Talk:Targeted killing

Advantage: Propaganda

Since Vietnam governments know that wars are won at home, meaning that you have to have control about the public opinion.

Drones are perfect for hiding mass murdering and state terrorism: Journalists are never at the spot, they can never report what happened.

The only witnesses are the victims which are by definition "terrorists".

So we will never hear about the fact that a lot of civil persons and children are killed on a daily basis by drones. Obama / Clinton dropped 72 bombs per day alone in 2016:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy?CMP=share_btn_link

Journalists do not like to put their unabilities into the light so there is no broad discussion about this fact and so I urge you to insert this fact into the article because it is a fact that needs no proof: Drone attacks cannot be followed by independent journalists because they seem to be ubiquitous.

-89.244.72.69 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding Israeli policy

A user has deleted content I've added on the "targeted killing" policy of the Israeli military during the Intifadas. I've added this content directly from news sources and don't care to maintain anything but a neutral POV, so long as content is kept in the article. Ultimately the Israeli piece of the story is huge, as the policy became an international issue and we need to recognize and report on that, no matter what we feel personally. -Darouet (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2012‎ (UTC)

RfC - Targeted killings/Extrajudicial killings

Should the killings in Philippine drug war belong to Targeted killing or Extrajudicial killing? Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Extrajudicial killing (should not belong to Targeted killing) - Call it "targeted killing" if the Philippine military starts sending drones to bomb the drug barons' hideouts. For now, some of the killings of drug related criminals were possibly extrajudicial killings carried out by bad cops. STSC (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include in Targeted killing. This is a no-brainer.
  • Numerous quality RS unambiguously state that under President Duterte, targeted killings are a feature of Philippine society.
  • These sources include declarations from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International and numerous mainstream newspapers covering these cases.
  • James Fenton writing for the New York Review of Books, after doing fieldwork funded by the Pulitzer Prize, published his research which states that under Duterte two forms of ‘carnage’ are taking place (a) targeted killings of anyone known to take or sell drugs and (b) extrajudicial killings. Editors do not have a right to override sources by collapsing a distinction the sources themselves make, as here between targeted killings and extrajudicial killings.Targeted killings amount of 2,000 of the estimated 7,000 killings of this type.
  • Duterte, as anyone can see from the evidence consistently removed by three editwarriors, openly admits that he favours targeted killings-
  • Wikipedia editing has rules to restrict the private likes/dislikes and subjective views of its editors. Here we have 3, one who has just entered wikipedia to edit and revert only this information with no more than 15 edits to his credit, who are disputing the technical literature which is substantial and recognizes targeted killings as a feature of the Philippines, without reference to sound policy grounds.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  (talk) why does almost every recent comment you make, get rather personal, and concentrate just as much on the editors involved as the content? Could you please avoid all of the snide comments about edit warriors, IPs, meatpuppets, new editors and just focus on the article, please? Also, forget about James Fenton - the guy is a highly respected poet. He writes poetry.

  And some of his best verse was written in,and about, the Philippines where he was long resident. That's why journals like the New York Review of Books or the London Review of Books commission him to write on that country, which he knows intimnately. Now please desist from jamming the thread and allow independent editors to comment.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  Also, could you address the comments about the wiktionary entry for Targeted Killing. It seems to contradict everything you are saying here. Are all citations on there incorrect? Mitsubishi love (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude from Targeted killing. There are enough reliable sources that confirm that the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines do not fit the definition of Targeted killings. It might be worth a mention that some poet who once lived in the Philippines has a different definition, if that keeps the peace, but that of course will be balanced with content stating that this Poet's claim doesn't fit with the legal definition from far more reliable sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude for reasons that have already been explained by myself and other editors Mitsubishi love (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Not only exlude, but I think the article should be deleted as per previous talk page discussions and all content should be moved to the extrajudicial killings article and the assassination article, where there are clear definitions and the content would be a perfect fit. Mitsubishi love (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Include in Targeted killing, for the reasons stated by Nishidani. This does not, of course, preclude material about the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines also being added to the extrajudicial killing article. --NSH001 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include Targeted killing and Extrajudicial killing as these killing are both. Edward321 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include in both, whilst these deaths might not meet the most common understanding of 'targetted', which would be the assassination of known individuals, or groups of leaders - rather than - as here the targetting of a category of persons, nonetheless RS are using the term. If necessary attribute the description to the sources using the term. Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include in both. There are enough sources supporting both targeted and extrajudicial killings in Philippines under Duterte. Oranjelo100 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The deaths of drug users in the Philippines belongs on Wikipedia. That is not disputed. It belongs on the Rodrigo Duterte article, the Philippine Drug War article, the Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines article and the Extrajudicial killing article. They don't belong here, as they don't fit the definition of a targeted killing or assassination.

