Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Charts

Can someone graph up all this data and post a chart in the article? (I would do it myself but I am but a lowly newbie and I don't know how to post images.) I think this could be very informative: Strikes as a function of month and causuaties as a function of month. How big was the spike in Dec 2009-Jan 2010 after the CIA got hit? How much has the rate changed since Obama started office? Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.68 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion without header

I oppose the merging of these two articles as "Drone_attacks_on_Pakistan_by_the_United_States_of_America" drone missile attacks are different from "List_of_American_missile_strikes_in_Pakistan" missile attacks as this Drone_attacks article bespeaks about the increased use of drones in warfare. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Name change

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

• I would change it to "Drone Attacks in Pakistan by the United States". "On" implies it is an attack on the country itself. These appear to be coordinated attacks on Taliban and AQ targets. Thoughts?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

these attacks are ON the sovereign territory of Pakistan with most casualties being innocent Pakistani citizens. They are considered a violation of sovereignty by many people in Pakistan including the government. so IN I think is not accurate and could be construed as pushing US POV and sugarcoating the issue. it is very apparent that Pakistanis consider these attacks as an attack on their country and want these stopped asap.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You are actually asking me to presume they are not authorized, Geo Swan? That they are not launched from within Pakistan itself? Have you heard of Diane Feinstein? This is too simple. Thanks for the attempted parallel with WWII. Apples and oranges. As stated, it should be "IN" Pakistan. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

yes the drones are launched from Shamsi. but did Pakistan authorize the shooting?? They have repeatedly said that they do not want any drone attacks and have never said they would not allow the drone flights (presumably for intelligence gathering). you are just assuming that Pakistan has agreed to the drones attacking targets when all public statements emanating from Pak are to the contrary. yes attacks on Pakistani citizens are attacks ON pakistan even though the pakistani military and civil infrastructure is not targeted. what would you call if Chinese fired a missile on some dissidents who were given asylum in USA ( AKA terrorists) living in LA ?? and please do not assume that I have no control over US policy. you do not know what I do in real life do you ??? :-)Wikireader41 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, would you please consider responding to what your correspondents actually wrote? You seem to have skipped over my final paragraph, in its entirety.

"Some ... suggest ... Pakistan's ... protestations ... are insincere ... If we have references to that effect, let's include them. Treating those protestations as if we KNEW they were insincere is, I suggest, a serious mistake.

If you can supply references that claim Pakistan's protestations are insincere, please provide them now.

Even if you were to find references that indicated that Pakistan's protestations were insincere, unless you were able to find a leaked copy of a secret treaty where Pakistan's government secretly agreed to the opposite of its publicly stated policy positions whatever references you found would be the commentators opinion, and would have to be stated as such, not represented as an unequivocal fact. Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1 included a link to the following article -- but he did so in an obfuscated manner. I will supply the link in a unobfuscated manner below, because it is a good reference. It could be used to state that authoritative commentators have challenged the sincerity of the Pakistani government's protestations that the drone attack are unauthorized. However, it does not unequivocally establish that the protestation are insincere. I believe both President Bush and President Obama have stated that they are prepared to use force, inside Pakistan, without regard to whether Pakistan has given its authorization. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noah Shachtman (2009-02-13). "Senator: U.S. Launches Drone War on Pakistan, From Pakistan". Wired magazine.

You miss the point yet again. The drone attacks originate IN Pakistan from US bases IN Pakistan. One has a rather difficult point trying to make an argument that this is a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and are attacks "on" Pakistan when the attacks come from withIN their own territory. Put plainly, I don't really need to show "insencerity" of protest when the drone attacks come from withIN Pakistan's own territory from bases whereIN Pakistan waived their own sovereignty to allow such bases to exist in the first place. Getting it now? The title of this article is misleading. Do you now understand the point? I certainly hope so. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Pakistan waived their own sovereignty to allow such bases to exist in the first place..." is merely a point of view, a controversial one you may share with the Senator. But the Senator is not a senior Pakistani official. Since Pakistani cabinet members continue to insist that the attacks are not authorized it would be a serious lapse from neutrality for us to write that they actually are authorized, or to rename the article to imply the attacks are authorized. Geo Swan (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

By my reasoning, 9/11 was an attack on two targets by terrorists who flew airplanes into them utilizing commercial aircraft that had been hijacked. The United States did not provide the means for the attack to occur by agreeing with a foreign government or entity to set up an airport where the flights took place. As for "making sense", I don't think there exists any real confusion on this point. South Korea and the Phillipines have these things called "treaties" with the United States and its military for use of these bases, and their presence constitutes a waiver of sovereignty in that regard. The same thing applies to Pakistan, which by treaty allows the United States to operate air bases from within its own territory. The deaths of civilians would be, by Pakistan's logic, a violation of that agreement, but it would still not constitute an attack "on" Pakistan when the means of delivering the strike is located within Pakistan itself by their own agreement. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

yachtsman1. again you are confusing the issue of Pakistan allowing the attacks. they never have to the best of our knowledge and routinely deny this notion. they allowed the drones to take off from Shamsi and maybe even shoot in Afghanistan. so what would you say if I said that CIA "hijacks" these drones routinely after they take off and illegally uses them to shoot inside Pakistan. the triggers are pulled in Nevada not in Pakistan and not by Pentagon but by CIA officers who also fly them for bulk of the mission. all in all the key issue here is whether an attack on Pakistani Citizens is an attack ON Pakistan or not. other issues are not even worth debating. who gave the permission ( an illegal dictator or a popular elected govt), was permission given under coercion, was the alternative for Pakistan to be blown into stone age as Musharraf seems to have said in his memoirs. we could debate all this endlessly. I would even argue that an attack clearly sanctioned ( and it is not) by an unpopular government/ dictator against its own citizens would still be an attack ON that country. As far as making sense let me be very clear you are not making any sense to me whatsoever. so do not say there is no confusion. thank youWikireader41 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, please re-read the first three words of your last comment:

"By my reasoning..."

We can offer our personal opinions here on talk pages, if we are doing so to discuss how best to edit the article. But our personal opinion should never be inserted into article space. You are free to quote the skepticism Senator Diane Feinstein expressed about the sincerity of Pakistan's denials that it had authorized the US attacks. I encourage you to do so.

But there is no defense, within policy, for changing the name of this article based on your personal reasoning. Doing so is an injection of your personal reasoning into article space -- a very clear violation of policy.

There are times when my personal conclusions are at odds with what all of our WP:RS say. As a good faith contributor to the wikipedia my choices are to take a vacation from articles on those topics, or stick with what the WP:RS say. Sometimes this is an effort.

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

Thank you for your comment, Geo Swan. This will confirm that your "personal reasoning" has not been employed, it is only others who have done so. Thank you also for directing my attention to a response to a post that used the term.

If you are going to work on any article, a title must reflect reality, and the reality is that the attacks by drones are coming from withIN Pakistan's own territory. Your point has now changed, and the attacks are said not to be "sanctioned" for use on Pakistani civilians. If you have a link showing that these drone attacks come from outside of Pakistan's territory, I encourage you to show them to me.

