Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan

Sanctioned by pakistan government?

According to the source cited (9)"... reports in The Times of London and The Wall Street Journal yesterday suggested that Pakistan had been secretly co-operating in covert US operations by allowing the CIA to launch strikes from the remote Shamsi airfield, 50km from the Afghanistan border.", and the "evidence" is that the US government has purchased air fuel that has been delivered to the air-port. This article proves in no way that the Pakistani government allows the us to operate from the airport.

The source for the claim "Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks but has secretly shared intelligence with Americans" is just an article in New York Times, and shows no proof whatsoever for this claim.

My suggestion for the last sentence (if it is not decided to take it away entirely) would be something like "Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks, but Mark Mazetti and Souad Mekhennet claim in an article in New York Times that the Pakistan Government have secretly shared intelligence with Americans(8). It has also been argued that Pakistan allows CIA to use an airbase for drone strikes. The proof for this claim is that the US Government has purchased aviation fuel, and had it delivered to an airfield in Pakistan."

But that wouldn't have much encyclopedic value, would it?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Well the article does show a GoogleEarth picture showing three Predator drones at Shamsi airfield in Pakistan. That picture is still on GoogleEarth today if you use the date tool to see the pictures taken in the past. The three drones are visible in the July 1 2004 picture, along with two small hangar on the south side of the ramp. In the March 29, 2007 picture, a new larger hangar is visible on the east side of the ramp. In the last picture, dated July 11, 2010, one of the original small hangars located on the south side is gone, but two new large hangars are built on the east side for a total of 4 hangars. The operation has visibly grown to a much larger one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Image_said_to_be_Predator_drone_aircraft_at_Shamsi_Airbase_in_Pakistan_--_no_longer_available_on_Google_Earth..jpg

Using the GoogleEarth measuring tool, one can determine that three pictured aircraft have a wingspan of about 55 feet. It so happens that Block 10/15 MQ-1B Predators have a wingspan of 55.25 ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator)

Here is the plan-view of the Predator, which you will see is identical to those in the Satellite picture:

http://mecanoblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/predator_drone_cslattery.jpg

In the current GoogleEarth picture of the same Pakistani airfield, the Predators are not visible but three large new aircraft hangars are.

Although there is no proof that these drones are American, the Predator drones are operated by four countries in the world: the United States, Italy, Turkey and the UK. Its up to you if you want to believe that those based in Shamsi airbase are Italian.

Furthermore, drones are very helpless aircraft against any country with modern Air Defenses such as Pakistan. In the eighties the PAF shot down several Soviet warplanes that had strayed into Pakistani Airspace. More recently, the Pakistan detected and shot down an IAF drone that crossed into Pakistan. The PAF has the means to detect, intercept and shoot down every drone that overflies Pakistan. Yet it does not. What more proof do you need ? Hudicourt (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2011 (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)

Nasir al Wahishi

It seems to be that the whole story is based on one news agency who based their findings on anonymous Pakistani intelligence officials. So it should not be presented as a fact. I suggest to add 1 or 2 sentence to the 28 December 2010 strike. In case somebody does the necessary attribution to the source. IQinn (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is bothering you that much i would place in words such as suggest or allegedly, until a reference such as al jazeera shows up. Sopher99 (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No offence but your reply does not make much sense and it would be nice if you could address the raised arguments and suggestion. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

you have a problem with the confirmation part, so i took that away for you, until a more popular media reports on it. Sopher99 (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I accept the changes to the sentence you have just recently made Sopher99 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Still needs to be attributed to the source. I also think it should be added to the December 28, 2010 where it belongs. IQinn (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dec 28? Why?Sopher99 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow the sources. I think all this boils down to the AP Kyodo release and that mentioned he was believed he was killed according to our famous "Anonymous Pakistani intelligence officials" who could be CIA agents :)). Have a look at this ref [1] IQinn (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Civilian casualties - factual accuracy is disputed

