Jump to content

Talk:Assassination/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Assassin/Assassination = the same?

In my oppinion it doesn't. Assassin should refer you to either a page with links to different "guilds" while assassination should be what it is now. The explanation of the act it self. //DerMeister (not signed in :P)

Important note!

This article incorrectly refers to Nizarene Ismaili Shia as being a sect of the past. The historical "Assassins" were not all wiped out when the Old Man of the Mountain's citadel was destroyed - that portion of the sect that had already spread into India survives today. Their leader is the Aga Khan, a direct lineal descendant of the prophet Mohammed. They are generally a peaceful people, and do not call attention to themselves; their doctrine requires them to be good neighbors unless they are opressed, which nobody is stupid enough to do any more. For more information on the religion see http://www.iis.ac.uk/ismailis/ismailis_l2.htm or simply contact the Aga Khan through one of his many businesses, foundations, universities, etc.

I've editted the article to include the info below, however, I'm adding it here as well in case it is removed from the main page:

The information presented as ‘fact’ with reference to Ismailia on the Wikipedia site is both controversial and inaccurate. These substantial concerns; based primarily on the lack of credible sources, deal with the slanderous descriptions of the Nizari sub-sect of the Ismailia as a people that habitually used drugs and involved themselves in targeted killing(s). The importance of credible citation in the academia need not be extolled here, however as the aforementioned warning indicates, the neutrality of the information herein has been challenged, precisely because of the lack of any sourcing, leading to the conclusion that this is simply conjecture. The Ismailia sect has been documented throughout history in a capacity of the quietist denomination within the foray of Islam. Their contributions have been well documented.

- SAA

Initial Discussion re: current revision

I think, if I might be so bold, that the article is informative but just too concentrated on the anti-assassination side (myself being a pro-assassination liberal, ironically enough). Would anyone mind terribly if I took a crack at evening it out? I mess it up, y'all can revert no problem, and if it works, it works. However, I am kind of jumping in here, so if you all would prefer not that's cool too. Just an offer. :) Wally 21:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Please be bold. All these articles are collaborative efforts :) Kingturtle 21:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi, Wally. I see you haven't started yet. I was going to second Kingturtle's objection of the WP:FA candidates page, but decided it might be more productive to spend my 0.02 here. Some points which I thought needed work:
    • Writing. There are parenthetical insertions with no closing parenthesis. There are multiple run-on sentences of more than forty words; consider breaking them up and re-organising them. There are sentences with dashed insertions where the material on either side of the insertion does not join up; either rewrite the closing of the sentence, or break it up into multiple sentences. Paragraphing and section heading is disorganised and confusing - there are major sections with respectively just one, two or three sentences. The three section headings discussing motives could be combined in one. Nine paragraphs consist of a single sentence, and in many cases it is unclear why they have been given a whole paragraph.
    • Comprehensiveness. We need much more on history prior to the 1960s (e.g. Julius Caesar, Odoacer, hashashin and the Crusades, Medicis, Borgias etc), and a discussion of political effects (e.g. Archduke Ferdinand). Perhaps also practical matters (e.g. bodyguards, presidential limos).
    • Accuracy. I am no expert on the area, but a lot of it strikes me as opinionative stuff of doubtful reliability, e.g. "...paid killers have always been felt necessary...". I am also skeptical of the refutation of the common etymology of the name; if you exclude items derived from this page, it fails the Google test, whereas a few years ago I read a book on the hashashin where the first two or three chapters could be considered supportive of the conventional etymology. I don't think that paragraph should be included unless supportive evidence can be found.
    • POV. 100% of assassinations actually mentioned are actual or alleged acts of the US, and much of the last three paragraphs are just generally anti-US stuff that is not even related to assassination. I would at least completely remove the stuff that is not about assassination. -- Securiger 15:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, just to be really brief, I eliminated much of the discussion from later in the article as I saw little relation between that and the topic of assassination (what US troops in Afghanistan do hardly qualifies as relating to the subject, in my opinion) and tried to streamline it to provide a more smooth and coherent evaluation of the subject and relevant questions, with opposing views of each (not to mention historical evaluation). It almost feels like I've forgotten something, but I'm rather too tired to examine it now. :P Let me know what you all think of the changes, and if they constitute an improvement over the last.