WP:RS does not support your position in the slightest, by the way, but thanks for the link. I would suggest you review it in light of your own use of primary sources.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:VER. You wrote: "If you are going to work on any article, a title must reflect reality..." Sorry, this advice of your is at odds with WP:VER. I don't define the "true reality". You don't define the "true reality". Remember "verifiability, not truth". We have discussed two thing that are verifiable. (1) the official position of the Pakistani government is that the attacks on Pakistan are not authorized; and (2) some WP:RS, including the Senator, are skeptical about Pakistan's official position. You have offered nothing to challenge the verifiable official position. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of an article is not based on WP:VER. Whether these attacks are authorized or not is irrelevant. They arise from the United States's presence "IN" the country. They are not attacks by the United States that come from outide of pakistan. The title is misleading. I would suggest you look at WP:NPOV, and take that into careful consideration given your own arguments above. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the long and interesting debate above, which includes many "ins and outs," it is quite obvious that the article's title should be changed, as per Yachtsman1. To a new and uninformed reader of this entry, the preposition "on" instantly implies and denotes an attack on the country itself, not rogue targets which would be located "IN" Pakistan. I think a proposal should be made and discussed by a wider group of Wikipedians. JEN9841 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much my reasoning as well, Jen. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

yes a wider group would be good. hopefully a new and uninformed reader would quickly become 'informed' after reading the article and shed the myth that these are not perceived as attacks ON a country by the vast majority. attacks on Rogue targets without explicit permission of the country still constitutes an attack on the country ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the important qualified: Attacks "in" the country from forces located "in" the country are not attacks "on" the country. They do not come from outisde of it, but from within the country itself. Again, this needs a wider audience for comment.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a comment at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. JEN9841 (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think the issue of in/on rests on the line in the article which says "Pakistan has repeatedly protested these attacks claiming that they are an infringement of its sovereignty", if that can be verified through RS and without contradictory RS stating the exact opposite; then I would think "on Pakistan" is the correct name. If it is not a verifiable statement, than "in Pakistan" is the better name. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Move before consensus established?

This article was recently moved, prior to a consensus being established.

I suggest this is a misinterpretation of WP:BOLD. Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

exactly. I have reverted the move. Please do not move without consensus otherwise I will revert it Wikireader41 (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what are the numbers right now? I didn't "vote" because I think either name is fine, but if forced to make a choice because of the danger of move wars, I choose "Drone attacks in Pakistan by the United States". Does that establish consensus? Cla68 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is never a consensus on these topics, mainly because the "sides" are always drawn. A neutral third party would be my suggestion, or posting on a board where it can be fully discussed.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with no attachment to this article, I would say "in" Pakistan is more appropriate than "on" Pakistan. "On Pakistan" implies far more than just the physical land that constitutes modern Pakistan-- it also includes the people, infastructure, sovereignty, and government-- and makes it sound as though the United States is conducting a war against Pakistan rather than on a group which operates within Pakistan. It also ignores the official cooperation that exists between the two governments. For both neutrality and accuracy, "in Pakistan" is much more appropriate. "On Pakistan" seems like a POV issue to me. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As Yachtsman1 mentioned above, when one nation has military forces based in another nation, there is generally a treaty, or some other agreement in place, that sets out what the visitors were authorized to do. Now Pakistan has repeatedly stated that the USA is NOT' authorized to fire on anyone or anything in Pakistan. If whatever agreement the USA and Pakistan have did explicitly state the USA was authorized to fire on Taliban fighters, when they were in "hot pursuit", across the Afghan border, then those actions would be "attacks in Pakistan by the United States". While attacks that lack explicit permission are attacks ON the other nation.

I don't know the exact terms of the agreement between the USA and Pakistan. But, I suggest, if it permitted the USA to use force in Pakistan, as opposed, basing planes in Pakistan to observe the border, and make attacks on the Afghan side, the USA would have said so. I suggest, if this was the case, Pakistan would not have complained.

The USA has (had?) bases in South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. Suppose US military intelligence thinks it detected Osama bin Laden, or one of his senior Lieutenants was hiding in the portion of the Philippines with a large number of muslims. Suppose the USA sent in a snatch team to try to take him alive -- without informing the Philippine government first? Or suppose they asked for permission, it was refused, and the USA sent in that snatch team anyhow? Wouldn't you agree that would be an attack ON the Philippines?

Similarly, there are some people in Canada who the USA considers enemies. Omar Khadr has two elder brothers. His eldest brother Abdullah Khadr is alleged to have helped their father to sell weapons to jihadists. Pakistan captured him in late 2005, held him for a year, in a secret Pakistani interrogation facility. I don't know why the USA didn't get Pakistan to just hand him over. But he was released, and Canadian officials helped him back to Canada. He was arrested a couple of weeks after his return, because the USA had requested his extradition to the USA. He has been in a Canadian jail ever since, as this extradition request has dragged out. Suppose Canada quashed the extradition request, and the USA tasked some NORAD forces in Canada to go snatch him anyhow? Wouldn't you agree that would be an attack ON Canada?

Mushareff was candid about what Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told him when the USA was planning to retaliate against Afghanistan. Armitage made it crystal clear that if Pakistan didn't come on board the USA would attack Pakistan too. Pakistan had been the Taliban's closest ally. The Taliban was basically an invention of Pakistan's Interservice Intelligence Directorate. Commentators were actually surprised that Pakistan had switched sides. Armitage basically acknowledged Mushareff's account.

Under other circumstance Pakistan might kick the USA out over these attacks. They might even consider them an act of war. Mushareff survived several assassination attempts. Benazir Bhutto, the current guy's wife, was assassinated. Heaven forbid he is assasinated, but if he were a new leader who fears assassination more than he fears the USA might kick out the USA over these attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, I always read the arguments and counterarguments in a discussion, bearing in mind the possibility that I might be wrong. I own up when I realize I was mistaken. I would encourage you to do likewise. Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would own up, except I don't think I'm wrong in this case. What I have seen is speculation followed by crystal balling on what Pakistan "might" do. "If" Pakistan kicks out the United States, and the United States then launches a drone attack "on" Pakistan, the title would be correct. However, the present situation is that the United States has bases "in" Pakistan, and the drone attacks are "in" Pakistan. You have provided not a single cogent point that refutes that underlying premise, instead directing my attention to Canadien refugees, and a situation wherein NORAD forces might "snatch and grab" one of them. Shocking as this might appear to you, this would not be considered an attack "on" Canada if the forces were present by agreement, and did not take offensive action to cross the border. An attack "on" Canada would involve something like the 10th Mountain Division crossing the border to get him without agreement from the Canadien government that they do so from American territory. Do you understand the difference yet? In one situation, the grab is a violation of treaty/agreement for operations of foreign forces "in" Canada, in the other, it is an offensive act by military forces "on" Canada. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to do my best to paraphrase what I think is the main premise of your comment above:

1. If country A has forces in country B, by agreement, and those forces act according to the agreement, no problem;
2. If country A has an agreement with country B, and initiates a use of force in country B, but one authorized by the agreement -- no problem;
3. If country A has forces in country B, by agreement, and those forces do something, launch missiles, send in a snatch team, not authorized by the agreement, you regard that unauthorized act as an attack "in" country B, not "on" country B -- even if country B states its opposition to the act;
4. If country A has an agreement with country B, and possibly some forces stationed in country B, and country A then initiates a use of force in country B, using forces not based in country B, you would call this an attack "on" country B.

