Jump to content

Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Easy response.
b1=n, missing a few citations
 
(546 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=start}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=B|Pakistani=yes|US=yes
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history
|class=B
|South-Asian=yes
|US=yes
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
|B-Class-1=n
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
|B-Class-2=yes
Line 9: Line 16:
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-5=no}}
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}
I '''oppose''' the merging of these two articles as "Drone_attacks_on_Pakistan_by_the_United_States_of_America" drone missile attacks are different from "List_of_American_missile_strikes_in_Pakistan" missile attacks as this Drone_attacks article bespeaks about the increased use of drones in warfare. Peace, [[User:Rkmlai|rkmlai]] ([[User talk:Rkmlai|talk]]) 18:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 3
this topic deserves more detailed coverage as a dedicated detailed article as it is one of the main current campaigns in the [[war on Terrorism]]. most of the info in the List has been incorporated in this article.--[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 16:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(90d)
Why is this article not editable ? I think 2009 death figures should be put in plain numbers instead of text, so it would be more clear that the numbers are increasing. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.196.190.38|69.196.190.38]] ([[User talk:69.196.190.38|talk]]) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|archive = Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan/Archive %(counter)d

== Name change ==

I'll leave this up for a week before I move it, but I think the title should just be "Drone attacks on Pakistan by the United States," as the actual article for the United States of America is just United States. Thoughts? [[User:AP1787|AP1787]] ([[User talk:AP1787|talk]]) 15:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

*I would change it to "Drone Attacks in Pakistan by the United States". "On" implies it is an attack on the country itself. These appear to be coordinated attacks on Taliban and AQ targets. Thoughts?--[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:: these attacks are ON the sovereign territory of Pakistan with most casualties being innocent Pakistani citizens. They are considered a violation of sovereignty by many people in Pakistan including the government. so IN I think is not accurate and could be construed as pushing US POV and sugarcoating the issue. it is very apparent that Pakistanis consider these attacks as an attack on their country and want these stopped asap.[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Ergo, IN Pakistan. They are not an attack on Pakistan's military, its infrastructure, or any other object that has a military application. And please save the lecture, I have about as much "pull" on dictating American foreign policy as you do. Thank you.[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 04:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Let me ask how important would it be for Pakistan to authorize these American incursions into Pakistan's airspace?

:::Prior to, and following, the invasion of Normandy American and British aircraft bombarded sites in occupied France. They did so with the approval of the Free French government in exile. So this was not an act of war -- even if the bombardment killed French civilians at the same time.

:::Some people suggest that the Pakistan's government's repeated protestations that the drone attacks are not authorized are insincere, and that they really want the USA to continue the strikes, and that the protestations are for domestic political consumption. If we have references to that effect, let's include them. Treating those protestations as if we '''knew''' they were insincere is, I suggest, a serious mistake. That is, I suggest, what the proposed rename would imply -- that the attacks on Pakistani territory had the approval of the Pakistani government. It is, I suggest, a serious lapse from [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NPOV]] to imply permission we can't document. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 06:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

::::You are actually asking me to presume they are not authorized, Geo Swan? That they are not launched from within Pakistan itself? Have you heard of Diane Feinstein?<ref>http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/senator-us-dron/</ref> This is too simple. Thanks for the attempted parallel with WWII. Apples and oranges. As stated, it should be "IN" Pakistan. Thank you.--[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: yes the drones are launched from Shamsi. but did Pakistan authorize the shooting?? They have repeatedly said that they do not want any drone attacks and have never said they would not allow the drone flights (presumably for intelligence gathering). you are just assuming that Pakistan has agreed to the drones attacking targets when all public statements emanating from Pak are to the contrary. yes attacks on Pakistani citizens are attacks ON pakistan even though the pakistani military and civil infrastructure is not targeted. what would you call if Chinese fired a missile on some dissidents who were given asylum in USA ( AKA terrorists) living in LA ?? and please do not assume that I have no control over US policy. you do not know what I do in real life do you ??? :-)[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Yachtsman1, would you please consider responding to what your correspondents actually wrote? You seem to have skipped over my final paragraph, in its entirety.
:::::{{quotation|''"Some ... suggest ... Pakistan's ... protestations ... are insincere ... '''If we have references to that effect, let's include them. Treating those protestations as if we KNEW they were insincere is, I suggest, a serious mistake.'''}}
:::::If you can supply references that claim Pakistan's protestations are insincere, please provide them now.

