilize the region. In anycase, we use the sources and not our own logic when sources are clearly saying something. WP:V. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, just because you "think" something certainly does not make it any more verifiable than what I have commented. As I just read, Mar4d DID NOT - I repeat - DID NOT say that it can be assumed that the U.S. wants to destabilize the region. That appears to be YOUR assumption. I believe the best course of action is to be as neutral as possible on all aspects, including the title. At least try to find a RS stating why us reckless Yankees would want to bomb your country, when we are already up to our armpits in debt, and overstretched in engagements elsewhere, before assuming that it was intentional. It really should be assumed that this was a tragic accident, but it appears that you have already resorted to beating the war drums.

In any case, and back on point, while the title is geographically correct, it implies that the attack was made intentionally when there is no RS stating that the intention was to target Pakistani troops. I would like to suggest something with the term 'friendly fire' in it as the title, as again, until a RS suggests a motive for an intentional attack on Pakistani security forces, it should be assumed that it is a tragic case of mistaken-identity.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me correct my self about quoting Mar4d. It was rather from the comment below from Arun Reginald. You can refer to it. In any case you should stick to WP:SHOUT. Most of your comments here are based on forum talk and your own views. It can definitely not be called a friendly fire. There are no sources for that. All the content is currently heavily sourced and I'm basing my comments on those citations while you are merely objecting on WP:OR. All sources suggest that it was an attack on Pakistan and the word intentional is not used for trivial reasons. The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove it unintentional. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted about the Mar4d quote, although it would have been nice if you would have clarified at the time. As for WP:OR, I suggest you read it, and WP:NPOV - you seem to be quite intent on reverting edits that replace weighted text with more neutral alternatives. And quite frankly, I get the feeling that you are using the article as a soapbox. What non-Pakistani source do you have that says that it IS intentional? Seems that the burden should be to prove intent, but w/e. I'm getting sick of arguing with you. Perhaps I'll submit something to a neutral arbitration committee instead, cause this is going nowhere. Although I'm sure you will say that all of what I just said here is WP:FORUM also.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)]

I didn't know I had misquoted, I corrected as soon as I saw your message. Anyway no issues with that. About the WP:NPOV, I'm not removing any neutral material from the article rather reverting those edits which are WP:OR. The article is heavily sourced with Pakistani and non Pakistan sources that call it an attack without mentioning that it was not intentional. That clears the WP:BURDEN on me. No, I'm not calling all your comments forum talk, only the ones in which you are giving the logic of "why would USA wan't to attack" since it is contradicting the incident itself and what the citations tell. You really don't have to argue if you don't want to, you got replies because you posted. In anycase, we already have a consensus here. The move can not be made whatsoever. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being a hypocrite, I'm gonna comment again. Acually, I admit I misread your explanation about the misquote (reading through too quick) when I replied to you so that's why I was kind of irritated there. That's my mistake though so sorry for that.

Actually, a 3-2 decision is hardly a consensus, but I agree that at this time the majority opinion dictates that a move cannot done at this time. I did find a revert which you performed earlier that reeked of non-NPOV to me. While not necessarily untrue per-se, the language is quite loaded and aside from that just elaborates unnecessarily.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No issues about the misquote, not a biggie. Yes, it might not be that big a consensus, but then again, consensus unlike voting is based on discussion and the points you make. Yes, the move doesn't seem very likely at this point though the POV if any from each side will eventually come to a neutrality. About my edit that you quoted, please note that I gave an edit summary along with it and the word unlawful is undisputedly correct, neutral and legal term. So I can safely say that I was not sneaking in my point of view, yet when I was reverted, I did not challenge it because, right or not, tone does seem to be a bit tilting. There are no issues as such at the moment. Another section although has been opened below for other concerns about NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Apart from a statement from two "anonymous" sources in the WSJ, there's nothing else to suggest that this was otherwise. The NATO commander presented condolences but never apologised. If it was a mistake he would have apologised. This might have been a deliberate attack to destablise the region. Certainly, Pakistan is perceiving this as a direct attack because NATO had grid references for every military checkpost and operational base along the border. Furthermore, remember this wasn't just on the border so as to confuse the vicinity - this was 2.5-kilometers into the Pakistani territory (a stark violation of Pakistani airspace). Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 17:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Accurate title. Relatedly, an attack is "an agressive and violent action against a person or place". We're not in the aim of softening reality here. Mrtea (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

This article seems to take every Pakistan statement as truth but appends "according to" to Western statements. Besides the two above-mentioned complaints. The repeated use of "NATO" helicopters in the news instead of "U.S." makes me think there may be more to this as well. Rmhermen (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources used in this document are foreign (BBC, Guardian, etc.) with just a few Pakistani sources. The only story that mentions Pakistanis firing first in the Wall Street Journal story and the narration doesn't even mention the two people it interviewed and simply calls them Western sources. Because the WSJ kept these identities secret and hasn't defined how accurate their version of events is, it seems the Pakistani versions of events are the only true ones (at least they are backed by a handful of reliable sources). Regarding the helicopters, it's all over the news that it was NATO (which is why the NATO commander for ISAF apologised and not Obama). NATO is not the US. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is neutral, considering available sources. NATO or the US haven't released statements that the Pakistanis fired first (though I suspect they will soon), and until that happens Pakistani accusations are the only published version of events. Mamyles (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't WP:TAGBOMB the article without any basis. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling shennanigans on the need to wrap the US side of the story in "according to" qualifiers while representing the Pakistani side of the story as hard truth. A few editors are walking the edge on edit warring in an unhelpful manner (though the same individuals are otherwise doing some very solid edting here). I would feel a lot more comfortable if the same qualifiers were applied to both sides of the story since the Pakistanis and the US are known to be bad guys in this part of the world. They shoot at each other, and are allies only because the US can't invade a nuclear armed partner. If this were a deliberate US attack on Pakistan then the US had reason. If it was an accident, then there will be a reason. At the moment, we don't have the facts behind the "why" of what happened. All we know is that US forces fought with Pakistani forces, and that both sides blame the other side for starting it. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree: I agree that both sides should have qualifiers. Whether or not that it practical to do at the moment, I don't know, but ultimately, you are 100% correct.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As a solution, the word "claim" for non facts should be used, while facts and figures should be presented as hard truth. The rest is self explained and the International reaction part also gives some neutral insight on this. So that would do. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents

Belligerents should be added to the infobox, since news articles state after the strike began, Pakistani soldiers returned fire as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this was a combat situation. Mar4d (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reaction in Pakistan

Suggest to move the public and official reaction into further subheadings. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I thought about doing that myself when I split it up, but didn't want to go too overboard at the time--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Is it only me or is the lead a bit long for the article size? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of what is there can be copy-pasted under the "Events" section. I'll move some of it down to clear it up.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what was in my mind. Make sure to preserve the chronology. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We should stop editing the lead until the Events section (which I have renamed "Background and Timeline" for reasons I discussed in my edit summary) is mature enough to lend content for the lead. Furthermore, it is advised to all the contributors to the use the {{web cite}} template for the citations. It becomes really cumbersome for later editors to fix the content then. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 04:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead is a bit long. Actually it was good after L1A1 FAL moved it down. Now its filled up again. Lets move the response part to the events section and add a single sentence about the actions Pakistan took in the lead. Lead for the article of this size is usually a paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