Also, btw, can I get some clarification on the etymology? I'm a little hazy on that one, and think I may have mistaken it, so I'd appreciate a specific double-check on that.

Wally 04:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Added counter-measures section, would appreciate further comment!!!

Wally 03:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Sorry, been very busy working and not checked in for a fortnight. At first glance seems much improved! Good work. Might do some more detailed proof-reading tomorrow, but off to sleep right now... Securiger 18:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Added the final section, "techniques". The links probably need more than a few fixes, and I haven't gone over it for grammar mistakes, but it's 95% complete. If you and others like what they see, I might be ambitious enough to put it up as an FA. :P Wally 03:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Also, as a note for Hans' Zarkov, I reverted on your note about execution because when a government performs an execution, it is not for reasons political but rather those of jurisprudence (murderers, for example, would never be confused for persons assassinated). Even those committing treason could be said simply to be executed, since while their rebellion is political, the punishment is not considered so, unless it's trumped up. If a government should authorize the killing of a foreign dignitary, or whatever, it clearly is assassination. The reason, therefore, I removed it is because I felt the distinction was already clear in the minds of even the most idle reasons and including the disclaimer would, indeed, cause more confusion than leaving it out.

Hit me back here or at my talk page to discuss more. Wally 03:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed Mary, Queen of Scots from list of Medeival assasination victims; she was executed in London in 1587. JHCC 13:30, 23 Mar 2004

no offense but this speculation on prehistorical assassination is kind of, you know, complete and utter guessing with no evidence to back you up.

Well, no offense...whoever you are, but I make it quite clear, I feel, that it is just that - speculation. That, and I think it's broad and plausible enough to be useful, if not certain - I've been able to find very little on prehistoric assassination and so resorted to conjecture. Do you have any specific objections to anything in there, or have anything to support/contradict me? If so, that would be very useful and productive to the article, and would be much appreciated. Wally 03:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article, at present, reads a bit too much like propaganda.

Wiki, being in the US, has considerable latitude on free speech...

So when in doubt, be bold...

Let's explore in this article:

1. How are assassins selected? 2. How are they trained? 3. How do they, er, do their job? 4. How successful is it, anyway (in terms of target dying)? 5. How many are actually caught?

Leave the "is this a good idea?" for the reader. Inform, don't preach.

That being said, we seem to be focusing on the US and Israel too much. The UK also does it (via SAS, particularly in Northern Ireland), for example.

--Penta 03:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For my information when I go back to edit, how/why/where does it sound like "propoganda", specifically? I just want to make sure I know, because this is what I saw as my level best to lay out both sides of each part of the discussion. The morality of assassins was pretty central to the whole discussion, I thought, so it at least deserved treatment - assuming it's possible to treat it, how do you think it could be done better?

Also, if you read the techniques and counter-techniques sections, I thought it rang out fairly well how they conduct the work. As for training and selection, that's out of my scope of expertise, unfortunately, so I could not speak to that. As for numbers 4 and 5, I think that information (ESPECIALLY number 4) would be kind of hard to work out, since it depends how you define an attempt on someone's life (just talking, plotting, setting up for the act, actually taking a shot?), and of all the assassinations and attempts in history (that we know of) I doubt there's a hard count.

However, any place where you think it could be made better, especially in NPOV, please let me know, I'd like very much to pinpoint that so I know where I tripped up. Wally 07:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, some quick thoughts. I'm kinda distracted, mind.
1. We leave out *why* Assassination is practiced in the modern age. There are many reasons, not just bloody-mindedness or doing it for the hell of it. Why modern states would assassinate people (whether it be the ticking bomb scenario (as in Gaza and the West Bank), the deterrence factor (Again, see the aforementioned regions; Hamas now has much of its comms and control capability in tatters because of Israeli direct action operations), or simply "We can't capture him, but can't leave him operational either") is as important as Should they or shouldn't they?
2. OK, so limit the period we try to count the attempts in. Try....since World War II.
3. NPOV...Hm. It just seems to focus on the US and Israel too much in its examples. Call it a gut feeling.

