Talk:Targeted killing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

tyop

{{edit protected}} Per the source, it appears that the word "feet" in the fourth paragraph (before 2.5 inches) was a tyop put into the article by accident (by me). Would appreciate it if someone w/article access were to delete it. Many thanks. Epeefleche.

I believe this would qualify as a uncontroversial improvement. However, the request was not specific. One possibility would be to replace "{{ft in to m|2.5}}" with "{{in to cm|2.5}}" in the source − with the rendered text changing from "0 feet 2.5 inches (0.064 m)" to "2.5 inches (6.4 cm)". Please confirm. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to get there, but to be clearer what I would suggest is that the reader see "that are about 2.5 inches (0.8 m) long" rather than "that are about feet 2.5 inches (0.8 m) long". That is what I intended when I wrote it. All I am looking to do is delete the stray word "feet", which does not belong there, and is there due to my inadvertence. Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, of course 2.5 inches is not 0.8m! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops .. tyop on top of tyop ... thanks for that! You're perfectly correct; tx for the fix.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

unprotect and/or flag as POV

{{editprotected}} 1. There has been extensive comment at talk:Assassination#RFC:_Should_there_be_a_separate_article_called_Targeted_killing and there is a clear majority supporting this article. I believe this will end the edit war and request that the page be unprotected.

{{editprotected}} 2. I would also like to add {{Unbalanced}} to the top of the article ASAP. If the article is unprotected I can do it myself, but I think it should be done soon so I'm requesting an admin add the template regardless of whether the protecting admin is available to unprotect as requested above. Thundermaker (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline. RFC has been open for only about 3 days. Would be more appropriate to unprotected, IFF there is consensus at the RFC, after at least over one full week. -- Cirt (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought the purpose of protection in this case was to stop an edit war. That has been done; I am sure the warring parties will abide by the RFC consensus. If you're saying all work on the page must stop until the close of the RFC, I disagree. I for one am willing to take the chance that my work will be lost if the consensus turns to redirect.

I suppose I can accept the language of the existing pp-dispute template as a covering my issue too. I was a little surprised you completely ignored that request. Thundermaker (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should re-protet the page or I will revet to the status quo as it has been for several years until the RFC decides the issue. If I do that there is no evidence that my revet will not be reverted. Indeed I am tempted to do it anyway as then it might be he "tright version was protected". -- PBS (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK then, my edit-war-is-over argument just went out the window. I withdraw the unprotect request. Thundermaker (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article presents the view that Targeted Killings are not instances of assassination as undisputed. This is generally the view of the perpetrating nation but almost never the victim's. Multiple views on this issue should be presented, especially in the highly unbalanced "Targeted killing vs. assassination" section. Thundermaker (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Our Taliban article is sorely lacking in the Taliban’s point of view as to why girls’ schools should be burned, their teachers murdered, and women flogged right in the middle of the street for showing a little ankle under their burka. It also lacks “perspective” from the Taliban’s point of view as to how the West is evil and should be destroyed. But we don’t bother with “balancing” articles with that point of view because of WP:POV. We look towards reliable sources (Kill America Gazette does not count) and the RSs and scholarly papers on the subject, like Targeted Killing in International Law by Oxford University Press clearly deal with the subject as something quite distinct from assassination. It is not our job as volunteer wikipedians with far too much time on our hands to muse as to whether or not “Them Oxford dudes are naive and ain’t so sharp.”

  Recap: Again, we look towards RSs for balance and do not look towards individual editors’ sense of “what’s fair” and “let’s see Anwar’s side of the story.” Anwar al-Awlaki (currently the subject of a targeted killing) declared in a video that he wants to kill one million Americans in a jihad. Osama bin Laden received permission from a top Muslim cleric that God says it’s OK for Osama to use weapons of mass destruction to kill up to ten-million Americans. If a significant percentage of RSs write about how “That’s all just so sweet and the West should capture them and put an after-dinner mint on their pillow at night and ask them ‘pretty please’ don’t kill ten-million of us’,” then you can add that to this article and properly cite the RSs.

  But for the moment, the U.S. president takes the national security threats very seriously and the U.S. government now has a new term to describe the new circumstances. All the most respected RSs use that new terminology. Please desist with your POV-pushing; I’m not interested in seeing Wikipedia’s article “balanced” with Anwar’s point of view, nor yours. Over at WP:RS, I see nothing that says “As far as RSs go, the U.S. government is unreliable, biased, evil, and can’t be trusted. Go run to Thundermaker; he is wise and knows The Truth®™©.” Greg L (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See talk:assassination#RFC: Should there be a separate article called Targeted killing -- PBS (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Thunder as he suggested at the link that PBS points to immediately above that it seems like the vast majority supports a separate "targeted killing" article, that PBS should respect consensus, that PBS should desist in edit warring, and that that redundant RFC should be closed reflecting the vast majority consensus. Also agree w/the view expressed above that the balance sought to be reflected on wp is whatever balance appears in the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, PBS ceased edit-warring before you did. We need to respect his sincere dissent from consensus. Greg L, retract your incivility. Thundermaker (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thunder -- PBS 1) started edit warring; 2) was deleting a 100K article w/150 refs because of his difficult-to-understand failure to note consensus, a Nelson's-eye approach that persists even to this day, and is a direct failure to follow wp:consensus as required by wp:admin, and 3) all I did was restore his deletions -- which is appropriate. I don't agree w/your views here, as explained, you've not explained them, and I don't see consensus support here for a tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. I did not delete anything, I reverted to the stable version of the page (which was a redirect). I am waiting until the RFC is finished, to see whether this page becomes a redirect again. If it not then I agree with the tag that Thundermaker has added this article as the article does not represent agreed definitions.

Text copied down to a new section

For example take the first two sentences: Targeted killing is the intentional killing – by a government or its agents – of a civilian or "enemy combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict (e.g., terrorism), whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention. What is an "enemy combatant" (the link does not explain)? If it includes soldiers (the usual definition) then enemy soldiers can be targeted and killed, but that is not usually what assassination/targeted killing means. If a civilian takes an active part in hostilities are they not combatants (unprivileged combatants)? If so then what other civilians are we talking about? What does "government's custody" mean? Who says that terrorism is an "armed conflict"? The British for example have always been very careful not to mix up the two. For example there is a reason the Malayan Emergency was called an emergency, and why the war with the IRA was not recognised by successive British governments as an armed conflict. The Americans have been very careful with their definitions of armed conflict so as not to recognise that the Guantanamo Bay captives have any privileges under the international provisions of GCIII but only under the common articles such as GCIII.3. Even that has been argued against by American Government lawyers who argue that GCIII does not apply at all because terrorists are not members of one of the High Contracting Parties, and even if they were members of a "Power" --which the US does not agree that they are-- they are members of an organisation that does not "applies the provisions" of GCIII, so GCIII does not apply in law. Even ignoring the US government's legal arguments, where is there any protection under the Third Geneva convention that protects civilians from attack (it is of course part of the laws and customs of war and is described in Hague Conventions (1907) (mainly IV — The Laws and Customs of War on Land). But where is it described in GCIII? Please provide quotes from the one and only given source, that covers each and every one of the points I have asked here, because AFAICT either the source has been misunderstood or it is not a reliable source.

-- PBS (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

PBS--what you did, as you well know, had precisely the same effect as a deletion, in that anyone searching for the article by the only name that it had would not see the article. You are simply wikilawyering.

You then did it time after time. Without a reasonable response. Much as you keep on ignoring the consensus on the talk page of the RFC, where the issue had already been discussed for many months before you started the RFC, which reflects near-unanimous consensus disagreeing with your view. Your "contribution" has been one of persistent disruption. And your comment "I am waiting until the RFC is finished, to see whether this page becomes a redirect again" suggests a failure on your part to read the many comments from these past months, and respect consensus. That unnecessary RFC has dramatically confirmed how needless it was, in the responses you received. And you, in your tendentious attacks on the comments of the other editors who do not share your views at that RFC, have ably confirmed that your behavior is not limited only to an unfortunate disrespect for consensus/disruption of 2 hours as you edit-warred in your effort to make wikipedia targeted-killing-rein. It might perhaps be consistent with admin status for you to edit in accord with wp:consensus and to avoid being disruptive, as is required by wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To use a soccer expression "play the ball and not the man". Not one sentence, not even one phrase, that you have contributed to this section (or even this page) has addressed the content of this article and the concerns raised by other editors about this article. This talk page is meant to be for discussing the content of the article. Now you have three choices. Either you can start to address the content issues, or you can continue to discuss other editors, or you can leave the article and the talk page to others. Which is it to be? -- PBS (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't discussed the man, or woman. Not a bit. Just the disruptive editing of the content of the page that this talk page relates to (by a man, or woman). I'm sure the man, or woman, is a fine chap, or lass. When they kick the other editors, instead of the ball, that is however worthy of notice. The talk page is a good place to start that discussion, and ask the editor to stop that practice. And, since the editor has in the past asked me about the application of wp:admin to his editing of this very page, to elucidate that. I've already addressed the content issues. Also, since you yourself pointed to the RFC (which you yourself started), which relates to this page, I've discussed that -- how in the world you can then protest my discussing the RFC after you pointed us to it above escapes me. I would point out as well that your above "you have three choices" and "which is it to be" is a bit patronizing.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"disruptive editing" is not a description of the content of the article it is a comment on your personal view on what you think of other editors behaviour. Thundermaker has made a statement about the content of the article which you have not yet addressed so presumably you agree with her/his statement. I have raised some specific points about the content of the first two sentences. Unless you articulate a defence of those points raised, then presumably you agree with the criticisms (WP:SILENCE) and won't object if the article is changed. -- PBS (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition, having read each of the 150 refs in the article in full at this point, as well as other sources, I note that the article does reflect with balance the views that appear in the RSs. I concur with Greg's comments above. I also concur with the vast majority consensus at the RFC that PBS points us to (though I note that he fails to acknowledge the overwhelming consensus there).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A comment on procedure. The RFC is running its course, it will end automatically at the end of a month. If this article was still a redirect, then there would be some justification in reverting to the current version of the article, as the consensus is at the moment for the creation of the article. If by the end of the RFC there is no consensus for the article we can always merge it back into the Assassination article and go back to the redirect.

