Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan/Archive 2

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 IQinn (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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." 

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.” 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. 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 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)

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 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.
 * 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 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II/Proposed_decision). 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)

Drone myth put to rest
Looks like the GOC of Pakistan's Army has spoken.. 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)

Continues deletion of sourced information
That the Americans have stopped operation from Shamsi Air Base and 150 people left there is really big and it is connected to the events that happened the weeks and month before so this information is presented in context at the right place without judgement. Why you guys simply keep simply deleting this information??? IQinn (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of keeping it. The title of the section is "Timeline", not "list of drone attacks". - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * well that kind of info can go in the body of text and you are welcome to put it there. the timeline is for the attacks and ancillary info about prior hiccups is not included in there.  Leaving Shamsi is not "big" as US has been diversifying for a long time and probably does not need Shamsi any more and uses other bases in neighboring Afghanistan.  The current situation has little if anything to do with drones An Inside Look at the U.S.-Pakistan Feud Over Drones--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the US abandoned Shamsi last year after that US congresswoman accidentally slipped and revealed its use in a public statement and the press picked up on it? Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? If so please post the link i would like to read that. IQinn (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Subh83 that the timeline is not limited to attacks and things need to be presented in context in a NPOV. Well Shamsi with it's 150 US staff was a hub for the drones. Pakistan making them leave the base after intensifying disputes over the drone attacks starting with the Raymond Davis incident and the following 3 drone attacks (most of them botched killing scores of civilians including many women and children) let to an unprecedented wave of protest in all parts of society in Pakistan. That was like the 9/11 for the Pakistani people. (Ok, almost) Nothing will be the same. Have specially a look at General Kayani actions and remarks and the numerous failed attempts in the last weeks, of the Obama administration to convince Pakistan to let them continue to kill their own citizen with drones. Yeah they can start drones from Afghanistan but Pakistan is already looking for help from other countries to stop the drones and even investigates how to shoot them down with their own F-16 fighter jets. Just 8,000 and 10,000 ordinary people showed up for a sit-in to block NATO supply routes.... and i could go on and on there are hundreds of sources and the development of the events is fast..."the issue is just blowing up" (my words) I highly suggest to leave this information in the timeline for the moment to present the recent events in context without judgement. IQinn (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "most of them botched killing scores of civilians including many women and children". Iqinn, you do know, don't you, that Wikipedia policy does not allow editors to take sides when editing a topic? Cla68 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not taking side. That are simple facts. I do not think they intended to kill these women and children but as a matter of fact they did. IQinn (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @User:Wikireader41 - ok, agree with you. In order to keep the structure of the article consistent, the more suitable place for that piece of information may be under the "Pakistani response" section. I would also suggest that the section title "timeline" be changed to "timeline of attacks" since all the other entries indeed record drone attacks & deaths rather than general events. IQinn, let us know what you think about this.
 * User:Cla68, User:Iqinn - Let's try to stick to NOT. All relevant contents supported by reliable references are valid candidates for inclusion in the article. But the organization/structure of the article is also important for better readability. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I still do believe it should stay as it was as it provides the necessary context to the latest attacks what is a big change. It is connected. Anyway as a compromise i just edited my last contributions and removed parts from the timeline. The article is already very long and i think it doesn't give the average reader a good understanding of the topic. What can be done? Shall we create more articles for example one that just list the attacks? IQinn (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks better now IQuinn. Subh83 "Timeline of attacks" sounds like a good idea.  Like I have said before adding unnecessary detail leads to the article becoming longer without improving its quality and at this time we should keep that in mind when we consider any addition and be parsimonious.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine as of now. But for responses/reactions which are directly linked to some attack, in long run I guess we need to choose from one of the following models: The third possibility, which I think may actually be quite good, is what IQinn suggested. We can move the entire timeline to a separate page. Then the details of such post-attack responses will stay on both the pages. In fact, in the timeline page we can have tables with one column documenting only the responses. There will hence be some repetition of contents in the two pages, but I think that will be fine. Many articles with long timelines use this model (see for example World_War_I_timeline, List_of_timelines). If we think this is a practical possibility, we can initiate a discussion below and invite more opinions. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Not include such responses/reactions at all in the timeline. All of that will go to "Pakistani response" and "US viewpoint" sections. But that may result in disconnect between the timeline and those 2 sections. Also may lead to some repetitions of the accounts of attacks in the "Pakistani response" section.
 * 2) Include such responses/reactions mostly in the timeline. Then in the "Pakistani response" section have brief repetitions. But in that case the different entries in the timeline may look unbalanced (some with lots of content, some very little).

