Talk:2011 NATO attack in Pakistan/Archives/2016/February

Pakistani claims

1. Pakistani claims belong to the "Pakistani claims" section not to the "US-Afghan claims" section.
2. The "Pakistani claims" section is heavily redundant. It i. e. mentions three times that the soldiers were supposedly asleep although one Pakistani defense official admitted that they fired shots.

JCAla (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I readded the red link per WP:REDLINK (it means an article can be possibly created on the person). For your objections listed here:

• See this discussion in archive: "Helicopters returned second time to fire", where it has been discussed. This is not a list of claims, it is a single relevant piece of information that was placed appropriately.
• I took a look, first mention about "sleeping" is the rejection of NATO claims, the second is attributed to a report from the army. I've removed the third one as that was redundant. Is there any other redundancy?

--lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the archive for "Helicopters returned second time to fire" and there is no consensus to have the Pakistani claims in the "US-Afghan" claims section. Instead editors even suggested to remove them completely. JCAla (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You might have read the opposing comments too, there was no consensus to move them out either (obviously that is why they were still here). This is specific to the view presented in the end, hence added inline for relevance. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your reasoning. But the article is structured as such that there are two sections. One for each pov. So, it is undue to have one pov presented as a counterclaim in the section of the other pov while not having the same vice versa. If you'd want to structure the article that way, you'd need to have one section addressing each point directly contrasting both povs with each other. Do you understand what I mean? JCAla (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I got your point when you made that edit, that is why I stated it's not like there's a list of claims added there. This was per WP:DUE as it was categorically denied with a denial specially meant for this. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Pakistan's claims in general are a denial of US-Afghan claims and vice versa, so there is no point in having the specific denial in this case. To have two equal sections as such addresses WP:DUE. JCAla (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I've moved it to Pakistani claims (while keeping the context - which was its purpose in the above section), other than above arguments, it also seemed to be half redundant currently since half of the sentence was mentioned below where I merged it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)