Why does the article does not make clear that hundreds and hundreds of civilians are killed in this strikes including women and children? One of the biggest slaughter of innocent people in recent history but nothing is mentioned about it in the article. I added the factual accuracy is disputed tag to the article until that has been fixed. IQinn (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, see above section titled Casualty Figures Sopher99 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been partially discussed but not fixed. IQinn (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your suggested solution? As discussed at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan#How to label non-militant casualties in the infobox there doesn't seem to be a regularly updated figure for civilian casualties. Using the point in time figures which are available would be a good option in my view. It also appears that the number of civilian casualties from these attacks has decreased in recent months - the New York Times recently posted an update on the key statistics of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan here which showed that the percentage of deaths from drone strikes who were civilians has decreased from 50 percent in 2008 to 30 percent in 2009 and 5 percent in 2010, so this should also be noted (and the percentages of civilian deaths as a proportion of all deaths from the strike published in the article would be well worth adding here). Moreover, your claim that "nothing is mentioned about" civilian deaths in the article is patently wrong - civilian deaths are identified in many of the accounts of attacks and there's a summary of the civilian casualties as at February 2010 at the end of the 'US viewpoint' section. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not mention civilian deaths in the lede at all. Your claim that this can not be done is wrong. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians including women and children are slaughtered. Any attempt even to add the word civilian to the lede has been aggressively reverted, ending up in a edit war. The available information about the large numbers of killed civilians needs to be added to the article lede, that is the solution and people should stop to constantly cut out this information for bogus reasons. That has to stop and information that large numbers of civilians got killed in this illegal bombings needs to be added to the article urgently as the article in it's current form borders propaganda and violates our own policies.

For the years before 2010 you say 30 to 50pc were civilians. What are hundreds and hundreds and only the lowest estimates and there are tons of others that speak from up to 80 to 90 percent. Why is that not been mentioned in the lede? There is no reason at all why that can not been added to the lede text. No offence but a numbers of 5% for the year 2010 seems ridiculous low to me what source i look at whats however. Could you please name a sources for your claim. There are tons of sources. For example here one that covers 2010 Drones killed 59pc civilians, 41pc terrorists This is a reliable source that verifies 481 civilians, including women and children perished in 2010 alone. IQinn (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The source of the figures I quoted is: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/opinion/27ohanlon.html?_r=1 and The New York Times is a very reliable source, though if other RS give different figures we should also give these figures. There's no opposition to not including the numbers of civilian deaths in the article; the above discussion concerned figures which weren't clearly 'civilian' deaths. From the tone of your comments it seems that this is an issue you're upset about, and this isn't helping resolve the disagreement (eg, by claiming that the article is "propaganda", when it plainly isn't). There's no problem at all with including figures for civilian deaths, they just need to be accurately referenced. Could you please propose some text with supporting references to go in the article? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on Nick you are long enough here to know that this opinion piece in the NYT's, based on unreliable sources does not count as WP:RS.

The article without the information of the large numbers of civilian casualties "borders propaganda". And i have no problem to accept your opinion on that point.

Could you please also clarify what you mean by "the above discussion concerned figures which weren't clearly 'civilian' deaths." I disagree with that. Come on :) non-militants are civilians by definition. What to have another discussion about that? The 2010 number with 59pc killed civilians verifies 481 innocent civilians including women and children. IQinn (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than attack me and rehash old debates, can you please propose some text? The NYT article is part of a regular series they publish providing the key statistics for the wars the US is involved with, and I think its reasonable to quote the figures they provide. The figures are cited to work by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann who are the people behind the Year of the Drone website. This article by them gives an estimate of 6% deaths being civilians in 2010, but notes that there are a wide ranges of estimates from other sources. Interestingly enough, my reading of this article is that the authors are saying that non militants and civilians are the same, which seems to prove your earlier comments right. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, when you feel attacked that was not my intention and i think i did not do so. No, sorry we can not use these information that comes from the OPINION section of the NYT's. That is clearly against our policies WP:RS. It would not be under OPINION when it would be reliable and the NYT's would stand behind it. The New America Foundation numbers should also be used with care as we do not know how reliable they are and it seems that they are big flaws in the way they count. This source should be also put in perspective with the research of Pakistani scientist Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani who uses the same sources but comes to a very different conclusion.

