Talk:Taliban in Pakistan captures convoy bound for NATO troops

Update

The CSM links to a Dawn article that says that Pakistan recovered some of the trucks that were abandoned in a later operation.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1112/p99s01-duts.html

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=18295

Hope that helps.

I posted a dispute on the image: it may not be free to use :(

--InfantGorilla (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find, cleared up the image sourcing problem, AFP and the DoD (Voice of America) also distribute the same photoset either with their own watermarks, or without any attribution whatsoever, confirming that yes, as stated, it is images distributed by the militants. Sherurcij 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: images: I am not sure. I will tag the image page and continue discussion there. If the DoD doesn't attribute its photo, then could we use that one instead? --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, it seems logical - but thinking about it, unless you're suggesting that American soldiers took the photographs themselves, then either the DoD is committing gross negligence and intellectual property theft (not really realistic) or that the images are indeed "considered public domain" since they were taken by the Taliban forces, in which case this perfectly fits the "Publicity photo" criteria of FU. Sherurcij 16:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 725439 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: par-a-graphs --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 725439 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: par-a-graphs --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Misleading

This article is grossly misleading. It is false to call this a NATO convoy. Also, what is the source for "millions of dollars worth of sophisticated military equipment". I looked at all the listed sources and didn't see mention of it. --SVTCobra 06:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say gross, but it does seem to me that you have highlighted accuracy problems that reflect some disagreement among the sources. Can I propose a move to:

Pakistani Taliban steals US military vehicles at gunpoint ?

Also some prose along the lines of:

On Monday, militants hijacked a series of escorted shipments bound for US and other foreign forces in Afghanistan

Finally, "millions of dollars worth of sophisticated military equipment" may be legitimate writer's license, though I would not object if you rewrote it.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Making the leap from "escorted shipments" to "millions of dollars worth of sophisticated military equipment" is well beyond any journalistic license. I will change it, as well as make a better description of what the convoy was. --SVTCobra 14:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice improvement. I think the leap was from 'two Humvees and several trucks' but I appreciate your caution. I think it might be better to say 'bound for foreign troops' as there are 2 or 3 separate foreign commands in Afghanistan, including the US and International Security Assistance Force, which includes NATO and non-NATO members. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right that it was bound for ISAF, which is led by NATO. I will mention that in the text, in the title I think it might be ok to leave it as NATO. On the other issue, I think you will agree that Humvees and trucks do not represent "sophisticated military equipment". Oh, and is it just me, or is the Washington post story really unrelated to this story (in which case we should remove it)? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Taliban fighters opened the containers in plain view of Pakistani security forces and made off with millions of dollars in sophisticated military equipment, including armored Humvee vehicles.", please read the sources before announcing something isn't in the sources. Speaking of which, your own theories about ISAF are unfounded, all sources indicate they were bound for an American military base, not an ISAF base. Also, groups at war with each other do not "steal at gunpoint", they "capture". Let's use common sense and a healthy dose of neutrality in reporting. Sherurcij 16:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are the one that called it a NATO convoy, nowhere did I write a NATO base. I merely clarified that ISAF is the force led by NATO. It is not unfounded. And frankly, I'd like to know what led Candace Rondeaux and Haq Nawaz Khan to write "millions of dollars in sophisticated military equipment". It is like an addendum to their article. They are both based in Islamabad and don't say according to whom. It is not verified by any of the other sources. I guess I missed the Concord source (and why didn't you cite the original Washington Post article instead of a local New Hampshire paper), but still ...--SVTCobra 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

SVTCobra rightly changed my use of 'steal' to 'capture'. Although on the Pakistan side of the border, these fighters are clearly not ordinary bandits. --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Category:North-West Frontier Province. Ali Rana (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)