:::::Even if you were to find references that indicated that Pakistan's protestations were insincere, unless you were able to find a leaked copy of a secret treaty where Pakistan's government secretly agreed to the opposite of its publicly stated policy positions whatever references you found would be the commentators opinion, and would have to be stated as such, not represented as an unequivocal fact. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yachtsman1 included a link to the following article -- but he did so in an obfuscated manner. I will supply the link in a unobfuscated manner below, because it is a good reference. It could be used to state that authoritative commentators have challenged the sincerity of the Pakistani government's protestations that the drone attack are unauthorized. However, it does not unequivocally establish that the protestation are insincere. I believe both President Bush and President Obama have stated that they are prepared to use force, inside Pakistan, without regard to whether Pakistan has given its authorization. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::*{{cite news
| url=http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/senator-us-dron/
| title=Senator: U.S. Launches Drone War on Pakistan, From Pakistan
| date=2009-02-13
| author=Noah Shachtman
| publisher=[[Wired magazine]]
}}
}}
__TOC__


==Page Move==
::::::You miss the point yet again. The drone attacks originate IN Pakistan from US bases IN Pakistan. One has a rather difficult point trying to make an argument that this is a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and are attacks "on" Pakistan when the attacks come from withIN their own territory. Put plainly, I don't really need to show "insencerity" of protest when the drone attacks come from withIN Pakistan's own territory from bases whereIN Pakistan waived their own sovereignty to allow such bases to exist in the first place. Getting it now? The title of this article is misleading. Do you now understand the point? I certainly hope so. Thank you.[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
:::::::Your assertion that ''"Pakistan waived their own sovereignty to allow such bases to exist in the first place..."'' is merely a point of view, a controversial one you may share with the Senator. But the Senator is not a senior Pakistani official. Since Pakistani cabinet members continue to insist that the attacks are not authorized it would be a serious lapse from neutrality for us to write that they actually are authorized, or to rename the article to imply the attacks are authorized. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::A point of view? Please, share with us what "points" you have that allowing a foreign military and intelligence to operate freely from one's own territory is an act that does not waive sovereignty. As for the title, it merely describes the drone strikes "IN" Pakistan, not "on" Pakistan. I apologize if this does not comport with your "point of view", but it better describes the situation from a neutrality standpoint than the implications of the title as presently titled. The attacks do not come from "outside" of Pakistan's territory, they come from withIN it. Thank you.--[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I accept your apology. This stuff is difficult to understand. Maybe if you try re-reading the counterpoints more closely you will understand where the flaws in your position are. Cheers! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 23:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Difficult? Not really. The counter-points are simply unpersuasive and easily disposed of. Ta'.--[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:: yachtsman. by your reasoning 9/11 was an attack in USA not ON USA since the attacks originated in USA and used US manufactured and owned aircraft. you completely dont get the point yourself. the attacks are ON pakistan ( the Targets of the attacks are Pakistani citizens without express consent of Pakistani Government.) just because Pakistanis have allowed US bases to operate ( for supporting the Afghan mission) does not mean the have waived their sovereign rights. US bases exist in a lot of countries including South Korea and Phillipines. dont keep on making arguments which are not making any sense to 2 other editors thankyou.[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


The result of the move request was: '''consensus to move''' the page, per the discussion below. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
:::By my reasoning, 9/11 was an attack on two targets by terrorists who flew airplanes into them utilizing commercial aircraft that had been hijacked. The United States did not provide the means for the attack to occur by agreeing with a foreign government or entity to set up an airport where the flights took place. As for "making sense", I don't think there exists any real confusion on this point. South Korea and the Phillipines have these things called "treaties" with the United States and its military for use of these bases, and their presence constitutes a waiver of sovereignty in that regard. The same thing applies to Pakistan, which by treaty allows the United States to operate air bases from within its own territory. The deaths of civilians would be, by Pakistan's logic, a violation of that agreement, but it would still not constitute an attack "on" Pakistan when the means of delivering the strike is located within Pakistan itself by their own agreement. --[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: yachtsman1. again you are confusing the issue of Pakistan allowing the attacks. they never have to the best of our knowledge and routinely deny this notion. they allowed the drones to take off from Shamsi and maybe even shoot in Afghanistan. so what would you say if I said that CIA "hijacks" these drones routinely after they take off and illegally uses them to shoot inside Pakistan. the triggers are pulled in Nevada not in Pakistan and not by Pentagon but by CIA officers who also fly them for bulk of the mission. all in all the key issue here is whether an attack on Pakistani Citizens is an attack ON Pakistan or not. other issues are not even worth debating. who gave the permission ( an illegal dictator or a popular elected govt), was permission given under coercion, was the alternative for Pakistan to be blown into stone age as Musharraf seems to have said in his memoirs. we could debate all this endlessly. I would even argue that an attack clearly sanctioned ( and it is not) by an unpopular government/ dictator against its own citizens would still be an attack ON that country. As far as making sense let me be very clear you are not making any sense to me whatsoever. so do not say there is no confusion. thank you[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


