Talk:Raymond Allen Davis incident

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raymond Allen Davis incident article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 60 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Raymond Allen Davis incident. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Raymond Allen Davis incident at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	Raymond Allen Davis incident is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Raymond Allen Davis incident was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 March 2011.

Wikipedia

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Raymond Davis (2017). "The Contractor: How I Landed in a Pakistani Prison and Ignited a Diplomatic Crisis". BenBella Books, p. 206. Retrieved 23 July 2017. I became so closely linked to the word "incident" that you might think it was actually part of my name. Go ahead and look me up on Wikipedia. You won't find me. But you will find the "Raymond Allen Davis incident."

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Untitled

The introduction / first para says' "although the US protested... he was arraigned by Pakistan" when it could / should have been "although the law took its course, the US continued to protest".. what ethnocentricism!!

Aafia siddiqui

The are has been an attempt by the Pakistani government to swap Dr Aafia siddiqui for Davis. Muslims, and the Pakistani people especially have long demanded the release of this woman. Even in captivity she was treated like an animal by the Americans, subjugated to strip searches and the like; A woman! Anyways, it is a shame that this swap attempt has not been mentioned in the article (at least not clearly; the word Aafia is no where in the article). For the sources, here is one: "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41594034/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/pakistan-hints-prisoner-swap-us-official/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was in the article once. I know, as it was I who added a reference to it, but someone appears to have deleted that.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women and men are treated quite equally in the US, including strip searches of prisoners for contraband, such as weapons or drugs. One upside to the already bad situation is, that same sex people strip search the prisoner, women search women, men search men. When the converse occurs in the US, more than eyebrows are raised, rage ensues. I'll give you a hint, I'm in the US, a land where I've personally held a semiautomatic handgun that was less than 8cm by 9cm. Need I say more on our suspicion of any convict or prisoner? One does not like it, but the reality is what it is. I'm not really happy about a foot of snow being present tomorrow night and I have to shove it with a herniated disc, osteoarthritis and a separated shoulder. It is what it is, one deals with what is as it happens.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please explain controversial or complicated edits on the talk page -- not in our edit summaries?

Another contributor excised a passage, that was referenced to al Jazeera, claiming al Jazeera was not a reliable enough source.

First, it is essential if we are all to cooperate to prevent triggering edit warring to not rely on edit summaries to explain controversial or complicated edits. The initial impulse when you are annoyed by a controversial edit, which another contributor has explained with an brief unsatisfactory edit summary, is to reply in your own edit summary, when you revert their edit. Result -- instant edit war. So don't do this.

Second, third parties who are trying to go back and figure out how the an article evolved should be able to look to the talk page for the explanation of controversies -- not the edit summaries.

Third, explanations in edit summaries generally don't make any sense, without stepping through the edits in question. This really sucks! So don't do it.

If your edit is complicated your edit summary should say something like: "revert -- see talk" or "complicated -- see talk"

As to "Al Jazeera" not being a reliable source -- says who? Al Jazeera's English service has an excellent reputation for fairness and independence. The excised passage struck didn't strike me as a controversial passage that would justify the hand-wave to BLP in the edit summary. Geo Swan (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is a well respected source. To be honest, I personally know some of their correspondents, as we shared a villa complex in Qatar. So, the reference and statements, if not OR or not explicitly stated in the article, should be reinstated. My *own* opinion is that pressure was applied, but that is based upon personal experience in military situations abroad and hence, OR.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diyya in Pakistan

The article claims that the practice of Diyya is common in Pakistan. Yet, the two citations for this claim, number [2] and [89] do not substantiate this and only refer to the Raymond Allen Davis incident. Either the statement should be updated to remove the term "common" or better citations should be used.

Quoted below from Release section: "He was released under a principle of Sharia (Islamic law) that allows murder charges to be dismissed if diyya is paid to the deceased's families (if and only if, they agreed without any pressure), an arrangement which is legal and common in Pakistan.[2][89]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.2.36 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]