Talk:Targeted killing/Archive 2

"Some say" syndrome
We need to be careful not to fall into the "some say..." trap. If something is a fact, it should be cited to a reliable source. If it is a notable opinion, we should say precisely who holds the opinion, or give prominent examples if "some" or "many" hold the opinion. Jehochman Talk 03:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should targeted killing by the USA be spun off into a new article?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israeli targeted killings is its own article, but there is no equivalent article about targeted killings by the United States. In my opinion Targeted_killing is long enough to be spun off into a separate article. A Google news search for "US drone attacks" produces over 17 thousand articles, so I also think this topic is notable enough to be its own article. Akuri (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Sound proposal. Logical. Rational. Sensible. Makes sense. Plenty of secondary source coverage of the topic itself to warrant its own article independent of this one, with summary style back here or just different general style article here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Disposition Matrix and Talk:Disposition Matrix. In terms of content, there's certainly enough material for this. -Darouet (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this article easily covers that issue and such an article it will be a content fork. In creating a new article not only does one need to copy over what is at the moment a small section one would have to copy over the explanations as the term is only a convenient synonym/workaround for Ford's Executive Order 11905 and carter's Executive Order 12036. By the time all that text has been copied it will either gut this article or create a content fork. -- PBS (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Frankly, I've always felt "targeted killing" was a way to spin the word assassination. It's a fairly new term (I don't think it's been around for more than ten years or so) and I don't think it's going to be in use for too long. The existence of the term is silly political word play, and WP shouldn't compound the silliness of it by creating more articles dedicated to it. In fact, I'd be for deleting or renaming Israeli targeted killings, and reworking the lead on this page to make it clear that this term is largely used for political spin. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's been written about by a number of reliable sources, and I've been meaning to collate them. There are quite a few scholars however, all either associated with the military or backing the targeted killing policy, who are publishing against the notion that they're the same, for obvious reasons. -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The notion of "targeted killing" is one that encompasses a killing that it is legal, such as "self-defense" killings. Assassination, by its definition, encompasses only illegal killings.  There are arguments as to whether one targeted killing or another meets the legal strictures, and is therefore a legal targeted killing.  Just as there are arguments as to whether one or more killing in self defense meets its requirements.  But to call "targeted killing" another term for "assassination" misses the point entirely.  It is like arguing that abortion is murder ... and hence we should simply list it under the article "murder."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Epeefleche - "Assassination, by its definition, encompasses only illegal killings." - Citation needed! Different sources will define assassination as either the "murder of" or simply the "killing of" a politically prominent person, usually by surprise attack. Everyone agree that someone politically prominent dies in an assassination. I don't think you can explicitly say that the death is as the result of an illegal act.
 * I think the basic fact is, that the word "assassination" can encompass multiple different acts. Folks like Epeefleche don't want people to confuse what he sees as "bad assassination" with what he sees as "good assassination" and so they try to invent different terms for the two. NickCT (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, its quite the same as with abortion. Some people consider it murder.  Others don't.  We don't, under those circumstances, make abortion a sub-set of murder ... just because editor x would like to identify it as such.  But, that targeted killing is a killing is something as to which all agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your abortion argument is counter intuitive. We don't have a Fetus killing page to differentiate the lawful/morale termination of a fetus in contrast to Abortion, which is the morally ambiguous termination of a fetus. Why should we have a Targeted killing page to differentiate the lawful/morale termination of a politician in contrast to Assassination?
 * The whole term "targeted killing" was invented to push the POV that some assassinations are OK. Now that might well be true, but it's a POV, and it's a POV that wikipedia shouldn't be pushing. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Was the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich a lawful wartime killing of an act of murder? Which ever it was -- and the German, and Allied governments at the time obviously disagreed -- both sides used the word assassination to describe the killing. See Talk:Targeted killing/Archive 1 where this question was discussed in more depth with more examples. -- PBS (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or Isoroku Yamamoto? --John (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The attack on Yamamoto should be considered separately from "Targeted Killing," as Adm. Yamamoto was in his country's uniform during a declared war, and his person and retinue were legitimately considered a enemy command and control asset. Killing him had no punitive role - it was purely and simply a way to interrupt Japanese military communications and control.  It's even unclear that the Japanese Emperor would have been protected by his largely civilian role, as he himself wore military uniform and had a role in the Japanese military (just as the President of the United States is de facto and de jure Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces and may, one assumes, be legitimately targeted in time of war).  loupgarous (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @PBS - A good and valid point. NickCT (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or any of these articles, actually. --John (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It makes perfect sense, as a major controversy is raging in the U.S. on this very subject. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose article does not yet meet WP:LIMIT. Furthermore as a comment, the Israel section is to long, if there is already a sub-article regarding it. A lot of the content can be summarized, or moved to the sub-article about Israel. Furthermore the sub-article should be reviewed for neutrality as someone can claim that that content is itself a content fork.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for spinning off will make sense only if the section becomes excessively long. I agree with the editor above who suggests summarizing the Israeli section. We don't want to have to maintain the same content in two different places.  People can click the link to get full details.  Whether the targeted killings are illegal or not has no bearing on whether to create a daughter article. It's simply a content management issue: keeping all articles an appropriate length and avoiding redundancy. Jehochman Talk 11:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose because there is not enough information in the proposed spun-off article for it to be anything but a stub. Should the section "Targeted Killing by the United States government" grow beyond its present size (with an accompanying growth in citations which are not simply restatements of current information and which qualify under WP requirements for verifiability), that would be a good time to reconsider this issue. loupgarous (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, RS continue to feature stories about Obama's Kill List. NYT, NPR, HuffPost Darkstar1st (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PBS and NickCT. Proposal would create a content fork. I endorse NickCT's view that the term was largely invented for political 'spin', and that fact should be reflected in the lead. --NSH001 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per statement by loupgarous. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Regardless of the politics, it's just not overtaking this article, yet. I agree that there's potential for a split, eventually, once this article has been filled out more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - because this article itself can be adequately discussed under "Assassination". In my view, "targeted Killing" is just a euphemism for "assassination", and this view is supported by the way it's used; consider for example the quote given in the Second Intifada subsection: "" yoyo (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A content fork of Assassination
I broke the following comment out from the RFC section immediately above (PBS (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)):
 * Rather than creating a further content fork, this article - which is merely a content fork of any thorough discussion of assassination - should itself be resumed under the Assassination article. Legalistic hair-splitters may declare that "targeted killing" is not "assassination", arguing that it's an act of self-defense against a terrorist.  That claim is clearly wrong on at least two grounds: first, that many of the targets are not, by any definition, terrorists, but rather are only inconveniently outspoken or influential political opponents; second, that many of these killings occur in the absence of any direct threat to the safety or civil liberties of the people who order and carry out the killing, or of their communities, and that therefore such killing can in no wise be construed as self-defense: a restraint by force of a person acting with malicious intent.  It's also worth noting that "targeted killings" often occur in places outside the jurisdiction of those ordering them, and that even within the appropriate jurisdiction, a "targeted killing" always constitutes an extra-judicial killing: one which denies the targeted victim the due process of law.  Just like a lynching, a "targeted killing" is an act of vigilantism, a misguided attempt to do right by doing wrong.  An encyclopaedia article that uncritically documents the usage of this kind of politically-motivated spin, which calls murder by any other, less shocking, name, can be misunderstood by many to legitimise it, and thus does not have a Neutral Point Of View.  That the phrase "targeted killing" is used is undeniable; however the role of an encyclopaedia is to objectively report such abuses of language with clear eyes, not to promulgate their disingenuous proliferation. yoyo (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This used to be a redirect. An editor called Epeefleche edit warred a version of the article into existence (it was later deleted as a copyright violation). However after it came into existence there was an RfC were the majority of those who took part were in favour of keeping the article (see Talk:Assassination/Archive 2). -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo
I suggest the drone photograph is inappropriate for this article; it would be like an article on "killing" that opens with a picture of a gun. If we want a picture as part of this article, I suggest it should be a picture of a targeted killing, as in El Salvador. 107.131.117.141 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Massacre Photo and the ACLU
Edward321: Kindly explain how the information you've summarily removed is "unsupported." This article already states that that massacre was a targeted killing. And the ACLU, a reliable source, is also accurately paraphrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.131.117.141 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing in either this article or the El Mozote massacre indicates that it was a targeted killing, thus that is an unsourced opinion. The B'Teselem page you link does not support the claim made in the article. The ACLU page you link is a blog, and blogs are seldom reliable sources. That blog is the opinion of one member of the ACLU, not an official statement from that organization. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The targeted killing article unambiguously states: "Targeted killings were employed extensively by death squads in El Salvador." You're being facetious. 107.131.117.141 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A wholesale massacre does not seem to fit the definition of targeted killing, "the premeditated killing of an individual...". Targeted killing appears to be the new term for assassination.  The El Mozote massacre would be better mentioned in the massacre article, which is in need of expansion.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the massacre article is the place for information on the El Mozote massacre. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Selective assassination
"Targeted killing (also known as Selective assassination)" When are assassinations anything but selective? -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Split section on US targeted killing
The section on US targeted killing is too large; it is actually most of this article. In order to balance this article i propose to split it into a separate article Targeted assassinations by the US military and keep here only a few paragraphs for summary. The topic of US targeted killing is obviously notable.GreyShark (dibra) 06:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Targeted killing/Archive 2, consensus can change but to show that the consensus has changed would take another RfC. -- PBS (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, missed it i guess.GreyShark (dibra) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Heavy emphasis on certain nations' policy
I don't know what you use to tag articles like this, but "Targeted killing" seems incomplete. Obviously the countries listed are not the only ones who have engaged in it; if anything they're noted because they (at least in the case of Israel and the US) at least in principle adhere to a human rights standard that most other non-Western (if not including them) countries disregard, so it's noted by their citizens. Is there a way to at least say something like "this list is not complete" or something? I don't want one of my kids' classmates looking it up and thinking these are the only countries who do this. I especially don't want anyone else believing so, especially those in countries where this is routine. 99.107.159.25 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi 99.107.159.25, I will try to work on this, though I don't have a lot of time right now! If you are able to find more information on targeted killing practices by other countries, you could post either links or references here, and those would help with article improvement. -Darouet (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYN and WP:Original Research
I have gone through the sections
 * Central and South America
 * Africa
 * Europe
 * Asia