So, just for the record, have we established that any of those Predator that launched those missiles took off from an airbase in Pakistan, not Bagram or Jalalabad? Have we established that they all took off from Pakistan? If not how do you plan to establish that?

I question whether the location of the airbase is the key point. I suggest the key point is whether the act is authorized, in the agreement.

For the record Abdullah Khadr is not a Canadian refugee. All the Khadr siblings, with the exception of Abdurahman were born in Canada. All the siblings are Canadian citizens. Geo Swan (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The matter is moot, Geoswan. Check out the neutrality board for my final comments on this matter. Thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: After I posted to the NPOV board, the article was moved by an administrator to the one suggested by Yachtsman1 and JonRidinger above. JEN9841 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Challenge: I told User:MoRsE that I found it troubling that they renamed this article, without participating in the discussion. I told him that I was assuming that, since they had not signaled that they renamed the article as an administrator I was assuming they were acting as a regular contributor. I told MoRsE that Jen9841 asserts that they were acting as an administrator. And I told them I find this troubling. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss away, that's certainly your right, but it's still the more neutral title as argued here, and as further stated on the neutrality noticeboard by an independent editor. I think he had plenty of support for making the change under those circumstances no matter the hat he wore when he made the change.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

and you might want to pay some attention to what Pakistanis think. apparently 81% do not approve of Drone attacks ON their country as per a new survey.[1].Wikireader41 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't title articles by polls, Wikireader41.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

says who. This is clear violation of NPOV where the western /US POV is being pushed at the cost of the POV of people who are most affected by these attacks ( Pakistanis). I thought NPOV was the rule here. no sugarcoating these attacks. They clearly are attacks ON Pakistan. They could be considered IN pakistan only if they had clear support of Pakistani people and government which they dontWikireader41 (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again your your comment. The fact of the matter is that the version of Wikipedia you are in is the "English" version, and an attack "on" another country has a very succinct meaning in English which is not reflected in the sources. An attack "on" another country means that the attack comes from outside of its territory, it is an offensive act from some other place. That is the POV issue with that title. This is not the situation you have here. You can add all of the content you like on the feelings of the Pakistani people about drones operating from bases in their country and attacking targets "in" Pakistan, but it is still not an attack "on" Pakistan. It is an attack "in" Pakistan. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

what english are you talking about. where does it stay that an attack ON a country has to come from outside the country ??? I understand I am on English wikipedia but do you ??? It is clear that you are obfuscating the issue. please provide me a single source which says that an attack ON a country has to come from outside the country. if you cant then stop this line of reasoning. you are completely not making any sense at all.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the English language, where "on" is a preposition, in this case being "used to indicate the object or end of motion". See [2]. Thus we use phrases like "attack on Pearl Harbor". Your POV is duly noted, but the use of the preposition "on" in the title violates NPOV as its use does not reflect your own sources. The preposition "in" now included with the title is "used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits". [3]. The attacks originate in Pakistan, and occur in the limits of the country itself. Its use is more neutral, does not creat a false impression, and this was fully discussed previously in the neutrality noticeboard. See: [4]. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not fully discussed. The discussion is ongoing. thanx for the english lesson the source you point says nothing about ON or IN so another attempt at obfuscation here. please see the difference between preposition and an adverb in any standard texbook of english. the use of ON is an adverb in the present context describing the object of the attacks. also see [5][6] [7][8][9]Obviously all of these sources do not know English either. again you are changing your line of reasoning to suit yourself. i thought you said attack had to come from outside the country. ON correctly reflects the attack is ON the country in violation of its sovereignty. similar attacks in Afghanistan would be IN afghanistan as the Government there is supportive of these attacks.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely (adverb) response, but this paricular matter is on (preposition) the subject of which title comports with NPOV.[10], [11]. Your point of view is noted, but you forget that inviting a foreign power to operate military bases within one's country is itself a waiver of sovereignty, and the undisputed fact is that these attacks come from predators operating in bases located within the territory of Pakistan. I would suggest that while reviewing WP:NPOV, you also review WP:CIV as your latest response constitutes a personal attack. Thank you again (adverb). --Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be very fond of the word 'obfuscation' wonder why. do you know somebody who specialises in it ;-) Coming to think of it the title is overly long, why not just Drone attacks in Pakistan. Pahari Sahib 07:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh.... Not a bad suggestion, actually. It describes the subject of the article and gets rid of any POV concerns entirely.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be moved to this title, btw you must excuse my obfuscation comments, I was reading the above comments by WR and remembered he had said the same to me. Just meant it in jest - but on a serious note I do think the article should be moved. Pahari Sahib 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK Pahari I admit I learnt about obfuscation from you ;-). If pakistanis editors have no problem considering this just an attack IN pakistan as opposed to attack ON pakistan why should I ? as it is my Tax dollars are hard at work supporting these attacks which many in pakistan seem to feel it violates sovereignty & are unauthorized etc. maybe the perception of good and bad guys is changing. maybe Indian Air Force will get invited to help out in FATA too. but it was very interesting seeing people pretending to know english who think that the Telegraph. Australian and London times have bad grammar.Wikireader41 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As no-one seems to object to the title Drone attacks in Pakistan, I shall move it. After all we have article called Invasion of Normandy not Invasion of Normandy by the allies. Pahari Sahib 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Issues

Does anyone have further knowledge or information about the human rights violations that the US Armed forces are accused of committing in this article? The source is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8329412.stm ...I know that said accusations are related in part to Pakistan's territorial sovereignty, and in part to civilian collateral casualties. Given the bombing in Peshawar and the U.S.'s military involvement in the region, don't we have responsibilities here to fully account for any violations we are accused of committing by an international body such as the U.N., or even one man representing them? Innocent foreign women and children are dying at the hands of the U.S.'s enemies as I type this. What position, diplomatically, will we be in, in order to prevent further atrocities, if such accusations of wrongdoing on our part are not further addressed and responded to, both in terms of information within wikipedia and elsewhere? Contribute if you have any sources or opinions. Fulvius (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I already added the information contained in the BBC report, using a different source, to the article. Remember, we're (Wikipedia) neutral on the subject. We make no moral judgements on this topic. We simply relate what reliable secondary sources are reporting. If anyone else besides the UNHRC brings up human rights concerns about the drone attacks, and it's reported in a reliable, secondary source, we can consider adding it to the article in a neutral manner. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, what I mean is: What is the USA doing in response to these accusations? The only source cited for that in the article is http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/06/hbc-90005193 which states that we simply aren't doing anything given the sensitivity of releasing the information that the UN wants us to release. I feel that there is more information here... objective, neutral information... that should be uncovered and reported. Fulvius (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