Wiktionary makes its abundantly clear:

"The intentional killing by a government or its agents of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in that government's custody, and who is taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, and is thus regarded by the government as having lost the immunity from being targeted that he or she would otherwise have under the Geneva Conventions"

The victims are not "taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism", so this content has no place on this article.

A compromise has been offered by another editor in which it was suggested:

"Classifying the recent killings in the Philippines as targeted killings is debatable, the fact that we are even having this discussion makes that much clear. Having a section for the Philippines, in the same format as the other nations listed, with something along the lines of "the killings in the Philippine Drug War have been classified as targeted killings by some sources such as Human Rights Watch", with ample opportunity for opposing opinions to be added to the article, if suitable content/sources are available. It should be made clear that calling the killings targeted killings, is merely based on the opinions of some organizations, and that other organizations have vastly different views on the subject."

that reasonable suggestion and offer of compromise would allow the disputed content to stay on the article, informing the readers that the defining the deaths as targeted killings is one opinion and there are others. That seems fair and as one of the involved editors, I support that proposal. Mitsubishi love (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Difference with "assasination"?

Hi, is there any really?

Looks like that it is just some "militarese". So maybe it should be rephrased. Are there some organisations that use the words as such "targeted killings"

The question above is a fair one. The use of targetted killings has become popular in the age of the drone, although special forces are still commonly used. States like the US have developed formal policies. Targetted killings rather than assassinations seems appropriate in this new age both to convey the use of technology and to make a distinction between where states claim justification and, say, gangland killings. In addition, assassination is by definition illegal whereas targetted killings can be legal. Emmentalist (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

I have removed two references to collaborators (and left one in as it qualifies the use) and one to traitors. I have also changed the section title to reflect this change. The nature of extrajudicial killings - justifiable or not - is that it is usually impossible to tell if victims were legitimate targets or not (even in wartime). It is highly likely that some victims were innocent. The Washington Post reference does use the word collaborators, but this does not mean it is a good reference. It is a question of balance. The new version makes it clear that some of the victims were believed to be collaborators while not overstating the fact and thereby condeming all the victims without evidence. Emmentalist (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, but note the following

1. suspected "traitors" of Ukraine is almost a verbatim quotation from the source (OHCHR speaks of killings of civilians perceived as so-called ‘traitors’ against Ukraine) and is valuable information: it explains the reasons behind the actions.
2. Also Russian-appointed officials and Ukrainian collaborators is well-supported by sources (Washington Post, Guardian and Meduza) and is relevant: the Ukrainian squads are not generically killing "people" in Eastern Ukraine, they're targeting people who collaborate with the Russian military and civil authorities.
3. Saying that the victims were (believed to be) collaborators is not a way of condeming all the victims without evidence. Killing civilians is a war crime under current IHL; even if they were collaborators, they were not legitimate targets unless they were contributing to the Russian military effort.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, @Gitz6666 All good points. Soldiers can kill civilians, including collaborators, if the latter are a threat to their lives at the time. I've always felt the call for old Ukranian ladies and young people to throw Molotov cocktails and whatnot at Russians is unwise; they make themselves legitimate targets. On the specifics here, I agree with you and think it's really a matter of balance. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)