A comment on the content. The first two sentences are supported by one citation. As explained above there are grounds for thinking that either the source given as a reliable source is not reliable, or the sources does not support the summary presented in the text. Pleas provide quotes from the source here on the talk page that support the issues raised above. -- PBS (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is common when an RfC is severely lopsided to conclude it after two weeks. The RfC to merge with Assassination concluded with an overwhelming consensus to keep both articles. The merge tags have been deleted. Greg L (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put them back. The RFC will end automatically after a month. At that time we can asses what the consensus is, until then the banner serves as an advert for the RFC and should stay. -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikiipedia is not a bureaucracy. The community consensus is clear and extraordinarily lopsided. I suggest you think hard as to whether you want to push this any further. See talk here. Greg L (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of articles

PBS, I see you restored (∆ here) the {biased tag}. As you stated in your edit summary, the issues are being discussed here. The tag invites others to add “information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.” Such tags are not be used like a big piece of graffiti on the storefront each morning screaming I-DON’T LIKE IT as tool to force others to address the dissenting voice of someone whose views are not representative of the community consensus and that dissenter just won’t let it go. Now…

Let’s be clear that your opposition to this article runs long and deep. You at first redirected “Targeted killing” to “Assassination.” Then you started an RfC on whether there should be a separate article. All the while, you edit warred with Epeefleche by refusing to let the article exist while the RfC was ongoing and you did this by insisting on redirecting the article to “Assassination”. Epeefleche took you to ANI over your conduct. So then you changed your tact and abandoned edit warring over *redirecting* and instead focused your efforts on making it an issue of *merging*. Accordingly, an RfC that began as one over redirecting and was going down in flames so you morphed it into one about merging. There, the clear, landslide community consensus was that it wanted this article as it was distinct from ‘Assassination’. Many saw your motives as POV-pushing.

And now, just days later, you added a {this article is biased} tag. Curious. (*sigh*) Therefore, the following straw poll:

Straw poll
Motioned: Is the ‘Targeted killing’ article sufficiently balanced and cited that it does not need a “biased” tag added by PBS?

• Yes. Delete the tag. The article cites copious reliable sources. User:PBS exhibited a persistent and clear pattern of opposing even the existence of this article and the tag is just another tool that does more to disrupt than anything else. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• No need to have a straw poll. I've removed the tag. No discussion in 2 weeks. No suggestions from RSs that have been over-looked.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Very well, I warned him on his talk page that no good will come of it if he persists like this. It is WP:Tendentious editing, which is a form of disruption. The views of the community on this issue trump his concerns. He would be wise to move on. Greg L (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

This article as it stands on October 19, 2010 is a counterexample to the old saw: "A picture is worth a thousand words." I was initially offended by the picture of the corpse of Al-Zarqawi but on closer inspection concluded that none of the pictures add anything to the subject at hand, which is targeted killing. Not the picture of Leon Panetta, of the Predator drone, of the aftermath of the 1998 embassy bombings, etc. As a matter of fact, it's hard to think of a picture that would be an illustration of targeted killing. Removing the pictures would make the article visually dull, but that's the way it is. Take a look at a philosophy book.

If there is particular affection for the pictures, including them in new articles is one possibility. A separate article on Targeted Killing Tools is one possiblity. An article on People Who Have Used Targeted Killing would cover Panetta. Al-Zarqawi could be brought in under Famous Deaths (by Targeted Killing), to borrow from Monty Python. SDCHS (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I recognize that you are a brand-new editor, so I understand your reaction. Actually, on wikipedia (as in encyclopedias in general), there are no doubt many photos that people may find offensive, from those of abortions to nudity to cartoons of religious figures. Given the nature of the project, however, we use photos to better illustrate the subjects described in the articles, which is precisely what these pictures do here. Best, and I look forward to working with you in the future at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Read again. The only picture I found at all offensive was that of Al-Zarqawi's corpse. My complaint is that none of the pictures is pertinent to the subject.

If you disagree with that complaint, here's a challenge. Choose any picture and explain how it adds to the discussion of targeted killing. The choice of pictures is yours, but I'd be particularly interested in seeing a rationale for including a picture of Leon Panetta. SDCHS (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The images illustrate the text in the article, such as by reflecting images of Panetta (who has headed the CIA, which has been conducting targeted killings, as discussed), drones and missiles used to perform TKs, what TKs have been used in reaction to, etc. Images reflecting text in the articles is the standard use of images on wiki.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So far, only two of us are participating in this discussion, so we might as well terminate it. Besides, we're running out of colons for indentation.

I did some checking on the claim of "the standard use of images on wiki" and I'll at least partly agree. I found other articles with images that illustrated nothing about the subject of the articles. I also found articles whose images were quite pertinent to the article's subject. Naturally, I found articles with with a mixture of images. It looks like a question of taste or style so I'll stop. I've registered my opinion and that's all it is: my opinion. SDCHS (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

dont get mad but

if this is about a (universal) justice, why does it read like a dissemination of israeli arguments against the palestines, it fails to make any but weirdest of impressions that an article like this would need endless exemplification of possibly subjective israeli reasoning. just my 2p, ofcourse i do understand it is what the usian public got. just look at how often the word israel is mentioned, it even gets whole chapters. that's statistically most disturbing (no coincedence). 80.57.43.99 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a special search for any Palestinian professors (maybe you can help -- I see you are an Al-Jazeerah reader). When it comes to courts, it has been the Israeli, US, Spanish, and Brit courts (or legal processes) so far. And of course when it comes to the US vs. Al Qaeda, we are more likely to get US government officials on the record (like Obama) than al-Qaeda govt officials who are former law profs. But with the ongoing al-aulaqi litigation, there should be more coming out from the ACLU and human rights orgs over the next few months.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Is an oppinion piece from The San Francisco Chronicle a reliable source?

I am not sure why so much is made of "Abraham D. Sofaer (March 26, 2004). "Responses to Terrorism / Targeted killing is a necessary option". The San Francisco Chronicle." - wikipedia does not generally consider oppinion pieces to be reliable sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers the opinions of notable persons with expert knowledge to be notable. Is it that you are not impressed by the fact that he is a former federal judge? Or you are not impressed that he is a former Professor of Law at Columbia Law School? Wikipedia of course does consider opinion pieces to be reliable sources as to the opinions of the persons who write them. Which is the manner in which the opinion piece is cited.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the San Francisco Chronicle is a reliable source for reporting someone's opinion - I believe that is pretty much indisputable without specific evidence to the contrary. The next question that logically flows from this is whose opinion is it? Epeefleche has answered fairly comprehensively. So then we come to the real question - Is Abraham D. Sofaer's opinion notable? By all the notability and relevance standards here on WP, yes it is. A judge and law professor expressing an opinion on a matter of law is about as notable as it gets. When we use such opinion pieces in WP article we are required to properly identify the person whose opinion it is and use a reliable source to cite it. BTW the same opinion piece is quoted in the biography of Abraham David Sofaer, so he is noted for this opinion. Roger (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that he wrote the policy, might it not be more appropriate to mention this, and perhaps treat him as a primary source?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Among other things, a judge and law professor expressing an opinion on a matter of law is about as commonplace as it gets.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilians and Unlawful combatants

