Jump to content

Talk:Targeted killing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 277: Line 277:
:::::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'''. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 21:19, 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'''. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 22:30, 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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 22:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} The section is question is reliably sourced and so far no valid reason has been offered for its removal. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 16:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Any editor can challenge your edits anytime. You'll have to learn how Wikipedia works. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Any editor can challenge your edits anytime. You'll have to learn how Wikipedia works. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


Revision as of 16:59, 19 December 2017

Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2010WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
October 20, 2010WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
October 30, 2010WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
June 20, 2013WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 20, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 2.5-inch-long "nano-drones" now being developed for targeted killing will, like little killer bees, be able to follow their target, even entering a room through an open window?

Neutrality regarding Israeli policy

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I have removed the CSS tag, whatever that refers to. The details in the text are now all sourced to
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Spacecowboy420 and Nishidani: 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)[reply]

@Edward321 and NSH001: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfC - Targeted killings/Extrajudicial killings

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

Survey

  • Extrajudicial killing - Call it "targeted killing" if the Philippine military starts sending drones to bomb the drug barons' hideouts. For now, some of the killings of drug related criminals were possibly extrajudicial killings carried out by bad cops. STSC (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in Targeted killing. This is a no-brainer.
    • Numerous quality RS unambiguously state that under President Duterte, targeted killings are a feature of Philippine society.
    • These sources include declarations from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International and numerous mainstream newspapers covering these cases.
    • James Fenton writing for the New York Review of Books, after doing fieldwork funded by the Pulitzer Prize, published his research which states that under Duterte two forms of ‘carnage’ are taking place (a) targeted killings of anyone known to take or sell drugs and (b) extrajudicial killings. Editors do not have a right to override sources by collapsing a distinction the sources themselves make, as here between targeted killings and extrajudicial killings.Targeted killings amount of 2,000 of the estimated 7,000 killings of this type. [1]
    • Duterte, as anyone can see from the evidence consistently removed by three editwarriors, openly admits that he favours targeted killings-
    • Wikipedia editing has rules to restrict the private likes/dislikes and subjective views of its editors. Here we have 3, one who has just entered wikipedia to edit and revert only this information with no more than 15 edits to his credit, who are disputing the technical literature which is substantial and recognizes targeted killings as a feature of the Philippines, without reference to sound policy grounds.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk) why does almost every recent comment you make, get rather personal, and concentrate just as much on the editors involved as the content? Could you please avoid all of the snide comments about edit warriors, IPs, meatpuppets, new editors and just focus on the article, please? Also, forget about James Fenton - the guy is a highly respected poet. He writes poetry.
    And some of his best verse was written in,and about, the Philippines where he was long resident. That's why journals like the New York Review of Books or the London Review of Books commission him to write on that country, which he knows intimnately. Now please desist from jamming the thread and allow independent editors to comment.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, could you address the comments about the wiktionary entry for Targeted Killing. It seems to contradict everything you are saying here. Are all citations on there incorrect? Mitsubishi love (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from Targeted killing. There are enough reliable sources that confirm that the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines do not fit the definition of Targeted killings. It might be worth a mention that some poet who once lived in the Philippines has a different definition, if that keeps the peace, but that of course will be balanced with content stating that this Poet's claim doesn't fit with the legal definition from far more reliable sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude for reasons that have already been explained by myself and other editors Mitsubishi love (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only exlude, but I think the article should be deleted as per previous talk page discussions and all content should be moved to the extrajudicial killings article and the assassination article, where there are clear definitions and the content would be a perfect fit. Mitsubishi love (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Wiktionary makes its abundantly clear:

"The intentional killing by a government or its agents of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in that government's custody, and who is taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, and is thus regarded by the government as having lost the immunity from being targeted that he or she would otherwise have under the Geneva Conventions" [2]

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

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ There are two chief kinds of carnage taking place here, these wet Manila nights.There is the “buy-bust” operation, in which the targeted criminal attempts to buy some drugs, only to find that he is dealing with undercover police. He panics and reaches for a weapon, a pistol perhaps or a kind of homemade shotgun. Before he can use it (so the familiar script reads) the police shoot him dead. An EJK, the second form of carnage, is an extrajudicial killing, and it was outnumbering the buy-bust incident, this December, by roughly two to one. A buy-bust is of its nature attributable. A particular group of policemen takes responsibility for a particular killing on grounds of self-defense, and though doubt may be cast on their story (which repeats and repeats the same formula) there is no mystery about the people involved.James Fenton Murderous Manila : O the Night Shift New York Review of Books (9 Feb.2017)
  2. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/targeted_killing

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. " [1] 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)[reply]
"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;" [2]
"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.” " [3]Mitsubishi love (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that much. Dr. K. 19:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://harvardnsj.org/2010/06/law-and-policy-of-targeted-killing-2/
  2. ^ https://www.fpri.org/article/2013/11/targeted-killing-and-the-law-who-is-a-legitimate-target-and-when-is-the-target-legitimate/
  3. ^ http://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/23/targeted-killings-the-future-of-the-war-on-terror/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any editor can challenge your edits anytime. You'll have to learn how Wikipedia works. STSC (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I.er these points only underline lack of familiarity with wiki praxis. A reliably sourced addition can, after some months, be challenged, but not by a questioning begging edit summary and failure to juystify it on the talk page.- Three editors thought you alone were wrong top insist on its cancellation, then you were backed by a SPA meatpuppet, and one other editor. Now let's await input from others. Correctly misstatements is boring and distractive.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Targeted_killing&oldid=816154606"