{{adminhelp}}

Why is this article not editable ? I think 2009 death figures should be put in plain numbers instead of text, so it would be more clear that the numbers are increasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.190.38 (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could a registered user add the Chenagai airstrike? It's not in the timeline and I'm not registered. --Fhydra (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history and can not find good reasons for the page protection. Could an admin please remove the protection so people can work on it? IQinn (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to request page unprotection, please see WP:RPP. Thanks. — The Earwig @ 07:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, although it is best to ask the protecting admin directly, which you can do at User talk:YellowMonkey, before going to RPP. AJCham 07:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I just left a message at User talk:YellowMonkey IQinn (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative to lifting page protection, simply register an account and in a few days you will be able to edit all semi-protected articles. Cla68 (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"UAV" vs "Drone"

The unmanned aerial vehicle article specifically states that:

In news and other discussions, often the term "drone" is still mistakenly used to refer to these more sophisticated aircraft.

I propose that the title be changed to either "UAV attacks in Pakistan," "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle attacks in Pakistan," or something of that sort. --Drolldurham (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Unmanned Aerial Vehicle attacks in Pakistan" sounds like a good title. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Drone attacks in Pakistan" looks fine with me. It's used by all of the reliable secondary sources we rely on. Further explanation and details are given in the lead section. Specially the image and lead sentence makes the meaning clear and people are able to gain more information over the link in the picture and opening sentence where the relation between the term "drone" and "unmanned aerial vehicles" has been made clear. The title now is the better starting point. People come to this article with this term "Drone" in mind and the article then gives a clear more detailed explanation about the meaning of the term and the the other information related with it. I do not consider it a good idea to shift away from the term that is used in all secondary sources.IQinn (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Why do you think that the website www.longwarjournal.org used in this article a reliable source? IQinn (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it is published by Public Multimedia, a non-profit media organization. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

looks like a RS. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the article is nonsense

For a better perspective of whats going on, see: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C01%5C02%5Cstory_2-1-2010_pg3_5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.71.235 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanx. interesting viewpoint. probably true. will incorporate in the article. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Expansion suggestion

While there's just one line on each state-terrorist attack in this article, even though there are several to several dozen victims, there is an entire article spent on just one non-state-terrorist attack with (at least) 10 victims in India, that occurred a few days ago. If people are interested in working against the known systemic bias in the English-language Wikipedia, a practical and reasonable step IMHO would be to start similar articles on some of the recent/better-known drone attacks. It would be good to have template/boxes as in the 2010 Pune bombing article. Wikipedia doesn't judge if either state or non-state terrorism is good or bad - we're about documenting knowledge. Boud (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The drone attacks in Pakistan do not fit the definition of terrorism. They are not in discriminant attacks against civilians. They are targeted against combatants. The attacks are not intended to incite general fear in the population of Pakistan. The average Pakistani may not like the attacks, but they don't fear them since the attacks are clearly targeted. The risk to the average Pakistani is nil. To call the drone attacks in Pakistan "terrorism" is propaganda and just plain wrong. --Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.224.144 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

i think there is a misunderstanding - please read the first sentence of my comment more carefully. Please read the article state terrorism which i linked to. This talk page is not the place to debate the NPOV, RS, etc nature of that article. Here, we can respect the results of editors of that wikipedia page and quote the summary and some key sentences:

State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by governments. Like the definitions of terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism, the definition of state terrorism remains controversial and without international consensus. ... Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism "committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived enemies," which can be directed against both domestic and external enemies. ... In fact, terrorism scholar Michael Stohl argues, "The use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents.""

• The Taliban and other jihadi are surely "perceived enemies" of the US military carrying out drone attacks in Pakistan. The US government is legally and politically responsible. So it satisfies at least Gus Martin's one-sentence definition.
• Stohl says that the state is a more likely employer of terrorism than insurgents. Statistically that would suggest that the US is more likely to be using terrorism than jihadis in Pakistan.
• As for your suggestion: there does not seem to be any clear consensus among terrorism scholars that state violence that is "targeted against combatants" is excluded from the definition of terrorism, although an unofficial UN definition referred to in the article does seem to choose that. So there could be several POVs on that.
• As far whether or not people are frightened by the drone attacks and whether or not this is intentional, it would be interesting to know if any reliable sources provide data on that - e.g. an opinion-poll organisation regarding whether or not people in the border region are frightened. What you or i claim is, in principle, irrelevant to working on this wikipedia article. Boud (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a fringe POV. As you yourself said, "the definition of state terrorism remains controversial and without international consensus." Gus Martin and Michael Stohl strike me as loons.

What you might be missing is that the U.S. and Pakistan have state sovereignty that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda do not have.

The case that ordinary acts of war are some kind of "terrorism" is actually a way of sanctioning real war crimes through dilution with legitimate combat.

Fringe topics have their place on Wikipedia but they should be within the fringe articles.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point of view that Gus Martin and Michael Stohl are loons is your POV and irrelevant here. Your point about state sovereignty, which i interpret to mean the more limited sense of "USA and Pakistan are states recognised by the United Nations", does not change the argument at all. The article about state terrorism concerns terrorism by states. Your sentence "The case..." seems to be your personal disagreement with the concept of state terrorism. You are welcome to that POV. If you feel that state terrorism is a fringe POV, then please add a reliable source concerning world-wide (not USA-wide) opinion about the concept to that article.

Please remember that the en.wikipedia is not the USA/UK wikipedia, it is an encyclopedia for knowledge about the world that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia for knowledge about native-English-speakers' POV about the world. Please also read Noam Chomsky to see that he is one of the USA's major intellectuals. Boud (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not just my personal POV. The laws of war and the Geneva Conventions are internationally recognized as part of the foundation of human rights law. You can't just throw them into the trash can. Anything else is a fringe POV.