Nobody needs to wait to add verified information WP:V based on reliable source WP:RS to the article and i will do so if nobody else is willing to fix this. This seems to be a good starting point for the 2010 number. Drones killed 59pc civilians, 41pc terrorists with detailed information on the people killed what where mostly innocent civilians. IQinn (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with the Year of the Drone website? - how is it not a reliable source? It seems that there are legitimate differences in the way the two different websites classify the same casualty data, so the correct approach is to provide both sets of figures rather than to just dismiss one of them. Peter Singer's comment that the underlying casualty data in question is probably inaccurate due to problems with how it was collected also seems well worth including. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nick that it's fine to include a broad range of opinions on the numbers of civilian casualties as long as they're from reliable sources, such as the NYTimes piece or the Year of the Drone website. Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I too agree with Nick. The year of the drone is an accurate, daily updated, non biased, widely used site. Sopher99 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If Al Jazeera or a Pakistani newspaper gives different civilian casualty numbers that Year of the Drone, I don't see any problem with including those numbers also. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As the issue raised by IQinn is critical in evaluating the success or failure of these drone attacks, i did a little digging into the validity of the Iquinn statistical source (Drones killed 59pc civilians, 41pc terrorists) This article was written by Amir Mir, a respected Pakistani journalist , whose brother Hamid Mir is a news anchor on popular political talk show Geo TV, frequently discussing drone attacks on his show, matching his brother Amir's article claims. Hamid Mir is known to release poorly sourced, sensationalist and inaccurate claims, for example, claiming that 180lbs of nuclear material was stored by Islamic terrorists from McMaster Nuclear Reactor, he claimed that Al-Qaeda has 3 'suitcase nukes' from russia, wich no supporting evidence supplied.

The "thenews.com.pk" article itself states "According to data gathered by The News primarily from local and international news sources", no mention of what the actual source was, or what rules they applied to evaluate sources to filter propaganda and ensure impartiality.

Reviewing all articles by Amir Mir for thenew.com, shows clear bias against drone attacks with no supporting sources provided, except for vague 'local and international new sources' referred to in all these articles. Jan-4 "Drones hunted down only 20 high value targets of the 100-plus targets.." Jan-3 "Drones killed 59% civilians.." Aug-19 "Drones kill 476 civillians, 13 terrorists in 2010..."

In conclusion, without supporting citations of "news sources" these "thenew.com.pk" articles are not credible IMO, these are option pieces based on a collection of cherry picked news sources which are not provided.

We need credible sources for civilian and non-combatant statistics. I do feel these two groups are separate, as non combatant can include militant family casualties, with I feel are not in the same category as 'innocent' civilians, as militant groups often use there own families as human shields. Windandsea (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Drones killed 59pc civilians, 41pc terrorists is a reliable source WP:RS this is one Pakistani scientist Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani ,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...and they should be included. Wikipedia is verifiability not truth WP:V.

I think we can also spare another discussion about the definition of civilian. Come one :)) "militant groups often use there own families as human shields". Really? Do they actually marry and have children and live their lives with their families to use them as "human shields"? Or is it more that they are just people who live in their houses in their society with their families? Could you please define a "non-combatant" that is not a civilian and not a militant? What kind of group is that? A child of a supposed militant that gets blown into pieces in the living room by a missile that should kill his father in the bedroom? IQinn (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

From Pakistani Scholar Disputes US Drone Death Tallies:

Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Wired for War," says he doesn't "put a lot of stock in any of the numbers" on casualties. There are, he writes in an e-mail to AOL News, simply too many problems with the sources from which the casualty numbers are drawn to reach any definitive conclusions.

Rather, he insists, the differences in numbers reflect how attitudes toward the drone strikes differ between the United States and Pakistan. "This is how what I believe to be our painstaking efforts to act with precision can emerge with a very different narrative 7,000 miles away, especially when viewed through a cloud of anger," he writes.