Many/some of the sources cited do not use the term "targeted killing" instead they use the term assassination, There is a lot of WP:SYN in this article. There is also bias (non-neutral points of view). Take for example the setence: This can be rewritten: -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Controversy over targeted killings continued during the Second Intifada. Palestinians charged that individuals belonging to the group Hamas and shot in targeted killings were being assassinated.
 * Controversy over assassinations continued during the Second Intifada. Israelis charged that individuals belonging to the group Hamas and shot in assassinations were being targeted for killing.

@user:Darouet you made a large edit in September 2012 diffs most of the citations to which I appended templates, were added by you please could you provide links to those citations that do not have any and quotations for these that do not or have restricted access to support their use as citations in the article. -- PBS (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi PBS, I can't look at this immediately and haven't been too active recently, but will get to it as soon as I can. Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. From a methodological perspective, when I began editing on this subject I was very interested in the origin of the term. I used LexisNexis Academic to figure out when the term began being used in newspaper reports, and those reports helped add material on early "targeted killings." It is my recollection that sources used the terms "assassination" and "targeting killing" more or less synonymously for about two decades. -Darouet (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * PBS, going through those edits you linked, I think I did a decent job of collating what had been written about targeted killings in the 1980s-1990s, and gave citations for all material added. One virtue of those early edits was that they formed a coherent, if brief narrative. At this point many paragraphs or country entries have become so mixed around, they're virtually useless. I really can't claim responsibility for what's happened to the article since I worked on it: I'm also skeptical of what's been included.


 * As you may know, LexisNexis often doesn't provide web links for their articles, especially older ones. However, the material I added was cited, and you should be able to check references yourself (that is of course your responsibility). If you have a reason for doubting certain information (e.g. another source stating something otherwise), then by all means add a "verification needed" tag, and if you find that a provided reference doesn't justify the content, I hope you'll remove it. This is a controversial subject and, after my initial contributions some time ago, I abandoned any efforts to curate this page.


 * I consider Btselem to be an impeccable source. I don't know, however, that it's being used properly. -Darouet (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My concern is this we have in the lead the paragraph "The legality ..." and the whole point of this fork from Assassination is that there is a difference between assassination and targeted killing. Most of the examples I have tagged where there source is available online use either assassination or targeted killing and assassination to describe the same events. I think that the only examples that ought to be included on this page is where various government or academic sources argue that "targeted killing" means something other than assassination. If that is not done then if "targeted killing" is just an euphemism of assassination then this article should be merged into the assassination article. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * PBS, I think that reflects a widespread understanding that assassination and targeted killing can be the same thing (though who considers it to be what is complicated). There's no way of avoiding the intensely political nature of the issue, since "targeted killing" became state policy in Israel, and later, and under different circumstances, in the United States (where "assassination" was declared illegal after the Church committee). Obviously, critics contended that these policies were/are illegal. For instance, the European Union in 2004 "condemned the extra-judicial killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and seven other Palestinians by Israeli forces this morning. The European Union has consistently opposed extra-judicial killings. Not only are extra-judicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law which is a key element in the fight against terrorism. The European Union has repeatedly condemned the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. The EU recognises Israel's right to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks. Israel is entitled to do this under international law. Israel is not, however, entitled to carry out extra-judicial killings. Furthermore, the assassination which has just been carried out has inflamed the situation. The Council called on all sides to exercise restraint and to refrain from acts of violence, which will only lead to more deaths and will put a peaceful settlement still further from reach."


