Talk:2011 NATO attack in Pakistan/Archives/2012/January

Review
The article is pretty good on WP:MOS. How about getting it reviewed for any non obvious POV or other details to nominate it as a good article? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The event in question happened two weeks ago. Unless it takes, say, 3 months to make it through the queue, this is almost certain to quick-fail on stability. --erachima talk 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the event is recent but the editing here has narrowed down to non conflicting content now (obvious vandalism excluded). By the time it gets its turn, it will only be more stable I guess. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we please not refer to Imran Khan as "...and former cricketer" in the quote box on the side? It's just trivializing, particularly when taken out of context like that. This is also why United States Environmental Protection Agency does not contain the sentence "Kindergarten Cop star Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with governors from 13 other states, stated that the EPA's actions ignored federal law". --erachima talk 10:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * His cricket identity is actually more famous than his political one (which is limited to Pakistan and may be England) and many might recognize him by just that, that's why it is not a similar case to Arnold. But since here the context was political so I think we can do without that. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More comparable than you'd think; Arnold is much more prominent as an actor than a politician ("most internationally famous actor of the decade" vs. "a somewhat unusually elected ex-governor of a major state"), but my point was going specifically after the quotebox, where the full context can't be present and listing accomplishments other than the one that makes their opinion relevant here is basically a non-sequiter. --erachima talk 11:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence the acceptance. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Did any Pakistani military official ever claim that their troops fired first?
This Washington Post article claims, "Senior Pakistani military officials said shortly after the incident that their border forces had fired first on what they took to be insurgent infiltrators heading to Pakistan from the Afghan side of the border." I recall reading such reports shortly after the incident, but can't seem to find them now, and the Wikipedia article currently states that, "Both sides reported they were attacked first." -- 203.82.82.137 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you checked out the sources already cited on the article? They give proper details. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks TopGun. The article I was looking for was indeed one of the currently cited references, referred to as "ref name=washingtonpost1". (Strangely, the reference says "Published: November 29", but our citation give "accessdate=22-12-2011".  I do wonder if the Washington Post updates their online articles after first publishing them, and if their "Published" date is really a "Last Modified" date.) -- 203.82.91.131 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think you confused "Access date". That date is just when the source was check for availability on the internet. The (original) publishing date is the important thing only if you are not considering ease of access. They some times do update. But That happens in the first few days. There's no point doing much later. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Two relevant articles
This Washington Post article claims:
 * Senior Pakistani military officials said shortly after the incident that their border forces had fired first on what they took to be insurgent infiltrators heading to Pakistan from the Afghan side of the border.

This is contradicted by this NYT article, which also lays out the US view on the incident. AxelBoldt (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if they've re-edited their article after first posting it, but the Washington Post story now reads:
 * Pakistan has issued repeated public denials that its forces fired first at the Americans. But senior Pakistani defense officials acknowledged to The Washington Post after the incident that soldiers at the border post, located atop a ridgeline looking down at Afghanistan, initiated fire at what they thought were infiltrating militants. 
 * and links to their 29 November article which says pretty much the same thing:
 * Both sides said they believed they were attacking insurgents along the border Saturday when the strike was launched. A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that 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.
 * Have any other news outlets picked up on this? Has the Washington Post reported anything more about this source? (Note that the NY Times article doesn't explicitly contradict the Washington Post one. Both mention that the official Pakistani line is that their soldiers did not fire first.  The NYT article simple does not mention the Washington Post source.  At most this is contradiction by omission.) -- 203.82.91.131 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, this AP Article of 28 November (link to the Austin Statesman) says:
 * 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.
 * What are Wikipedia's guidelines governing the inclusion of statements from (presumably) anonymous sources speaking to reputable news outlets, especially when they contradict the official line? -- 203.82.91.131 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think they can be taken as fact but should be attributed to the newspaper. This article is contentious of nature, so everything has been carefully referenced as even the number of helicopters was once challenged and the type was challenged atleast 3 times. You might want to see this: WP:NEWSORG. As per the policy cited it's not a big deal, even reliable news sources make mistakes and we know they usually do. While most of them self correct by modifying later, we have to confirm such things from multiple sources (as they are available in such a recent case). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)