I don't need to add that to the state terrorism article. It already says, "the definition of state terrorism remains controversial and without international consensus."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Misleading presentation of the Casualty number in the infobox

I urge you not to present the casualty numbers in a misleading way. The given number in the infobox includes the about 500 civilians casualties. This is verified in the attached source. The frequent removal of this sourced and important information is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The attach source does not say that they are civilians. Civilians are not mentioned. WHile indeed civilians get killed, many of whom who die are opium dealers, taliban magistrate/ministers, and people looking to be recruited into the Taliban ect. Sopher99 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WTR your unsupported opinion about the killed civilians. I strongly disagree with your personal opinion. Tons of verified incidents where innocent women and children were killed. I also strongly disagree with you in the interpretation of the source. Regarding this you might do the Duck test. "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" IQinn (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually you have the personal opinion. Your source never mentions civilians. Most times when civilians are killed they are not innocent civilians, but dealers with the taliban. Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are just repeating your unsupported opinion and it contradicts the sources in our article where we have verified incidents where innocent women and children were killed. "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" --> civilans. IQinn (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Our study shows that the 158 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 62 in 2010, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,087 and 1,679 individuals, of whom around 776 to 1,149 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 30 percent" Sopher99 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here: "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" --> civilans. IQinn (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It may look like a duck but it neither swims or quacks like one. Sopher99 (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. Do you really think that no civilians were killed in the airstrikes? We have a lot of sources for that. IQinn (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe civilians were killed. I also believe that a good number of those (maybe 40-70%) were taliban dealers, people that do opium buisness, magistraters of the taliban, and people looking ot be recruited. Sopher99 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that a good number of those (maybe 40-70%) were taliban dealers, people that do opium buisness, magistraters of the taliban, and people looking ot be recruited. There are no sources for your claims as far as i can see. But a lot of sources that talk about women and children. Children as drug dealers? It would just be helpful when you could provide us with any source of you doubtful claims. Still they are civilians. Right? IQinn (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me add my two cents...since I have been maintaining this page for a while now. It is almost impossible to verify who is a civilian and who is not since journalists are barred from the area. And thus adding a civilian death toll is not accurate in the infobox. You can expand upon it in other section of this article where you can add different viewpoints. The total killed states everyone killed militants + civilians. so leave the death toll as it is and add expand upon civilian casualties in some other section Mercenary2k (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and most of those civilians are part of the taliban just not militants. Additionally, his reference does not state that they are civilians Sopher99 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Note User:Sopher99 has continued his edit war as he removed the sourced information once again.

Note User:Sopher99's claim that most of those civilians are part of the taliban just not militants. is his unsupported personal believe. Your assumptions contradict also the most basic rules of logic. The source that he removed fully supports that about 500 civilians were killed. You are either a civilian or a militant.

The presentation of the casualties number in the infobox is misleading as the killed militants number includes about 500 killed civilians what needs to be mentioned unless somebody wants to cover up this fact. I am going to add the misleading tag to the article until this has been sorted out.

User:Mercenary2k seems to agree that the total number that is presented in the column for militants includes the number of killed civilians. That is misleading as you are either a militant or a civilian. You can't be both. How many civilians are killed in this drone war is one of the most important information. IQinn (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note The source has been re-added to the militant casualty number in the infobox. This number includes about 500 civilians so we need to add this information to the infobox. What i had done. The presentation is misleading in it's current form. The lede of the article as well does not mention that civilians were killed - that is misleading. IQinn (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to differentiate who is a militant and who is civilian in that area. media is not allowed in FATA and most of the reports of how many civilians are killed are mere speculation or Taliban propaganda [12] without any independent verification. as such we should report total casualties only and not try to separate out civilians vs militants. those efforts are doomed to be inaccurate and lead to incessant edit warring.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No that is wrong. We have tons of WP:RS about civilian casualties. Nevertheless the introduction nor the infobox mention civilian deaths. That is misleading. For example: The source attached to the infobox data "Total killed: 1,739 (As of September 19, 2010)" includes about 500 civilians that is verified in the source. Not to mention that is misleading. IQinn (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. how were they verified to be civilians ??? any autopsy reports. did these sources have any people in FATA ?? This civilian casualty story is a myth as Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy have pointed out . They have the only reliable research on this issue with actual reporters on the ground. unless there is someone who can tell us what methodology is used then it would be misleading to make people believe that we know the precise numbers of militants or civilians killed.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with wikireader, the source Iqinn gave does not even state that the nature of the civilians, let alone it did not even state they were civilians. While innocents do get killed, most civilians that get kill are opium delears and potential recruits for the taliban, and are thus militants in nature. Sopher99 (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Who says that most of the killed civilians were opium dealers? Could you please provide a source for this doubtful claim.

You mean we should not count them as civilians because it is always possible that civilians become militants? So we kill civilians including women and children because they could become militants. I think you should clarify this argument. The source states that 30% of the killed were civilians. We have also tons of other sources that use even higher numbers. We have numerous sources that verify civilian deaths. We have sources that verify deaths of women and children. Not to mention that large numbers of civilians were killed in this drone war is misleading and needs to be corrected. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sopher, Wikireader, and Mercnenary that it is impossible to currently verify that the non-militants killed in the airstrikes are "innocent civilians" and that therefore the infobox should just give the total number killed. Discussion on the subject of civilian casualties can take place in the article body text. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not need to verify "innocent civilians". Do you have sources that accused the killed civilians of anything? The killed children could possibly be guilty of what? It is verified in tons of WP:RS that civilian were killed and i have not seen any source that accused these civilians of anything. The number of killed civilians needs to be mentioned in the infobox and the introduction as it is one of the key information. We can not cut out important verified information and it is more than notable for the introduction and the infobox. You really doubt that it is not verified that civilians were killed in this drone war? You may use a search engine. IQinn (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

that is not what I meant. what I said was that their is no way of having a precise estimate of how many killed were militants vs civilians. I am pretty sure their was collateral damage and some of those killed were civilians. trying to put a precise number is inherently misleading. do you think Taliban would not exaggerate the number of civilian casualties ??? lot of these figures are what Taliban ( who effectively control FATA) say and which gets parroted by armchair journalists who probably could not find FATA on a map to save their lives.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question: I do not know what the Taliban would do this or not. I think you can expect propaganda from both sides and i believe the US military would do almost anything to whitewash the civilian casualty numbers that's their job and you can be almost sure they try.

We have tons of independent sources that are not "controlled by the Taliban" and hopefully are not to much influenced by US interest.

They are tons of independent WP:RS that put the civilian casualty number as high as 50-80%. The from me suggested 30% look like a low estimate but it is based on the research of the New America Foundation and i could agree that we go with their numbers [13]. It is the same source we already use and rely on in the article. Do you have a problem with this source? IQinn (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am not making myself clear. again like I said the consensus here is that estimates of civilian deaths are imprecise and at least 3 other editors disagree with your line of thinking. So sooner you drop that better it will be for every one. I would strongly oppose putting any civilian casualty numbers in the infobox in agreement with the other 3 users ( Sopher99, mercenary2k, Cla68) and removal of "misleading" tag now.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply to shout that you oppose is not enough. It is also not enough when a small group a biased editors opposes the change. It is verified that 30% of the total killed (about 550 including women and children) were civilians, that is verified in the given sources. Not to mention that 30% of the total 1,767 killed were civilians is misleading. I ask you to make your point through arguments instead of shouting.