 * Political science professor Michael Boyle writes for International Affairs that "the drone literature is replete with euphemisms for killing people—targeted killings, assassinations, collateral damage—that are designed to obscure the basic fact that a drone strike is an intentional act designed to end a human life. As George Orwell observed in his essay ‘Politics and the English language’, such vague, antiseptic language is typically used to make murder ‘respectable’." (International Affairs 89: 1 (2013) 1–29)


 * Supporters of these policies, and the governments themselves, obviously declare that they are legal, hence inherently not assassinations. Take Melzer's description in Targeted Killing in International Law: "Depending on factors such as academic, political or military perspective, a wide variety of alternative terms has been used to describe State-sponsored targeted killings… On the more technical end of the scale, targeted killings are often, and sometimes interchangeably, referred to as 'extrajudicial executions,' 'extrajudicial killings,' 'extrajudicial punishment' or 'assassinations,' terms which are widely regarded as referring to inherently unlawful conduct and, therefore, are equally unsuitable for an unprejudiced legal analysis. Moreover, for historical reasons, the prevailing legal definition of 'assassination' is far too narrow for a comprehensive analysis of the legal problems raised by the currently emerging State practice of targeted killing." (Oxford University Press, May 29, 2008)


 * Media are also split on this issue. A good example can be given by Neve Gordon in Rationalising Extra-Judicial Executions: The Israeli Press and the Legitimisation of Abuse. He writes, "Ha’aretz, for instance, consistently uses the word ‘assassination to describe extra-judicial executions (except when it is quoting someone), while Yedioth Ahronoth and Ma’ariv almost always employ the more sanitary term ‘liquidation’ and only on rare occasions refer to the executions as ‘assassinations’." (International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 305–324, Autumn 2004).


 * I hope that's instructive a little? Sorry, I know it's tempting to just write, "either it's assassination or it isn't!", but this is a contentious issue. -Darouet (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I sympathize with your suggestion that "targeted killing" might be merged into "assassination," but I think it's clear that "targeted killing" has become a common enough term, whatever its relationship to "assassination," that it deserves its own article. Furthermore, our article will ideally address the controversy, and also be a medium for presenting contemporary policies of relevant governments and actors. The drawbacks of merging "targeted killing" into "assassination" include wholly preoccupying the latter article with one specific type of killing. On the other hand, omitting references to "assassination" in this article would ignore a great many scholarly/media publications on it, and effectively adopt the editorial tone of governments or lawyers who support targeted killing as a legal, military and political policy. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

when is 'kill on sight' acceptable?
there are many issues here, IMO, (drone killings)should be in a 'war' situation. or not? CorvetteZ51 (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Legality
The summary of the legality of "targeted killings" is very vague. There should be a proper analysis of the literature and law, in a separate section. The reference to the legality being debated suggests that there is a real debate and genuine uncertainty. Actually that is not the case, as I believe that few jurists actually believe that assassination is or can be legal. After all, international law expressly bans it, and US Executive Order 12333 also forbad it - although assassination was of course already illegal under US domestic law (being a subtype of murder). Article 23(b) of the annex to the Hague Convention IV stated that it is forbidden "to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."Royalcourtier (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Introduction
The rambling introduction is in no way balanced. It is clearly an attempt to justify state assassinations. An introduction to a Wikipedia article is no place for a partisan argument of a particular viewpoint. It is particularly inappropriate here since the argument that "targeted killing" is anything other than an unlawful assassination is a very weak one.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am mostly agreed. If we want to revisit the wording of the intro that's fine, but the recently introduced changes are obviously highly partisan, e.g., "let us at wikipedia tell you readers how assassination and targeted killing are totally different, reliable sources be damned." -Darouet (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Targeted killing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080918223149/http://www.jamestown.org:80/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373424 to http://www.jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373424
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100610075158/http://www.insct.syr.edu/research/publications/faculty_publications/Banks/Targeted%20Killing%20and%20Assassination.pdf to http://insct.syr.edu/research/Publications/faculty_publications/Banks/Targeted%20Killing%20and%20Assassination.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511184641/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14536281/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14536281/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110817104158/http://govdocsblog.kentlaw.edu/wordpress/?p=3332 to http://govdocsblog.kentlaw.edu/wordpress/?p=3332

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Targeted killing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110815200022/http://eskesta.haifa.ac.il/Departments/philo/faculty_pages/statman/papers%20in%20english/E23.pdf to http://eskesta.haifa.ac.il/Departments/philo/faculty_pages/statman/papers%20in%20english/E23.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

FAQ page for this article created

 * Talk:Targeted killing/FAQ

I've created an FAQ page for this article, at Talk:Targeted killing/FAQ.

This will primarily serve to simply and concisely link to and summarize historical past discussions that have come up regarding this article.

For example, merge discussions, past Request for Comment formalized discussions, etc.

Hopefully it may help in the future to avoid circular arguments getting rehashed over and over again.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Targeted killing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101173754/http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2005/09/16/4074.shtml to http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2005/09/16/4074.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928020301/http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=73&rid=1229 to http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=73&rid=1229
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829072847/http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-26/opinion/17416329_1_self-defense-killings-deadly-force to http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-26/opinion/17416329_1_self-defense-killings-deadly-force
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101116182446/http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/david.pdf to http://biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/david.pdf
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120314201721/http%3A//www%2Ecarnegiecouncil%2Eorg/resources/journal/17_1/debate/860%2Ehtml to http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/17_1/debate/860.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829072847/http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-26/opinion/17416329_1_self-defense-killings-deadly-force to http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-26/opinion/17416329_1_self-defense-killings-deadly-force

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Euphemism
It is clear that "targeted killing" is a euphemism for assassination. It should not be described as "a form of assassination based on the presumption of criminal guilt". For two reasons: firstly, the description acknowledges that the act is an assassination, so why not simply say that targeted killing is a euphemism for assassination?; secondly because it is not limited to the assassination of people based on "presumption of criminal guilt". It is based on the person being seen as a threat to national security. The definition as given would be more applicable to death squads, which involve the targeted killings of people seen to be criminals. Targeted killings are not used if people can be arrested insteadRoyalcourtier (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Targeted Killing as a Euphemism for assassination
I would like to make several observations. The term targeted killing very much is a euphemism for assassination. It is a euphemism because the two concepts, as far as I can tell have the exact same definition. I will go out and speculate that the reason why the entire world minus human rights laws and the advocates of those laws accept this euphemism is because the very idea that it is reasonable or even desirable to outlaw assassination during wartime is laughably absurd at best and downright idiotic at worst. I don't care how long the statutes outlawing it have been in place, it has never been followed in any conflict and it never will be, and for a very simple reason: during wartime people die. A novel concept really. A wartime general or politician very much is a combatant and outlawing their death and legalizing the war they are leading would be as absurd as keeping war legal but outlawing the right for enemy soldiers to kill each other. Hence after it was "outlawed" the world simply adopted a euphemism for the concept of killing specific enemy people (who are by virtue of being the enemy usually doing things which further their agenda of making war) during wartime. The difference between a sniper killing a General and that sniper killing any other random soldier is strategically significant but the idea that the two targeted killings or assassinations are different from the standpoint of human rights is crazy. More to the point, why on earth should the schmucks leading the war on top be off limits to killing (of any kind) when the schmucks actually fighting the war aren't? 173.69.2.19 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC) A
 * agreed. a similar related corruption of terms is happening at Disposition Matrix, a euphemism of the redirected common name kill list. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no other word for the act other than assassination. "Targeted killing", "terminate with extreme prejudice" etc are all more or less slang (even absurd) euphemisms for assassination. There should not be an article under the title of "targeted killing" - this should re-direct to assassination. Alternatively the leader should note at the very beginning that this is a euphemism for assassination.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that a search for the term "targeted killing" should merely redirect to the article on assassination. One is merely a euphemism for the other, there is no real distinction between the terms, and maintaining this as a separate article is redundant and merely serves as apologetics to some agents who practice assassination tactics.65.7.0.129 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Targeted killing even sounds like a euphemism for assassination. Legally it is the same - an unlawful killing by a state, organization or individual. The use of this "spin" term "Targeted Killing" may mislead users of Wikipedia into thinking that these killings are legal.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose redirect. There are numerous books solely dedicated to this particular topic of "targeted killing", itself. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Targeted killing is a euphemism for a type of assassination. But it is an assassination nonetheless. Effectively having separate articles on assassination and targeted killings is saying that assassination carried out by Western powers is somehow different or more morally defensible than those carried out by terrorists or third world countries. The retention of the separate article is therefore double standards, or at worst even racist.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Legality disputed
The legality of targeted killing is not "disputed". There is no doubt that targeted killing/assassination is illegal, under both international and domestic law. That is one of the reasons why the USA will not join the ICC. It may be helpful to cite jurists writing on both sides - if it is possible to find any willing to claim that assassination is legal. There are several people quoted as saying that targeted killing is not the same as assassination - without saying why. Even if it was true, that does not make it legal. One could equally say that piracy and robbery are not the same, but it does not follow that one is legal and the other is not - piracy simply being robbery committed at sea.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Palestinians call killings policy of assassination
Content just removed, but the information is available in newspapers from the period, including the AP, which was the cited source:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) December 15, 2000, Friday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION TROOPS KILL HAMAS MILITANT AS ISRAEL AND PALESTINIANS RESUME HIGH-LEVEL; CONTACTS; ISRAEL SAYS IT TARGETS LEADERS OF ATTACKS BYLINE: The Associated Press SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A2