'The incident' & 'Claims of the Pakistani forces' seem to be shorter than the lead, may be some content can be moved there. The incident section should be the longest. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about Title

I was wondering why the article was titled "2011 NATO attacks in Pakistan" and not "2011 NATO attack in Pakistan". i.e. why is the title plural? I am aware of only 1 attack. Was there another? Or is it referring to the fact that the attack was made by more than 1 aircraft? I apologize if this sounds inflammatory - I see how contentious the issue has become - I was just confused. On another note, the title also sounds a little too general, isn't it usually something like [2011] Salala incident? It seems like it could end up encompassing multiple incidents. I'm not really sure if I should have posted under the move section above, or if I have repeated anything that was already argued, so I apologize for that if I did any it as well. -Noha307 (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you have a valid question, there is no need to apologize. I think the starting editor might have referred to the repeated attacks by helicopters and jets on the same post in the same incident. But I think you are right, 'attack' instead of 'attacks' would cover it better since we are talking about one incident. May be something like 'November 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan' would be even better. About the title 'Salala Incident', that page already redirects here if searched for and the intro also gives the alternate name. As far as the move to 'Salala Incident' is concerned, that has been discussed in the move section above and it didn't make the consensus to move. Thankyou for pointing out. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Military Conflict?

I commented out the "Military Conflict Infobox", because this was a friendly fire incident, and by no means are US/NATO and Pakistan in a military conflict, so it is very inappropriate. Helicopters shot at a military post, probably thinking they were Taliban or terrorists, but it can hardly be classified as military conflict. Crnorizec (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there is already a consensus over that here Talk:2011_NATO_attacks_in_Pakistan#Belligerents, and I created the conflict box on those basis. The news articles tell there was retaliatory fire from the Pakistani side as well after the attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how NATO and Pakistan can be called belligerents, and friendly fire does not qualify as military conflict; regardless of the shallow consensus. Crnorizec (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a single citation that calls it a friendly fire? Even if you do find one, there are a lot of citations that say that Pakistan after being attacked retaliated with fire. And the Afghan officials even claim that Pakistani side fired first. So, that is already settled. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident uses a military conflict infobox, and it is a featured article.VR _talk 23:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! --lTopGunl (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Side or sides that used force

U.S.-led NATO forces engaged Pakistani forces means what? In air force terms, to "engage" a target is a completely one-sided action; my warplane fires on an enemy vessel; in a "dogfight" both sides shoot at each other. Further down, we learn that "both sides" said the other shot first. This is unclear.

I suggest we rewrite it so that we clarify whether we are talking about:

only the NATO part of an incident - deliberately leaving out any possible Pakistani actions, or
both parts of an incident - in which NATO openly declares that they used force - while Pakistan may or may not also say they used force

If it's #2, I suggest we try hard to remain neutral about each side's description of the other side's use of force. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the citations. The attack was pretty much one-sided according to most of them. Only some say that Pakistan "claims", while others are say that it happened. Retaliations only took place as a result of fire. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So it's up to us contributors to decide whether the "NATO attack" was one-sided, or in response to another attack? That's bias, and violates NPOV policy.

Also, consider the historical context:

A year ago, a U.S. helicopter attack killed two Pakistani soldiers posted on the border, and a joint investigation by the two nations found that Pakistani troops had fired first at the U.S. helicopters.

The investigation found that the shots were probably meant as warnings after the choppers passed into Pakistani airspace. [1]

I wish you would accept a version which does not give more credit to either side. How about not giving ANY credit to a side? Just say that X said Y about Z, and let the statements speak for themselves, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is already mentioned in the events section. The citations decide what the attack was, and that is mentioned. The event you related is a different even from this one. Though that is a possibility but then we don't have to present WP:OR. And the citations say that there was no militant activity in the area and that the Pakistani soldiers were sleeping or resting when they were attacked. The current lead is neutral too attributing both sides properly. What is the issue? --lTopGunl (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Conceding edit war unilaterally

You asked that certain changes not be made without discussion, but you made the same kind of changes. You've undone all my work for specious reasons. Please find a way to cooperate with people whose views you don't accept, or I'll have to lodge an NPOV complaint. Good night. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Move title from "attacks" to "attack"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Knight of Truth (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Propose to move title from "attacks" to "attack" (even if the attacks were repeated the word "attack" will cover it as a single event): "2011 NATO attack in Pakistan". --lTopGunl (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support since this was a single event. Mar4d (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. I don't really like "attack" with or without an s, but that's another discussion; the singular is more accurate than the plural in any case. Knight of Truth (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support There was one attack as I know. Also it is unusual to use infobox for battle because this is not fight between two armies in war, it is more like some internal, friendly-fire incident.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

US-Afghan claims

US-Afghan claims seem to be written like a news. Needs a rewrite to an encyclopedic style. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a need to minimize the use of "quotes" all over the article and stick to past tense. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Afghans have not claimed anything officially, it needs to be removed Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Please review the sources. I think they have. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have, some newspapers have claimed they have talked to "unnamed officials" in Afghanistan. Nothing apart from that. Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Removed image and mention of Apaches

I have removed the image of an Apache and mentions thereof in the text. In spite of being cited by 3 sources, none of those sources made mention of Apaches being used in this incident.

LA Times - This is about an incident in May of this year and is thus totally irrelevant to the current event
The Hindu - Makes no mention of an Apache(s) being involved
Yahoo News - Makes no mention of an Apache(s) being involved

Something here is starting to stink. Any unexplained reversion of my edit by certain editors will be treated as POV vandalism and reported.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Two of the citations were there for them being NATO helicopters (and not about apache) which was added due to a previous objection from you. Don't remove each and every citation you come across. Edit, but don't be reckless. About the citation about Apache from May, that was added in context for the kind of helicopters being used in the war. I don't know how mentioning Apache would, at its worst, be considered as POV rather than inaccuracy. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The way they were added it was a logical belief that all 3 were referring to "Apache" rather than helicopter. A better arrangement would have been:

"... two NATO Apache[5] helicopters[6][7] were used in the attack......."

Sure, Apache helicopters are being used in Afghanistan - that's verging on common-sense level info right there. The context in which it was used suggests otherwise from what you are telling me. I can see a POV issue by slapping a picture of an Apache across the article when there is not yet a verifiable citation to it being the culprit for the attack, but at the bare minimum, it certainly is an inaccuracy - which isn't by any means free from scrutiny.