Seeing as how an unlawful combatant is defined as a civilian, the inclusion of unlawful combatant in addition to civillian in the first line is redundant, so I will remove it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It mirrored the source as it was. I am reverting it to mirror the source, not your personal view.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to mirror single sources in the lede. Your repeated reversion constitutes edit warring.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your reversion to your interpretation of what TK means, at odds with what the ref says, is not appropriate, as I've not indicated to you a number of times.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"There is no universally agreed-upon definition of targeted killing." this text appears in the article - how did the first sentence get fixed in stone?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid 93.96.148.42 is guilty of substituting the general for the specific. All dogs are mammals ≠ All mammals are dogs. Why is 93.96.148.42 insisting that "civillian" is equivalent to "unlawful combatant"? It is perfectly obvious that "unlawful combatant" is a defined specific subset of "civilian". I'm sorry but I am beginning to have doubts about the good faith/NPOV of 93.96.148.42. Roger (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the sentence reads civilians and unlawful combatants. If it said mammals and dogs it would be equally wrong. - Targeted killing is the targeting and killing by a government or its agents of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in that government's custody. Targeted killing is the targeting and killing by a government or its agents of a mammal or dog who is not in that government's custody. Does that make sense to you now!93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The text -- you keep on changing it from reflecting what is in the ref ... verifiably ... to what you think it should say--but does not say--in the ref. That violates a core wiki principle. Or two. Our goal is verifiability, not (your understanding of) truth.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why that definition should be used, other than your desire for it to be so. "There is no universally agreed-upon definition of targeted killing." appears verifiabily in the text. I could find a more reliable source and quote from it, but that is not your point.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence

Given that there is no trial or legal process involved, allegations against targeted civilans should be described as such. This is particularly important in the case of living persons.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Collateral Damage/Innacccurate Targeting

The article, and especially the lede, seems too keen to follow the offical line. It is a matter of record that there have been many occasions when civillians who were not the target have been killed, whether in addition to the intended target, or in place of him/her. This should be made clear.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to collateral damage to the first para in the lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What about some recognition that "Targeted killing" often ends up killing the wrong person entirely?93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And just adding the words "collateral damage" was not quite what the article needs.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue of collateral damage is pointed to by both sides. The pro side says TK reduces it. The con side points to the collateral damage that does result. The lede is summary in nature. I've now reflected further the issue of collateral damage, and mentioned other pros and cons without listing them. Much is left out -- such as discussions on the pro side as well -- for example, self-defense, leadership vacuums, eliminate skilled operatives, lead to disorganization in the terrorist organization; reduce the number and severity of terrorist attacks over the long term; address those situations where it would be too difficult or dangerous to arrest the target; international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country; adheres to the international Law of Armed Conflict principles of proportionality and distinction, etc. An equal number have not been mentioned as to the con side. They are in the article, and the lede merely gives a summary of the general issues to come (as we are limited in size). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely one of the main subjects of the article is that large numbers of civilians are being killed by the US government. At the momment there are no estimates of those killed deliberately, or accidentally. Would that not be worth adding?93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, there is an article for collateral damage so a simple mention and a link to the main article about the issue is sufficient. The whole point of targeted killing is to avoid the large scale killing of innocents. Roger (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the stated aim, but wikipedia is not intended to repeat goverment propaganda without question, and there is a lot of concern about the large number of innocent people being killed that should be represented here. To say that that is not what they are trying to do rather misses the point.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Collateral damage is mentioned in the lede at this point. It is discussed in greater detail in the body. Included in that discussion are some comments as to how it reduces collateral damage, and some discussion of instances in which collateral damage was greater than the targeters say they had expected or hoped for. What precisely would you like to add to the text from RS refs that is not there? There may well be RS refs for information both pro and con that would be of interest for the purpose of adding to the body of the text. Can you point us to what you have in mind?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like some figures, and some analylsis of what is happening. It would be good to take a critical look at who is being targeted, and include the allegations that killings are being used to settle political arguements in Pakistan, for example. Fundamentally I believe that there is a problem with an article that echoes a government line, and does not include critisicm or a global perspective, particularily when thousands of people are dying. Here are some good sources- http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf, http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/drone_war_13672 93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplication of material in the lede

• Mr. IP -- On a related point -- please do not delete material from the lede because you feel it is duplicative of what is in the body. Ledes are by their nature duplicative summaries of the body of the article. It is not proper, and given the editing of the past two hours, feels somewhat disruptive. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Call me 93.96.148.42. The material I removed represented about 25% of the lede, and duplicated material at the end of the article word for word. In addition I copied the references to the end of the article. It was not a summary, by a repetition, and had very little to do with targeted killing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we will be able to amplify the main material in the article over time. It is the cutting edge new of interest, directly related to targeted killing. I've slightly trimmed the top, and will give another look at it for that purpose. But for now, I think it looks fine, and doesn't overly encumber the lede. The issue is more how we amplify the main text, than anything.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to inclusion of technology used to kill targeted civilians, but it should be covered in a neutral and balanced way, refelcting its sucesses and failures, and not merely repeating claims made by its proponents.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

First two sentences

The first two sentences:

Targeted killing is the intentional killing – by a government or its agents – of a civilian or "enemy combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict (e.g., terrorism), whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention.

What is an "enemy combatant" (the link does not explain)? If it includes soldiers (the usual definition) then enemy soldiers can be targeted and killed, but that is not usually what assassination/targeted killing means. If a civilian takes an active part in hostilities are they not combatants (unprivileged combatants)? If so then what other civilians are we talking about? What does "government's custody" mean?

Who says that terrorism is an "armed conflict"? The British for example have always been very careful not to mix up the two. For example there is a reason the Malayan Emergency was called an emergency, and why the war with the IRA was not recognised by successive British governments as an armed conflict. The Americans have been very careful with their definitions of armed conflict so as not to recognise that the Guantanamo Bay captives have any privileges under the international provisions of GCIII but only under the common articles such as GCIII.3. Even that has been argued against by American Government lawyers who argue that GCIII does not apply at all because terrorists are not members of one of the High Contracting Parties, and even if they were members of a "Power" --which the US does not agree that they are-- they are members of an organisation that does not "applies the provisions" of GCIII, so GCIII does not apply in law.

Even ignoring the US government's legal arguments, where is there any protection under the Third Geneva convention that protects civilians from attack (it is of course part of the laws and customs of war and is described in Hague Conventions (1907) (mainly IV — The Laws and Customs of War on Land). But where is it described in GCIII? Please provide quotes from the one and only given source, that covers each and every one of the points I have asked here, because AFAICT either the source has been misunderstood or it is not a reliable source. The source is a book and no page numbers have been given. --PBS (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: Who says that terrorism is an "armed conflict"? The article doesn’t say all terrorism is armed conflict. The sentence speaks of armed conflict and parenthetically gives terrorism as one example of armed conflict. Check your booleans.

  As for your What is an "enemy combatant" (the link does not explain)? Well, our “Enemy combatant” article is a rather expansive, 10,000-word treatise on the subject. I suggest you point out on the talk page over there how you are deeply dissatisfied with the education it provided you. It would be impermissible forking to repeat all that content here.

  As for your expansive legal arguments like The Americans have been very careful with their definitions of armed conflict so as not to recognise that the Guantanamo Bay captives have any privileges under the international provisions of GCIII but only under the common articles such as GCIII.3. Even that has been argued against by American Government lawy…, go get your legal theories challenging the U.S. published in an RS somewhere. Then we will cite you. Until then, no one here is under any obligation to entertain your legal musings and debate you like this is some sort of government think tank formulating public policy; we’re just wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The British government does not recognise terrorism as armed conflict, nor do most (all?) other governments, so where in the cited source used to support the sentence does it make the claim that terrorism is armed conflict? I think part of this may be misunderstanding because some do not realise that "armed conflict" has a specific meaning in international law, and has ramifications as to the conduct of belligerents. For example many armed police forces used hollow point bullets, that are quite legal in many jurisdictions for police civilian law enforcement, but if they were to use those rounds in an armed conflict then they would be committing a war crime (see hollow-point bullet#Legality). So for example the bullets used to kill Jean Charles de Menezes (who at the time of his killing was thought to be a terrorist by the Metropolitan police), would have been in breach of the laws governing armed conflict but are not in breach of British domestic unless they are used in an armed conflict.[1]

