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)