On a an unrelated note, where the hell did all my previous edits to the article go? I was looking over the edit history and happened to notice that a lot of edits went missing. Did they get lost due to the page move?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Never mind that last part. Must have been a computer issue on my part. Looked like over a hundred edits dissappeared. Must have just not loaded right or something--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

By no way was I referring to "Apache" and it was not misleading at all in that sense. That is definitely common sense that the reference was to Apache helicopters. If you thought so, you could have started by changing the arrangement of that phrase. And since you agreed your self that the use of these helicopters is common sense, how can you call it POV? Even if the citation doesn't exactly specify that the Apache (and I mean the helicopter!!) was used in this specific incident it doesn't mean that I have a POV against a helicopter, that would be ridiculous. Well it should stay removed then till a citation clearly states it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No edits have been removed, but there has been rapid editing and major changes in the article ever since, you can see that the lead went back to its previous size again. Its a high traffic article. Don't worry about any edits. Even if something gets removed you can restore from history. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not a big issue. I think it just didn't load right when I was initially looking over changes in the history. Thought it was cause of the page move at first, but again, it just didn't load right for me - simple computer error.

Then why did you add "Apache" if you were not referring to it? My issue is claiming it was an Apache in particular just so that image can be added. The a weapons system without confirmation of what type it was is in itself inflammatory, possibly intending to stir emotions. Again though. It is at the minimum, an inaccuracy to claim what type it was without proper sourcing. It could have also been a USMC Cobra, or a European attack helicopter (or maybe something else like an OH-58 or some other oddball helicopter). Point is, sources have not said thus far that the helicopter/s responsible for the attack was an Apache.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I added Apache helicopter in context with the old attacks. Just for an image to be there since I didn't and still don't see how will Apache still emotions and a Cobra wont? Anyway. Since I'm not adding it again, no point here. What I just want to clear is, it's not a POV issue at its worst. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nit: wording causes confusion

Under the section "Reaction", it currently says "The already frayed relations between the two countries..." What two countries? Presumably the other country is the U.S.A. but the rest of the article talks about a fight between NATO and Pakistan. Just needs better phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.143.28 (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the lead, it says US-led NATO forces. I've added country names anyway so that some one is not mislead. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"flagrant violation"

I previously removed references to the Pakistani government calling the incident "a flagrant violation of its sovereignty", but this was reverted. While these claims were cited, if you actually read the cited sources you'll find they say that the Pakistani government made that statement about the killing of Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, which is another event entirely. Please discuss here before re-adding if you disagree. Content removed:

and a "flagrant violation of its sovereignty".<ref name="Reuters-01"/>
and "flagrant violation of its sovereignty".<ref name="Reuters-01">{{cite web|title=Pakistanis protest at U.S. consulate after NATO attack|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/27/uk-pakistan-nato-idUKTRE7AP03W20111127|publisher=[[Reuters]]|last=Shaw|first=Imtiaz|date=27 November 2011|accessdate=27 November 2011}}</ref>

Knight of Truth (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What about this one? [2] lTopGunl (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's seems to be an opinion piece, it's not attributing the quote to the Pakistani government. (Nor is it shown as a quote at all, in fact.) However, someone just added the phrase "stark violation" with a citation, and that one seems to check out. I've not found it in western sources, but a quick Google search shows it in sources from India, Pakistan, and Qatar. (Forgive for not knowing what source is reliable as far as non-western media goes; I don't have much knowledge of those.) Knight of Truth (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the new addition by Mar4d is as per citation. The source I gave is a reliable one, but since it is not quoted, it seems to be an editorial. So it can't be attributed to Pakistan's government but instead be added to reaction part of third party where the journalists and activists are being quoted. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Funeral ceremony

Someone added an update about the funeral ceremony for the dead soldiers, which is good. But in the interest of preserving relevance, maybe not all the details are necessary. Is it special for Pakistani soldiers' coffins to have Pakistani flags draped over them in funerals, or is this the standard practice for any deceased soldier? If the latter case, I think the detail can be removed. Knight of Truth (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree unless flag-draped coffins are a special honor in the Pakistani military (I would assume it is standard for Pakistani KIAs under any circumstance) it really isn't needed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Its for all KIAs in all countries. I guess it was added by the editor to emphasize the point or on the basis of Elegant variation. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was sort of rushing through when I was adding all this stuff to expand the reactions section. I'll make sure that I evaluate the relevance and context of each piece of information before adding it to the article. Thanks for raising the issue. Mar4d (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's totally okay to be bold; it allows for much faster article growth. All the finishing touches can be applied afterward; as long as what you're adding is true (duh), you needn't be too reluctant to add content. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and this article had a rapid growth because of that! --lTopGunl (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Content for discussion

A user added this to the 'public reaction' section. I've moved it here to the talk page to avoid duplication. It should only be added after a review to the relevant sections:

According to the Pakistani army official NATO helicopters fired on a Pakistani border checkpost on November 26, 2011, in which 28 soldiers including one Major and Capt have been martyred and many injured. The attack, have taken placed at the Salala checkpost, about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) from the Afghan border in the Mohmand region of Pakistan's tribal belt. The attack could be converted into a new flash point in the already strained U.S.-Pakistan relations. The Pakistani military called the strike "unprovoked and indiscriminate." Government of Pakistan launched a strong protest with U.S and also immediately discontinued the supply to NATO troops located in Afghanistan. Notably, the strike on Saturday came one day after Gen. John Allen, the commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, visited Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. In that meeting, both the commanders discussed border coordination and other measures "aimed at enhancing border control on both sides." NATO attack shows that either Gen. John Allen lacks control over his troops based in Afghanistan or did negotiations while putting on the mask. It is not a first time that NATO forces violated Pakistani sovereignty, earlier in April and August 2011 and fired 17 rockers were fired which landed in Angoor Adda area of South Waziristan Agency (SWA). ISAF has attacked Mehmand agency when just one day earlier Imran Kahn has staged a public meeting and an anti American rally in Peshawar capital of Khyber-Pakhtunwha province. During this rally Kahn again demanded the stoppage of drone attacks against innocent people of FATA. President, prime minister and Pakistani army chief strongly condemned the current ISAF attack. The timings of ISAF's attack also directly linked to the forthcoming Bonn conference. Apparently, it seems that there are some rogue elements in NATO forces that are not in favour of peaceful resolution of Afghan Crises. The masters of the reveled elements probably desire to prolong their stay in this region even after 2014. They are also not in favour of Pakistani talks with the local Taliban. There could also be the reason that introducing nasty adverse security environment on Pak-Afghan border through such type of attack will help in justifying their future stay in the region. Moreover it will also assist in leveling the grounds for Americans and its allies to take the stance according to their set agenda. Attacking troops of ISAF must have thought that at the moment, Pakistan is undergoing a political anarchic era, so any kind of aggression might not be responded back. NATO officials in Kabul said they were aware of the incident and investigating, the Associated Press reported. The governor of Pakistan's nearby Khyber-Pakhtunwha province, Masood Kausar, condemned the strike, saying it was a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. "We will go to the highest level to investigate this incident," Masood said.