The posting above at 04:56 was to explain why, I doubt that the source given supports the two sentences for which it is cited. As I am not putting any of the above into the article, I do not have to provide citations -- although if you are interested, I can provide you with some some further reading on the subject. As to your comment on enemy combatant, as I was the primary and the single largest contributor to the article -- thank you! But as you have read the article you will recall that it says "Thus, the term 'enemy combatant' has to be read in context to determine whether it means..." and IMHO the context here does not make it clear. So as I requested before, a quote (and page number) from the cited source will help us determine whether the cited source covers the content of the sentences. -- PBS (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As to what enemy combatant is, that is something to be thrashed out at the wikipedia enemy combatant page. Otherwise, res ipsa loquitur. As to PBS's comment as to whether assassination usually includes enemy soldiers, that is irrelevant because it is not accepted that TK is assassination. As to PBS's POV that TK does not include enemy soldiers, that's just his POV. As to PBS's general questions above that are bald questions, they are better posed to a high school social studies class, as they are simply fodder for discussion. As to PBS's query "Who says that terrorism is an "armed conflict"?", I would think that few think it is not a conflict, nor an unarmed conflict. As to the book, it is easily searched with the search function provided. I understand that from the above there is a lot that PBS does not know or understand, and that is why he asks questions, but this talk page is not a forum. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a source cited supporting the first two sentences. What page(s) in the source supports the first two sentences and which paragraph on that page supports the use of the term "armed conflict"? -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, You have only one citation buttressing the entire lede. PBS has only addressed his problems with the first two sentences, so we have much ground to cover. This could be resolved by making it “armed conflict and terrorism”. It seems RSs should be able to settle this. But I like my suggestion because dispersing sarin nerve gas in a subway doesn’t strike me as “armed conflict”. Neither does poisoning a municipal water supply. Nor setting off a radiological bomb. Oh… *sure* one could argue that when Taliban burn down a girls’s school in Afghanistan and rape a few teenage villagers that it amounts to “armed conflict” because they also shoot and kill their female teachers. But since the teachers aren’t armed, how can there be ‘conflic’(?); the direction of shooting seems all so lopsided. These instances are all in a *special* class of killing great gobs of people. And…

To PBS: “enemy combatant” is clear enough. Our “Enemy combatant” article says this: Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States. So there you go; a little WP:COMMONSENSE helps the bulk of our readership to read that single paragraph in the lede of “Enemy combatant” article and recognize that “targeted killing” is obviously not an issue of bombing some guy in a cell in Guantanamo Bay, so the term in the context of “targeted killing” obviously means “any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful”.

This is all just so obvious and I see no further point to stepping into more logical poo of your making. I’m afraid you are so anxious to see logical shortcomings in the terminology that you are blinded to the obviousness. Some guy wearing a thawb and shooting his AK‑47 at Coalition troops is an enemy combatant. Even Taliban when all they are doing is innocently burning down a girls’ school and shooting their teacher in the face (even though they aren’t shooting at Coalition troops) are enemy combatants because the acts are being done in areas under military jurisdiction and the military declares such acts to be prohibited because they destabilize the country and make everyone feel terrorized (which is the intent of the Taliban). So if they can send in an Apache to blow anonymous Taliban to shreds with 30 mm cannon shells, it’s warfare. If it’s a high-level Taliban or al‑Queda leader trying to organize followers to kill many thousands of people and the U.S. and its Coalition partners know his name and specifically try to blow him out of his hole in the ground, then it’s “targeted killing”—even if they use a Rodenator to get him. No one in his right mind thinks targeted killing applies to captured prisoners in a jail cell in Guantanamo. I find your objection to be either founded on profoundly flawed laogic or to be specious.

If you have a problem with this, please find a reliable source that says the terrorists (who *sometimes* have guns) “simply have an ‘alternative point of view of right & wrong’ ” and we should all respect that and not kill them. We could also cite a (truly) RS that quotes authoritative experts who suggest the U.S. should drop leaflets asking al‑Qaeda to come out of their holes in the ground with their hands up so a Navy SEAL can put on his powdered solicitors’ wig and read him his Miranda rights and take him into custody and ask him to ‘Pretty please with sugar on top please reveal others who are actively engaged in trying to kill millions of free peoples’, then we can use that as a reference. But remember, we can’t place undo weight on that RS if the majority of RSs are citing most-authoritative-sources and legal scholars who agree that terrorists are naughty and are unlikely to respond to “pretty please don’t slit the throats of our airplane pilots like they’re pigs and fly planes into our buildings.”

Or perhaps the Navy SEAL can at least ask that these Taliban dudes not do more things like blow the brains clean out of of a school teacher’s skull immediately after he gave a speech opining that suicide attacks like 9/11 are un-Islamic. It seems those Taliban showed him what truly pleases God. Greg L (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L. I think you are confusing several things, and I think your use of the word "we" is exclusive. This is meant to be an article written from a universal point of view about an alleged universal concept. Take this report as an example (Coalition Warfare in Afghanistan: Burden-sharing or Disunity? by Timo Noetzel, Chatham House and Sibylle Scheipers, Oxford University published in 2007): Page 5:

On 7 February 2002, the US government issued a memorandum stating that neither Taliban nor Al-Qaeda fighters captured in Afghanistan would be granted prisoner-of-war status. As a matter of policy, however, US armed forces would treat all detainees humanely. In contrast, European states involved in the Afghanistan operation left no doubt that from their perspective, the Geneva Conventions were to be adhered to.

That fundamentally affects the meaning of "enemy combatant" between a grouping of coalition partners in one specific place and time. Again I am not asking for any of this to be included in the article. What I have asked for are page numbers and a quote from the cited source to support the first two sentences. -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine. Epeefleche has some 150 citations; I’m sure he can figure out how to better cite the first paragraph of the lede. I still think my suggestion works fine to address your concern and am going to implement it right after this.

Oh, I too can play “Rand Corp. think-tank” and pretend to be an authoritative source suitable for being quoted by RSs. The Geneva Conventions were rules to guarantee humane treatment of prisoners of war where two half-ass organized states would agree to treat their POWs as they would hope the other state would treat theirs. “Reciprocity” is the essential element to make all that work. You may think that terrorists planning to kill ten thousand of your countrymen in a gas attack in the Tube deserve to be coddled and an after-dinner mint placed on their pillows at night to induce them to cave and admit to interrogators what they know. What does the West get in return? A prisoner slowly beheaded live by having his throat sliced through. Most of the full videos have been pulled from the Web due to copyright issues. I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard the gurgling Nick Berg made when the blade was at just the right depth into his neck. So, no reciprocity = no deal; al‑Qaeda, after all, is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and clearly doesn’t consider itself obligated to follow much of its ‘pinky finger-out’ details.

So even though the U.S. limits the rights of enemy combatants, it affords nearly all of them a thousand-fold more humane treatment than anyone captured by al‑Qaeda receives. The issue of how to deal with these animals is agonized over by all three branches of the U.S. government with the advise of some of its finest legal minds. Only the worst of the worst—those who would kill every single citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. alike if he had a chance and have knowledge of operational details of current plans—get the crap kicked out of them. I really (literally) could not possibly care less. In fact, I would care if the U.S. Government wasn’t kicking the crap out of these top-level guys. If there is another attack—in any Western country—and word leaked that the U.S. was sitting on a key asset who was known to posses operational knowledge of ongoing conspiracies to do catastrophic harm, and didn’t put extreme pressure on him to extract it, heads would roll (figuratively, for we aren’t uncivilized animals). Now…

Spare me any “civilized people acting civilized” and other such oratory because war is war. In all wars big & small, more unarmed civilians die from over-running armies than do combatants. War is horrible. A little ass-kicking on those who would like to kill thousands doesn’t bother me one twit. It bothers you apparently. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, ‘m‑kay? And, yes, I used the term “we” to be exclusive; ‘twas no accident.

Now, I desperately want to disengage from you here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby and it gets un-fun fast when I deal with you. Please play nice here, abide by the consensus of the community, and take care to not be excessively bold as an editor because of your adminhood, which intimidates. I think it would be just splendid to see *exemplary* behavior from you. Epeefleche: he’s all yours. Greg L (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As you point out "The [third] Geneva Conventions were rules to guarantee humane treatment of prisoners of war where two half-ass organized states would agree to treat their POWs as they would hope the other state would treat theirs" So why does this article says in the second sentence "who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention."? As I pointed out above "Even ignoring... (it is of course part of the laws and customs of war and is described in Hague Conventions (1907) (mainly IV — The Laws and Customs of War on Land). But where is it described in GCIII?" This is why I am requiring that the page number and a quote is given for statements in the article such as this one, which I would be very surprised to find in any reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• PBS -- I already told you how to find that information, above.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You have provided a source for the first two sentences. The source is a book. You have not provided a page number. What is the page number? -- PBS (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I provided directions to searching for it. Using it myself, I have a mea culpa -- it should read "unlawful", rather than "enemy", per the source. Apologies. I've made the change.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are citing a book you should include page numbers (See WP:Page numbers). Also my may not be aware of this but Google access to pages in a book vary depending on the location of the searcher. If the people Google think that copyright restricts access in a jurisdiction, they restrict to IP addresses in that jurisdiction. -- PBS (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Normally". Especially for "non-indexed" books. The google search function is a handy indexing tool, in addition to the book's table of contents and index. If the page is not accessible, one still gets to see the page number.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Including book page numbers on in-line citations -- PBS (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just click on the inline citation to the book. It will reflect the page numbers.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An Enemy Combatant is defined as a civillian, hence is redundant in the first line, and I have removed it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for the first sentence: "Targeted killing is the targeting and killing by a government or its agents of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in that government's custody."? -- PBS (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless a source is added to the first sentence I shall modify it to one where a source is provided. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the introduction to this article is better and has less POV:

There is no consensus definition "targeted killing" in the law of armed conflict or in case law. A reasonable definition is: ...