Clearly, any claims coming out of Pakistan (that bastion of openness and freedom of the press) need to be taken with a grain of salt. We're not really even talking about the civilized part of Pakistan. The tribal areas are inaccessible, and quite hostile to the government of Pakistan itself. It's extremely difficult to get objective reporters to these places. Peter Singer is correct when he says these number don't mean anything by themselves.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "We are not talking about a civilized part of Pakistan" Apart from that i disagree i would like to remind you on WP:NOT#FORUM.

Usmani is a Pakistani Scholar and he brings up a lot of interesting points and critic to how Peter Singer and our main source of the article, the New America Foundation, counts civilian casualties that should not left out regardless of the personal believes. No matter how we personally think about it. I have seen too often a lot of young, right wing male around here that jump in to defend the US based on there personal believes. The sources that say large numbers of civilians get blown into pieces are all WP:RS, WP:V and should be included in the article regardless what we personally believe. IQinn (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Usmani's personal beliefs are at odds with this article. Your source says: "Like the New America Foundation, Usmani compiles his numbers from media sources. The difference, however, is that he counts only al-Qaida, not the Taliban, as combatants."

If you look at this article's infobox you'll see that we do include the Taliban in the list of belligerents. If you really want to change that then you'll need to change more than this one article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As said we can not leave out Usmani's work regardless if we personally like it or not. He is a recognized scholar and his findings have been discussed in reliable sources WP:RS. 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personally liking the guy. It's a matter of honesty and clarity. He appears to be making a political point by leaving out the Taliban.

I certainly agree that his "work" should be mentioned. Every notable person who shares this view should be remembered. If you want an entire section on how some people don't count the Taliban as combatants then go right ahead. Be sure to describe what kinds of people are taking that view, and find sources that let the readers know why the Taliban aren't always counted.

But it's completely different, and would be very misleading, to display it in the infobox as an alternate count while we also continue to list the Taliban as combatants.

Or is it that you wanted to put an asterisk on the Taliban? That would be very confusing to the reader.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that the strikes are targeting the Taliban, I agree that it would be a bit odd to exclude them from the infobox. As noted above, I also agree that we should discuss the different approaches to calculating casualties, including Peter Singer's comments about the figures probably not being accurate. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The strikes target the Taliban? Do they? Or terrorists? Or Al-Qaeda or all people someone does not like? Or anybody who is seen wearing a weapon? It is quite common for ordinary people to carry a gun with them in this region. What is the official policy? If you personally do not like how Usmani, a recognized scholar, counts or you do not like how Amir Mir counts is no reasons to cut out their views and critic on how the New America Foundation counts and their view that hundreds and hundreds of civilians are blown into pieces by these air strikes. That would be a gross violation of our core policies. IQinn (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For someone who's quick to criticize those who oppose fascism as a "young, right wing male," and put up the WP:NOT#FORUM link even when comments are obviously directed at making this a clear, non-biased article, you're being pretty judgmental.

You're also being too vague about what you want. If you want to say the Taliban are all civilians, and remove them from one side of the combatants list then please say so.

It's not up to us to say who the USAF and CIA should and shouldn't be targeting. Besides, at a cost of $68,000, they're not using Hellfire missiles to kill every man with an AK-47. It's absurd for you to suggest that you think they might be. If you read the article, you'll see that the list of targets tend to be in leadership positions.

Recognized "scholar" in Pakistan or not, Usmani is clearly a fringe POV.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "someone who's quick to criticize those who oppose fascism as a "young, right wing male" ? What's that? I have never done so.

WRT: "you're being pretty judgmental" No i not. Regarding these two points i would like to ask you to stop using ad hominum arguments. That is not helpful.

WRT: "You're also being too vague about what you want." No i am not. The article should fairly represent the views on civilian casualties that are represented in tons of reliable sources WP:RS. I am not judgmental and i have not been in this matter.