"Israeli soldiers shot a Palestinian militant to death Thursday when he pulled a pistol at a military checkpoint in the Gaza Strip, the army said. It was the fourth killing of a known Palestinian activist in as many days... Palestinians claimed that Thursday's shooting was part of a concerted Israeli effort to assassinate Palestinian activists. "It's a kind of state terrorism organized and used with the approval of the prime minister and the Israeli government," said Ahmed Qureia, a senior Palestinian negotiator. Israel's deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, said this week that the army was targeting Palestinians responsible for attacks against Israelis and that the army had acknowledged conducting several recent attacks to kill militants. But the army said it was only trying to arrest Hani Abu Bakr, a member of the militant Islamic group Hamas, when they stopped the taxi he was driving at a checkpoint in the southern Gaza Strip. Abu Bakr drew a handgun, prompting the soldiers to open fire, the army said. Abu Bakr was killed, and two passengers in his car were wounded, it said. Hamas confirmed that Abu Bakr, 31, was a ranking member of the group's underground military wing - a secretive organization that has been behind many of the deadliest bomb attacks against Israel in recent years. Shai Feldman, director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, said the new Israeli policy was an effort to "be more accurate in striking forces that are identified as those responsible for the violence" and reduce casualties among bystanders."

If there is some change in text that is suggested I'm open to that. -Darouet (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And from Mark Lavie,

Contra Costa Times (California), December 13, 2000 Wednesday FINAL EDITION, "4TH PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST SHOT," BYLINE: Mark Lavie, SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A21

"JERUSALEM: Israeli soldiers gunned down a Palestinian activist Tuesday, witnesses said, the fourth West Bank leader killed in a little over a month, all considered political assassinations by the Palestinians. Hours later, gunfire flared as it has every night in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli soldiers and Palestinians clashed, killing two Palestinians and wounding at least 15 others. The Israeli military said Palestinians near the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the southern part of Gaza opened fire on Israeli forces, who returned fire." -Darouet (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Content not supported by sources?
Spacecowboy. Since you keep reverting, on what appears to be non-policy, spurious grounds, a piece of text that is sourced to multiple RS, please explain here why the text you excised is not backed by the sources you also took out, i.e. here.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Human rights watch is obviously an organization with an agenda to push. Hardly a neutral source.
 * TLS only quotes churchmilitant.com in regards to targeted killings, churchmilitant.com is not a reliable source. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the CSS tag, whatever that refers to. The details in the text are now all sourced to
 * Philippines: Abusive ‘Drug War’ Targets Children 2 New Summary Killings Heighten Urgency of UN Inquiry,''Human Rights Watch 9 September 2017
 * "You Can Die Any Time" Human Rights Watch April 2009.
 * '“License to Kill” Philippine Police Killings in Duterte’s “War on Drugs”,' 2 March, 2017
 * Philippines: "If you are poor, you are killed": Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines' "War on Drugs" Amnesty International 31 January 2017,
 * They are impeccable sources, and are never contested as unreliable or inappropriate for wiki articles. There is no history on the Reliable Sources noticeboard of HRW or Amnesty being brushed off as failing WP:RS. So you cannot remove them. Your only option is to go to the RSN and ask if they are reliable. The answer will be yes, but you can try. As you stated you have an agenda to push (i.e. editing to ensure that these are 'legitimate police actions') when sources challenge that, you can hardly be taken seriously in dismissing Human Rights Watch as 'pushing an agenda'. Last warning. Fiddle out these sources, and erase that text, and you will be reported immediately for edit-warring.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Du30 has always been cleared by The Commission on Human Rights of any involvement in any killings. Its against BLP to accuse him after he has been cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.135.86 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Barney Porter, Philippines: Commission on Human Rights budget cut to almost nothing amid Duterte's drug crackdown, ABC  13 September  2017,


 * "Last warning. Fiddle out these sources, and erase that text, and you will be reported immediately for edit-warring." - could you modify your tone and calm down please? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Spaceboy, thanks for reminding me with your edit summary "Also is NSH001 a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Nishidani?" that, in addition to edit warring, you should probably also be reported for sockpuppetry. --NSH001 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

what is the purpose of the "overview" section: isn't that what the lede is for? If I can help you both resolve this dispute I'd be happy to. Spacecowboy420, full disclosure: I think that HRW is a potentially biased, but also important source for information on extrajudicial killings.

One concern I have is that the relative presentation of various examples of extrajudicial killing, on the page overall, can be used to advance some cause or other. As an example, in the Israel-Palestine conflict (and it's extension into Wikipedia), or in the Syrian civil war, etc. etc., deleting examples of killings from one side, and adding many examples from another, would bias the page overall.