The full article is here--PBS (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What is "targeted killing"?

You created this article, but "there is no universally agreed-upon definition of targeted killing". Well, according to this source [2] quoted many time in the article, targeted killings are government-ordered killings of any designated persons (dissidents who peacefully live in other countries, and so on). Should it include the Holocaust and all other suimilar killing, starting from the ancient Egypt? Biophys (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don’t personally think so, nor do the bulk of RSs suggest as much. As the term is now used by the U.S. in the context of high-level terrorists such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the targeted killing of someone who has declared jihad against America and has stated that he won’t be satisfied until at least one million Americans have been killed, the term “targeted killing” is sufficiently distinct from ‘Mass killings under Communist regimes’ and ‘Holocaust’ to merit a separate article and to keep the two concepts distinct. The bulk of the WP:Reliable Sources seem to be adopting the limited scope of the definition and see it as quite distinct from trying to kill six to ten million civilians who are minding their own business. The link you provided to The New York Times does indeed mention KGB actions against dissidents as being ones of targeted killing. I agree with The New York Times in that regard. It doesn’t, however, mention the word “Holocaust” (which seems to me to be an altogether different thing); maybe that’s just me. Fortunately, we don’t need to debate that point since it doesn’t come from an RS; you and I are both mere wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• • As I understand it the distinctive characteristics of "targeted killing" are: 1. The target is specifically identified and singled out to be killed. Thus the order given is "Find John Doe and kill him" as distinct from "Destroy that enemy command post (it doesn't matter which individual ememies are there)" which is what happens in "normal" combat. 2. The person targetted is regarded (by the attackers) as legitimate enemy combatant. This distinguishes it from assassination. Am I understanding it correctly? Roger (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No. As defined by Colonel Peter M. Cullen, Staff Judge Advocate, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell [[3]] it is “the intentional slaying of a specific individual or group of individuals undertaken with explicit government approval.” There is nothing that distinguishes it from assassination other than a wish to avoid the prohibition under Executive Order 12333, and "the [USA's]current need to reassure allies of its strong commitment to the rule of law.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"There is nothing that distinguishes it from assassination other than a wish to avoid the prohibition under Executive Order 12333, and "the [USA's]current need to reassure allies of its strong commitment to the rule of law." That sounds more like your POV than anything. I would encourage you to keep your POV from affecting your editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a perfectly valid POV, and one which should be represented in the article. I fail to understand you hostility towars such inclusion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be POV as much as it is accurate. The exact actions the US undergoes when conducting "targeted killings" are condemned by the US as "assassinations" when done by other nations. Much like "enemy combatant" these are obviously euphemism used to pretend that the US is still following applicable laws. Look at this statement by Roger Cressney cited in the article:

I mean, we're trying to actively hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. We're not trying to assassinate him.

It seems ridiculous to me that "hunt down an kill" doesn't equate to "assassinate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.205.27 (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't simply label it as assasination order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.163.21 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

---

SORRY GUYS Just read this articule and it seemms so biased towards the american view of "Targeted killing" ----- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.42.49 (talk) 25 January 2011

Is that because the term was invented in Israel and adopted by the US, and very few other sources discuss it? Specific suggestions for improvement are welcome here. Thundermaker (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples -- get to it

The examples section seems a bit malorganized. The US and Israel sections each begin with a full screen of other issues describing how targets are chosen and such, before getting to the "Notable killings" lists. I'd like to see the other info separated from the Examples section and put into a new section, with perhaps a one-sentence intro before the killed list begins for each country. What do others think? Thundermaker (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is good as is. As with articles, lists, etc., it is wp's approach to have leads that put lists in context, where possible. This does that well.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Berg-Khazh Musaev?

This might be a case of targeted killing: Berg-Khazh Musaev (Берг-Хаж Мусаев) and two other Chechens were gunned down in Istanbul. Berg-Khazh Musaev is said to be Doku Umarov's right hand man.

• "Three Chechens Assasinated in Istanbul (Video News)". Waynakh Online. 17 September 2011.
• http://www.kavkazcenter.info/eng/content/2011/09/17/15139.shtml

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. – Here is a source with more detail. (UN Security Council 1267 sanctions committee says this web site is al-Qaeda!)

• Department of Monitoring (18 September 2011). "Emir Dokku Umarov's close comrade-in-arms killed in Istanbul". Kavkaz Center.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. To add it, IMHO we would need an RS identifying it as a targeted killing (as we can't make such a judgment ourselves, as editors).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits/deletions

I've restored the more logical paragraph split. It puts common concepts in common paras. I've also restored the reference, now in quotes and further edited, which is certainly not a copyvio (the original complaint of the deleter). It need not be "necessary"-- his more recent complaint. Futher, it was in the DYK, on the front page of wp, and went through the wp DYK vetting process as such. I am also restoring "w/out landing"--the deleter deleted that without explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I split a paragraph in the Lead because the first sentence described the operation of Predator drones, as they currently function, while the rest of the paragraph was devoted to "nano-drones" which are not yet used in the field. Therefore, the split went along the lines of what is currently used versus what is projected to be used.

The whole "killer bee" analogy is not applicable; it was made during an interview to hype the idea, and so does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Actual killer bees do not target a single individual, nor do they navigate obstacles in pursuit of that individual (as per the "even through windows" qualifying phrase). As the article is about "targeted killing", the topic of research & development for one method does not really belong in the Lead section at all. The whole nano-drone reference should be removed from the Lead (but not the article) until such time as they are actually employed in the field. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. You two battle it out to make the article read better and be more informative. But it is not “plagiarizing”, as you suggested here with this edit, nor a copyright violation to adopt a two-word term for something. If it were, the Fred Hoyle would have died rich for coining the term “Big Bang.” Fortunately, Hoyle died 20 days before he could witness the 9/11 attack on the twin towers. I agree that nano-drone should be out of the leded; until it is employed in the field, it is undo weight. Greg L (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the term Big Bang counts as "public domain". Anyway, we're building consensus here. Shall I edit the lead section, or would Epeefleche care to do the honor? Boneyard90 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I will give it a try in a couple of days, if there are not further comments. (If I don't get to it in a couple of days, feel free to do so Bone). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Article Protection

This seems like a really important article that is prone to edit wars. 142.35.235.22 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Can an admin put this under protection? That way all changes will be discussed firstBeefcake6412 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio claim

I don't see the copyvio that is claimed as warranted deletion of this article. Would it be possible for you to indicate to the community which specific sentences you believe are copyvio? That way, the community can consider and examine your assertion--and if you are correct in the eyes of any editor (or even if the editor does not think you are correct), that would afford the community an opportunity to address what you feel are copyvio concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Why have you qualified the section header with the word "claim"?

As you wrote and then created the article at 00:21 on 30 September 2010, and as it was so quaintly described "shepherded it" for all these months, don't you remember which parts if any you copied? If you do then why don't you start by listing those pieces you copied from other sources? You have said that you want to cooperate in this task, so how about starting to cooperate, rather than casting doubts on the good faith of another editor? -- PBS (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are examples of removal of copyright violations in the history of the article. The whole of the article is presumed to be a copyright violation: the presumption arises because of your history and is confirmed by the examples. I will not, for a 130kb article, "indicate to the community which specific sentences [I] believe are copyvio". --Mkativerata (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

After all that effort, Mkativerata, I trust that your work product won’t have the effect of changing the balance and tone of the article to please you. Groking the mix at the ANI against you, it appears Epeefleche is indicating that you tend to water down points in articles that are critical of Islamic extremists. It will be interesting to see whether the sunshine of public inspection will avoid such an outcome here on this article. The proof will be in the pudding when you’ve finished with this. To Epeefleche: when he’s done, if you find he made major changes to the balance of the article were effected via heavy use of the [delete] key, just revise the excised text so it is no longer a “very close paraphrasing” (or even a “close paraphrasing”) and repair the article. Wikipedia exists not to please Mkativerata nor you, but to best serve the interests of its readership with properly balanced and fair articles that mirror the balance of the RSs. Greg L (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Greg L you wrote above "After all that effort, Mkativerata, I trust that your work product won’t have the effect of changing the balance and tone of the article to please you." Please assume good faith, which in my opinion seems to be missing from that sentence and many of the following ones in that paragraph. BTW I await with interest a reply at that ANI to the question I put to you there. -- PBS (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This source [4] is being copied verbatim [5]. Volunteer Marek  04:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole buttload copied directly from this source [6]. Now, that source is no longer available there, but if you type in the title of the article you can find another version on some blog and when you slap it into duplicate detector you get that strings of 90 words, 64 words, 35 words, 31 words, 27 words, 20 words, as well as a few shorter ones, were pretty much copy/pasted (yes I appreciate the irony of using a third party source which potentially violates copyright itself to track down copyright violations on Wikipedia).