WRT: "Besides, at a cost of $68,000, they're not using Hellfire missiles to kill every man with an AK-47." That's your personal opinion. $68,000 is pretty low sum looking at the overall cost of this war.

WRT: "It's not up to us to say who the USAF and CIA should and shouldn't be targeting." I never did so and i never suggested this. I ask questions regarding this, for example. What is the official policy on that?

WRT: "If you read the article, you'll see that the list of targets tend to be in leadership positions." With between 1,376 and 2,129 people dead and only a tiny fraction of them were confirmed "leadership" and reading the available sources i do not see this picture. There are tons of sources that speak of very high numbers of civilian casualties and they should be included into the article what brings us back to the topic of the discussion. 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(Uninvolved admin comment): Iqinn, I'm sure you can appreciate that this sensitive subject attracts many individuals who, for whatever reason, have difficulties complying with WP:NPOV. I'm not suggesting that you are one, but consensus in the above discussion does not appear to support your suggestion that the article is factually incorrect. Your original question ("Why does the article does not make clear that hundreds and hundreds of civilians are killed in this strikes including women and children?") has been addressed by a number of editors. To avoid this thread descending into argumentum ad infinitum/WP:IDHT, if you have a specific edit you'd like to propose, along with a reliable source (ie one that hasn't been rejected as problematic by other editors), then now might be a good time. EyeSerene^talk 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your editing history suggest that you might not as uninvolved as you think. I disagree with your interpretation of the discussion. Nobody not even admins can ignore our core policies, the article leaves out the listed sources on large numbers of civilian casualties that come all from WP:RS. These views need to be included in the article no matter what we personally believe. IQinn (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Never having interacted with you, edited the article or participated in a discussion here outside my admin role, I'm uninvolved per WP:UNINVOLVED; if you believe differently you are of course welcome to raise your concerns at WP:ANI. Unless and/or until that happens though, please take on board my advice. To maintain an objection to content after a clear consensus has formed supporting it can be considered disruptive; to do so without providing sources that consensus regards as reliable is a hallmark of tendentious editing. I'm not saying this is intentional, but it can be easy to become so focused in areas where one has strong personal feelings that the line can be crossed without one realising it.

Regarding sourcing, a current arbitration case includes the principle "Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed. With limited exceptions, reliance upon self-published sources is discouraged. Where the reliability of a particular source is challenged, its proponent should seek to buttress his or her proposed article content with additional sources, rather than place excessive weight on a single source whose reliability has been challenged." (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II/Proposed_decision#Reliable_sources). This statement of Wikipedia editorial principle, from Wikipedia's highest authority, seems applicable here. If your sources have been rejected, find better ones. If you can't, or find yourself resorting to attacking other editors' sources, it's probably a good sign that the line is being crossed and it's time to move on. EyeSerene^talk 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple sources (tons) on civilian casualties some of them have been criticized by members of the discussion but they are reliable sources and they have not been rejected what would be very odd considering the large amount that is there. Leaving out these views on civilian casualties is misleading and not acceptable. IQinn (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New America Foundation & Long War Journal

Has it been determined that The New America Foundation and Long War Journal are Reliable Sources? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the details. The New America foundation gets pretty big grants from respectable sources. Tangential, but it's somethingJoelSCollier (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issue re: Civilain Casualties Weight

I've read the article and reviewed the comments in the "CIvilian Casualties" section as well as the section titled "Casualty Figures." IQinn's comment directly above(dated 15:49 10 January 2011) seems to me to be a good summary of what's been said and done. I think a NPOV tag on the article is needed right now until the well reported civilian deaths aspect of this topic is given much more weight in the article than it currently has. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some quotes,content and sources I'd like to use, any objections? "A widely-quoted study released by the New America Foundation in February estimates that between 830 and 1,210 civilians have been killed by drones since 2004, 30 per cent of estimated total fatalities." [2]