--Penta 15:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More Examples, Color

Hey... wonderful article. I must say, it kept me reading. However, while examples have been drawn predominantly from Western countries (especially with the pictures), it might be good to add other stories. There is the famous story of Shivaji, a Hindu king of Western India... disarmed during 'peace' talks in an enemy Mughal general's camp, he used concealed tiger-claws to slash his captor's general's stomach apart. Then, there's the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, wherein the assassin, a man named Godse, did namaskar (placing palms flat together, a traditional Indian greeting) to conceal a pistol in his hands, thus allowing him to get close to the leader (surrounded by hordes of people) and shoot him.

So, you might want to improve on an already excellent page by diversifying examples. I don't want to put them in myself without consultation because the format is not conducive to people randomly inserting examples. I will write the text, however. But, aside from that, great show. --LordSuryaofShropshire 00:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Added brief mention of SAS operations in Northern Ireland

Figured I'd note here that I added a brief mention of SAS and FRU operations in Northern Ireland. --Penta 15:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I forgot all about that! :) Wally 17:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

see Talk:Assassin#UK assassinations

Regarding the intro sentence

The intro sentence as it stands now is In its most common use, assassin has come to mean someone who kills (assassinates) people selectively, usually for ideological or political reasons. I think this should make some mention of the fact that an assassin kills important people, but my edit was reverted. If I kill my neighbor because simply because he is of some certain political affiliation, does that make me an assassin? I'm going to stick the word "important" back in there unless someone can give me an explanation why it shouldn't be. -AndyCapp 04:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with the above. →Raul654 04:36, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like the best definition somehow. Perhaps people should be replaced by public figures instead? --Eequor 05:37, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Concur with Eequor and AndyCapp - I had misgivings about that sentence from the start. However, (going from the definition problems section) one could argue that any political or ideological killing is an assassination. I suggest, however, that further the word "significant" be prefixed to "public figures".
RE "Significant public figures" - assasination targets aren't always public figures: they can be people who are certainly significant in some way but are not generally known to the public at large.