Blanking's fully justified. Volunteer Marek  05:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And this one [7] -> DD: [8]. It's sort of hard NOT to find copyright violations in this article but here's one [9] - it duplicates, but at least it's in quotes. Volunteer Marek  05:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Marek You do realise that nearly all of the big examples you've provided here are direct quotes taken from primary sources and only repeated verbatim because they are quotes of those primary sources? It's probably not a question for here, but at what point does a quote from a primary source correctly attributed to the primary source both in the secondary source and in wikipedia become a copyvio of the secondary source? WP:INTEXT is clear that it doesn't and surely copyright if any lies with the primary source (even if the secondary paraphrases slightly it still does not cross the originality threshold) and use in this manner is squarely fair use and essential to construction of any encyclopaedia that has to attribute and weigh up sources? If anything the only concern here is to ringfence these quotations with either quotation marks or a quotation template to clarify the fact that they are quotations (although the attribution should already do that). This is the problem I raised both at CCI and at ANI with Epeefleche - he likes to back up his information with direct quotes but uses secondary sourcing to identify those direct quotes the CCI process simply compares whether sentence A is the same or similar to sentence B and makes no consideration of the fact that perhaps both sentence A and sentence B are both fair use copies of sentence C. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No. While the first example with the duplicate detector includes some quotes, there's lots of non quotes in my examples as well.

"Espousing violence or providing financial support to al-Qaeda do not meet the threshold, officials said, but providing training to would-be terrorists or helping them get to al-Qaeda camps probably would" is not presented as a quotation in the text.

This passage "Reisner was often consulted at the target killing planning meetings, which he described as "very, very trying. Especially when I said it's okay. I'd go back to my office and ask my deputy, 'Do you agree?' It's a frightening process to be involved in, sitting in a room and talking about killing someone. It's enough to make your skin crawl."[67] But once the evidence was presented, Reisner said, when they identified the cafe the terrorist was planning to blow up, or the movie theater he hoped to destroy, "you're reminded of what you're trying to avoid."" includes some quotes, but the quotes are in the original - it's a copy paste.

Likewise, this isn't a quote: "Reisner concluded that they were legal, with six conditions: that arrest is impossible; that targets are combatants; that senior cabinet members approve each attack; that civilian casualties are minimized; that operations are limited to areas not under Israeli control; and that targets are identified as a future threat.[67] Unlike prison sentences, targeted killing cannot be meted out as punishment for past behavior, Reisner said.[67] In 2002, a military panel confirmed that targeting cannot be for revenge, but only for deterrence." (the word "established" was changed to "confirmed" and that's it).

Sorry, these are straight up copyvios, not sloppy quotations. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

1. You are right this isn't presented as a quotation, it's presented as close paraphrasing on the part of the "officials" in question - the problem is we don't have access to the primary source of the officials saying it so we can't present it a quotation and we can't paraphrase it further without changing the meaning of what the officials actually did say - unless you suggest a double attribution

The Los Angeles Times claims that officials said that "Espousing violence or providing financial support to al-Qaeda do not meet the threshold, ..."

WP:INTEXT seems to suggest that this can mislead (as though the LA times alone noted that the officials said this or possibly that the LA times said it themselves).

2. It doesn't matter that the quotes are in the msnbc article, they are still quotes and copyright lies with whoever said/wrote it originally - in this case Daniel Reisner - there may be some small argument that msnbc's words are an issue here but again a lot of these are Reisner's indirect speech and again attribution needs to be made to him not to msnbc who have paraphrased them. There is very little room for reworking them without again changing the meaning of the quotes they are designed to contextualise.

3 Nearly exactly the same issue as #1, with a bit of #2 - Reisner has said this and been attributed as saying this MSNBC has summarised the 6 points into as few words as possible. The 6 points remain the same but again without access to Reisner's original words we can't re-expand them or reorder them without changing Reisner's meaning again is a double quotation they way to resolve this? I don't think it does and in this case I think it would be even more misleading than the LA Times double quote in #1.

As I say this might not be a discussion for here, perhaps the Village Pump on Policy might be a better choice of venue to debate how editors should handle situations like this, but its something that possibly needs to be addressed to correct epeefleche's work which consists of a lot of these secondary sources quoting primary ones. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you present something as a "close paraphrasing"? Put half a quotation mark around it? And of course you can paraphrase it without changing the meaning of what the officials actually did say - that's what the word "paraphrase" actually means, and that's what good, non-copyvio, writing entails.

Re #2 - again, it's a copy/paste from the original article, which includes some quotation. It's pretty clear cut. Re #3 again to "paraphrase" means to "paraphrase" and it's not nearly as impossible as you're making it out to be. In cases where there's a specific list or something, THEN you quote it and make sure it's labeled as a quote from a source. Volunteer Marek  07:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And WP:INTEXT deals with how to use and cite sources without inadvertently violating NPOV - that's a different issue than copyvio. Volunteer Marek  07:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1. You present something as a "close paraphrasing" when you attribute them as actually having said it even though you actually use your own words to express it - it's the attributing that is presenting their meaning. And yes if you have access to what the actual officials did say then you can paraphrase it without changing the meaning. However if all you have is already paraphrased then errors may occur when paraphrasing again (particularly if you don't know the distance between the primary and the source you are citing). I assume you are aware of the game Chinese whispers in some form or other? where "helping them get to al-Qaeda camps probably would" becomes "helping them get to their camp probably would" becomes "giving them directions to their camp probably would" becomes "giving them directions probably would" which isn't the intent of what the actual officials said. Avoiding this type of error is key in maintaining verifiability, and neutrality
2. It doesn't matter if it's a copy and paste - it's a quote. If I copy and paste "Ich bin ein Berliner" from a New York Times article about Kennedy (April 30th, 1988?) - It doesn't become a copyright violation of the New York times because the text is not original to the Times. The fact that the times might have added on the word "Hence" before the quote still doesn't make it a copyvio if we also include the word "hence" before our use of it because it still doesn't add any significant originality to the new sentence.
3. The problem is not in paraphrasing, the problem is the compound error of repeated paraphrasing. In reality you should only be paraphrasing original Analysis or paraphrasing a direct quotation not paraphrasing a paraphrase of either.

WP:INTEXT deals with more than neutrality issues since it has two examples of neutrality then goes on "Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead" and gives other examples which are applicable here. Like I said though, this isn't a discussion for here - I'll have a think about a wider community discussion or RFC on the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see that there is no point in continuing this discussion any longer. Volunteer Marek  09:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed working replacement

Unless Talk:Targeted_killing/Temp, which is a complete copy of Assasination#Targeted killing, also deserves to get blanked, it could serve as content while you guys sort things out. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

First a deceleration so that no one can accuse me of hiding anything. I have already made it clear that I think that this article is a POV fork of Assassination. (see Talk:Assassination/Archive_2#RFC: Should there be a separate article called Targeted killing. What you are proposing is a content fork. So I suggest that at the moment if that is all that is on offer we go with a redirect as existed before a copyright violation was placed on top of the redirect. -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Targeted killing is quite notable and there are numerous books about it such as Targeted killing in international law. These distinguish the practise from assassination and so it seems quite reasonable to treat this separately. As the assassination article is quite long (52K), it would be sensible to put that section here per WP:SPLIT, as the OP suggests, and truncate the section in the assassination article. The older version of this article, which is tainted by the copyright issue can be folded back in over time. Warden (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  There are lots of books on terror bombing, and lots on strategic bombing, what is the difference other than we use strategic bombing and the enemy terror bombs us? Similarly what is the difference between assassination and targeted killing? -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  OLC declared it not to be assassination in a classified memorandum: a DoJ lawyer reasoned targeted killing legal. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  In all jurisdictions? Presumably as far a Bulgaria was concerned the killing of Georgi Markov was lawful, but it was murder under English law. -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit at 18:19, 6 February 2012‎

I have revered the last edit because it was too close to the original see this comparison -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are legitimate copyright concerns so have removed the material again and dropped the editor a note on their talk page. Some of the sentences look OK but these would make little sense without those that are, in my opinion, too close to the source. It shouldn't be too difficult to re-write these sentences to avoid these issues but I want to engage the edit concerned first so as to reduce the chance of an edit war. Dpmuk (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Selective assassination

Perhaps 'Selective assassination' could be merged into 'Targeted killing'. I proppose to discuss it here.Yone Fernandes (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Selective assassination"?? I've never heard of this. Is there some kind of assassination that's not selective? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Selective assassination has been redirect directed to assassination since January 2009‎ If it is to become the title for an article then discuss it at talk:assassination. With out any prior discussion Yone Fernandes removed the redirect on 16 February 2012‎ at 13:13 and less than half an hour later suggests it could be merged in here! What assassinations are not selective? We have this article because some people think that assassination must involve murder and are persuaded by American and Israeli self serving propaganda that "targeted Killing" is somehow separate from "assassination", yet until recently everyone used the term assassination for the killing of Reinhard Heydrich they never described it as "targeted killing" even though it was only a crime in Nazi eyes. -- PBS (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

References / POV

Can we maybe include some quotes that are NOT from US sources? With the very greatest respect, there are more Western countries that don't practice TK than do. Perhaps some more voices from these regions would create a better balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.13.34 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Targeted killing is not assassination"... okay, but why?