BILL ROGGIO and the presentation of a weak single biased sources as truth
I am concerned about this recent edit as the information has been presented as truth. Same here and here

The website http://www.longwarjournal.org is a project of Foundation for Defense of Democracies. As far as i can see their is no editorial oversight as in traditional media outlets and no reputation for this website. The Foundation that runs it is agenda driven and biased. Shouldn't we at least attribute information from this website to the source? I would even suggest to remove this information as if this information would be notable than we would find it in reliable sources. NPOV is also a concern here. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with attributing any information taken from that site. I've been watching that site for several years now, and I have yet to see any information they've reported found to be inaccurate or wrong. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well i have seen many blogs for year reporting without factual error but that does not matter. The problem is that this website does not have an editorial oversight and we can not guarantee that their information has any value and it might not spread propaganda. Just a website. Why should be treat it different from any other website or blog? IQinn (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill Roggio is an expert on terrorism and his work has been quoted by many WP:RS. if our reliable sources consider him worthy then why shouldn't we ( look at the bottom right of LWJ main page) ???  If he wrote a book on this subject we would have no problems quoting it.  Just because most of his publishing is online does not make it less valuable.  on a case by case basis if he makes a controversial claim then we should look at other sources to verify.  But generally I agree with Cla68 that we should use LWJ.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill Roggio is a biased blogger on terrorism. You might find he is a reliable unbiased expert. I do not. Could you please provide a reference for you claim? Yes i agree we can use information that he has publishes in a book as we can rely on the reputation of the publisher of the book. We can also use information that has been picket up and re-published in WP:RS but we can not use anything this blogger publishes on his website. This website is not WP:RS and there is no editorial oversight that would guarantee the accuracy of the information. IQinn (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could ask you the same question. anybody say that he is a biased blogger except you.  he has been quoted and interviewed as an expert by numerous RS.  any neutral person will think of him as an expert.  You Iquinn are the only one who is biased.  It is better if you stay away from this article as it is very clear to me that you cant write on this subject in a neutral fashion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one else objects, I'll readd some of the material which was initially reverted. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to use BILL ROGGIO and the LWJ as if they were what we call WP:RS as per the explanation i have given above, no objection to add the information that has been republished by WP:RS. His website does not have an editorial oversight. IQinn (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Cla68 i am a bit surprised you ask if someone objects but re-adds the information without giving people time to object and to discuss? IQinn (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, there wasn't any material to readd. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about that edit? I also wonder why you did not attribute the information to the source as one biased weak sources does not make the truth? IQinn (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, there doesn't appear to be consensus on this talk page that Public Multimedia needs to be attributed. I don't mind including the attribution, however, and will try to remember to do so in the future.  Cla68 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is "Public Multimedia"? :) Is there any consensus to use this dubious source at all? No indication that this would be WP:RS reliable or notable to mention at all. 10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (IQinn)
 * Public Multimedia/Long War Journal appears to be one of the best sources of information in English about the conflicts going on in and around Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Their reports cite Urdu and Arabic sources as well as government sources from those countries and from the US. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is behind "Public Multimedia". :) You are entitled to your opinion but i disagree and you do not provide much of a proof for your opinion. It is a highly biased source with no editorial oversight at all. That's why it is not WP:RS. IQinn (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In case like this we make a decision after discussion on the talk page. So far, I'm seeing two for, one against. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No we base our decisions on the strengths of the arguments and proof, not on how many people support a certain POV. IQinn (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IQinn has asked for an outside opinion at the RS Noticeboard. IQinn, whenever you do that, please leave a note here letting the rest of us know so we can participate in the discussion if we choose or to watch how it goes.  Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When I first came across the LWJ as a cited source, I initially had the same skepticisms that Iqinn is expressing. However, after a little reading I accepted that Roggio does a good job of aggregating news stories (complete with hyperlinks to the appropriate articles) and his research does seem sound.  I will admit that sometimes the hyperlinks are to previous LWJ articles, but those articles will ultimately point towards the original news source.  