Pakistan, which has a powerful army deployed to fight foreign sponsored militants and deter next-door enemy India, is extremely sensitive about violations of its territory. Pakistani has already scarified the lives of over 50000 civilians and 5000 uniform personals. The masses here are openly demanding from the government to disengage the country from global war on terror. Thus, such types of actions are further making them furious against American and its allies. In October, Pakistan's army Chief Ashfaq Kayani warned the US against taking unilateral action in nearby North Waziristan. At that occasion he said that the US should focus on stabilising Afghanistan instead of pushing Pakistan to attack militant groups in the crucial border region. In short, now it's the time that any aggression or violation of sovereignty must be responded back with full strength. Nation should display solidarity, unity and stand in shoulder to shoulder with her armed forces. Pakistan should made NATO and U.S. clear that "enough is enough" now no further attack would be acceptable in future. There must be NATO-US Joint Venture Outpost. That's why NATO apologized so many times. NATO must be made to pay these families and help them in any way possible including education for their children with college grants outside Pakistan and care for these soldiers' families. [3]

--lTopGunl (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone copy-pasted the text verbatim, from the source, so we can't keep it either way as it would have been a copyright violation. As for the content, I think the article already has a pretty fair coverage of whatever the above says. We could probably add the fact that the attack came a day after Kayani's meeting with General John Allen.....that seems significant. Though I recommend using a more reliable source as I'm not entirely sure about the reliability/credibility of the source where this text has been extracted from. Mar4d (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The source seems to be WP:SPS since it has a very unprofessional domain name coinciding with WP:BLOGS. Even if it is a newbie news source, it can not be taken as completely RS. Yes, I moved the content mainly because of the overlap. And since it's a copy-paste as well, it can't be added to the article. Though you can add the point you noted backing it up with some other (reliable) source if you consider it relevant. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Titles in opening sentence

Re this edit:

not implied, heavily cited being known as this.

The phrase "2011 NATO attack in Pakistan" doesn't appear on Google News: query. The phrase "Salala incident" also doesn't appear: query. I was able to find this article using "Salala incident" in The News International, although the word "incident" isn't capitalized. Do you have citations I missed?

see naming convention for bolding the name at first occurance

Do you mean MOS:BOLDTITLE? "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." Melchoir (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Almost all the citations call it "NATO attack" or "Salala Incident". Here are the citations for "NATO attack":

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].

The only descriptive part is the date and location which have been added so as not to confuse with other incidents and there has been a consensus on keeping this title above. As for bolding in text, the first occurrence is bolded for that name given by the citations. Yes, MOS:BOLDTITLE was what I meant as explained by the name (not implied rather given by the citations). If you think you want to 'unbold' the date and location and keep just the "NATO attack" bold, that would be fine too (completely unbolding can be discussed here), where as removal of the starting phrase doesn't seem appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of image

Why was an image of an Apache helicopter added to the infobox? As far as I am aware, the type(s) of helicopter used in the attack have not been revealed by either party yet. Hell, it hasn't even been confirmed that it was a U.S. helicopter (though it most likely was), has it? You guys seem to be jumping the gun a bit here. Unless the type or types of helicopters used in the attack is actually clarified in the article with a neutral RS, then I WILL remove the image as unsourced/undue speculation.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Now since that image is removed, the article needs another one. Probably one which is relevant. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately a map of the area would probably be best. But, if it is revealed what type of helicopters were responsible for the attack, than I wouldn't oppose including a picture of that type of aircraft.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. if some one provides a citation for the use of Apache, it can be added. A map is due in anycase. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[10] Here's a citation that apache was used. An image should be added. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That dates from May, so there is no way it is referring to the attack. You're obviously Looking for any reason to add an image back as soon as possible.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My only reason is to get an image to the article. I don't care whether its an Apache or something else. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We finally have a citation. I'm adding the image back. [11] --lTopGunl (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch this space

[12], [13] - the story changes. Updates will be needed. Rmhermen (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what US-Afghan officials have been saying from the start, can you specifically point out what's different? Also, I think we should wait for any new reactions from Pakistan who has denied NATO's version of events until now. Mar4d (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. Pakistan is saying they fired first, machine guns, flares, maybe mortars. No more "our guys were shot while they were sleeping". Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the word most being used for that? Do you expect no guard duty? Pakistan still maintains that they were attacked first. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From second source: "A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged Monday to The Washington Post that the Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was "suspicious activity" in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border." Our article needs updating. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

While the post was 300 meters to 2.5 kilometers inside. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Only statements from named sources should be accepted as fact for this article. Where the name of the sources is not mentioned in the news articles, e.g., "an unnamed source", "remains to stay anonymous", "a senior Pakistani official", should be taken as speculation. Statements from Gen Dempsey or Gen Ashfaq are the ones that should be taken as fact until proven otherwise. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if Pakistan owns up to the claim that its troops may have fired first, we need to confirm and WP:VERIFY this, at a bare minimum, from an official Pakistani government source or an authoritative military spokesperson like someone from the ISPR. From what I understand, I have not seen any updates indicating this from either of these parties. Also, the very second source you're talking about explicitly mentions that this "senior Pakistani defense official" spoke on "condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue on the record". This detail acknowledges that his statement is not necessarily an official claim. Mar4d (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Almost every second claim in this article is based on an anonymous government source. Rmhermen (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

US and U.S.

U.S. should be changed to US when used with the other abbreviations and to "United States" when used with full country names. See Wikipedia:Mos#Abbreviations --lTopGunl (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not what the MOS says. U.S. is not bad. Rmhermen (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK, and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K., and the P.R.C.)." --lTopGunl (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is not what you claimed it said. "United States" when used with full country names"? Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Geo-coordinates

Do we have the geo-coordinates for the hit, because that would greatly help with a map for this article? – Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 12:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --lTopGunl (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Geonames has incorrect coordinates (or another place with the same name)....Those listed are 40-50 (not a few) km from the boundary.DLinth (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an unpopulated (civilian) ridge and mountain area at 7500 ft. plus. I've not seen exact coordinates and the militaries may well never release them.

On an edit three days or so ago I added "approximate" and added rounded-off coordinates for the spot on Mohmand's boundary w/Afgh "40 km west of Ghallanai, Mohmand's capital" (from 100's of sources including at least one cited in this article. The rounded-off 34.5 N 71E coordinate is on the border and is 41 km WNW of Ghallanai (can't be due W, as that would be 20 km inside AF.) That's the best we can do unless someone releases the exact coordinates. DLinth (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Map

The map seems to show Salala completely outside the border or is it due to the scale? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that when I added it although it seems like a very marginal error, and is not unexpected considering that this place is located right on the border. Maybe the latitude or longitude readings might not be accurate. Mar4d (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe parts of the same area are on both sides. And the scale has some effect when the border is curving like this. I've given the readings on top of the box. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Geonames has incorrect coordinates (or another place with the same name)....Those listed are 40-50 (not a few) km from the boundaryDLinth (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we're talking about two specific outposts, shouldn't it be possible to get their coordinates exactly, not just those of Salali? They're only a 1000 feet or so apart, so one set of coordinates around there would give the location of both more accurately than the Geonames coordinates for Salali. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an unpopulated (civilian) ridge and mountain area at 7500 ft. plus. I've not seen exact coordinates and the militaries may well never release them.

