Talk:PNS Mehran attack
|A news item involving PNS Mehran attack was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 23 May 2011.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
massive and major
- Also that sounds redundant. What's the difference between a massive attack, a major attack, and a massive major attack, exactly? Stuthulhu (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Rampant Incongruences, Misleading, Inaccurate, and Essentially sourceless, This should be erased
The Article claims: "[A] 15-men TTP force" attacked the base, but the number of units involved noted in the infobox is N/A.
That "They used rocket-propelled grenades to damage and destroy several warplanes", but the infobox notes only 2 aircraft destroyed, P-3 Orions, which by no means are "premier aircraft" as noted in the article. This also notes a lack of reliable sources.
That "10 military personnel" were killed, but the infobox notes 10 naval officers, plus 1 fireman, plus 3 SSG(N) officers, 1 sailor, plus 2 Army Rangers (including the commander of the counter-attack). That adds up for at least 15 military personnel, and 17 killed overall.
That "According to the United States, the attack was far more dangerous than the 2009 Pakistan Army General Headquarters attack", How the heck they got to measure the 'danger' of the attack, they meant it was more deadly perhaps? (which is stupidily obvious). This one does not even mention any references.
Furthermore, the sources vary wildly about their numbers, and this is not even noted in the article. For instance, the first one, from GEO Tv, claims there were 12 military personnel casualties.
I understand information can be very confusing in the first momments after any event, but this started on May 22nd and ended on the 23rd, but either way, the article does not feature a notice stating this is an ongoing event and information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and that's simply because this is not an ongoing event, it already happened, and there are no good, reliable sources. So instead of making a extremely low-quality, misleading and contradicting article this article should be simplified as much as possible by citing only one or just a couple of sources until solid information can be verified independently by at least 3 other sources, or by the Pakistani government, and the article must open with a notice stating information is still unclear and the circunstances are still obscure, because of the way all the available sources differ from one another (which I am doing now).
Failing to do that this article should be removed altogheter.
Anyway, this is a major fault and embarrasment as it is featured in Wikipedia's Main Page.
But I am personally hoping for this article to be corrected with the solid sources if possible, and as soon as possible.
Thanks to MKFI for changing my Notice with an Standard Template. See the above Section [Rampant Incongruences, Misleading, Inaccurate, and Essentially sourceless, This should be erased] and the Article's History for all the details and changes. I hope more information will become available soon and the article will be corrected accordingly. Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The "premier"-ness of the P-3 would depend on the exact electronics package installed. The airframe design is fairly old, but the nature of the work (tracking subs) just requires payload and range, really. The US is considering retiring the platform in favor of a newer airframe, but I expect a lot of the internals would be ported over in that case. Economy being what it is, the US is likely to delay replacement. It is a strange target for insurgents to pick, as the P-3 contributes nothing to anti-insurgent activities. KBrown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC).
"Ironically, the Pakistan Navy is being criticized for the security lapse, very few are acknowledging the brave effort of the Pakistan Navy SSG and other personnel, who have sacrificed their lives for the motherland.. In these troubled times, when the terrorism menace and external sabotage activities are getting out of control, the loss of precious lives amongst the armed forces deserves more respect.." - How is this encyclopedic? This is basically an opinion and it's not being expressed as if anyone is being quoted. I believe that, should this phrase be kept within the article, it should be put as a quote from its source. The way it is now is completely inapropiate. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)ZK