Yes, he does have a bias (and at times opines) but it could be argued that the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, for examples, also have their own respective biases.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I see no requirement of non-bias on WP:RS.-RDavi404 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not about bias it is about the reliability of the information and we can not guarantee the reliability of the information they publish on their website. While the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are newspapers with a strong editorial oversight and a long track record we can rely that the information the published is correct. What fhe LWJ or other websites or blogs write on their website or blogs might be correct but we can not guarantee that. That's why websites and blogs are not WP:RS and we do not use them. You will easily find reliable sources for the information if it would be notable and true. IQinn (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and can you give us a single instance where he reported wrong info. he generally is good about coming up with details of drone strikes quickly.  That is what we have mostly used his expertise for.  not only are your arguments weak, flawed and unconvincing qualitatively you are hopelessly outnumbered by editors who don't agree with you.  So please take your POV somewhere else.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia and it is not about "quickly" it is about reliability what can not been guaranteed in this case. A post on the LWJ written by Bill Roggio does not make the truth. Nevertheless it is presented as truth in this article here. Provide reliable sources WP:RS for this information or attribute this information to Bill Roggio. Presenting what this biased blogger writes on his website as truth is misleading. Attribute it to the source or remove this misleading information. You are harming the reputation of Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course we should allow the RS Noticeboard thread to run its course. So far, two outside editors there have opined that LWJ appears to be ok as a source. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please name the "two outside editors"? :) Did you count Wikireader41? Anyway, i think the discussion there has just started and we should make sure to discuss the arguments in a civil manner. I am looking forward to that. There seems to be interesting questions to answer. IQinn (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it's one so far. Plus, three on this page (me, Wikireader42, and Rdavi404). Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Well you know the strength of the argument is important at the end and it is no secret that we have a disproportional large group of editors here that share the POV of Bill Roggio. So let's discuss the arguments and let's see what is the result of that. IQinn (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide an example of where Roggio's POV is evident in the article? It seems to me that the LWJ is only used as a reference to facts, such as dates of drone strikes, casualty counts and intended targets.  Also, it should be mentioned that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --RDavi404 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * well said IQuinn. And nobody but you seem to think that there is any strength in your argument.  so don't keep on implying that you have an argument and start listening to the consensus here which clearly is in favor of Bill Roggio being used as a source.  again we are all more worried about reputation of WP than you seem to imply.  I am sure there are many people who oppose Bill Roggio's POV.  One of them was killed by the Seals a few days ago.  we all have more important things to do on WP and limited time so lets not harm the  project by wasting time on this unnecessarily.  Let us not prolong this  discussion more than it needs to. The way I see it 4 strong arguments( Rdavi, Cla68, me and Icerat) against 1 non argument(Iquinn). classic WP:LETGO situation Iquinn--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Wikireader41, first of all i must say your arguments are very weak and i find your reply a bit rude. Actually you do not provide any argument regarding the issue we are going to solve and i think you may misrepresent the position of other people. Secondly i must say your reply suggest to me that you did not read the various discussions carefully and i guess you may not understand the issue. As said many times before that is not only about POV, it is mainly about the reliably of the information that can not be 100% guaranteed. Sure as Rdavi404 says Wikipedia is often verifiability, not truth.". The point is we as an encyclopedia should not present something as the truth when we can not guarantee it is the truth. We solve this always in the way that we attribute the information to the source. Well why not doing this in case of the LWJ? I think you may not be aware of what Icerat said. He is not involved he makes good points and his arguments are sound and his proposed solutions make sense. So how about we follow the advise of the noticeboard (middle ground) and simply attribute statements to Bill Roggio or the LWJ? Can we find consensus for that? IQinn (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your continuing to beat a dead horse is more than a little rude. What argument if any have you provided that anybody but you understand.   Bill Roggio is a well established expert who is quoted by multiple RS.  thats a fact.  you are making a useless non argument and wanting at least 3 other editors to swing your way "because of the strength" of your(non) argument. Like I said the only solution I see is that you stay away from this article as you only have your biased POV pushing to offer here.  Nobody is presenting anything as the truth here and you seem to be imaging things here.  Icerat clearly has said that he thinks LWJ is a RS.  if it is an RS why do we have to treat it any different from any other RS ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time a single source is used for information in an article, it's not uncommon to attribute it in the article. For example, as I did in another article earlier today. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you are cherry picking from what Icerat at the noticeboard said and i do not feel that you are working towards consensus. We do not treat it different, we always attribute statements to the source when we can not 100% ensure that is is the truth. Bill Roggio is quoted by RS does not follow that all what he publishes on his website is 100% the truth and it is often only commentary and the RS attribute it to him and so should we as an encyclopedia with an even higher standard and we need to take care of our reputation. Note that the only not involved editor from the RS noticeboard says the information should be attribute to the source and that is always the right way. So why are you so reluctant to do so?? IQinn (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you are the one who is ignoring everybody who is telling you that LWJ is a RS and Bill Roggio an established expert. Nobody publishes 100% truth including NY times or BBC.  why dont we always attribute all are statements then.  Using LWJ enhances our reputation and does not diminish it in any way.  why do you think that I should say that "on May 10 a drone strike killed 4 militants" and have to attribute that to anyone if any one of LWJ /BBC/NYT has reported it? why should I provide more than one cite ?  if it is an opinion like "Pakistanis are really bad guys" or "Muslims are satanic" I would definitely attribute that.  LWJ is a RS and we need to treat it no different than any other.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The website the LWJ as reliable as the NYT's or the BBC. Where is the proof for that? IQinn (talk)
 * where is the proof it is not ? Bill Roggio is a terrorism expert BBC is not--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for admitting that there is no proof that he is as reliable as the NYT's or the BBC and there is as well no proof that he is a terrorism "expert". Does he as a degree in journalism? Did he publish in an academic environment about terrorism? Can you point to any peer-review of such work? How many books did he write about terrorism and what did the peers in this field say about his books? Where is the proof? IQinn (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * stop confusing yourself. I did not say that.  he is identified as a terrorism expert by many RS. you should write to telegraph and ask them why they think of him as an expert. that you do not like it are hell bent on wasting everybodies time is very clear.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wasting our time. And you do not know what an expert is.
 * There is no proof that he is an reliable "expert". Does he has a degree in journalism? Has he been published in an academic environment, was there any peer-review of his work? How many books did he publish? What do the peers in this field write about his books? You are unable to answer these questions. Bottom line non of this seems to be true so he is simply not what we call an expert. Please work towards consensus and agree to the middle ground to attribute the information to the source as it has been suggested on the RS noticeboard. That would also add value to the information if you think he would be an expert. Right? Why not telling our readers where it comes from? That seems to be a good compromise. IQinn (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * well LWJ is a RS and needs to be used as such. If West Point thinks LWJ/Bill Roggio is reliable enough to be cited then he why are you arguing..  multiple editors have said that LWJ is a RS and that is the consensus.  we are bound by that as are you.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the US military feeds him with the information they want to have out and it is no surprise that the US military West Point promotes him as an expert. NO you have to show us evidence that comes from an independent academic body or peer-reviewed papers or books to proof he would be an expert. We are bound by valid arguments and consensus and you should agree to the middle ground and that is attribution to the source. What is wrong with attribution to the source? Our readers want to know so they can make their own judgment. Nothing to hide where the information comes from. Right? Please work towards consensus. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK why are we diverging from the original discussion. can you provide me a single diff from anyone other than you who says LWJ is anything but RS.  why do you NOT want it used as such.  because your POV does not agree with it.  please learn to acceopt consensus which is very clear that LWJ is a RS which can be freely used on wp just like any other RS.  from the section header that you created it is clear you are biased and unwilling to accept consensus.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please you learn consensus and compromising the LWJ is not the BBC and even in certain cases we do attribute information to the BBC, so why should we make an exception from this rule for the LWJ? See the RS noticeboard where if have drafted a compromise. IQinn (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * that is exactly what I have been saying"in certain cases" we should attribute opinion just like BBC. consensus does not mean compromising with deeply flawed arguments of a single biased editor when everybody else thinks LWJ is an RS.  that would be classic WP:UNDUE weight to one persons opinion.  You have to accept that TLWJ is a RS just like any else and needs to be treated the same way without any "special" requirements for attribution.  that is the consensus here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the discussion is here and it seems to me that you agree to the listed 3 cases when to attribute information of the LWJ should be done. If not you should go there and explain why you do not agrees and why you do not work towards consensus. Regards. IQinn (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