In the "Legal justifications" section, there are seven (!) more-or-less identical quotes saying "targeted killing is not the same as assassination", and not one of them features any justification for this assertion. Looking into the referenced material, some of the original sources do give some justification (which just didn't make it into the article) and some do not. I'm a little wary of tackling this myself for NPOV reasons, but someone should consider that a) having seven identical quotes is totally unnecessary, and could be replaced with something like "multiple legal scholars, including so-and-so, say that..." and b) that these quotes should be followed up with some kind of justification. Why is targeted killing not assassination? What are the differences? Sloverlord (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we need to incorporate the justification for why targeted killings are distinct in more depth JustinBothwell (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The people arguing that targeted killing is not assassination, are arguing from a specific political point of view, because what is an assassination if not a targeted killing? It is convenient for the American administration to make this difference from internal politician legal reasons, but it is exactly the same as other propaganda terms. For example the British considered that area bombing of Germany during world war II was an legal and morally justifiable. The German propaganda ministry called the raids terrorangriffe (terror raids) or Terrorhandlungen (terrorist activities) (see Strategic bombing#Notes). In histories of the Second World War it is usual to state that Operation Anthropoid was an assassination of Reinhard Heydrich. In German eyes this was an unlawful killing but for the Allies a lawful one, as such the legal position depends on the jurisdiction. In the same way the assassinations of Georgi Markov and Alexander Litvinenko were a murders under British law but presumably not a crime in Bulgaria or Russia. It seems to me that targeted killing is a convenient enuphanism used by some who support the assassination policies of the Israeli and American governments. Until it suited the American government they routinely condemned Israeli assassinations which the Israeli described as targeted killings. Take another example Otto Skorzeny was thought by the Americans to planning to assassinate General Dwight Eisenhower during the winter of 1944/45 (See for example page 2 of Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism by Timothy Naftali (2006) and page 156 and Battle: The Story of the Bulge by John Toland (1999)). The term used at the time was assassinate which clearly shows that so called "targeted killing" can also be termed an assassination.

In

• M Evan Brooks (2002). "Military Commanders as Specific Targets". Military History's Most Wanted. Potomac Books, Inc. pp. 119–121. ISBN 9781597974608.

there is a chapter called "Military Commanders as Specific Targets" 10 are listed:

1. Isoroku Yamamoto
2. Reinhart Heinrich
3. Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg
4. Emiliano Zapata
5. Pancho Villa
6. Edward Canby
7. Franz Ferdinand
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. Erwin Rommel
10. Louis Mountbatten
11. Project Phoenix (honourable mention)

A list like this shows how trying to distinguish "Targeted killing" legal against "assassination" illegal becomes a POV minefield and is really just another version of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your rationale, Philip Shearer. It seems clear to me that targeted killing is assasination, but (especially in American and Israeli spheres of influence) this is contested. As such, we could perhaps do a short segment analyzing the given arguments for and against the differences. Or do you think saying "Targeted killings are the assasination of individuals deemed to be a security threat to state actors, particularly United States and/or Isreal" would be appropriate? As far as I can tell the only difference between the two labels is that one is legal and one is not. JustinBothwell (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal under who's jurisdiction? Under the laws of war the Americans are treading a very fine line See No quarter and Surrender at discretion "...it is especially forbidden - ... To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion" (Hague). In the case of Death of Osama bin Laden the American authorities were careful not to explicitly order no quarter. The soldiers on the ground had to say that they though he might be armed (or have a bomb or whatever) because to have shot him if he was not armed would have been a breach of surrender at discretion. I leave it to your own opinion if the order no quarter was implicitly given and if the soldiers who shot him breached the laws of war over surrender at discretion. Was the killing murder under Pakistani domestic law, if it were then lots of people could be implemented under the development of international law at the ICTY see Joint criminal enterprise. The Americans will not allow any of the soldiers to be tried in Pakistan so there will never be a legal finding on all this.

As to your proposal, what I wrote above without sources is OR. So if you want to add anything to the article you have to provide reliable source to back up the additional text. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason it is not described as assassination is because this is illegal. Rather than murdering people for political reasons, they use violence against legitimate military targets. It is clear that this rationale is open to question on both the basis of the legitimacy, and the military nature of each target, as well as in principle.

a quote by Jeffrey Addicott

Under customary international law assassination has long been recognized as an illegal act. In the United States, the origin of the presidential ban on assassination is traced to 1977, when President Gerald Ford issued the first executive order which prohibited political assassination. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued his own Executive Order 12333 which reads: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Subsequent Presidents have not changed the Reagan order banning assassination, but confusion continues to swirl over the meaning of the ban, to the point that some senior lawmakers have actually argued that the ban should be revoked because it might impede the War on Terror. This view is mistaken. Executive Order 12333 in no way restricts the lawful use of violence against legitimate enemy targets. At the same time, those who advocate lifting the ban in order to allow the United States to engage in assassination are essentially advocating that the United States should be able to engage in “unlawful killing,” or “murder.” — THE YEMEN ATTACK: ILLEGAL ASSASSINATION OR LAWFUL KILLING? Professor Jeffrey Addicott St. Mary's University School of Law JURIST Contributing Editor

93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Balance needed

At the moment this article is focussed on defending the concept of "Targeted killing" both as a construct, and as a policy method. This should be corrected with a balanced view of the legality or otherwise of the killings, and a discussion of the use as a euphemism.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Targeted killing" is nothing more than a euphemism for assassination. It is unencyclopaedic, and POV to keep it as a separate article. It should be merged with assassination.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that at the moment this article does a poor job defining 'targeted killing' and explaining the difference between targeted killing and assassination. It contains a series of quotes asserting that they are different, but without a justification this seems like mere argument by assertion. If the justification is 'targeted killings are legal assassinations; assassinations are illegal targeted killings', that's not much better, and is of no help in trying to determine what to classify a particular killing as.

My own interpretation would be that 'assassination' is a subset of 'targeted killing': all assassinations are targeted killings by definition, but not all targeted killings are assassinations. 'Assassination' carries particular associations that the more neutral 'targeted killing' does not: it implies a particularly important victim, usually a political figure, and that the killing is taking place outside of a state of war. 'Targeted killing' is a broader term covering all selective killings of particular individuals, whether they're important or not, inside or outside of a warzone. Maybe I'm splitting hairs though, and in any case, this is all WP:OR and couldn't be added to the article. Robofish (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Vis as vis opening statement: we need a source for that definition.

"Citations are not used on disambiguation pages (sourcing for the information given there should be done in the target articles). Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead."

Settdigger (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor Assistance

I have included your name in the header of my request for user assistance. Thank you for understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Settdigger_Requests_Editor_Assistance_Re:_Seb_az86556_.26_Tarc.27s_reverts_of_my_Obama_talk_page_edits.2C_and_Wikidemon.27s_Obstructions_of_my_Contributions

Settdigger (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Geneva Convention "or" Common Article 3?

Since the third Geneva Convention applies to detained individuals, i.e. POWs, and the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to civilians (debatably, possibly to un-detained terror-suspects) I think that the original draftor of this page confused Common Article 3 (which is "common" to all four Geneva Conventions) with the Third Geneva Convention.

This article is poorly written, generally written by someone lip-synching U.S. policy.

The person mentioned other no-due-process killings done in history by non-U.S. countries, but the U.S. policy is so vastly different, that the way this is written is misleading, i.e. as if the U.S. policy defines something longstanding - which it doesn't. 178.197.254.3 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

POV template

As this template didn't receive a talk page explanation (and the discussion is long dormant even if it had), I've removed this template per #3 in the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion from previous editors is present in the archives. I think the issues they raised were important and don't believe that they've been addressed adequately, so my own recommendation would be to return the tag. Ideally, somebody should take the initiative to work through this article carefully, and I'm sorry that I haven't had time as yet. -Darouet (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with your restoring it for a bit if you feel we're moving toward a resolution; I just don't want to see it take up permanent residence. I don't have strong opinions about this page, but am simply making an effort to get some of these old tags resolved (either by getting this issue to consensus, or by agreeing that the issue is dead).

If you'd like to restore it, my suggestion would be that you be very explicit here about what you'd like to see changed about the article (placing the tag requires this anyway), which will hopefully move the discussion toward resolution: you can either make the changes you'd like to see, or another consensus can be reached by dissenting editors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Targeted killing is 'a frequent tactic of the United States and Israel' " ?

I changed the sentence "Targeted killing has been used by governments around the world, and is a frequent tactic of the United States and Israel." to "Targeted killing has been used by governments around the world, and has been used by the United States and Israel."

There are two reasons for this change.