There is no way to cut out information based on WP:RS just because you might do not like it. These are verified information. The 30% civilian casualty number is verified by the New America Foundation sources. So i ask you again what is your problem with this source? IQinn (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

and simply to ignore consensus just because you like it and want to push your POV is right ??? get some support from other editors before continuing with your lame arguments here. I think the 4 of us( myself, Sopher99, mercenary2k, Cla68) have been pretty clear in what we said. we have looked at WP:RS and pointed out the flaws pretty clearly I think.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As said shouting and ranting does not help. The New America Foundation source is clearly WP:RS. The article relies on this source for the Total numbers so why shouldn't we rely on their numbers for civilian deaths? The 30% civilian casualty number is verified by the source. I have ask you already two times what is wrong with the New America Foundation as a source. No joy. Just to claim there are flaws is not enough, you have to name them. So what are the flaws? If you can not name the flaws then we have to assume there are no flaws. The total number of killed includes 30% (about 500-600 people) civilians. Not to mention that is misleading. IQinn (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The new american foundation is an independent thinktank, making thing even more difficult to accurately state number. Sopher99 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should that make it more difficult to accurately state the number? We equally use the same source to verify the total number. The New America Foundation is one of the most credible source as they have done extensive research. Their 30% civilian death rate is also verified in tons of other secondary sources.

• One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian, report claims
• One in Three Killed By Drones in Pakistan Is a Civilian
• How accurate are US drones... IQinn (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just say there are no reliable sources for what percent are "civilians" and what percent are "militants"? There are no reliable sources that I am aware of, due to the fog of war and intentional information control by both sides. Also, each individual human killed could be anywhere on the spectrum from "Complete Enemy Combatant" and "Innocent Civilian". If a person does not carry a weapon, but is a sympathizer that shelters and supports the enemy, do we call them a civilian? Is an enemy combatant no longer an enemy combatant just because they aren't carrying a weapon at the moment? I think the wikipedia article should avoid giving a specific figure for civilian / militant casualties since nobody really knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.227.69 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There are tons of sources that verify civilian casualties. Your comment makes me really wonder if you read the available sources. No sources that verify civilian casualties? That is so false. Secondary sources call them civilians and non-militants are civilians by definition. "Innocent civilian" :) Do you have any reliable source that would support your claim? Otherwise i think that would not be a debate worth to have. These numerous killed civilians are often women and children - even they are children of killed militants they are still civilians. IQinn (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

CIA deaths

The article is about "Drone attacks in Pakistan" The CIA deaths were in Afghanistan last year as a result of a suicide bomber double-agent (nothing to do with Pakistan or drone attacks) [14] says the infobox concerns the military conflict -- the conflict would be the Afghan War where the deaths occurred + the infobox is also titled "Drone attacks in Pakistan" and doesnt include anything from the wider war.

Maybe if one were to merge this with the Pakistan war in the region then it would have an expanded. However, as it stands the article text seems to suggest Pakistan is not involved. unless somethign in the text coutners it that has to go too.(Lihaas (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)).

Nothing to do with the drone attacks? This is quite an unusual claim. I might remind you that the targeted killings by the means of drones is led and controlled by the CIA. The attack on the CIA base in Afghanistan was a revenge strike for the targeted killings in Pakistan and is clearly directly connected to the drone attacks in Pakistan. IQinn (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They are very much part of the drone attacks, since that base was where the CIA was managing drone activities. Publicus 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cost

Have I overlooked an entry on the cost in dollars and sense? Or has everyone else? Given that USers are bankrupting their nation, morally and financially, some numbers would be useful — or would such numbers be merely numbing? --Pawyilee (talk)

Actually, this sort of war (drones) is orders of magnitude less expensive than any conventional conflict, i.e. invading Afganistan. And there are no less expensive alternatives. Even doing nothing would be more expensive, because you would have to pay to clean up after all the terrorist attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.227.69 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figures

I've just corrected the figures for the number of fatalities in the infobox. The source of these figures states clearly that they're 'estimated' and gives a range of 1,243 to 1,914 deaths, of which 'around 932 to 1,379 were described as militants in reliable press accounts' (meaning that between 311 and 535 were 'non-militants'). This is rather different to the infobox's previous statement that fatalities were '1,914 including about 500 civilians' - this strips out the fact that the figures are estimates and only presents the highest figure for some reason. Given that these figures are more accurately presented in the 'Statistics' section, it seems a bit odd to have something different in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mercenary and I simply cannot except that. Our number is from an accumulation of individual reports, to which most of them say atleast. This provides evidence that the source you give may have its fallacies. I can't imagine how the year of the drone has a lowest or highest estimate without a rounding blunt estimate. Sopher99 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

War is always inaccurate in the count.

But we must not, therefore, the highest estimate stand up as fact. The current statistics number is a lie!

A mass of victims can not be counted, should we count the heads, or only after the missing people?

The reporters of the various agencies have called many numbers, there are no facts! Only the low and high estimates, give us a sense of reality! --IrrtNie (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making up your own casualty figures when there appears to be a regularly updated and reliable source for the figures? - that's a clear violation of WP:OR. Presenting only the highest figure, excluding that it's an estimate and labeling all the non-insurgents 'civilians' is also misleading. Stating that you "simply cannot accept" a figure different to the one you're apparently calculated yourself is also highly unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎ briefly summarising my concerns and asking that uninvolved editors comment here. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The LongWarJournal source I used today said that since 2006, 108 civilians and 1,606 "Taliban, al Qaeda, and allied terror group fighters" have been killed in the strikes. Anyway, I agree with Nick-D. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as a side note. By definition non-insurgents are civilians. How can that be misleading? IQinn (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

They could be people involved with the Taliban but not actual fighters, members of the Pakistani security forces attacked by mistake, etc. I presume that the source had a good reason for not calling them civilians. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pakistani security forces are neither militants nor insurgents. The source and the statistic concerns "militants". Even an evil insurgent who does not fight is a not a militant and therefore a civilian. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what our opinions on it are. If the sources don't specify that they were civilians, we can't assume on our own that they were. We only report what the sources say. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not an opinion - i have proofed through valid argumentation that they are civilians. Yes, a large number of civilians got killed in these Drone strikes. In addition to the proof by argument we have tons of sources who fully agree with my findings.

• One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian, report claims
• One in Three Killed By Drones in Pakistan Is a Civilian
• How accurate are US drones]...

Your continues refusal to get the point WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT could make people think you want to hide this fact for what ever reason for. IQinn (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those news stories about the Year of the Drone website - they demonstrate that this is a reliable source and as such that its figures are suitable to be used, though we need to represent them accurately by reporting the range and not just their highest estimate. In regards to how to label the casualties, the problem is that the website itself (which is the reference being used here) currently divides their figures into 'Militant' and 'non-Militant' classifications and we're stuck with using that as that's how the source reports it. Your claims of bias are really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The interpretation of sources can be done by us and we can disagree and try to solve conflicts through argumentation. My arguments are stronger and i have shown that they are civilians. Surely you can continue our refusal to get the point ad nauseum what would be a bit disruptive. Anyway if we do have tons of reliable independent sources outside Wikipedia than we always rely on their interpretations. That's happen to be: Civilian

My claim of bias is very helpful as WP:NPOV is one of our core policies and should never be violated. The reliable independent sources who did the interpretation say civilians. And there are many of them. IQinn (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Iqinn, I'm afraid that in this instance both your understanding of Wikipedia editorial policy and the use of sources is mistaken. We do indeed have NPOV as a core policy, along with WP:V. Together these mean that we must use reliable sources to provide verification for the information we write, and we must write it in a neutral way. If the reference used gives a range of figures, so do we. If they don't explicitly state a piece of information, neither can we (see WP:SYNTH). If I can offer some friendly advice, I suggest that you drop the personal attacks ("Your continues refusal to get the point WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT could make people think you want to hide this fact for what ever reason for") and stop declaring in the face of the evidence that you're right and everyone else is wrong (which is, in fact, what WP:IDHT actually applies to). EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene, I am afraid but do not Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black.