wikileaks
Wikileaks is mentioned in the summary, but not in the body of the article. I think this is relevant, but if it is the summary, shouldn't it be covered somewhere in the body of the article we are summarizing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

June 6 strike
Iquinn is again unnecessrily twisting verifiable data. LWJ clearly has reported "Unmanned Predators or the more deadly Reapers launched attacks today in three separate areas of South Waziristan that are under Taliban control. Seven "Punjabi Taliban" terrorists, as well as Arabs, Uzbeks, and a Turk, are reported to be among those killed." no need to say LWJ has reported that it has been reported and similar nonsense.--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the one who attributed the LWJ. Do any of the sources speculate that civilians might have been killed?  If not, that part needs to go.  I didn't see it mentioned in any of the sources I looked at. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the CNN source. IQinn (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikireader41 again unnecessrily presenting data in a misleading way. The LWJ reported that it has been reported by other media. The LWJ simply reports what other media reported the information about the "Punjabi Taliban" Arabs, Uzbeks, and a Turk. Full stop. Read the source. The LWJ did not spoke to the "unnamed officials" nor do they verify these accounts. Do attribute information the the Source here Reuters and NYT's thought the LWJ says Reuters "reported" that there were 7 Seven "Punjabi Taliban" but then has a link to an AFP source that does not verify the information. So attribute information to the right source or "cut the carp". This here is a encyclopedia, i haven't seen any other article on WP that includes information based on that kind of crappy sources. Regards. IQinn (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Iquinn you are POV pushing nitpicker. multiple RS like BBC and CNN are reporting this.  All of us except you think LWJ is a RS too. These sources are much higher quality than what are used on most wikipedia articles.  are as reliable as it gets.  you haven't the faintest clue about NPOV and it would be best if you stay away from messing up this article with your POV crap.  maybe it is time for you to consider a wikibreak or retirement.  regards and best wishes.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikireader, please don't talk to other editors this way. If a newbie editor saw this on the talk page, it might give a bad impression of Wikipedia that editors treat each other this way.  Just address Iqinn's objection. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68 I am concerned that disruptive editors who nitpick and are constantly finding issues with others editing are the ones who are discouraging new editors from joining. At first blush they look kosher but in the long term these fellows cause immense harm to wikipedia. the time to AGF with Iquinn has long passed. like I have said we have to report everything that RS say without giving UNDUE weight to anything.  A common strategy for POV pushers is to demand impossibly high standards for RS when they dont like the information.  Frankly his argument that BBC, CNN , LWJ cannot be used directly without being specifically quoted is completely against WP:RS.  if he had a sensible point he was making I would definitely make a good faith attempt to answer.  what confirmation if any do we have that this drone attack was carried by US??  who confirmed that if I may ask ???  what makes you so sure that Pakistan is not killing its own people and blaming it on US.  This is a slippery slope.  we have to stick to reporting what RS say--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikireader, the NPA policy does not provide exceptions when we don't agree with the approach an editor is taking. We have to address the edits, not the editor.
 * On another note, here's an article commenting on cooperation between Pakistani's ISI and the Americans in the drone strikes. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 10 June 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma foundry (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't own copyright of images you've taken from the internet and shouldn't add them anywhere in Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The caption "MQ-1L Predator UAV armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missile", should this be "MQ-1B[...]" as it is not only the airframe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.213.127 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Long War Journal
The Long War Journal is an oft-used source for this article. Recently, an editor questioned it's notability. In response, I rebuilt the article and have started a discussion on its notability. All are welcome to join the discussion there. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