sweeping changes

Also, reverted sweeping changes made today by someone who obviously had not been involved with the article, did not bother to post a message to the talk page explaining reasoning for the massive changes, or take note of the article's initial structure, intentions etc., even going so far as to make POV judgments re: Islam as well as reverting or altering previous passages beyond their original meaning and constituting a perversion thereof. Wally 01:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I prefer it after having been swept up by wally. That being said, if the user who made the changes made them slower, I'm sure at least some of them would improve the article. Not any that I noticed tho, I will admit ;) Sam Spade 02:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
i user:badanedwa am the refered user. the edit summary is verbose, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/wiki.phtml?title=Assassin&action=history. as stated in the edit summary, the article structure is good and is unchanged (one paragraph was restructured, to split it along subject lines). it contains no reversions. the reversion comment "this article would not be featured if it needed major changes..." is contradicted by the existence of Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. i have listed it here: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates#assassin. user wally has asserted ownership of this article and reverted indiscriminantly, i have no use for a reversion war. wally is free to specify "pov judgments re: islam": that ismailism is a sub-sect of shi'a? that shi'a is a sect of islam? wally has restored materials which violate copyright, Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#april_27. bad prose, typography, etc should be fixed in any article. Badanedwa 03:34, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
After making those changes, Badanedwa also listed this article on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. I do not know how that page is supposed to work; it has only existed since 25th of March this year, and has no talk page. However the introductory paragraph gives as an example reason that "the page has since been changed". Of course this was done, but by Badanedwa! Claimed reasons were "extensive redundancies; copyvio; no pov changes; original scheme good, kept; typos; grammar; wiki links; cogency". With more than 300 changes in one edit, it's difficult to tell which is meant to be which! Glancing through them, a few seem quite reasonable, some definitely not (e.g. "In the final analysis, it has proven inevitable that assassinations will succeed if the murderer is willing to go the lengths necessary.", correctly spelled words changed to incorrect ones, etc.), but in most cases I cannot understand why an apparently arbitrary change was made. I certainly have no problem with adding links - as Wikipedia grows, most articles will continue to have links added from time to time, and this is almost always an improvement - but links were also removed. Why? At least, the changes other than adding links need to be broken up a bit so other editors can understand the reasoning. (And in particular, which is the alleged copy vio section, and why?). Finally, I agree with Wally about "pov judgments re: islam"; not objecting to adding the link to the Ismailis, but the tone of the paragraph has altered to make it sound more like an ordinary Islamic view. Securiger 03:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I reverted for exactly the reasons I specified on my summary, sir (And Securiger did an excellent job of addressing them). I'm not at all claiming ownership of this article, because it's not mine (and if you click on the difference between the current revision and my last major one, you'll notice there's been a high number of changes indeed - front page articles get that). However, from the beginning a very dedicated group of people have been working on this article (myself, Securiger, Raul654, etc.) and have put in not a few hours ensuring it reaches the place it is now (this is not even mentioning users like AndyCapp who, even though their question was but one of style, brought it here for discussion so that the people who built the article to what it is can have a say. Do I mind you making changes? Of course not. The writing may be good, but it's not perfect. Do I mind you making an extensive change, not just stylistically but also to the basic structure and/or information inherent in the article, and then shortly after listing it for removal from FA? Yes, I do. If you don't feel it's FA material, please list it and say so, because that's the post of the removal can. page - however, don't change it and then say the fixed version is hopeless. It toes the line between chasing your tail and trolling. What you did was technically fine, but practically such a sweeping edit was done in a very rude and uncivil way, especially given the level of other Wikipedians who passed through this article and found nothing major of the sort incorrect.
i suggest the copyrighted material be removed immediately, Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#april_27. "heretical" may be necessary, if islam -> shi'i -> ismail'i -> hashhashin doesn't illustrate it. others may restore my work if desired, but hair-trigger nastiness is not something i want to wade through. Badanedwa 22:18, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Does it really matter? The "copyrighted material" is one sentence and a sentence fragment. It's hard to construe that as plagiarism. --Eequor 23:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(<-- jump back to left to avoid falling off the edge). You might be able to argue in court that such a small fragment is fair use, but I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. It's simpler, and fairer in spirit, to change it. Basically someone back in early February copied a chunk of American Heritage Dictionary verbatim, someone else largely removed it but missed two sentences, which were subsequently edited only slightly. I think I've fixed them, see what you think.

Secondly, can we all please calm down? Wally seems to have construed Badanedwa's actions as some sort of attack, and is writing with a rather angry tone. Wally, I'm sure there was no such intention; please relax a little or you'll wikistress. Badanedwa, I'm not sure what you mean by claiming my points were "ad hominem"; my intention was to illustrate that, as it is human to err, within such a huge number of changes some are likely to be wrong. By making so many in one edit you make it very difficult for other editors to review them. The copy vio has now been dealt with, please continue working on the article - but in more tractable increments. Also, when I make large changes to an article, I provide an explanation in the talk page; the comment box doesn't really provide room to adequately explain large changes. I would like to recommend that practice. Securiger 02:23, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, to badanedwa and everyone. I got a little bit hot-headed before, and that was unnecessary and wrong-headed. However, as to the substance of what I said, and that of my revert, I stand beside my position as it was. I still feel what badanedwa did was unadvised, and stand-by my revert (and all the other changes made since my last of substance on 17 April) as the stronger version. However, where specific changes are concerned, I'd be happy to examine the major ones and have them submitted for general review - in whatever case, I feel that the vast majority of those made were either unnecessary, counter-productive, or both. Again, apologies for the overreaction, that pesky ego getting away from me again. :P Wally 00:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

UK assassinations

"The United Kingdom, through its Special Air Service and Force Research Unit have also conducted assassinations of Irish Republican Army members and sympathizers both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world."

UK assassinations of IRA members (and *sympathisers*)? This is thrown in like it's common knowledge but I'd like to see some more information on this please.