On an edit three days or so ago I added "approximate" and added rounded-off coordinates for the spot on Mohmand's boundary w/Afgh "40 km west of Ghallanai, Mohmand's capital" (from 100's of sources including at least one cited in this article. The rounded-off 34.5 N 71E coordinate is on the border and is 41 km WNW of Ghallanai (can't be due W, as that would be 20 km inside AF.) That's the best we can do unless someone releases the exact coordinates. DLinth DLinth (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A few questions

I can understand that Pakistan and the United States is in a war of words. A lot of the Western media is focused on providing the Pakistani side of the story as merely counter-claims, when all the Pakistani statements were made in advance of the counter-claims made by the NATO-US-Afghan forces. Anyways, I had a few queries about this article:

The DG Military Operations in Pakistan issued a highly technical statement under the pretext of an ISPR press conference. In this statement, the DG offered a complete explanation of the actual events of the incident, e.g., helicopters used in the attack were Apache attack helicopters and AC-130 gunships destroyed the encampment. Since these details were formally provided to the press by the ISPR, they are bound to be true. These statements should be taken as the whole truth until they are actually refuted by the NATO-US forces. Dempsey only denied these claims in a candid interview. These details are no longer claims but the results of the Pakistani investigation into the matter and thus should not be a part of the claims section. Shouldn't these details be entered into the The Incident section on this page?
It is quite obvious now that the NATO claims are rubbish (come on, should we really believe that Taliban lured NATO to attack). Anyways, staying in context with a neutral POV, why do we have to always "consider the US version to be the actual truth" when it's highly likely they are falsifying these account. This is one of those cases where the US-NATO version should not be taken at face-value. If this attack had happened on US soil, whose media would you trust? The US or the Pakistani media?
The attack continued on for more than 2 hours and was not a one-off engagement. It resumed again after the first strike, as per the statements by the DG MO (which BTW have not been refuted by NATO-US in an official capacity). The events for the above-mentioned section should be changed to reflect these findings. Shouldn't it be so?
Can the video released by the ISPR of the aftermath of the attacks be used in this article?

I could have made these changes myself. I am just asking all the people patrolling this article to justify or decline these propositions before I do anything on the page. -- Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 22:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What is so incredible about the possibility that Taliban fighters attacked from the direction of a border guard post to create this mess? Pakistani forces are known to play both sides for survival reasons (rock, meet hard place). The result is that NATO would be easily lured into such a mistake. The attack then lasted a couple of house because the Pakistani's fought back, which is also a perfectly logical reaction for soldiers to take when under attack. At best, this is Fog of War, and at worst, the Pakistani's took pot shots at a perceived imperial force and got owned. Most Americans couldn't find Pakistan on a map, so the idea that US led forces are attacking loyal Pakistani forces is, in a word, rubbish. If your version of events were accurate, then I can assure you the US would have also carpet bombed Abbottabad, rather than execute a very precise and far more expensive stealth strike on Bin Laden. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this discussion to turn into a forum talk, I am just asking why we should have these recent press statements as the "Pakistani side of the story", when both sides are corroborating and accepting the details spoken of by the DG MO. Since the details of the incident have begun to unfold and unravel, why can't we just put those details in "The Incident" section of the article instead of the "Pakistani claims" section. BTW, I work on facts and not just mere perceptual ramblings – that's the reason I put my questions here rather than just editing the information in myself. Until the truth is known, I'd say that there's a high plausibility that both sides are just lying, particularly America. IMO, America just wants a scapegoat and blames that Pakistan beds with terrorists. It's utter tosh! Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims acknowledged by both sides should be taken as facts without attribution, claims from one side unrefuted from the other should most probably be taken as facts, while all the rest should have in text attribution to both US and Pak. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TopGun for the most part. If it's something both sides agree on, we can present it as a fact, and it belongs in the "The incident" section. These should have citations for both NATO and Pakistan saying that's what happened, preferably from both Pakistani and western sources, if no official sources are available. Any version of the events the sides do not agree on should be treated as a claim and called such in the text. Knight of Truth (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-cited information presented as cited

I've watched the article for a bit, and I've noticed a bunch of times that reading cited news sources does not reflect what the article text says. Especially statements that favor one side or the other are put in the article and given a citation, while the source only says a little of the added text. It may be necessary to review all cited information (especially claims about what happened) and remove any information that the citation does not support. Please also check this when anyone adds new information to the article. Knight of Truth (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I especially am puzzled with the amount of material being considered "fact" when the citation labels it Pakistan says. Rmhermen (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you specifically provide examples of where you are pointing to? Most of the information on the article is relevant and generally sourced from reliable citations. If you give an example of where you think something is not reflecting the source it's cited from, point it here and we might be able to work on it. Mar4d (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to change these when I find them, but for example, a previous revision (I mentioned this one earlier on the talk page) said that Pakistan called the incident a "flagrant violation" of its sovereignty, whereas the citation explicitly said that comment was about the killing of Osama bin Laden. The article also used to say that US "refused to apologize", while the citation had an American general saying in response to a question that he wasn't going to apologize because he didn't have enough information, which is quite different from a refusal. It's not so much that the citations are unreliable, it's the article text itself that sometimes doesn't accurately represent the cited source or place it in context. Knight of Truth (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Regarding the "flagrant violation" bit, I was the first one to notice your comment on that and changed it to "stark violation" (which was said this time) to match accordingly. As for Dempsey's comment, the citation used for his quote here clearly mentions the word "refusal", so I guess that is why the term was used. Mar4d (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Chaman Torkham Boulder Volcano

Hi,

The lede mentions Chaman and Torkham as names/locations of the border posts(I put them there based on a blog description of the attack).

Guardian uses Boulder and Volcano.

Only map coordinates online are for Salala Ghar which is being disputed by an editor as well as the Chaman and Torkham, who says the Salala Ghar of encarta is far away from the Salala of the attacks.

Can someone who actually lives in Pakistan and knows the area please review these issues and correct the lede and the entry for Salala, Pakistan, preferably with references to an online or printed book atlas which is reliable?

An editor has been changing Salala Ghar to Salala and etc but without once supplying an external reference which is authoritative.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bolder and volcano are the military names of the check posts only while Chaman and Torkham are the local area names of the locations the posts within Salala. I think Salala is different from Salala ghar. --121.52.144.104 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm the "an editor" mentioned above. The coordinates in this article and for Salala are as close as we will get and in both places say "approximate."