September 11 2011 Drone Strike
I came across this news article,, which is about a drone strike in North Waziristan on September 11, but it is not included in the timeline. Can someone please include this? 50.129.89.173 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

weasel words
The article is full of weasel words so i add the tag. 110.137.78.208 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I read through the entire article and I haven't found any weasel words. In fact, every claim or opinion had at least one source. Therefore, I suggest that we can now remove the tag.50.129.89.173 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You might read it again, there are more than enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew nickels (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you mean the "some [entity] think/say" is weasel, not necessary as long as they're properly sourced. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you add an tag, you need to be willing and able to specify on the talk page what, in you opinion, needs to exactly be done to resolve the concern. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As no examples have been given for what the problem is meant to be here after almost two weeks, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cla68 They have explained it. The article is full of weasel words. You have not disputed that claim.

@Nick-D They have given the explanation. Do you dispute their claim that there are weasel words? Here is one example i have fixed yesterday and there is a lot more of this. I agree with that ip and would appreciate you would not remove the tag until that has been fixed. 24.232.105.34 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the person who places a tag on an article has the responsibility to point out examples and start a discussion on how to improve or eliminate the weasel words. Otherwise the tag should not be placed at all. I also agree that the article doesn't contain weasel words since they are sourced statements. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of Sections
Shouldn't the text come before the individual listings? I'd favor keeping the Statistics where it is is however. Misc-Sentence taken out of the lead:
 * Generally the UAVs used are MQ-1 Predator and more recently MQ-9 Reaper firing AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.

--Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody verify this strike
"12 August 2008: Nine killed in four strikes in the area near Angore Adda in South Waziristan during a meeting of militants.[35]"

The only source is a dead "Vietnamese" reference. Could not find other sources. DesertBeetle (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support removing all Vietnamese citations and replacing with {citation needed}. I also don't see the need for dubious or failed verification tags. I would rather see those citations replaced with {citation needed}. For any of these three situations, I would be fine with removing the drone strike from the list. This page does not need to be a complete catalog of all drone strikes, there are other sources that attempt to do that. All info should be reliably sourced. If it is a questionable call, start a section on the talk page about it.


 * Finally, I would appreciate you using the {cite news} or {cite web} tags with your references. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

March 17, 2011
I removed several non-reliable sources and/or dead link references. There are plenty of sources for the date. I also took the following citation out of the article:


 * The dead noncombatants may have included members of the Pakistani government-employed Khassadar force.Among the civilians killed were Malik Daud, Gul Akbar, Mohammad Sheen, Lewanai, Mir Zaman, Din Mohammad, Malik Tareen, Noor Ali, Zare Jan, Sadiq, Mustaqeem, Khangai, Gulnaware and Faenda Khan. Also among the dead were Dindar Khan, Umark Khan, Wali Khan, Sadar and Bakhtar, all from the Khassadar force.

--Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

editorializing
This is an editorial comment. "The strikes are often linked to Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the growing questionability of the scope and extent of CIA activities in Pakistan." It is an opinion, and an un-sourced one at that. The first part is probably true but still un-sourced. The second part is merely the author's opinion, and many including myself would disagree with the "growing questionability of the scope and extent". Why is the questionability worse today than a year ago? Who says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.185.207 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Image said to be Predator drone aircraft at Shamsi Airbase in Pakistan -- no longer available on Google Earth..jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
This image is still available on GoogleEarth. GoogleEarth constantly replaces old satellite pictures with new ones, but all the old pictures are still available, one just has to back up to the date the drones were photographed (using that clock looking icon on top). The drones were photographed on the July 1 2004 picture.Hudicourt (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Drone strike?
"16 January 2007: Up to 30 Taliban killed in a drone strike in Salamat Keley, Zamazola, South Waziristan"

I am thinking to remove this from the list as i can not verify that it was a drone strike. Objections? DesertBeetle (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a source. A complete list with public sources can be found at the New America Foundation drone web pages listed in External Sources. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Drone as Privacy Catalyst
A reference to this may belong in the article somewhere. Happy New Year. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding dead links
News articles hosted by Yahoo all expire eventually. Google news hosted AP stories are gone in 30 days. For these sources, you should search the first sentence in quotes on Google to find a newspaper source that has run the article. To add a little confusion, Google News hosted AFP (Agence France Presse) stories remain - permanently from what I can tell. Dawn of Pakistan puts year old articles behind a paywall. Can anyone think of other sources that likely turn into dead links? These sources should be avoided when possible. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals
Has this been incorporated? &mdash; CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals. I'm not a contributor to this article, so won't add anything regarding it, but note 'Clive Stafford-Smith, the lawyer who heads the Anglo-US legal charity Reprieve, believes that such strikes ‘are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.'

If anything like this has or will be added, then reference should be made to the Laconia incident when USAAF Captain Robert C. Richardson III set a precedent. Should O'Bomba and his comrades–in–remote–controlled–arms ever face an International Tribunal, they might try to make use of the Dönitz Defense. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep NPOV in mind. Pär Larsson (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Article has become incomprehensible
The lengths and over-detailed list of every strike makes it difficult to read the article. I suggest to keep and extent the given text sections and to move or remove the overlong list. 41.217.233.243 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The average person coming to Wikipedia to learn about this issue is not well served with a play-by-play list of explosions and suspected or confirmed missile strikes. Pär Larsson (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Some balance has to be added to this article. While the number of UAV attacks have gone up, the total number of sorties by allied air forces has gone down. The only difference between a drone attack and a piloted aircraft is that, if it is shot down, somebody doesn't have to be informed of the loss of a loved one. People on the ground still die at the same rate...actually lower with the UAV because the don't cary 1,000 pound bombs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.63.101 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Daniel L. Byman & NY Times quote accuracy
His article is published under the heading "Opinion", not sure if it's even considered an editorial. He's not *suggesting* - he's drawing a conclusion from un-divulged source's information (which may admittedly be splitting hairs). As it was written in 2009 I'm not sure it's even halfway accurate in 2012 ...given that the campaign has been substantially stepped up since then? The terrorists he's talking about are mid-to-high level al-Qaeda and Taleban leaders, when the campaign currently (as far as I know) strikes vastly more often at your average militant meeting, whether or not there are leaders there. In addition, the NY Times article states that the CIA claims (at time of writing) to have had a year of no collateral damage, not sure if that means they think that there have **never** been any civilian deaths due to the strikes ...or if anyone actually believes that. As always, please keep NPOV in mind with regards to this very controversial and polarizing matter. Pär Larsson (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

50 to 60 percent confidence before drone strikes are launched
In the article at present, I see no reference to the fact that Newsweek reported in 2010 that the CIA needs "only 50 to 60 percent confidence to shoot at compounds suspected of sheltering foreign fighters". I'm not sure where in the article this information should belong. At present, the intro seems to be the best location. Does anyone object to me including a reference there? Adlerschloß (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need anyone's permission to edit, have at it. Just try to follow general NPOV guidelines, esp. as articles like this tend to attract disproportionate amounts of attention from people vehemently *against* the subject. There's other guidelines too, but few bother to read them. Personally, I'd be interested in "confidence of..." ...WHAT? Confidence that there's foreign fighters there? Confidence that there's a leader there? Confidence that there's few or no sillyvilians there?Pär Larsson (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)