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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 NATO attack in Pakistan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 12:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, looking forward to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've reviewed the article and while it is on the whole very good, I've found a few issues, detailed in the comments below. I am placing the article on hold for seven days so you can resolve the issues. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• References: The lead may be over-referenced; unless something is seriously controversial, I would recommend not citing it in the lead, since it should be repeated in the article's body and can be referenced there. I see no reason for citing that a particular date was a Saturday or using three references for the number of helicopters involved. On the other hand, if those statements are likely to be challenged otherwise and there is editorial consensus for those references, that's fine too.

• Addressed: This content was previously challenged a number of times so we have inline citations there for that purpose. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lead: I'm not sure the lead adequately summarizes the article. Everything in the article should be summarized in the lead, but the sections "Repercussions of the incident" and "Reactions" do not seem to be echoed in the lead.

 Done Added a summary sentence. The rest is included. Any thing else needed? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• References: Please take a look at references #25, 26, 42, 62, 120, and possibly others I have missed. These have incomplete bibliographical data. Try to include things like accessdate, date, publisher, title, and author in your citation, if these are available.

 Done Added missing data where ever and whatever available. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• References: I guess it's not strictly necessary for GA status, but where possible try to use archived versions of webpages from the Internet Archive in order to avoid WP:Linkrot. In any case, the following references seem to be broken: #98, 104, 129, 57. You can see a full report by clicking "external links" in the toolbox on this review page.

I'll check out the references. Although reliable sources if present with full data won't need links since some might have been added from print sources (will check). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bonn Conference: Secretary Hillary Clinton contacted Pakistani Premier but her plea was rejected considering the grave consequences it would have over Pakistani Government amidst National outcry. This statement is both unreferenced and poorly written; can you please fix it?

 Done The source in the next sentence (which was moved down to a separate paragraph) covered this. I've joined them into a single paragraph to be covered under the sources provided. That was a one liner anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: The sentence Some Pakistani officials warned that the attack will have "huge implications" for the Afghan endgame. is very similar to the sentence Pakistani officials also warned that the attack will have “huge implications” for the Afghan endgame from this source. Can you please reword it?
• Prose: promptly summoned U.S. ambassador Cameron Munter in Islamabad following the attack. This is a little ambiguous - it could mean that the ambassador was already in Islamabad, but it kind of seems like you meant to say "to" instead of "in" and mistyped. Which is correct?

I think it gives a reference to the US ambassador to Pakistan (by saying, "U.S. ambassador Cameron Munter in Islamabad"). I'll reword it to a clearer phrase. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed now. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To be on the clearer side... I checked the source and it says "summon" ie. the ambassador was called in to protest. I think that is a normal thing to do. It is good now anyway (just saying that would that be a detail missing?) --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Broadness of coverage: I would like to see more info on how this is affecting the war in Afghanistan. For example, you say that the NATO supply line has been shut down. What does this mean? Are there other supply lines, or has all supply to NATO in Afghanistan been disrupted? What is NATO doing to resolve this? Are there shortages of supply as a result? Similarly, you say that the US has vacated Shamsi Airfield. Does this mean that drone strikes in Pakistan have been halted? Were there any other centers for coordinating drone strikes? In general, I would like to see the "Repercussions of the incident" section expanded, as this to me is the most significant part of the article. Readers probably don't care that much about the precise chronology of the incident, but everyone wants to know how this will affect the political situation in the middle east.

I think this has been mentioned later in sections where it says Pakistan Air Force are flying Combat Air Patrol to prevent further intrusions (which includes drone strikes). No information about other drone basis is availible. NATO has one other supply route, I'll see if it is appropriately mentioned. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've added the information about the supply lines. I think adding further details (which have already been mentioned in other places of the article) will push the article over the "to the point" criteria. Most information, as you said, has previously been distributed topic wise (and then chronologically within that). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Pakistan response: Pakistani Prime Minister announced that there would be no more business with US Could you elaborate on this a little? Does this mean literal business, i.e. commerce, or is it referring to military cooperation?

Referred to military cooperation - fixing. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• US Response: A few days later after the incident, President Barack Obama personally phoned President Asif Ali Zardari to condole the deaths of the soldiers and, according to a press release, "made it clear that this regrettable incident was not a deliberate attack on Pakistan and reiterated the United States’ strong commitment to a full investigation." on December 4 US President Barack Obama called Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to offer his "condolences," while stopping short of offering a formal apology. Are these two statements referring to the same phone call? If so, we should delete one of them to avoid repetition.

Dec 4 was quite late, I'll confirm if it is about the same call or two. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ok, you are right... this was the same call. I've merged the sentences. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Russia news: I've removed the sentence about World War III starting if the US attacks Pakistan; it seemed overly sensational.

• Question: Does it get to stay in "Further Reading"? Wikipedia:Video links would justify it. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: if the intention was to sledgehammer its army. Certainly a colorful statement, but in a neutral article I'm not sure we should talk about sledgehammering things. Could we use another word?

The word was taken from cited sources, I'll try to tone it down a bit. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Term replaced. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reliability: The fourth paragraph in the "Third parties" section, about NATO being in league with the TTP, seems a little-farfetched. Do we really need to include it?

• Addressed: This section are personal opinions of analysts and are attributed. I think it is notable enough to mention that (if it seems far fetched, due to the attribution, it will reflect on the person in question). This was a major event so outside view points need to be included as otherwise the article would seem to present only US and Pak views with most of them being classified. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've added comments in threaded form... feel free to move them out of your text if you want (since you didn't sign). I'll be checking out comments that I didn't address shortly as well. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like the threaded form - it's nice to see exactly what a comment refers to. Thank you for your prompt response and willingness to cooperate - I really admire the work you've done to polish and stabilize this no-doubt contentious article. As for my comments above about expanding coverage of the repercussions, I've found a couple of news articles that may be useful: [1], [2]. Hope that helps! --Cerebellum (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is covering all the major aspects including the sources you provided - infact I remember using them in the article, Pakobserver in specific has been fully used in "Third party" are maybe some other places (please point out if you think any of the main aspect is missing - I'll be glad to add it). Going into minor details might push the article over the "to the point" criteria as I mentioned above. More length can be added when/if this goes for a featured article review. As of now further major developments might yet occur much later over time or are classified. Thanks for addressing the issues and appreciating the effort. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, everything looks good now, and I agree that it's okay to include the Russian video if you would like to put it back in. I am promoting this article - again, good job! --Cerebellum (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. And you've been a helpful reviewer, making bold edits along with me instead of sitting back and adding comments. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:47, 23 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)