I'm not sure what the best strategy is for describing targeted killing around the world fully and fairly. Earlier I'd tried to take a semi-historical approach: something feasible because the practice of targeted killing is old, but the term is new. -Darouet (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Could we please use the talk page? I'm sorry if I'm missing posts from you both here but I don't see them. As I mentioned to Nishidani and Spacecowboy above, I don't think we should have an "overview" section where information is selectively prioritized outside the lede. Also, why is information on Duterte being placed at the top, but not in the article body? -Darouet (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article body would probably be a better choice for the info. I was just reverting what appeared to be a removal of properly sourced information. Edward321 (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Darouet, there isn't much I can add to what Nishidani has already said. Yes, having an "Overview" section is silly, since that is the function of the lead; sometimes having a "Background" section at the start is helpful, but I think probably not in this case. --NSH001 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Darouet. I have no problem with the idea of reorganizing the page, and in that regard I accept your suggestion. The edit-war is based on the removal of information, fully documented, from RS, without an adequate explanation, other than that the reverters openly admit they think killing several thousand civilians, drug-dealers/consumers, or not, is normal police behavior. That the sources are as strong for the Philippines as the other states mentioned in this regard is obvious: that there may be a problem in singling out in the overview Syria and the Philippines is also acceptable, but you cannot resolve this, as the editwarriors do, by leaving in the detail re Assad, and taking out the material from Duterte. That is a POV-nationalist bias. An overview should deal with (a) definitions of the practice, (b) a number of historic examples and (c) contemporary cases, not only in 'rogue' states, but in our 'allies'.
 * As things stand, the article requires rewriting, yes: this does not mean a remit to excise material on one's favourite nation. One keeps the well-sourced material added so far, and readjusts it in the relevant sections.
 * As to HRW, it, like any organization, has its problems. But historically, these organisations are generally far more reliable than any government source, or mainstream newspapers. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As to HRW, it, like any organization, has its problems. But historically, these organisations are generally far more reliable than any government source, or mainstream newspapers. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As much as my morals would support criticizing Duterte for most certainly being involved to some degree in the death of 1000s in his drug war, this isn't the place for opinion pieces or agendas. Legally, there is no difference between what is happening in the Philippines, and a suspect being served an arrest warrant, resisting arrest by shooting at the police and being shot, in any other country. These are legitimate police operations, supported by law.
 * Regarding HRW - they have received a significant amount of criticism regarding bias etc. When there is enough criticism for an entire article Criticism of Human Rights Watch, then there is certainly enough to put some doubt in their suitability as a neutral source. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is one thing for death squads and targeted killings to take place in banana republics. Probably the reason why the Philippines (or Israel for that matter) are mentioned here is that they are democracies with deep liens to Western societies. They are anomalous democracies in this regard, and that is why their violation of international norms, something characteristic of the U.S., and in the Manus detention centre case, recently of Australia, earns so much deserved attention. (b) Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International do not have an 'agenda' in the pejorative sense your statement implies. They are independent investigative bodies of human rights abuses throughout the world, with no exceptions made. (c) 'Legally' there is a huge difference between shooting arrested people while in prison, which is amply documented in the sources if you take the trouble to read them, and shooting people who resist arrest. (d) Your POV, stated above, says that several thousand people were shot dead resisting arrest in the Philippines: that is an historic record, and repeats verbatim the justifications giving by Duterte's government in the face of massive evidence to the contrary (e) You clearly have not read the sources, since Duterte is on record as approving of targeted killings and promising he will adopt this practice if elected. He was elected, and targeted killings skyrocketed. Q.E.D. (f) the fact that your reverting has been assisted by IPs, with little interest in Wikipedia. barging in to erase material they think offensive to their idea of the Philippines, is an indication the equanimity of editing is under attack by official or semi-official stooges.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (a) don't overestimate the Philippines' ability to be a democratic paradise. The recent implementation of martial law says a lot of the current state of affairs there. (b) HRW has received enough criticism to have their neutrality doubted. (c) The vast (and by this I mean HUGE) majority of killings either took place while trying to arrest someone, or by vigilantes. (d) yes, killings have increased. This could just be due to an increase of police activity in regards to drug offenders. (e) Duterte has also said a lot of crap, that has proven to be untrue. You can't really base anything factual on his statements. (f) I hadn't even considered that edits could be government sponsored, it's an interesting point. However, anti-government groups could just as easily be performing edits, and without any proof for either case, there isn't much to be done there. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have no reliable outside sources for these claims, and therefore your remarks are meaningless in terms of Wikipedia criteria.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment - The disputed content was in the wrong place.

"Targeted killing is a form of assassination based on the presumption of criminal guilt." "Assassination is the murder of a prominent person, often a political leader or ruler, when executed by a third party or assassin, usually for political reasons or payment."

The "extrajudicial killing" article would be a more suitable place for it. STSC (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, Your comments are a combination of assuming bad faith and synthesis. You think edits are worthless just because they are made by IPs? I could say that your comments are equally worthless based on your extensive block log and history of incivility, but I won't stoop to that level because I want to assume good faith and concentrate on your content, rather than your character.


 * STSC, yes that would be a far more suitable place for anything related to Duterte's war on drugs. We aren't talking about political enemies, terrorist leaders or major drug lords being assassinated, we are talking about drug addicts being shot under the guise of enforcing the law Mitsubishi love (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (a) I note that you didn't think of conserving other editors' work by shifting it to the page you mention as more appropriate and (b) you disagree with the source languae: Duterte +"targeted killings" yields 29,500 results, from Human Rights Watch, Reuters, the United Nations/OHCHR, James Fenton writing for t5he New York Review of Books (9 Feb.2017) uses the Philippines acronym EJK for 'extrajudicial killing' but also says that 2,000 people who use drugs have been set up, targeted, and shot by undercover police posing as drug dealers. He divides the Duterte-inspired carnage into these two categories, but then conflates them all as 'targeted killings'. Even accepted extrajudicial killings, on Fenton's evidence, means Duterte still backs 'targeted killings' of thousands of people who are not killed in terms of the EJK criteria.
 * There are hundreds of top quality sources that report these as 'targeted killings' and, whatever your private beliefs are, there is an iron rule here. Editors, you me, have no right to challenge the massive evidence of an RS data base on the grounds that it is flawed, and that you, for one, are therefore justified in cancelling those sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yet again, more synthesis. Just because someone has been targeted, does not make it a targeted killing, according to the definition supported by consensus on this article. If you wish to change the definition of targeted killing, then please gain consensus for such a change. Mitsubishi love (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * How about a Google search on: Duterte + "extrajudicial killings"? It's got 365,000. The usage of "targeted killing" is undue and should be rejected. Just use the commonsense here: any police operation on common criminals is hardly a "targeted killing" as defined in Wikipedia. - STSC (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are sidestepping the technical issue, first using your own opinion as to the difference between extrajudicial and targeted killings, and then appealing to 'commonsense'. This is subjective. One goes by the language used in WP:RS, this is primary school level methodology on Wikipedia. One does not have a right to second-guess competent secondary sources, and dismiss them as all flawed.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. As we have to (and should) go with consensus formed definitions, the content should all be on the extra judicial killings article. Mitsubishi love (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

it would only be undue if it were wrong. Duterte is responsible for both "extrajudicial killings" and "targeted killings". A Google search for Duterte + "targeted killings" shows ample results. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And yet, it still doesn't fit the definition of targeted killing that we have consensus on. So, we don't use it. That's just how Wikipedia works. Mitsubishi love (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is all pretty clear. There is an article on extra judicial killings, that would be very suitable for all content related to the current killings in the Philippines. The definition given for Targeted Killings is very clear and supported by consensus. The killings in the Philippines do not fit the definition of targeted killings on this article. They do however fit the definition of extra judicial killings perfectly. The content is not relevant to this article, and is therefore a perfect example of undue weight. Any claims based on Duterte did A and then people got killed, so it must be targeted killings, is synthesis and therefore not grounds for inclusion on this article. I'm sure there are some really awesome sources, but they don't trump consensus, and again are not grounds for inclusion on this article.