Erxnmedia...Really? Again with "Chaman" and "Torkham" being at Salala? You're kidding, yes? You still haven't taken the effort to notice that Chaman and Torkham are 600 and 60 km away from here? They are mentioned in most sources on this topic because they are the two biggest AF-Pak border crossings that, in retaliation, Pak. closed to 18-wheel truck traffic. No 18-wheel trucks within 50 km of Salala.

As pointed out above, the rounded-off coordinates that have been in this article for almost a week are correct (very close, at least)....perhaps why nobody has challenged or changed them.....for the spot on Mohmand's boundary w/Afgh "40 km west of Ghallanai, Mohmand's capital" (from 100's of sources including at least one cited in this article.) The rounded-off 34.5 N 71E coordinate is on the border and is 41 km WNW of Ghallanai (BTW, not due W, as that would be 20 km inside AF.) That's the best we can do unless someone releases the exact coordinates.

The Encarta coordinates are for a different place.....from a far-away "Salala Ghar" (Ghar just means mtn. in Pashto) entry in the US National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Geonames site. Two places in a country with one name is not unusual.

The Salala site at the attack does not have an Geonames entry. The coordinates provided by Encarta-Geonames are 50 km east of the incident and not anywhere near the boundary and have nothing to do with the Nov. 26 incident. Your "use Encarta argument" would be equivalent to a WP article on a plane crash in Manchester, Scotland (too small for any geonames or Encarta entry) using the coordinates for Manchester, England 400 km away. DLinth (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intent. 2 Pakistani residents passed over Salala Ghar without comment. Another IP editor who responded in this talk section above states that Boulder and Volcano are located in Chaman and Torkham. I have no clue myself, and I don't pretend to have a clue. You claim superior knowledge, but you have yet to cite a single published atlas online or printed for any of your observations. This makes your superior knowledge WP:OR. This puts us collectively in default of Wikipedia rules. Please find some external references for your observations. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't question your good intent. In fact, double-checking valid geographic locations and coordinates is a good thing. What I question is you not taking the time to look up the many widely available, reliable sources already cited in this article...for ex:

Regarding the true location of Chaman and Torkham in Pak. (like asking a Frenchman where Lyons and Nice are, by the way), you do know that in WP when the word is blue, you can click on that and it takes you to the WP article, yes? Try that with these two to learn their actual locations and why they are often mentioned in sources regarding 26 Nov.

And I've mentioned three times now to you (see discussion page for Salala) that I added, three days ago, the "International News" source (footnote 9 at the moment) here, though there are dozens of other reliable sources that also include references to "40 km west of Ghallanai" and "on the border" and other geographic facts....including the fact that nothing named Chaman nor Torkham nor much of anything else (no settlements of size....look at Google Earth) are located near the 26 Nov. site.

With the Chaman and Torkham articles, "International News" from Pak. + many others, just how is this WP:OR?? DLinth (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually my comment was based on what I made out from the article, it is very much possible, just like Salala and Salala Ghar, a small not so notable place named Chaman also exists near Torkham. Please add only what is cited. I saw the codenames Volcano and Boulder in news and on citations already on this aricle, but the place names are yet to be cited. Torkham and Chaman (Chaman in balochistan) have been cited for border crossings which have been closed due to the closing of supply lines. May be the editor got confused with that. I'm not sure myself. But blogs are not reliable sources. --121.52.144.104 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the Volcano and Boulder names appear to be legitimate in that source, agree that blogs (this one was copying stuff from WP clearly) are not reliable sources, and that anyone putting Chaman and Torkham or anything by that name at the 26 Nov. site rather than their actual locations 600 and 60 km away is confused. Thanks. DLinth (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

'Volcano' and 'Boulder' are the military names for the border checkposts. However, Chaman and Torkham are the passes where the supply routes pass through. Chaman and Torkham are nowhere close to Salala itself. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

New info box

Folks,

We need a new info box, as the current style suggests a POV of deliberate conflict in what is still nothing more than a military cock-up. Take, for example, other friendly fire articles such as 2001 Sayyd Alma Kalay airstrike, and note that "sides" are not presented. Granted, in that example, the US bombed itself, and Afghan allies, but we don't have an info box presenting the accident as a civil war between US forces. Until it is shown that the US deliberately marched into Pakistan with the intent of killing Pakistani government forces, then we are creating a bogus article by representing this as a "conflict". That said, Pakistan's officials are going out of their way to make this a war that will end their country's existence, but until such a war starts, I think the current representation only serves as one more irresponsible ember on a very stupid fire. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed twice above with a given example. And your last part about the existence is a contentious original research and forum talk which might get you sanctions yourself. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gotta say I don't like the infobox, either. There are plenty of reports that indicate it might have been a friendly-fire incident caused by insurgents. However, the situation is still unclear. Because the infobox only implies, I don't think it's necessary to remove it until there are more details about what happened; if it was a case of mistaken identity then the infobox is not needed. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We need more data for that still. It has been discussed above, and nothing has changed yet to change consensus on that. We still have the same claims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and United States. If we get clear accepted evidence, we can discuss on basis of that. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Too much Pakistani nationalism to have a reasonable article at this time. Best to let the dust settle and come back in a few months when the facts, once again, exonerate the US side of the story. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Every single claim, detail and fact in this article is cited and sourced to neutral WP:Reliable sources, to ensure an article whose content is verifiable and in line with reality. Can you please clarify where you specifically see nationalism being promoted? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, the dust already seems to be settling rather quickly. This Telegraph report spoke to the wounded soldiers who said they "had not opened fire across the Afghan border and were the victims of an unprovoked attack by American aircraft" and that they were woken up by the attack while sleeping. This is an important eyewitness account and should be added in the Pakistani claims section, as well as the lead IMO, to reinstate Pakistan's stance. Mar4d (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with the eyewitness account in that there is the claim that "we thought that the attackers were Taliban..." Now how is that possible if the the attacks were from the air? Since when do the Taliban have helicopters? There weren't any Taliban in the area to start something anyway, according to other Pakistani sources. The eyewitness also claims that there were 4 helicopters involved. If this report is to be accepted at face value then the rest of the article should be changed to reflect the claim that there was 4 helicopters. If this change is not made it must be admitted that the eyewitness story is in conflict with other sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That claim was made by Afghan & US authorities that they thought the attackers were Taliban so called in the airstrike. Do not confuse. About the no of helicopters involved, 2 is the minimum accepted number. Pakistan army officials have later clarified there were two or three. Eyewitness can confuse because the same two helicopters returned later. Even so, we have put 2 and 2-3 in the text, you can add that to the 'incident' part with it's source right after the no given by other sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian, if you read the source again, it says that the soldiers initially thought that they were being attacked by the Taliban until they realised that they were helicopters. The eyewitnesses also said that the attack woke up some soldiers who were sleeping. Both these accounts don't contradict anything mentioned in the Pakistani claims, so there are not any inconsistencies as far as this is concerned. The number of helicopters may conflict, but then again, that's hardly a reason to not use the source in this article. The numbers cited by the soldiers can be different due to a number of reasons. Simultaneously, the number of jets and aircraft involved also varies in official estimates, which can again be due to a number of reasons. What we should do is take facts objectively and report them as they are; in this case, giving the number cited by eyewitnesses can be mentioned alongside the official count. Mar4d (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

After so much balancing of the content the only reason behind your arguement could be WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:TRUTH that is not WP:V 'yet' as per your WP:OR. It was a conflict, the two sides engaged each other and the article is heavily cited. I don't know how that constitutes nationalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Helicopters returned second time to fire

This statement is sourced. Please check the citation.