I do see little in your post concerning the content issue. We have reliable sources:

• One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian, report claims
• One in Three Killed By Drones in Pakistan Is a Civilian
• How accurate are US drones]...

The sources say civilians. I suggest you provide content based sources and arguments to make your point. Where is the WP:SYNTH? IQinn (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You see little regarding the content issue because I want to remain uninvolved so I don't intend to debate the content. The reason I posted was because it seems to me that this is becoming a user conduct (rather than content) issue as described at WP:TEND. This is why I gave you my reading of the consensus in this thread so far and asked you to stop misusing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You seem not to have understood some of them, and in any case should not be using them as tools for "winning" content disputes or browbeating your opposition. EyeSerene^talk 12:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per the apparent consensus in this discussion, I removed "civilians" from the infobox so that the source would be accurately represented. Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But you have to explain your reading. I ask you where is the WP:SYNTH? The interpretation of the source is based on reliable independent sources. All these sources confirm that they are Civilians:

• One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian, report claims
• One in Three *Killed By Drones in Pakistan Is a Civilian
• How accurate are US drones]...

Admin or not. You can not ignore the sources and arguments and you can not declare consensus based on false ad hominum arguments. You have to explain it based on the given sources and arguments concerning the content and i am asking you to do so. IQinn (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry I added civilians back, it was agreed months ago between Mercenary, Iqinn, and I that it should be placed in. Sopher99 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just expand upon casualty figures in the article below. Why do you guys want to muck up the stats box with so many varying casualty figures. Just add that the casualty box currently indicates the highest death toll and you guys can add varying points of view in the body of the article. Mercenary2k (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how adding an extra two numbers mucks up the casualties section of the infobox. Given that the number of casualties from these attacks is politically sensitive, it seems best to present the full range of estimated fatalities here - only highlighting the highest estimate is misleading and not doing readers a service. To Sopher99, edit warring to restore figures which you and others prefer while disregarding the views of other editors is pretty unconstructive - how about you discuss this? Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding more numbers to the infobox. I do have a problem putting the word "civilians" in there when the source doesn't use that term. So, I just added a problem tag to the information. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I added one of the numerous sources and removed the tag. It seems to me that civilian casualties are already underrepresented in the article. The word does not even appear in the introduction or in the statistic section despite the fact that there are tons and tons and tons of sources about the civilian casualties and that this is often the main topic in secondary sources. The 30% and the representation is also already at the low end. Come on. :) IQinn (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Year of the Drones website, which is our source for the figure and not the newspaper article from March, currently uses 'non-militants'. It seems that the website has either changed the way in which it labels fatalities since March or the newspaper report used misleading terminology. Regardless, the story from March obviously doesn't support a claim that 'approximately 500' fatalities as of November were civilians, so I've restored the tag. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove references. They verify the given information. The newspaper use misleading terminology?? The secondary sources including the sources i added do the interpretation and verify the information. They call them civilians and we have to reflect what secondary sources say and we also can not only stick to one source. The sources full verify this approximation of civilian casualties and as said i think that is already at the low end. We can talk about to put it a bit lower if you think it is a bit to high. There are tons and tons of sources that verify civilian casualties and it is the main topic in many sources so that we can not simply cut this out. IQinn (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do stop edit warring - it's really unhelpful. That reference doesn't support the claim that the figures are 'civilians' - it refers to March while the figures in the website itself are currently labeled 'non-militants'. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I was never edit warring. Not at all by no standard. Please do not Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. I have explained this in my previous reply. Please address the given points and arguments if you still want to challenge that. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this article from editing for one week until the disputes are resolved here. Please remember to discuss the content, including the validity of the references, rather than commenting or assuming bias from another editor. As an uninvolved administrator, I have no comment on the issues aside from a March newspaper article – ie seven- to eight-months old – cannot support a November casualty statistic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources that you have removed verify that large numbers of civilians were killed by the Drones. These sources that you have removed alone verify that between 290 to 387 civilians have been killed up to March 2010. I have suggested in my last post that i am open to discuss and to work on a better estimate but it is obviously that the number can only be higher now. That needs to be in the article. In addition non-militants are civilians by definition and the numerous secondary sources use the term civilians. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

The protecting admin reverted an edit that is neither controversial nor disputed before locking up the article. I request this edit to be restored now as it is new, not controversial and not disputed. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the edit, my apologies. Please discuss on this page; no one is going to grant an {editprotected} in an issue that is without a conclusive resolution. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats you Bozos. This article was humming along nicely. Every new attack was well documented and casualty section was updated. But I knew sooner or later some idiot would arrive and start an edit war and this page would locked. It was too good to be true. Thanks for proving me right. Now every new attack, I have to save its information that once this page gets unlocked I can add it in. Seriously why do you guys do this? Mercenary2k (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If i were you i would quickly remove or strike the insulting part of your comment. Wikipedia:Civility  ;) - IQinn (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mercenary, whenever there's a new incident, post the proposed new entry here, then we ask the blocking admin to add it. No problem. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is one for you guys... how many civilians are killed in a conventional war? Obviously this debate is driven by politics. Some people want to put the "civilian death" very high to make the drone attacks look bad. Some people want to put the "civilian deaths" very low to make the drone attacks look good. One way to put this all into perspective is to get a historical example of numbers of civilians killed in conventional war-- WWII for example. What percent of deaths in WWII were civilians? I think you may be surprised at how high it is. In my humble opinion, the Drone Attacks are pretty surgical as war goes. But that is just my opinion. What do you think about putting some historical perspective into the article by showing how the drone attacks compare to conventional war for collateral damage??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.227.69 (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Total military losses 25,282,100 Total civilian losses 41,753,400 or about 62% civilian casualties. Per http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_civilians_died_in_World_War_2&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=Number_of_civilians_killed_on_world_war_II Which brings up another good point. It isn't just about percentages. It is about orders of magnitude. Eight years of drone attacks have produced about 2000 deaths. It is a lower number than 9-11 civilian deaths. It is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than civilian deaths in Iraq. If we took the alternative and invaded on the ground, the number of deaths would be around 2 orders of magnitude higher. So if you are concerned about civilian deaths, you definitely should support the drone attacks because the alternatives will cause far more civilian deaths.