 * Let's be reasonable, we are all here to make and improve an encyclopedia. We all know that people are being killed in the Philippines and who is behind it. We need to make sure this information is available in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. When you look at the time and effort people have spent trying to remove/restore this content, we could have spent a fraction of that time improving the following article Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines, Philippine Drug War, Extrajudicial killing - so let's move this content where it belongs and improve the aforementioned articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those reverting this information out have not read as far as the lead, which states:-
 * "Some twenty-six members of Congress,[6] with academics such as Gregory Johnsen and Charles Schmitz, media sources (Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald,[7] James Traub), civil rights groups (i.e. the American Civil Liberties Union)[8] and ex-CIA station chief in Islamabad, Robert Grenier,[9] have criticized targeted killings as a form of extrajudicial killings,"
 * I.e. targeted killings, which numerous mainstream sources use to describe Duterte's practice, are arguably a subset of extrajudicial killings. One excellent source confirms this, James Fenton, who states that in the Philippines both extrajudicial killings and targeted killings are practiced in that country. Therefore there is no margin for challenging the idea that the evidence refers to the topic of this article. To equivocate and claim that since targeted killings are an aspect of extrajudicial killings, all material relating to the former should be relocated on the xtrajudicial killings page, is to propose that this article itself should be merged and deleted. Yet none of the reverters are arguing for that: they are editing out material, apparently, to defend Duterte's administration, and this is an egregious case of cleansing Wikipedia in order to protect a nation's 'good image'. If one objects to using these sources here, one should object, logically, to the page itself, and propose through the appropriate procedures, that this page be merged. That is the option, none other.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Some twenty-six members of Congress,[6] with academics such as Gregory Johnsen and Charles Schmitz, media sources (Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald,[7] James Traub), civil rights groups (i.e. the American Civil Liberties Union)[8] and ex-CIA station chief in Islamabad, Robert Grenier,[9] have criticized targeted killings as a form of extrajudicial killings,"
 * Even if we accept the above, it doesn't state that all extra judicial killings are targeted killings, it merely states that according to their belief targeted killings fall into the extrajudicial killing category.
 * Also, it doesn't affect this article, the content in question is still undue and still fails to match the definition supported by consensus.
 * "...to defend Duterte's administration" - you should assume good faith. I don't think anyone is defending Duterte, we are just trying to improve articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blatrher. This is a matter of conceptual clarify, not waffle. We have sources distinguishing extrajudicial killings from targeted killings, and saying both apply to Duterte's administration. I never assume good faith, when there is no evidence for it, as per the infantile quality of the arguments here, and the IP flash mob backup team reverting the material out. What you must clarify is why, if numerous quality sources state targeted killings are practiced under Duterte and several of them distinguish these from Duterte's extrajudicial killings, must we pretend that the former belong to the latter page? There is no logical answer so far to this, which means the objections are subjective, smacking of distaste or partisan political.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if you can't assume good faith, then I don't really think anything you can say here is relevant. Have a nice day. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is an understandable sop for new, and I think young editors. For grown-ups, who have been here for a decade, and, like myself work in an area (I/P) where bad faith editing is commonplace, it is unnecessary, and counter-factual, for a simple reason. In these controversial areas, a lot of nationalism exists, which means lack of good faith, and secondly, even those who edit in 'bad faith' often turn up points or evidence which a serious editor on 'the other side' will recognize and accommodate. It matters zilch to me that I think the editor may be malicious, POV-driven, or whatever. One looks at the evidence, not the instinctive profile one has of the personal who brings it up for consideration.
 * The removalists here refuse to accept the evidence, which, as has been amply shown, distinguishes targeted killings from extrajudicial killings, and says both exist under Duterte.  Many reliable sources then confirm that the former category is appropriate to describe many of the killings. Reverters are leaping at the idea targeted killings are a form of extrajudicial killings, and that therefore the former material re the Philipppjnes must be excerpted and if retained put on the extrajudicial killings page. This is blatant defiance of what prime expert sources like James Fenton clearly state.
 * If anyone doubts this, they can put up a request for input from neutral outside parties to adjudicate. That is the proper procedure. It is not proper to remove strongly documented quality RS on irrationally motivated, WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. So by all means, go ahead and request external input or take it to a conflict resolution page. As it stands, the revert-out team, save for one, has a poor record for contributions to Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." - If you can't accept the fundamental principles that Wikipedia is based on, then perhaps you don't need Wikipedia and perhaps Wikipedia doesn't need you. Based on your extensive block log, with multiple blocks for personal attacks, I think that reevaluating the way you treat other editors, might be a nice idea.
 * And no, the content is not suitable for this article and there is a far better article for it. But if you want to discuss it and attempt to gain consensus for inclusion, then go ahead, that's how disputes are resolved. Mitsubishi love (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have 13 edits to wikipedia, the editors supporting the retention of this are a majority (besides a collective experience of making 100,000 edits over a decade) since you are a SPA with almost zero presence playing games, and conveniently showed up when the consensus was against Spacecowboy, I take it that you are gaming wikipedia. I might add that when you wrote:'Based on your extensive block log, with multiple blocks for personal attacks,' I took note that this is the standard boilerplate of IP/SPAs who turn up out of nowhere to revert me if I revert anyone. many of them are people who were banned or used sockpuppets and who waste their time tracking my edits for opportunities to be the nuisances they are now banned from being formally)


 * For:
 * Nishidani
 * Edward321
 * NSH001


 * Against
 * Spacecowboy420
 * STSC


 * Darouet is undecided, but supports the use of HRW sources that are being elided- His sensible suggestion that the section be reorganized can't be acted on until the reverting out POv warriors desist.


 * STSC made one serious objection, though subjective. Targeted killings re Philippines should be removed to Extrajudicial killings. That was answered showing that a Philippines authority (among much else) like Fenton neatly classifies them as distinct, and both common to that nation, meaning STSC's subjective argument collapses. No answer has been given to this.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

What's your problem? Just present your case in extrajudicial killing rather than targeted killing. Majority of sources describe the incidents in Philippines as extrajudicial killings, that's why the use of "targeted killing" is undue. STSC (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By all means, add additional material to Extrajudicial killing, if you wish. There's certainly plenty that can be added there re the Philippines. But we have strong sources referring to targeted killings, so they stay here. --NSH001 (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "But we have strong sources referring to targeted killings, so they stay here." - that isn't your call to make. Content gets added, and sometimes it gets challenged and removed. If you want the content to remain in the article, then the burden is yours to gain consensus for that content. Right now, you don't have consensus, so right now your time would be better spent gaining consensus than saying "it stays here, just because I say so" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm reverted because I am disruptive? STSC. Look at the record. I, Nishidani, Edward321, and NSH001 reverted 3 to 1, a single disruptive editor for some days, who elided well-sourced information. An obvious sock, User:Mitsubishi love, registered on Wikipedia, to side with, whether he knew it or not, Spacecowboy420. His record was 13 edits to Wikipedia. I assume this reverter has it in for me, but that is irrelevant. There was a clear majority recognizing the RS validity of the material these two excised. You step in, to make it 3 against 3 (actually two against three, because Mitsubishi is a SPA newby with no known interest in any other Wikipedia page|. The majority remained. The initial claim was the sources, HRW, Amnesty etc., were partisan. This was answered by excising the only partisan source there, a compromise with Spacecowboy's request. Darouet, who's in no one's pocket, said HRW was RS, so Spacecowboy's objection re RS failuyre was answered by a 4-1 majority. You stepped in collapsing targeted killings into extrajudicial killings. I answered that by showing (a) sources use the term 'targeted killings' for the Philippines, and (b) Fenton makes a clear distinction between the two and says targeted killings, upwards of 2,000 have taken place under Duterte. So your argument, which implies this page itself is invalid and should be merged incidentally, collapsed. The majority, leaving out the sock, is still in favour of retention. If you dislike this, then put up, as I said, an RfC request, which is what editors with a minority view due under normal procedures. Neither you nor the interstellar John Wayne do that. I've followed the rules, the protestors haven't.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you don't get to dismiss people's opinions just because you don't like them. Based on your (flawed) logic, I could claim that Edward and most certainly NSH001 are your meatpuppets and their opinions are invalid. But that would be wrong, we deal with things like that on ANI, not on article talk pages. It's not a minority view. It's also your burden to gain consensus to include the disputed content. BTW, there is a suggestion on how we could compromise and improve this article, do you think it's better to continue with this tit for tat whining, or just maybe it would be good to respond to that proposal and get this drama resolved? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential solution
I'm getting bored with this. The article deserves to be correct, but I'm not sure it deserves this much time on such a minor detail.