----
::::Yachtsman1, please re-read the first three words of your last comment: {{quotation|'''''"By my reasoning..."'''''}}


[[:Drone attacks in Pakistan]] → {{no redirect|Drone strikes in Pakistan}} – I make this request for these reasons: (1). According to [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Drone%20strikes%2C%20drone%20attacks&cmpt=q] 'drone strikes' are a far more common term used, as opposed to 'drone attacks'. (2). This means that Wikipedia common name policy is not being observed with the current title: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:COMMONNAME&redirect=no] (3). 'Drone attacks' convey a negative skew towards the article, in violation of Wikipedia non-judgmental descriptive policy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles] (4). Many of the initial references used in the actual article state 'drone strikes': [http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/22/18429089-in-first-public-acknowledgement-holder-says-4-americans-died-in-us-drone-strikes?lite] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24618701] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistani-court-declares-us-drone-strikes-in-the-countrys-tribal-belt-illegal-8609843.html] [http://www.voanews.com/content/us-accused-of-unlawful-killings-pakistan-drone-strikes/1774276.html] [[User:Uhlan|'''<span style="color:red">Uhlan</span>'''<span style="color:#FF0000"></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Uhlan|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup> 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
::::We can offer our personal opinions here on talk pages, if we are doing so to discuss how best to edit the article. But our personal opinion should never be inserted into article space. You are free to quote the skepticism Senator Diane Feinstein expressed about the sincerity of Pakistan's denials that it had authorized the US attacks. I encourage you to do so.


::Please comment with either *'''support''' or *'''oppose''' and leave a comment. Should this page be moved? [[User:Uhlan|'''<span style="color:red">Uhlan</span>'''<span style="color:#FF0000"></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Uhlan|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup> 06:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
::::But there is no defense, within policy, for changing the name of this article based on your '''''personal reasoning.''''' Doing so is an injection of your personal reasoning into article space -- a very clear violation of policy.


*'''Oppose''' equally good references use the phrase "drone attacks in Pakistan" [https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22drone+attacks+in+pakistan%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22drone+attacks+in+pakistan%22+-strike&channel=fs&tbm=nws] (and this is just a half hearted automated search with no custom queries; proper searches would yield much more). Attack also signifies the grievances of Pakistani public; the fact that Pakistani public is vehemently against the tactic is a significant reason behind Pakistan's changing foreign policy from time to time related to drone attacks. The word "strike" is more appropriate when referring to individual incidents. The current title is [[WP:DUE]]. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 07:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
::::There are times when my personal conclusions are at odds with what all of our [[WP:RS]] say. As a good faith contributor to the wikipedia my choices are to take a vacation from articles on those topics, or stick with what the [[WP:RS]] say. Sometimes this is an effort.
*'''Support''', a change to a more neutral article name.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', per RightCowLeftCoast [[Special:Contributions/83.11.98.128|83.11.98.128]] ([[User talk:83.11.98.128|talk]]) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. Also because this keeps it consistent with the general term [[airstrike]]. [[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#002244; font-family:serif">'''-- ''Calidum'''''</span>]] 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although a weak support, but I can understand the rationale. Strike is probably more neutral. Politically, the term 'attack' also seems to imply as if they are an attack on the State of Pakistan, when they are not (really), as the current and previous governments of Pakistan seem to be knowledgeable and even tolerable of them. So they are not really an attack on Pakistan, but rather foreign strikes occurring with the permission (or complicity, whichever fits best) of Pakistani authorities. In contrast, the title of the article [[2011 NATO attack in Pakistan]] is appropriate as it really was an attack on Pakistan's security forces (and hence the state) and was treated as such by the government. These drone attacks however, as I have said, are not treated as attacks on the state by the Pakistani government, and hence, terming them 'strikes' may be appropriate. '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color:green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]) 11:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', reasons stated in my original page move argument. [[User:Uhlan|'''<span style="color:red">Uhlan</span>'''<span style="color:#FF0000"></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Uhlan|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]</sup> 23:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[WP:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


== Orphaned references in [[:Drone strikes in Pakistan]] ==
::::In this instance it is your turn. Your personal opinion is at odds with what our [[WP:RS]] say. If you are going to work on the article you have to respect the official position the Pakistani government has offered. If you can't do that I recommend you take a vacation from working on the article. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


I check pages listed in [[:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting]] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for [[User:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixer|orphaned references]] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of [[:Drone strikes in Pakistan]]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
:::::Thank you for your comment, Geo Swan. This will confirm that your "personal reasoning" has not been employed, it is only others who have done so. Thank you also for directing my attention to a response to a post that used the term.


