Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan/Archive 3

Redirect to:

• Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan/Archive 3

• From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

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)

Now if someone would just go through the rest of the article and pull all the non-objective stuff. At the very least the article should be marked as controversial for creating an anti-drone strike narrative. It makes it sound like the Pakistani military doesn't want the US drone strikes, when there are articles and evidence available that say quite the opposite. 67.208.148.22 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Links

[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)).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

It violates international law quite flagrantly. The intro states that the court in Peshawar has stated this, while the U.S. disagrees. I'm not shocked that it's presented that way, but there's not much of a "discussion" to be had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.159.20 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Statistics section

In May 2013, the New York Times reported that, "...Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." [2] Narrowing the definition of civilian seems pretty important when evaluating statistics. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 21:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Johnston and Sarbahi study

Wouldn't it be better to cite the peer-reviewed version of this study, as opposed to the pre-publication version? It's also iffy to say that this is an "analysis by the RAND Corporation" just because one of the two authors works at RAND. It would be equally iffy to call this a 'University of Minnesota' (the affiliation of the co-author) study Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Drone strikes in Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/13+us-plans-75pc-increase-in-drone-operations-320-za-05
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/13+us+forces+using+shamsi+airbase+in+balochistan-za-02
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=165781
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C01%5C30%5Cstory_30-1-2010_pg3_5
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/u-s-said-to-reduce-civilian-deaths-after-increasing-cia-pakistan-strikes.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/02/counting_civilian_casualties_in_cia_s_drone_war
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012043923/http://livingunderdrones.org/ to http://livingunderdrones.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/pakistan/247-drones-myths-and-reality-in-pakistan.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)