Firstly. The Philippines should not be in the overview section. The use of drones by the US and Mossad's targeting of terrorists are far more prominent examples.

Secondly. Classifying the recent killings in the Philippines as targeted killings is debatable, the fact that we are even having this discussion makes that much clear. Having a section for the Philippines, in the same format as the other nations listed, with something along the lines of "the killings in the Philippine Drug War have been classified as targeted killings by some sources such as Human Rights Watch", with ample opportunity for opposing opinions to be added to the article, if suitable content/sources are available. It should be made clear that calling the killings targeted killings, is merely based on the opinions of some organizations, and that other organizations have vastly different views on the subject. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Darouet sensibly remarked the overview section is problematical, and his point was accepted by three editors. The suggestion was made to move the material to the body of the article, and that has a consensus.
 * To state that targeted killings are not 'classifiable' as relevant to the Philippines goes in the face of ample RS to the contrary. We do not edit subjectivity but according to source language. Secondly we have a specific and highly reliable source making this distinction and saying both targeted killings and extrajudicial killings apply to the Philippines. Again, we go by the sources, not our personal beliefs. If you are tired of this, then do as I advised, being the minority. Put up an RfC section on this page, and I will outline the case for retention briefly and I think cogently, and we'll see what outside editors think.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Consensus isn't a vote, and besides you can't dismiss the views of editors just because you don't like them or they have made less edits than you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop blathering. We have 3 established editors approving the inclusion, and 2 against, abetted by a meatpuppeting 'newbie', in all likelihood someone who was banned and checks my edits to see where he can help anyone opposed to them. That is a majority. You and the other editor have given your views, and they jar with the RSA evidence. That means you maintain a minority viewpoint, and your proper option is to call for an RfC. It's not that I dislike your edits: it is that they are ungrounded in Wikipedia rules for evidence. So put the RfC up.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Majority? Don't make me laugh, three editors for, three editors against. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that anyone who disagrees with you, must have had some previous encounter with you. Did you ever consider that all editors have a first article that they edit? If you think I'm a meatpuppet, then compare my edits with the alleged puppetmaster. Then compare your own edits with your friend who is teaming with you on this article. Which pair of editors shares the most articles? Mitsubishi love (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A step in the right direction, I hope
Rather than just the usual revert, I have tried to make a step in the right direction by getting rid of the "Overview" section (redundant, since the purpose of the lead is to give an overview) by distributing most of its contents amongst the other sections. The country sections have been put into alphabetical order within continent (also alphabetically). I've added a new section for the Philippines which contains the well-sourced material previously improperly removed. Its new position should reduce WP:UNDUE concerns. In addition, a simple technical correction to a badly formatted ref tag means that much of the material is now relegated to a footnote, further reducing "undue" concerns. --NSH001 (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You should not have made the modification on the article until the on-going RfC is concluded and a consensus is reached. STSC (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I wanted to revert much earlier, but on principle I limit myself to a maximum of 1 revert per day, except for obvious vandalism. I wasn't expecting Nishidani to set up the RFC so soon; he should have waited for the person he asked to set up an RFC to do so, and failing that he should have asked someone else, preferably not involved here, to set it up for him. Rather than just mindlessly revert, I actually made the effort to address some of the problems raised in the discussion, and the result is a vast improvement in the article (but the article still needs a lot of work). That's just good editing, WP:IAR if you insist. --NSH001 (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You knew the RfC had started but you still inserted your own edit without the support of consensus. That shows you have no interest in consensus building while the other editors are willing to compromise. STSC (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One can equally – or in fact more strongly – argue that your editing was against consensus, and in addition it was against policy to remove strongly-sourced material, simply because you don't like it. At least I made the effort to improve the article, and to address some of the problems raised, instead of continuing time-wasting reverting. Please read, and make the effort to understand, what I wrote in my previous reply. Please also refrain from stating falsehoods about other editors. --NSH001 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the events after the RfC has started. It would be pointless to have the RfC process if you decide to ignore it and make your controversial edits on the article regardless. STSC (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop making false statements about other editors. I have not, and did not "decide to ignore" the RfC. I will wait a little while before commenting on the RfC. I see no reason to accept your version of the article simply because, on principle, I won't revert more than once per day. I told you that before; please make the effort to understand. --NSH001 (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Definition

 * "Despite these difficulties, both the United States and Israel (as well as several other countries) have made targeted killing—the deliberate assassination of a known terrorist outside the country’s territory (even in a friendly nation’s territory), usually (but not exclusively) by an airstrike—an essential part of their counterterrorism strategy. " rather than relying on a poet's opinion on what is and isn't a targeted killing, we can rely on Philip Heymann (James Barr Ames Professor of Law at the Harvard University and Gabriella Blum (Rita E. Hauser Professor of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Harvard Law School) Mitsubishi love (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The essence of targeted killing, arguably the most aggressive form of operational counterterrorism, is killing an individual the nation-state has identified as posing a danger to national security;"


 * "The definition of targeted killing which I will be using for this study is that given by Thomas B. Hunter in his 2009 book Targeted Killing: Self Defence, Pre-emption, and the War on Terror. Hunter defines targeted killing as: “the premeditated, pre-emptive, and intentional killing of an individual or individuals known or believed to represent a present and/or future threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals.” " Mitsubishi love (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Before going ahead to change the definition of the subject of the article, also while involved in a dispute about the very definition, I would suggest to form consensus on the talkpage. The above sources may be reliable, but more scholarly papers may have to be consulted to get to the academic consensus on the subject. Also wiktionary is not a reliable source. Dr.   K.  22:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What your (Mitsubishi)sources as quoted state ignores the acknowledged fact that the model under G.W, Bush of targeted killing of terrorists is known to have been developed along the lines of the identical model used in the US war on drugs (and which Duterte is borrowing from). See Andrew Cockburn, ‘Targeted Killings’ Are a Drug Dealer’s Best Friend The Nation 27 April 2015 "Analyses of this policy /targeted killing of terrorists) often refer, correctly, to the blood-drenched precedent of the CIA’s Vietnam-era Phoenix Program—at least 20,000 “neutralized.” But there was a more recent and far more direct, if less noted, source of inspiration for the contemporary American program of murder in the Greater Middle East and Africa, the “kingpin strategy” of Washington’s drug wars of the 1990s. As a former senior White House counterterrorism official confirmed to me in a 2013 interview, “The idea had its origins in the drug war. So that precedent was already in the system as a shaper of our thinking. We had a high degree of confidence in the utility of targeted killing. There was a strong sense that this was a tool to be used.”Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)"


