Jump to content

Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page Move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Drone attacks in PakistanDrone strikes in Pakistan – I make this request for these reasons: (1). According to [1] 'drone strikes' are a far more common term used, as opposed to 'drone attacks'. (2). This means that Wikipedia common name policy is not being observed with the current title: [2] (3). 'Drone attacks' convey a negative skew towards the article, in violation of Wikipedia non-judgmental descriptive policy: [3] (4). Many of the initial references used in the actual article state 'drone strikes': [4] [5] [6] [7] Uhlan talk 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment with either *support or *oppose and leave a comment. Should this page be moved? Uhlan talk 06:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose equally good references use the phrase "drone attacks in Pakistan" [8] (and this is just a half hearted automated search with no custom queries; proper searches would yield much more). Attack also signifies the grievances of Pakistani public; the fact that Pakistani public is vehemently against the tactic is a significant reason behind Pakistan's changing foreign policy from time to time related to drone attacks. The word "strike" is more appropriate when referring to individual incidents. The current title is WP:DUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a change to a more neutral article name.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per RightCowLeftCoast 83.11.98.128 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Also because this keeps it consistent with the general term airstrike. -- Calidum 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although a weak support, but I can understand the rationale. Strike is probably more neutral. Politically, the term 'attack' also seems to imply as if they are an attack on the State of Pakistan, when they are not (really), as the current and previous governments of Pakistan seem to be knowledgeable and even tolerable of them. So they are not really an attack on Pakistan, but rather foreign strikes occurring with the permission (or complicity, whichever fits best) of Pakistani authorities. In contrast, the title of the article 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan is appropriate as it really was an attack on Pakistan's security forces (and hence the state) and was treated as such by the government. These drone attacks however, as I have said, are not treated as attacks on the state by the Pakistani government, and hence, terming them 'strikes' may be appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, reasons stated in my original page move argument. Uhlan talk 23:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Drone strikes in Pakistan

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Drone strikes in Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IMU joins ISIL":

  • From War on Terror: "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". khaama.com. Retrieved 25 June 2015.
  • From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Adeel, Mirwais. "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". Khaama Press. Kabul, Afghanistan.
  • From Operation Zarb-e-Azb: "IMU Declares It Is Now Part Of The Islamic State". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 6 August 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
  • From Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan: "IMU Pledges Allegiance to Islamic State". EurasiaNet. 1 August 2015.
  • From Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". khaama.com. Archived from the original on 13 July 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]