Jump to content

Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs) at 22:14, 12 November 2014 (→Page Move: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dubious Peswhar Court data.

I cut "According to the statistics presented to the Peshawar High Court by the Government of Pakistan in response to a petition filed in June 2013 - in 333 drone strikes during the last five years, 47 militants and 1500 civilians were killed while 330 were left maimed.[26]" It was single sourced to the online Daily Mail to an argument by the leader of a political party. Bad sourcing for an outrageous claim. If someone can find multiple sources to show that a policy that was 3% effective was continued, we might consider putting it back.  Tedperl (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1]>> Pakistan anti-drone campaigner missing>> Pakistan pressed over missing drone activist >> Abducted Pakistani drone activist freed(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Maybe someone can explain how this "Closing" process works when all of the editors themselves do not sign in and remain anonymous....

Honestly, in a discussion about the quoting of anonymous but supposedly authoritative sources, the people we find who are arguing it AND closing it are deliberately choosing to remain anonymous by not signing in. Money for Wikipedia? Not one dime in support of such anarchy. QuintBy (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address your concerns, but there seems to be some confusion. The last discussion "closed" here was this one, almost a year ago, closed by a registered editor. Is that the one you mean? As this is your first edit to this talk page, did you mean a different article?
As for anonymous editors, yes, Wikipedia accepts contributions by anonymous editors. In fact, most editors are anonymous, including you. Yes, all of your contribs are connected to the user name "QuintBy", but that doesn't tell anyone who you are. Maybe you're a senior government official pushing the government's agenda, maybe you're a lonely crank in a cabin in the remote wilderness pushing your pet theory. More likely, you're somewhere in between. At least with IP editors we can tell something about where they are editing from.
Money for Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia runs on donations.
Anarchy? Wikipedia has a metric fuckton of rules compared to most anything anyone would call "anarchy". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember that the sources are not really anonymous. The reporter's name is usually stated, and the editorial staff of the publication is usually publicly available. Furthermore, if the names of the sources quoted in the article are not given, they are still presumably known to the reporter, which is why they are considered "unnamed" but NOT "anonymous." Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFR update

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/12/31/tracking-u-s-targeted-killings/

86.129.4.149 (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

Shouldn't there be a section on the legality - or rather otherwise - of these assassinations?101.98.175.68 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction discusses this. Uhlan talk 06:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

Drone attacks in Pakistan → Drone strikes in Pakistan – I make this request for these reasons: (1). According to [2] 'drone strikes' are a far more common term used, as opposed to 'drone attacks'. (2). This means that Wikipedia common name policy is not being observed with the current title: [3] (3). 'Drone attacks' convey a negative skew towards the article, in violation of Wikipedia non-judgmental descriptive policy: [4] (4). Many of the initial references used in the actual article state 'drone strikes': [5] [6] [7] [8] Uhlan talk 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment with either *support or *oppose and leave a comment. Should this page be moved? Uhlan talk 06:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose equally good references use the phrase "drone attacks in Pakistan" [9] (and this is just a half hearted automated search with no custom queries; proper searches would yield much more). Attack also signifies the grievances of Pakistani public; the fact that Pakistani public is vehemently against the tactic is a significant reason behind Pakistan's changing foreign policy from time to time related to drone attacks. The word "strike" is more appropriate when referring to individual incidents. The current title is WP:DUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a change to a more neutral article name.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan&oldid=633584384"