 * Dr. there were sources. The other was a Harvard Law School journal.
 * Nishidani - derived from or influenced by, does not mean they are the same. Mitsubishi love (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I say there were not? Please read my reply to you just above before making such comments. And no pinging, thanks. Dr.   K.  04:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Those look like very reliable and verifiable sources, that confirm without a doubt that the EJKs in the Philippines are not targeted killings. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the sources say nothing of the Philippines, where authoritative sources describe 'targeted killings' as a feature of that political landscape, then they are irrelevant for that section, particularly as, per sources, the distinction is made between targeted killings and extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, and both are present there.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's funny. Stop clutching at straws. This is English language Wikipedia and definitions apply to language, not regions. Perhaps if you want to try editing Tagalog Wikipedia, then you can use definitions that apply to just the Philippines. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. your edit summary was "Wiktionary not a reliable source." my comments were based on that edit summary. Mitsubishi love (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that much. Dr.   K.  19:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2017
Removal of Philippines section - This section was added while the RfC on the issue is on-going and the consensus has not been reached. The content is highly controversial and it contains defamation against a living person Rodrigo Duterte. STSC (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * there is no defamation against Duterte since the material being reverted includes his frequent public statements urging targeted killings as a policy to be pursued. What happened is that one editor, backed by an IP, reverted a consensus among 3 long term editors for retention of this material. Then Mitsubishi, with zero edits, backed the minority, and editwarred the material out, with all the appearance of sockpuppetry.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * SPI or be quiet. Oh wait. There was an SPI already that cleared all editors involved. There's another one now, that is also going to clear all involved. How many SPIs before you stop whining about sockpuppetry? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The material now disputed was introduced by me late September while reviewing the article and stood there unchallenged for over 2 months. When you began, unilaterally, without talk page justification, to revert out what was by then a 'stable' edit, 3 editors restored it, as was proper practice. You were joined by an IP, and then by an ostensible newbie, Mitsusbishi Love, who has done nothing other than back your reverts, and has just a dozen or so edits to his account, as against the vast experience of the other 3 editors. The only serious editor backing you is STSC. That still constitutes a minority. I met one source objection by yourself, NSH001 followed Darouet's consensus-gaining suggestion and rearranged the text. I.e. objections and concerns re the stable text were met. I asked twice over 2 days for the discontented to put up an RfC, and this suggestion was also ignored. Rereading the thread, the objections keep changing, indicating grasping at straws from dislike more than considered judgment. Now that we have a RfC it is appropriate that the stable text remain there as discussion from third parties emerges. This whole interlude inverted normal practice by claiming that an unhappy minority of editors should be allowed to revert out stable material, not request external input or mediation, and get there way with what for 2 months went unchallenged. The onus is on the handful of excising editors to persuade independent editors coming here that reason, based on sound policy and objective wiki criteria, stands with them, despite their cause being substantially backed by IPs or SPAs.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You first made bold edits on 24 September which were later challenged by SCB; within 3 hrs you quickly reverted SCB's edit. You're actually the one who started the edit war. STSC (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By 'later SCB challenged' you mean 2 months 10 days after I made the edit in question. Numerous editors over that interim found nothing 'bold' or controversial because I stated a widely attested observation. Anyone can check and see that SCB was only backed by an IP and a sock as he persisted in reverting what myself and 2 other experienced editors thought appropriate. Then for what reasons I still do not grasp, you decided the socks and SBC were right. Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The section is question is reliably sourced and so far no valid reason has been offered for its removal. Edward321 (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any editor can challenge your edits anytime. You'll have to learn how Wikipedia works. STSC (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The addition inserted by Nishidani does not have the consensus from other editors, and it's the cause of edit war. I think the version without the disputed content should be restored. STSC (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My addition on Sept 24 did not require consensus, because like all other editors I do not require permission from people I might magically conjecture might exist out there who might turn up to revert me 2 months later. This is becoming like ALICE IN WONDERLAND for its humptydumpty illogic.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Did not require consensus"? Thank you very much for saying that now; you obviously still do not know Wikipedia is built on consensus. You don't just dismiss other editors who might turn up to dispute your edits 2 months or 2 years later. STSC (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above statement seems to sum up most of Nishidani's comments on this talk page. "I've made a lot of edits, this is more important than consensus" "it's a new editor, their opinion doesn't count, so I don't need consensus" "I like this source, it doesn't need consensus" "I think the other editor is a sock, consensus isn't required" Mitsubishi love (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A new edit, an addition of strongly sourced material, does not require vetting before being posted. Were that the case, Wikipedia would not exist. So much for your knowledge of the basic rules, i.e. zero, as one can also observe in the contempt with which you challenge RS on the basis of your personal theories about the matter they provide.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right, Nishidani we can add correctly sourced content, without prior vetting. But, that is all assuming that the content isn't disputed. In this case it is disputed, so it required consensus for inclusion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I.e. these points only underline lack of familiarity with wiki praxis. A reliably sourced addition can, after some months, be challenged, but not by a question-begging edit summary and failure to justify it on the talk page.- Three editors thought you alone were wrong to insist on its cancellation, then you were backed by a SPA meatpuppet, and one other editor. Now let's await input from others. Correcting misstatements is boring and distractive.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

STSC You made a request for independent review by third parties in order to revert the text. MSGJ turned the request down saying removal requires consensus

You waited 2 weeks and then, not having obtained satisfaction, reverted the material out here and here, material that had been stable for 9 weeks, until one editor started to edit-war.

This is just one more sorry example of inept POV-driven editing. So please desist. Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd remind you (and user NSH001) the DS notice at the top of this talk page as you keep adding and re-adding the disputed content with BLP issue; from your own experience and you've been served the DS alert in the past, I'm sure you're fully aware of what "Discretionary Sanctions" is. STSC (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no BLP issue here. If any, there's an issue with a minority of editors who think whitewashing the reputation of Duterte means one should sweep under the carpet the thousands of murdered people, crims or not, his regime has vacuumed off the streets. Someone ought to think of a Biography of Dead People protocol, which is being violated here. I don't need to be reminded of policies, especially by those who edit in either contempt or ignorance of them. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "If any, there's an issue with a minority of editors who think whitewashing the reputation of Duterte means one should sweep under the carpet the thousands of murdered people, crims or not, his regime has vacuumed off the streets. Someone ought to think of a Biography of Dead People protocol, which is being violated here." - so, clearly objective edits, with no hint of bias or agenda from you then, Nishidani? Mitsubishi love (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll report you this time, if you try reverting again. Read the RfC, which clearly shows that a majority were for retention, not to speak of MSGJ's advice to seek consensus, which you do not have.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The majority? Was it a vote? It was obviously not conclusive, the RFC wasn't closed. If RFC doesn't work, it goes to dispute resolution. Mitsubishi love (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)