Talk:Night raid on Narang

Untitled

I offered this up for deletion as the article has definite NPOV issues. Particularly as to who was pulling triggers. The wrriter says americans,but the official Afghan enquiry just says International forces. Anyway there is a lot of work to be done to avoid deletion. Apart from anything else it is a known fact that the Taleban and Al-Quaeda will subvert anyone of ANY AGE to carry out their terrorist activities!!!Petebutt (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a new but well sourced article and i agree that there are still a lot of things to do but deletion is not the right way to go. IQinn (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I disagree with the sources angle, newspapers are not credible enough to support an article on their own!!!. But if nothing gets done I still think it should be deleted.Petebutt (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know the actual ages of the deceased? Judging from the pictures of the victims, I have a very hard time believing that 12-18 was the actual ages of more than perhaps one or two of the victims. More over, the article sounds more like propaganda then a Wikipedia article. 82.182.76.119 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the age of the "victims" is just one issue, the article has lots of lapses between what is in the sources and what has been presented in the encyclopedia. It presents these events as facts rather then allegations and yes, it reads like propaganda. V7-sport (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article presents the facts according to the sources in a NPOV. IQinn (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it reads like propaganda.V7-sport (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That is nonsense and comes from an editor whose editing history here on wikipedia shows the strongest US right-wing patriotism we have ever seen here. IQinn (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, infinity. It comes from at least 3 editors who have taken the time to post on this talk page. V7-sport (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That there are a lot of Americans that can not face the truth - that scores of school children got executed - does not come to a surprise to me. But there are enough reliable sources that verify this. IQinn (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, you don't sound very neutral. You do realize you aren't supposed to take sides here. By the way, RE. the sources you just used, the aljazeera article says "alleged killing" and the Times article states "Nato officers have hinted that they were Afghan." Stop misrepresenting what your sources say. V7-sport (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely NPOV that is simply ridiculous and comes from someone who has shown the strongest US right-wing patriotism ever. Stop misrepresenting with out of context quotes. Anyway lets do it step by step. 1) Do you agree or disagree that these 10 people have been killed? IQinn (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"US right-wing patriotism" I object to that. I have edited without bias. Had I called you an islamist terrorist apologist you would have run to to the ANI. Provide a reliable source that does not go back to the words of Karzais cronies or relatives of the alleged victims for "10 killed" please, as well as the rest of the article. V7-sport (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That clearly shows that you either did not read the sources or you own POV makes you blind this is a verified fact. It is verified in almost all of the references just to copy and paste a few of them over here [1],[2] as i know you otherwise you will keep doubting the obvious. Are these two enough or shall i copy and paste more for you. Do we have now consensus that 10 people have been killed? IQinn (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Overkill on CN tags in the lede

V7 this is total overkill and it is disrupting. Get familiar with the sources first this is almost all referenced in the article. You as well just broke WP:BRD as you reverted me instead of bringing up the issue on the talk page. That is bad considering your edit warring history. IQinn (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) This comes with tons of other not helpful tags as doubting that The Times would be an unreliable source. Combined with the other over taging that is "Drive-by" tagging and that is prohibited and disruptive.IQinn (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue was brought up right above where you are writing. This article is poorly sourced and relates the words of "Mohammed Taleb Abdul Ajan", Jan Mohammed and Assadullah Wafa as if they were unimpeachable fact. This isn't "drive-by tagging", I am explaining the reasoning behind them here. At least 1 other editor agrees. V7-sport (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is well sourced and you better read them before clutter the article with tags about information that is already in the sources in the article. The Time is a reliable source that this part is not presented as fact. That seems to be clearly drive-by tagging and most of them are in fact not explained on the talk page. IQinn (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well no, it relies on the testimonials of highly involved partcipants and reports it as fact. Further, it pins the blame on US forces when the references make it clear that this was an Afghan/NATO operation. V7-sport (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up a lot of different issues so let's do it one by one. IQinn (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted the tags without providing proper citation, the same as edit warring. V7-sport (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)