Talk:Dande Darpakhel airstrike

Military history: Aviation / Asian / North America / South Asia / United States Start‑class

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force

Step up in attacks since the end of August

This article is about the attack at Daande Darpkhel. This section, 'Step up in attacks since the end of August', is related to this event, but does not belong on this page. Can it be removed? Perhaps replaced with a link for those who wish to read about the political/military context of Daande Darpkhel? - Damian Doyle (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Damien. I hope you like the things I added. That there is a pattern in the attacks first dawned on me yeaterday. And now when it is in an infobox, it becomes very apparent. I got the idea from the newspaper, 'Politiken', a major daily in Denmark, which have used AFP, BBC and Washington Post as their sources. So there is no reason to doubt the information, if anything their could have been more attacks, that is not included, for eksample by googling 'Miranshah', I came to a pakistani newspaer, saying that there was a missile attack there on 1 September.

So off cause info, and infoboxes like this one, that in a flash show to people the pattern of the attacks, should feature prominently on any page dealing with an individual attack.

But it is again a matter of approach. I think you want to produce high class, impeccable articles, that are refined and could get approval in higher places, whereas my aim is documentation, with a lean to slight popularisation, but still with high-calss, sources information (on that there can od cause be no compromise.

But if you think the box is too big - and it is in some pages, where I have added it, difficult to fit in - perhaps you could belp by adding code that reduices its size? I would also like a small blue band at the bottom, where I can add : Souce AFP, BBC, Washington Post, Politiken

PS: One of the great advantages with such an overview of the US attacks that have taken place in 2008, is that it becomes possible to tie events together, and proide links to some of the mentioned airstikes. For eksampel yeaterday evening I suddenly discovered the link to the target of the airstrike on 29. January (see box) Yours sincerely Nick Finnsbury (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I don't have a problem with the infobox. It provides context and links to other related article. I object to the section called 'Step up in attacks since the end of August' as it does not relate to this article directly. The information you have included here would belong elsewhere, such as in the main articles about the war in Pakistan. I hope this is clear. I do not wish to produce "high class, impeccable articles, that are refined and could get approval in higher places", I simply wish to ensure that the articles that I do contribute to are NPOV and on-topic; that is, proper Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a soap box, it's an encyclopedia, a reference tool. - Damian Doyle (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien, hopefully you have by now seen my new Template. So you see, getting some response is good for the creative process, because a Template is much better, and can easily be updated, and the updates will take effect on all the pages where the Template is. I also corrected some errors, I had made in the earlier template, and got it right this time, that the Chenagai airstrike and Damadola airstrike took place in 2006. Yes it is difficult to keep track of! Hopefulle this Template will help people keep track.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the target as a "school" seems rather non-NPOV.

The one source in this article does not really say that the target was a school. Here are the relevant quotes from it:

"The compound belonging to Sirajuddin Haqqani was used chiefly as a guest house for militants arriving in North Waziristan who wanted to join the jihad forces of the Haqqani family, said residents of Miran Shah, North Waziristan's capital."

and

"The Haqqani compound in Daande Darpkhel, a few miles from Miran Shah, had been used as a madrasa for up to 1,000 students but was closed as a school several years ago under pressure from Pakistani authorities, officials familiar with the Haqqani operations said."

The way it's worded now makes it sound like a school currently in use was hit, not that a building that was once a school several years ago was hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.214.17.20 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]