<b>Reference named "IMU joins ISIL":</b><ul>
:::::If you are going to work on any article, a title must reflect reality, and the reality is that the attacks by drones are coming from withIN Pakistan's own territory. Your point has now changed, and the attacks are said not to be "sanctioned" for use on Pakistani civilians. If you have a link showing that these drone attacks come from outside of Pakistan's territory, I encourage you to show them to me.
<li>From [[War on Terror]]: {{cite web|url=http://www.khaama.com/uzbek-militants-in-afghanistan-pledge-allegiance-to-isis-in-beheading-video-9962|title=Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video|website=khaama.com|accessdate=25 June 2015}}</li>
<li>From [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]: {{cite news |first=Mirwais |last=Adeel |url=http://www.khaama.com/uzbek-militants-in-afghanistan-pledge-allegiance-to-isis-in-beheading-video-9962 |title=Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video |work=Khaama Press |location=Kabul, Afghanistan}}</li>
<li>From [[Operation Zarb-e-Azb]]: {{cite news| url=http://www.rferl.org/content/imu-islamic-state/27174567.html| title=IMU Declares It Is Now Part Of The Islamic State|date=6 August 2015|publisher=Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty|accessdate=6 August 2015}}</li>
<li>From [[Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan]]: {{cite web|url=http://www.eurasianet.org/node/74471|title=IMU Pledges Allegiance to Islamic State|work=EurasiaNet|date=1 August 2015}}</li>
<li>From [[Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa]]: {{cite web|url=http://www.khaama.com/uzbek-militants-in-afghanistan-pledge-allegiance-to-isis-in-beheading-video-9962|title=Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video|website=khaama.com|accessdate=6 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150713102036/http://www.khaama.com/uzbek-militants-in-afghanistan-pledge-allegiance-to-isis-in-beheading-video-9962|archive-date=13 July 2015|dead-url=no|df=dmy-all}}</li>
</ul>


I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<span style="color:#880">⚡</span>]] 22:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:RS]] does not support your position in the slightest, by the way, but thanks for the link. I would suggest you review it in light of your own use of primary sources.[[User:Yachtsman1|Yachtsman1]] ([[User talk:Yachtsman1|talk]]) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:36, 7 December 2024

Page Move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drone attacks in Pakistan → Drone strikes in Pakistan – I make this request for these reasons: (1). According to [1] 'drone strikes' are a far more common term used, as opposed to 'drone attacks'. (2). This means that Wikipedia common name policy is not being observed with the current title: [2] (3). 'Drone attacks' convey a negative skew towards the article, in violation of Wikipedia non-judgmental descriptive policy: [3] (4). Many of the initial references used in the actual article state 'drone strikes': [4] [5] [6] [7] Uhlan talk 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment with either *support or *oppose and leave a comment. Should this page be moved? Uhlan talk 06:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose equally good references use the phrase "drone attacks in Pakistan" [8] (and this is just a half hearted automated search with no custom queries; proper searches would yield much more). Attack also signifies the grievances of Pakistani public; the fact that Pakistani public is vehemently against the tactic is a significant reason behind Pakistan's changing foreign policy from time to time related to drone attacks. The word "strike" is more appropriate when referring to individual incidents. The current title is WP:DUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a change to a more neutral article name.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per RightCowLeftCoast 83.11.98.128 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Also because this keeps it consistent with the general term airstrike. -- Calidum 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although a weak support, but I can understand the rationale. Strike is probably more neutral. Politically, the term 'attack' also seems to imply as if they are an attack on the State of Pakistan, when they are not (really), as the current and previous governments of Pakistan seem to be knowledgeable and even tolerable of them. So they are not really an attack on Pakistan, but rather foreign strikes occurring with the permission (or complicity, whichever fits best) of Pakistani authorities. In contrast, the title of the article 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan is appropriate as it really was an attack on Pakistan's security forces (and hence the state) and was treated as such by the government. These drone attacks however, as I have said, are not treated as attacks on the state by the Pakistani government, and hence, terming them 'strikes' may be appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, reasons stated in my original page move argument. Uhlan talk 23:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Drone strikes in Pakistan

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Drone strikes in Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IMU joins ISIL":

  • From War on Terror: "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". khaama.com. Retrieved 25 June 2015.
  • From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Adeel, Mirwais. "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". Khaama Press. Kabul, Afghanistan.
  • From Operation Zarb-e-Azb: "IMU Declares It Is Now Part Of The Islamic State". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 6 August 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
  • From Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan: "IMU Pledges Allegiance to Islamic State". EurasiaNet. 1 August 2015.
  • From Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". khaama.com. Archived from the original on 13 July 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan&oldid=1261710794"