NATO communicated at roughly 1:15am to the Pakistanis that NATO commanders realized they were attacking a Pakistani base, and had been ordered to stop, the official said. Yet the aerial bombardment continued, with a fresh salvo aimed at a Pakistani rescue force that rushed to the aid of the two posts.

--lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, these are the exact words I read on the source. Some clarification is required from the user who's saying it's not cited. Mar4d (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll grant that I made a mistake on the particulars here. The chronology given in the AP story does not generally match what it's given here because what's given here is quite selective (I note that when I selected something else from this source it was deleted), which is what prompted me to conclude that "Pakistani rescue force" was a dubious editorialization of "the second Pakistani base opened fire on the aircraft to try to protect the first". The selectivity here prevents readers from drawing a fully informed conclusions. For example, in 2007 ""as the American and Afghan officials were climbing into vehicles...[following a US-Afghan-Pak meeting] a Pakistani soldier opened fire with an automatic rifle, pumping multiple rounds from just 5 or 10 yards away into an American officer, Maj. Larry J. Bauguess Jr..." But does this undisputedly deliberate killing of a US officer (and wounding of 3 others) get any mention in Pakistan–United States skirmishes? No, it doesn't. Yet Wikipedia offers of reams of material about this incident, uncritically reeling off the version of events offered by a single anonymous Pakistani official at the same time that Pakistan hasn't indicated a willingness to support some sort of joint international inquiry to determine the actual facts.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The information here is supported by official Pakistani claims. The example you gave doesn't compare it to this in anyway. A fire by a single soldier is not a skirmish. Also refer to WP:NEWSORG for a better understanding of news sources. They make mistakes and chronology is one of them, but that doesn't mean we can not quote facts from them. And actually your edit summary said that this was not at all in the source, that is why you got reverted. If you have disagreement with specific text, you can point it out. Otherwise alot of effort has been put into this article to make it neutral, non dubious and non editorial. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a single consistent Pakistani version of events? The article would be stronger if at least two different Pakistani spokespersons could be cited for whatever is being claimed. For what it's worth, that 2007 incident did not involve firing by a single Pakistani soldier. One Afghan Army commander says "We were not fired on [by the Pakistanis] from one side, but from two, probably three sides." Another Afghan officer said he saw another two Pakistanis firing from windows, another running for a machine gun, and a fourth firing from the back seat of a car. If it wasn't a coordinated ambush why did the Pakistani colonel refuse to cooperate with the Americans when they tried to escape? Readers should be alert to the fact that whenever Pakistani soldiers kill US or Afghan troops, the US tries to cover up the incident so that Pakistan is not embarrassed, whereas whenever Pakistani soldiers are killed, Pakistan does the exact opposite, maximizing its claims of damage. Some skepticism is accordingly in order.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that event is related to this one in any case. See WP:SYNTH. You can not make implications on your own unless specified by a source. All the content here is cited. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bdell555, while I can see what you're trying to say, most of your points (and this extends to some other users on this talk page too) come under WP:NOT#FORUM. If you have a specific example of where you think something is inconsistent in this article (I have yet to hear any genuine and relevant concern), please list it here. Mar4d (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

An example of a specific problem is putting Pakistan counter-claims under the heading "US-Afghan claims." If this is going to be done, then neutrality suggests that there should also be point-by-point objections to the Pakistan version of events under "Pakistani claims." The inconsistency of Pakistani claims could be noted, for example. The article currently says that Pakistan "categorically denies" being informed by NATO. But other sources say that Pakistan's position is not that they were not informed, but that they were given the wrong information (specifically, wrong coordinates).--Brian Dell (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the sentence "This claim was categorically denied by Pakistani military saying that the helicopters had already engaged by the time we got informed" when you talk about Pakistani counter-claims. This was added because several sources have reported that Pakistan denied that it was informed at all and that the raid took place without clearance from the Pakistani side. See [http://tribune.com.pk/story/301551/pakistan-gave-go-ahead-for-nato-airstrike-report/ this article for example, where it says:
"Wrong information about the area of operation was provided to Pakistani officials a few minutes before the strike."

But, then he goes on to say:

"Without getting clearance from the Pakistan side, the post had already been engaged by US helicopters and fighter jets. Pakistan did not have any prior information about any operation in the area."

You said in your argument above that "Pakistan's position is not that they were not informed", but I've given you a source which clearly mentions a Pakistani official saying that along with wrong information being provided, the attack took place without clearance and that Pakistan did not have any "prior information about any operation in the area". How is this an inconsistency, as you claim? Mar4d (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian is pointing out that the timeline of events is unclear. There are sources stating that Pakistan was not informed, while others state Pakistan was informed late, or informed incorrectly. Since none of these are official statements from an investigation, keeping this information in the article is only serving to create further confusion. Both "claims" sections should be removed from the article as they are only turning into a game of stacking up favorable comments as "facts". We actually have very few facts. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing that will have some issues:

Will need major restructuring.
Conflicting claims will be difficult to neutrally balanced as one side may become undue while they are titled as claims currently.

if you think there are some contradicting reports you can place them here and we can sort out which section they belong to and how to phrase them quoting them all with attribution in a neutral way. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting all claims should be removed from the article all together, not that the sections should be removed with the content remaining. This makes for a far shorter article, but including such extensive language on claims just allows this article to be used as a battleground itself. Claims, from all sides, are speculation. This is not IDONTLIKEIT. I'm pointing out that we are currently writing something akin to a gossip page. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Pakistani claims are mostly from the government, and high ranking army officials. That hardly constitutes gossip. Mar4d (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct as regards the nature of Pakistani sources, but when the comments are not part of an investigation, then they are essentially gossip. I do think it is worth noting in the article that Pakistan has taken a "court of public opinion" approach to the event, in contrast to the relative lack of comment from the US and NATO side. This means that there is substantially more material to draw on from the Pakistani side, but that doesn't mean it all belongs here in the form of unsubstantiated claims. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, 'the court of public opinion' type content might be present in the public reaction part but not in the official claims. These are official refutations or comments by the state. They do come into play when such topics are to be discussed. The article itself might be controversial but that doesn't mean that we exclude data so as to prevent trolling. A better solution is to put them in a neutral way which is what we are trying to do. In anycase, by no way does an official claim constitute speculation. In case you want to merge both the sections of claims, that would make it even more of a battle ground balancing the claims. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that officials from both sides are talking without authentic information from the chain of command or the insight about the incident. If an investigation does take place and the results published, we can create a section dedicated to that. So far there's no such information. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Forum, "claims", and sticking to facts