Long War Journal, "Roggio, of the Long War Journal, explained “The CIA is classifying drivers, bodyguards and such as combatants. The CIA is not losing sleep over their deaths.” [3] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

looks like the discussion has died off; I am trying to NPOV the article a bit and if not reverted will soon remove the NPOV tag. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was rather shocked to see this phrase in the "Civilian Casualties" section: "According to the report, the U.S. Government believed that 1,300 militants and only 30 civilians had been killed in drone strikes since mid-2008...". The affront is in the word "only". The 1998 Omagh bombing killed 29 people; the USS Cole bombing in 2000 killed 19 people; can you imagine ever seeing an "only" preceding those numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.78.243 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent tagging

Iqinn recently added a "not in source given" tag to the article [4]. Here is the exact quote from the source: "Arabs and Turkmen were believed to be among the dead, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to reporters on the record". My copy of that article came from the Japan Times. Any objection to removing the tag? Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Believed by whom? Anonymous intelligence officials that report that someone believe. That is crap and does not belong into an encyclopedia. This is absolute substandard and would at least need a better attribution. IQinn (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing unusual or "substandard" about it. They may be reported as requesting anonymity but, if it's a responsible paper, the reporters themselves would have known who they are.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes hardly substandard. The better word is "crap". "Anonymous intelligence officials" said that someone believed. So the attribution would be like: "The Associated Press reported that anonymous intelligence officials told them that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead." Want to put it in like that? I strongly suggest to kick this crap into the rubbish bin now before we lose all our reputation and in the case the answer is yes i will bring this to other forums to be comment on as this is simply crap. IQinn (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit hyperbolic.

I don't know what you expect. This isn't an article on history. The war is happening right now. Military and CIA operations are classified.

As I said, it's not unusual. In fact, it seems to be normal. Look at our sources for other strikes. Those that aren't high profile targets are attributed to either some local who knows his every word is subject to scrutiny by the Taliban, or to anonymous or unnamed sources.

That's the way it's been. It's odd that you point this out now for this source but not others.

You yourself had even linked this story on an analysis of deaths. How do you think that was compiled? Do you think they excluded those that the CIA didn't have a an official spokesman?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow the policies as i always do my best to do. There are no exception for this article here. A lot of the information about the last strike is simply crap so lets fix it. "The Associated Press reported that anonymous intelligence officials told them that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead." Want to put it in like that? IQinn (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not "someone."

Here's the text from the source: "The Pakistani intelligence officials said three missiles hit a house overnight Monday in the village of Kaza Panga in the Azam Warsak area of South Waziristan tribal region. Arabs and Turkmen were believed to be among the dead, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to reporters on the record." (Vindy.com)

It is the Pakistani intelligence officials who believed Arabs and Turkmen were among the dead.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That is wrong. They say "Arabs and Turkmen were believed to be among the dead". Your interpretation is not supported by the text and other sources. IQinn (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, instead of reverting, then adding the tag, why didn't you change the text to say, "Pakistani sources stated that Arabs and Turkmen were believed to be among the dead" or something like that? Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, that question has been answered already. Because it is crap and carp does not belong into an reliable encyclopedia. "Pakistani source" :)) Who is that? That is all we could include. "The Associated Press reported that anonymous intelligence officials told them that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead." Want to include it like that? IQinn (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

'It was reported that... ' seems to do the job. Have any other news reports disputed this report or given a different assessment of the casualties? If not, I don't see the problem with using this source - the AP is a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It was reported that... Is crap and crap should be avoided Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question. As far as i know nobody has disputed that: "The Associated Press reported that anonymous intelligence officials told them that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead." IQinn (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The AP article states that intelligence official told AP that it was believed that 'Arabs and Turkmen' were among the people killed in this attack - there's no need to add extra provisos. The Washington Post's longer version of the story here is also in line with the material cited to it, so I don't see the purpose of the tags. Please stop being rude to other editors by the way (calling things 'crap' doesn't really contribute to constructive discussions). Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing rude to call content crap when it has the lowest substandard i have ever seen on Wikipedia. That definitely needs an attribution to the source like "The Associated Press reported that anonymous intelligence officials told them that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead." just to fulfill the lowest standard for and reliable encyclopedia. Regards IQinn (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IQuinn, maybe you should try an RFC. I'd be shocked if anybody else sees it the same way that you do.

