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

Report/Investigations

A new report here accuses an Afghan army official of being responsible for calling up the attack, as well as India's Research and Analysis Wing. Just wondering if this would be appropriate somewhere in the article body. Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for a latest US investigation. [1], [2], [3] + [4], [5], [6], Salala tragedy: Army rejects US probe on NATO air raid, Pakistan rejects US CENTCOM report on Nato attack. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This was added by an IP, added this here to be combined with the content in discussion in a new investigation section:

CENTCOM ordered an investigation headed by Brig General Stephen A Clark <ref>{{cite web|title=BG Clark explains findings of Centcom Investigation into Incident That Killed Two Dozen PAK troops|url=http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/comments/bg-clark-explains-findings-of-centcom-investigation-into-incident-that-kill}} Interview of General Clark</ref> in the incident. The report submitted on Dec 22, 2011 laid the blame on both sides, saying that mistakes had taken place<ref>{{cite news|title=U.S. Report Faults Two Sides in Deadly Pakistan Strike|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/world/asia/pakistan-and-us-share-blame-in-strike-on-border-posts.html}} New York Times, Decmeber 22, 2011</ref>

--lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the links I gave above actually talks about the ISPR rejecting this report, so both viewpoints need to be added. Mar4d (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A close-up view of Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan, known as the Durand Line.

Yes, I had that in mind - but adding and balancing seemed more constructive than simply removing. The heading should also be a level 2 heading. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, the CIA has halted drone attacks [7]. That should go in the repercussions, which I'll do soon. Mar4d (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer already added that. See the last line [8]. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Read the links you gave. This is has to be blended in... like we did with the rest of the article in the start giving attributions. I've removed the IP's addition for now (marking it as temporary removal). I think it should be processed here and added back with all the above sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The image can be added in this section may be? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a new update guys [9]. --182.177.98.108 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Good find, maybe this one too [10]. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Moved revert to talk page:

After further investigation, US military authorities decided in March 2012 that no US military personnel would be charged or disciplined over the incident. The investigation concluded that all involved US military personnel had fired in self-defense and that other mistakes were a result of battlefield confusion and communications issues. "We found nothing criminally negligent on the part of any individual in our investigations of the incident," said an unnamed US official involved in the investigation.

I've reverted the above content from the article as it was affecting the article's neutrality being only one side's view. Feel free to put it back in along with all views with suggested references above. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit self-contradictory considering that there are reports that the US may actually apologize to Pakistan for the incident :) But whatever, I think that statement should still be kept in the article as it is the US point of view. Some weasel words (eg. "the investigation concluded") can be changed to something like "the investigation claimed" so as to not imply the views of the US side as fact. Mar4d (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the issue.. looked a bit one sided view. No objections if moved back as a view of USA. But then again, better to weight as these decisions are still lingering and we don't want recentism. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• This report should go with the section title of "NATO investigation". --lTopGunl (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)