Folks, A clarification on what constitutes forum talk is in order. If an editor is simply using this, or any other combination of articles to make unsubstantiated points that are patently false or misleading, then said editor is using Wikipedia as a forum. If, on the hand, editors are pointing out that an article is selectively representing facts, and pushing opinions as fact because the opinions are in a news article, then this is not forum talk. Nor is it even close to crossing the line of forum talk. Citing Wikpedia policy as a thinly veiled threat for taking action against editors who's discussion you disagree with is inappropriate as it has been used on this page so far. A quick review of the article history shows a clear pattern of edit warring between users representing the Pakistani AND the US sides of this story. All the classic methods of nationalist editing are in play on this article (i.e. multiple editors engaging in reverts, subtle edits over a long period to skew the meaning, wikilawyering, citing one part of a sourced news article as fact while disregarding the rest, ignoring context and related incidents, jumping to conclusion based on uninvolved sources in news articles, etc).

Stick to facts. As it stands, this article is far too long based on the available facts from either side. The length reveals that this is a passionate subject in Pakistan, but no evidence has been presented to support either side of the story. The whole incident is on film, so the effort being expended on presenting claims is really little more than a PR exercise. There is no harm in having a three paragraph article until official investigations release hard facts (literally, the video footage, radio calls, maps used, chain of command, communication breakdowns). Hiberniantears (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to clarify the definition of forum talk here, when you talk about the topic on the article's talk page, that's forum talk. No body is using the article as a forum. Just because you don't like the article's content doesn't mean it's biased or not based on facts. You have to do better than that and object to the content that you say is not correct instead of chit chatting on the outcomes of a war between Pakistan and United States. The remark you passed was a contentious one itself to be passed on a talk page and was not at all relevant to the article's improvement. I don't know what you call edit warring. A no of users are maintaining this article and I've seen/helped this article build up from start and haven't seen a proper edit war other than corrections being made to each other's edits every now and then. The content added here is based on sources and your presumed, never to be released videos and RT callings which will forever remain classified can not be awaited for when we have other reliable material. I would advise you to stick to the discussion about content improvement. Even this comment of yours is an arbitrary objection to the content in general simply based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny that you should respond when Mar4d's comments are what prompted me to add this section. In any event, thank you for illustrating what I was talking about by serving up some citation of Wikipolicy. Be that as it may, I am an Aministrator here, so I do apologize for being off topic in some earlier posts. If examples are required, you and Brian have been edit warring with each other in the last 24 hours. Back and forth reverting is the definition of an edit war. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You never addressed your comment to Mar4d which is why I took it as a response to my reply to your comment earlier in which I was involved. Being an administrator you should be even more experienced in talk page discussions and would only be expected to bear responsibility while discussing. Since you acknowledged that, no harm done. To clear your misunderstanding about edit war, see the section above where Brain admitted his mistake of wrongly reviewing the citation after I quoted it on talk. I was merely reverting removal of content which I had thoroughly reviewed (that too actually had two reverts followed by a talk discussion and the matter cleared). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK... Look, you were blocked this week for edit warring. It was the second time you have been blocked for edit warring. You then showed a lack of understanding why you were blocked in a lengthy appeal, and your activity here today only demonstrates that you did not grow as an editor from the experience. You have a lot of potential, and have been here a long time with only a couple of relatively minor blocks. I strongly encourage you to focus less on telling others what they are doing wrong, and focus your efforts squarely on bringing yourself back into good standing via content debates restricted to article Talk pages. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I would have given you the benefit of doubt for a second revert. The content removal could have actually come under vandalism since it was sourced as it proved out to be but I assumed good faith and cleared it to the editor. So I don't think I was editwarring here unless you prejudice from the appeal I made? If you pass a contentious remark you do get scrutiny for it. Objecting to something does not equal telling other people what to do. I've replied to almost all sections here for debating on the content, when you went off topic I pointed out. Now do you want to continue discussing me or the content? --lTopGunl (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead longer than "Incident"

Most of the content there belongs to the Incident section. Let's decide here what we need to leave in the lead and keep it that way giving a complete rewrite to the lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There are far too many disputed and not attributed claims in the lead. I have yet to see a NATO source that says their aircraft entered Pakistan any distance, the lead gives two different sourced locations of the Pakistan bases - but the lead conflates that to NATO aircraft flying that distrance into Pakistan. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems some work has been done on the lead now. As far has the entrance of the aircraft is concerned, that is what the whole incident is about. The claim is unrefuted by NATO/US and infact is acknowledged by them as they sent condolences. Almost all the citations on the article mention the aircraft entering Pakistani airspace and attacking the posts. almost all of which mention helicopters. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This information was removed from the US-Afghan claims probably shifted there from the lead. Now needs a place without duplication:

The incident caused outrage and controversy in Pakistan, which termed the attack an "unprovoked and indiscriminate firing,"<ref>{{cite web|title=Pakistan blasts "unprovoked" NATO attacks|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57331477-503543/pakistan-blasts-unprovoked-nato-attacks/|publisher=[[CBS News]]}}</ref> an "irresponsible act," and a "stark violation" of its sovereignty.<ref name="kyodo"/> Pakistan's military also rejected claims of any firing having emanated from its side as a prelude to the encounter, saying that the soldiers who were manning the post were asleep and resting when NATO launched the assault at night<ref name="BBCNews-01"/><ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15915247 Pakistan denies firing provoked Nato border attack], BBC</ref> and claimed that the attack continued for two hours, even after Pakistani officials alerted coalition forces to stop.<ref name="arabnews"/><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afghans-say-unit-was-attacked-before-airstrike/2011/11/28/gIQAX6ZY5N_story.html?hpid=z1 Afghans say unit was attacked before airstrike], Washington Post. "''.....That account of the mission is disputed by Pakistani authorities, who say the U.S. launched an unprovoked attack on two of their border posts, a prolonged assault that continued for nearly two hours including after Pakistani officials alerted the coalition forces to stop''".</ref>

--lTopGunl (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this to Pakistani claims. It's only three lines long, so no biggie. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the repercussions part needs a line or two in the lead too. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: Results

That info was fact based. How does that create imbalance? Those were the results of this incident. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This may sound dumb, but they really only might be the results of the incident. All we actually know is that the result of the incident was the deaths of the soldiers in the bases. However, until we actually know what happened, the politics that have followed may be a result of the incident OR of a cover-up. It's a minor point though, so no objections if you put it back in. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it goes just this far. There probably won't be any more 'results' that could be put into infobox. Alright, I'm putting the results back in, If any developments are clear later, it can always be edited. And then we can later create an 'aftermath' section if any long term results are seen from historical perspective. But closing of supply, vacating the base and the tensions can be safely taken as facts as per WP:NEWSORG. If you object on any other basis that can be further discussed. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)