The phrase "anonymous intelligence officials told them" isn't accurate either.

They want anonymity, but they're not anonymous to the AP.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Randy2063, I am shocked to see you and other to defend this substandard and checking on the editing history of of the participates here there seems to be a strong pro military bias. RFC seems to be a good idea but i think some other forums might also address this first. "The Associated Press reported that anonymous intelligence officials told them that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead.". :) Of course we can say anonymous intelligence officials as they are anonymous to us but i am fine with "The Associated Press reported that intelligence officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to reporters said that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead." IQinn (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. military has a far better record of integrity than any of its critics. Wikileaks provides independent confirmation of that.

In any case, we're citing Pakistani officials here, not the U.S. military.

It's perfectly normal to cite this way. Take a look at our other sources, like this one: "Quoting unnamed officials"

Or this: "The intelligence and government officials asked for anonymity"

Or this: "according to an intelligence official in the region."

That's just a quick start. You're the one who's biased here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

None of what you said and none of the numerous sources (2005, 2007, 2008) you provide here concern the thing we are talking about.

Randy i have seen you many times filibustering on talk pages where you had at least had some kind of point but your reply here is not helpful at all. Please concentrate on the relevant sources and solutions.

According to what we have, we could put it in like that: "The Associated Press reported that intelligence officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to reporters said that someone believed that there were Arabs and Turkmen under the dead." or we kick it in the rubbish bin what i would prefer as this is pretty crap for an encyclopedia. IQinn (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the only CRAP we have here is your ludicrous non arguments IQuinn. you are seriously out of line and not accepting sensible arguments being made by multiple editors. Randy2063, Nick-D, Cla628 are talking a lot of sense but you are just ignoring sound reasoning to push your POV. if you persist in this behaviour you are likely to find yourself blocked.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be that you are inline with POV pushing and adding crap to the article Wikireader41. We do not see that the first time in your editing history. If you persist your behavior you can be sure you will be blocked for misusing Wikipedia to WP:NOTPROMOTION replicate war propaganda. IQinn (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

your edit history is the one we should be looking at. please read WP:CON. multiple editors are questioning your edits and you are intentionally not paying attention and making nonsensical arguments. I just dont see how you can ignore Randy2063, Cla628, and Nick-D. Back off from your POV pushing now.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Tags

I marked several issues with the "by whom" and "failed verification" tag in the latest addition to the article. Please take more care of these issues when adding informations to the article that is in regards to these issues just substandard. IQinn (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

please see my comments above. I have removed you POV pushing tags.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that these tags were POV pushing. please see my comments above. IQinn (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you dispute them. I am 100% convinced they were.and I am not the only one who thinks you are blatantly POV pushing here. Please see randy's comments above.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Drone myth put to rest

Looks like the GOC of Pakistan's Army has spoken.[5]. This along with AIRRA's work on the issue should help stop the POV pushers who want the world to believe that innocent Pakistani civilians are being deliberately targeted by Arrogant Americans.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't editorialize on the article talk page. We're not supposed to care which side is right, just, or has the TRUTH. Some civilians have been killed. I think the article as is does a good job at giving both sides. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

absolutely. collateral damage is an unfortunate fact with any military campaign. no editor here has ever said otherwise. but some have argued back and forth without any rationale about how many civilians vs militants are killed when clearly no accurate way exists to confirm that. Yes we are supposed to care about when editors break with WP:NPOV and push a certain POV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Photographs

I believe that some photographs should be part of this article. There are photographs of the drones in Pakistan that had appeared on Google Earth. Furthermore, the photographs of the damage done by a typical missile attack would be very informative. I have made a screen capture of the view of the drones at a base in Pakistan. Do I own copyright of that, and can I upload it? How?