So yes, I am editorializing here. But how do we make the point in a encyclopedic manner? I do think the very low (compared to historical war) number of civilian casualties can be documented in this manner. Just show a table or bar chart of total number of civilian casualties for this war (FATA Drone War) and other wars (WWII, WWI, VietNam war, Iraq War, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, civilian casualties on 9-11, US invasion of Afghanistan) The point is this-- the bar for civilian casualties for the drone strikes is tiny compared to all of the other historical examples, even if you use the highest estimates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.227.69 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I do think most of your comparisons are false and why should we compare the number with the killed civilians of 9-11? Anyway. The short answer is that it would be original research until you can find sources that would verify your original thoughts. IQinn (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Now that the article protection has stopped the edit warring, let's try and resolve the disagreements. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fatalities figures in the infobox

I contend that as the source of figures (the Year of the Drone website) expresses its figures on fatalities from drone attacks as 'low' and 'high' 'estimates' rather than any single figures we should follow the same approach when reporting these figures in the infobox and include the range of estimated fatalities (as I included in this edit). There seems to be no reason to use only the highest figure (or the lowest figure, or anything in between for that matter) and exclude that it's an 'estimate' as the source doesn't do this. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that the sources for casualties are not in agreement, a range should be given by editors. A big problem here is mission creep, they expect the war to continue until 2014, the list of strikes will spiral out of control by then. These drone strikes should be summarized in a manner to make the article readable. Back in 1965 I started keeping a notebook with a list of the air strikes on North Vietnam, in 1967 I gave up. We should remember that editors from Pakistan will take this topic seriously, their country is being attacked and civilians are being killed. I was in New York City on 9-11, it was not just another news story here. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is have two casualty lists. One which states the min casualties and the other max. We can get those figures from the site which is referenced. Now please unblock this article so I can start and editing it. I already need to 3 strikes which have occurred and update the figures. I have been maintaining this site for over 3 years so I consider this my little baby. :) Mercenary2k (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds great Mercenary2k, thanks. You are from Pakistan, tell us why there is a min and a max. The Pakistani government should be able to count the dead. Who are these intelligence officials who give the body counts that we hear about every day on the BBC? Also this article will spin out out of control by 2014 when Obama plans to end the war. Your baby is growing up to be an 800 lb gorilla. Can you think of ways to summarize the daily strikes. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a min and max because getting exact numbers is impossible as it is a no go area for journalists. So they are estimates. As for spinning out of control, these are precise strikes which kill a select group of people and can't be compared to the carpet bombing that occurred in Vietnam. Mercenary2k (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mercenary, What do you mean by having separate casualty lists for the minimum and maximum figures? (eg, how would this work in practice?). Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, in the InfoBox, we will give a range from the Min Casualties to Max Casualties. Like 1,300 - 1,700 Killed or something. And in the Statistics box, we can list Minimum tabulated casualties in one column and a Maximum casualties in another column. If only this article gets unlocked so I can start editing it and show you. Mercenary2k (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was proposing for the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mercenary if the war goes on for another 4 years there will 200+ strikes per year. That means the article will be out of control, way too large. Tell me I am wrong.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If this article becomes to large, then we create separate articles which only have strikes for separate years.Mercenary2k (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As everyone who commented here agreed with including a range in the inbox I've made this change. I've also changed the table of casualties by year to show that year's estimated range per Mercenary2k's suggestion as everyone who commented also supported this. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How to label non-militant casualties in the infobox

The other issue is whether the non-militant fatalities should be labeled as either 'non militants' or 'civilians'. I contend that as the source (the main page of the Year of the Drone website once again) uses the terms 'non-militant' and 'Others killed' for these data and not 'civilian' it can't be used to support a claim that all of these fatalities are 'civilians'. I suggest using 'non-militants' as the source does. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Before going into detail i would suggest to rephrase the question. We do not only have to consider one single sources when presenting the casualty numbers. The overwhelming term used in secondary sources is civilians. So the question is rather "How to label civilian casualties in the infobox." Civilian casualties is the main topic in secondary sources and the one of the prime informations our readers want to know about. So that it should be natural to present a civilian casualty figure. IQinn (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a figure for 'civilians' would be best. However, at present we don't have a regularly updated clear figure for this via the year of the drones website. Are there other sources that provide such a figure? Alternately, the infobox could use point in time figures, though there may be some problems with using 'total' and 'civilian' figures from different sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If there was a source that clearly said, "Since the drone strikes began, _____ civilians have died" then we could use civilians in the infobox. We don't appear to have that. The LongWarJournal, which I have often used as a source, only counts civilian casualties since 2006. It probably is safer to use the term "Non-militants". Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian, report claims
• One in Three Killed By Drones in Pakistan Is a Civilian
• How accurate are US drones...

Just to mention one source of dozens that could be the basis for the civilian casualty range. I think it is the best to use a range for killed militants and civilians. As said many times before civilians is what most secondary sources concern and that needs to be covered well. IQinn (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep reposting those articles. The problem is that the running total which is being used is sourced to a website which labels the figure as "non militants". Are you proposing dropping the running total in favour of occasionally updated figures for civilians which are updated when new sources become available? Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The secondary sources do the interpretation - not we. The secondary sources say that they are civilians as well non-combatants are civilians by definition. Dropping what? I am proposing to include an estimated range of killed civilians and i will do so once the article is unlocked. Their are tons of sources for that and the article in it's current form borders "propaganda" because this verified and important information was cut out. Even the lowest estimates verify hundreds of civilian deaths and high estimates speak from more than a thousand killed civilians - that needs to be included in the article. IQinn (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Renewed US pressure

looks like US is again upping the pressure to expand the drone strikes against Quetta Shura and Pakistan is again resisting.[15] and [16] can we add some of this info.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the picture?

Hey what happened to the picture in the summary box at the top of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.90.223 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable depiction in section "Drone weapons"

While the cited Washington Post article does clearly state that the CIA uses the SSW, it does NOT state that these micro-drones are used in conjunction, but simply that the CIA is using them somehow. Can anyone verify the validity of the second citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.154.7 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This source is being mis-quoted.

This source is being misquoted. The wikipedia article states "Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed." But the referenced article states "Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died." These are two different things. The wikipedia wording is much more certain "it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed" than the source. The source SAYS EXPLICITLY that the numbers are exaggerated but this is conveniently left out of the wikipedia article. If you are going to include the next sentence you need to include the caveat or you are cherry-picking the source for quotes out of context that support a certain point of view. I suggest we make it a direct quote including the caveat sentence with "exaggerated" or cut it out of the article altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.91.28 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This link is broken.

This is a broken link. If the link can not be fixed, the sentence is un-sourced and should be cut from the article. "According to Pakistani authorities, from January 14, 2006 to April 8, 2009, 60 U.S. strikes against Pakistan killed 701 people, of which 14 were Al-Qaeda militants and 687 innocent civilians.[312]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.91.28 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

POV check

The "Interviews with people from Waziristan" section is currently loaded with POV and in my opinion, needs a complete rewrite. If possible, there should be mention of some of the criticism, especially by relatives of those civilians who have been killed. I am sure they have recieved some coverage and provide alternating views from the current write-up, which is one-sided. Mar4d (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)