First, accuracy. Reference [1] cited to support this statement, Gary D. Solis (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War,describes the procedure as "a frequent tactic of choice in fighting terrorists," not merely "a frequent tactic." Fighting terrorists is a subset of military operations which is itself not frequent in that larger case of "military operations." So targeted killing isn't particularly frequent in the US and Israel.

Second, the failure to be accurate in describing the frequency with which targeted killing is used by the United States and Israel violates the obligation of Wikipedia authors and editors to adopt a neutral point of view (NPOV). Wikipedia isn't a forum for political expression beyond an accurate and neutral description of political events, but stating that the United States and Israel use targeted killing frequently when they don't is political expression going far beyond neutrality in point of view.loupgarous (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you name any western state other than the US which has used assassination more than half a dozen times in the last decade? If not then frequently is in comparison to usage by other states. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Free Online Dictionary defines "frequently" as:

fre·quent·ly (frkwnt-l) adv. At frequent intervals; often.

This word does not mean "used more often than other states." And I edited the article specifically because no authority in the article is cited to defend the statement that the United States or Israel make use of targeted killings at frequent intervals or often. Your own alternative criterion is not only a misuse of the word "frequently," it's non-NPOV

Also, I'd appreciate it if you showed the specific authority cited to support the specific allegation that the United States and Israel use targeted killing more often than other states (with the added qualification "states which are engaged in counter-insurgency warfare in which the targeted opposition used terrorist tactics." The United Kingdom made use of targeted killing during the Malaysian Emergency, suppression of the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya, and at other times.) loupgarous (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Israel (this was an issue during the Palestinian Intifada), but for the United States, stating that its military uses targeted killings frequently is not controversial and is supported by a wealth of sources.

The Stanford and New York University law schools jointly published a comprehensive report in September 2012 reviewing targeted killings by the American military in Pakistan. The report collated hundreds of sources and conducted independent interviews in Pakistan using Pakistani researchers in order to improve the reliability of responses. According to the report, the U.S. is known to have conducted "292 strikes between January 23, 2009 and September 2, 2012" and these numbers may "underestimate the total number of strikes" because of incomplete reporting (the report notes that this is a bigger problem under Bush). The report states that "people on the ground [live] with the daily presence of lethal drones in their skies and with the constant threat of drone strikes in their communities." Two dozen American congressmen wrote to President Obama in 2012 calling drones “faceless ambassadors that cause civilian deaths... frequently the only direct contact with Americans that targeted communities have.” To make clear that the report is describing targeted killings,

"Targeted killings" as typically understood (intentional and premeditated killings) cannot be lawful under [International Human Rights Law], which allows intentional lethal force only when necessary to protect against a threat to life, and where there are “no other means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation, of preventing that threat to life.” There is little public evidence that many of the targeted killings carried out fulfill this strict legal test. Indeed, and as described above, many particular strikes and practices suggest breaches of the test... The nature and effect of the US targeted killing policy may also contravene in some instances other sections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), an international human rights treaty ratified by the US.

— Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan (2012).

NBC news reported that "A Taliban commander in Pakistan’s tribal belt has banned a vaccination campaign against child polio in protest over frequent United States drone attacks there."

Following the report published by the Washington Post late last year on the institutionalization of drone strikes, the ACLU wrote, "anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong.”

As far as Israel is concerned, you might look at this Middle East Quarterly piece by Gal Luft, who supports the killings:

Israelis dislike the term "assassination policy." They would rather use another term—"extrajudicial punishment," "selective targeting," or "long-range hot pursuit"—to describe the pillar of their counterterrorism doctrine. But semantics do not change the fact that since the 1970s, dozens of terrorists have been assassinated by Israel's security forces, and in the two years of the Aqsa intifada, there have been at least eighty additional cases of Israel gunning down or blowing up Palestinian militants involved in the planning and execution of terror attacks.

— The Logic of Israel's Targeted Killing, 2003.

In light of all this and more sources available online, which aren't difficult to find for anyone interested, please take care to refrain from aggressive language and try to avoid the pitfalls of wikilawyering. Violation of NPOV policy doesn't occur every time you read something you don't like. -Darouet (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite my comments above, however, I'll refrain from editing the section because I don't think it's particularly helped by adding the adjective "frequent." Actually describing use of this policy by the U.S. and Israeli governments in qualitative and quantitative terms is more helpful than throwing around adjectives. If anyone wants to work to improve the section they should feel free of course (loupgarous, PBS, etc.) -Darouet (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that you have enough significant citations for the large number of targeted strikes made by the United States in the Afghanistan/Pakistan tribal lands area. I'm not sure that I know what you mean by my "aggressive language," because scrolling up, I do not see any such language in my posts. I addressed myself specifically to your misuse of the word "frequently," and I still believe that in context it's a questionable word to describe what the United States is doing compared to the Taliban's own tactics against Americans, other NATO troops and civilians, and Afghani and Pakistani troops and civilians.

If you're offended by my opinion of what inappropriate adjectives do to the NPOV of a WP article, I sincerely regret your distress, but I did not threaten to do anything at all, nor was I abusive toward anyone. I invite anyone to scroll up and see that for themselves.

The war in Afghanistan is dirty because the Taliban have breached the line between following the Law Of Armed Conflict and breaking it. Targeted killing, as distateful as it is, at least attempts to focus military force on individuals guilty of organizing and abetting the breaches of LOAC that have typified Taliban military action. I mention this because in the welter of an unconventional war in which one side seems not to recognize any limits on their use of force against armed or unarmed people throughout the region, 292 targeted killings by the side which DOES acknowledge its duty to follow the LOAC may not contravene the spirit of the laws governing warfare. The opinions of two law schools' faculties are not a definitive assessment of the United States' adherence to the LOAC by any means; law school faculty members represent one viewpoint on this topic among many.

Your gloss on one of your sources saying that "the report notes that this is a bigger problem under Bush" is contradicted by other reports, e.g.: a report on targeted killings by the Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 that states "Since assuming office in 2009, Barack Obama's administration has escalated targeted killings, primarily through an increase in unmanned drone strikes on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but also through an expansion of U.S. Special Operations kill/capture missions. The successful killing of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. Navy SEAL raid in May 2011 and the September 2011 drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni cleric and AQAP propagandist, are prime examples of this trend. The White House points to these outcomes as victories, but critics condemn the lethal tactic on moral, legal, and political grounds."

Since the Council on Foreign Relations is not a politically partisan group and many of its members belong to political groupings which back Mr. Obama, it can be assumed that this is an objective assessment. loupgarous (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that use of the term "frequent" doesn't add to the discussion - it's a "buzz word" - and actual qualitative and quantitative measurements of the use of force by BOTH sides of the conflict describe targeted killing in an accurate context, surely the objective of an encyclopedia article.

Your statement "the report notes that this is a bigger problem under Bush" was helpful in this discussion because it caused me to look for authoritative assessments of targeted killings during the Obama administration, of which the Council on Foreign Relations' report cited above was representative. The report you cited actually conflicts with authoritative opinion on the relative degree to which targeted killing was used by Mr. Bush's administration and Mr. Obama's administration. The Stanford University law school report on targeted killings, then, presents a view of this topic which is not universally held.

Since you, Darouet, have felt free to ask me to refrain from actions which I am not guilty of, I feel comfortable asking you to take care to survey a range of authoritative documents on the use of targeted killing, so that when we editors actually modify the article, it represents the spectrum of authoritative opinion on the subject and not just the more controversial opinions of one side in the discussion - such as Stanford Law's contrafactual statements about the comparative use of targeted killings in the Bush and Obama administrations. loupgarous (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi loupgarous, thanks for your comments. I actually agree with your assessment of drone strikes under Bush and Obama, and I think that the Stanford/NYU report does too: the "bigger problem under the Bush Administration" comment refers to the availability of information, not the frequency of use. So in this respect you're wholly right: thanks for clarifying.

Also, as far as your "guilt," I just become a little annoyed when I see NPOV violation accusations thrown around quickly; your behavior was not outrageous and I'm sorry for seeming accusatory here. I wasn't the editor who added that phrase or the word "frequent," so I never felt as though you were attacking me personally. As you can see, however, using the word "frequent" is, for the United States at least, justified.-Darouet (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

United States targeted killings

There is an article on Israeli targeted killings, but no article on targeted killing carried out by the United States. Targeted killings carried out by the United States seems to be a notable topic, as discussed in this article. I propose creating a new article about targeted killings by the United States. Akuri (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose because this article easily covers that issue and such an article it will be a content fork. -- PBS (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it should be a WP:SPINOFF article. Isn't the section Targeted_killing#Use_by_the_United_States_Government long enough to be split off into its own article? That has already been done with the "use by the Israeli government" section. Akuri (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so because no only does one need to copy over what is at the moment a small section one would have to copy over the explanations as the term is only a convenient synonym/workaround for Ford's Executive Order 11905 and carter's Executive Order 12036. By the time all that text has been copied it will either gut this article or create a content fork. -- PBS (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see some other editors' opinions on this question. Does anyone else have one? If not, I might start an RFC. Akuri (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)