I checked up on this one in Secret Soldiers: Special Forces in the War Against Terrorism (a scholarly work of 620 pages and thousands of detailed references) as well as various press reports of the investigations. The frequently made allegation has been subject to both criminal investigation and various forms of inquiries - officially, privately, and by the Press. Of all this, the closest thing to substantiation is the proven fact that the Force Research Unit (a military intelligence unit largely unrelated to the SAS, but with some former members in its ranks) leaked information about IRA suspects to a "loyalist" (anti-IRA) paramilitary informer, Brian Nelson. Nelson was the intelligence officer of the Ulster Defence Association, and undoubtedly provided the authorities with valuable intelligence information on terrorist activities. But he also provided UDA with information supplied by his handlers, and this information was used in the assassination, by the UDA, of several IRA members and even of persons who were merely suspected of being IRA sympathisers. Nelson received a ten year prison sentence, and has since died from cancer. Whether Nelson's handlers were actively colluding, or simply spectacularly incompetent, remains a matter of controversy; the latest official report has recommended that Brigadier Gordon Kerr (commander of FRU at the time) be prosecuted. It should also be noted that at the time Nelson was infiltrated into the UDA, it was still a legal organisation whose terrorist activities were unproven; its banning as a terrorist organisation in 1991 was partly as a result of Nelson's information.
So I think we can say that the UDA conducted assassinations of Irish Republican Army members and sympathizers in Northern Ireland, and that the FRU probably colluded in this. However claims that the SAS were involved, that the FRU performed assassinations directly, or that such operations were carried out outside Northern Ireland, are at best unsubstantiated allegations from hostile sources, and in many cases nonsense (e.g. SAS troopers intercepting armed IRA men en route to a terrorist attack, kill them in ensuing gun fight; IRA sympathisers describe it as an "assassination"). Securiger 02:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the main incident for SAS action was Gibraltar. Although oreiginal reports did claim that the three IRA terrorists shot dead in 1988 had been armed, and had just planted a bomb, and that the SAS were therefore acting to prevent terrorism and believed their lives were in danger, eyewitness reports contradicted this and within days the Home Secretary (Geoffrey Howe) admitted that the three had not planted a bomb and had not been armed. More than that, intelligence supplied to the SAS indicating that the IRA had developed a remote detonator (the later defence used for the killings) turned out to be bogus.
Semtex and a timer were later found in a car connected to the three, parked in Spain. They almost certainly were going to blow something up, and the morality and legality of the killing is debatable, but it seems like a clear case of assassination. And Gibraltar is far from being the only time the SAS assassinated someone they suspected of being in the IRA - just the only time it was well-publicised (because there were eye-witness, and probably because the SAS men on the ground - though not their political masters - thought they were preventing an immediately imminent atrocity). Of course, if these actions were more well-known, the SAS wouldn't be doing the job it was created to do.
Your description above contains a number of widespread myths. For example your claim "intelligence ... indicating that the IRA had developed a remote detonator ... turned out to be bogus" is completely wrong. This particular IRA team turned out not to have such a detonator, but in fact the IRA had been using them for years, and had used one in a car bombing in Belgium just a few weeks before the Gibraltar operation. Likewise "... eyewitness reports contradicted this" refers to the impression given by a certain documentary maker, and by the families of the deceased, that many eyewitnesses saw the terrorists trying to surrender. In fact of 79 eyewitnesses, only three made statements that tended to support such a view. (Needless to say, these three were focussed on exclusively by those with an axe to grind, or seeking to stir controversy.) Two of these three were at a considerable distance from the events, and looking down at a steeply inclined angle. One thought one of the shooters jumped over a railing; the person who jumped the railing was actually a policeman arriving a few seconds later, which calls into doubt whether this witness actually saw the shooting at all.
I suggest you read McCann and Others v United Kingdom, which debunks a lot of the mythology surrounding this case. This is the report of the European Court case, and about the strongest condemnation by anyone who doesn't actually have an axe to grind. It is often cited as concluding that the three terrorists were unlawfully killed. In fact it does nothing of the sort; it finds that the soldiers acted lawfully and there was no conspiracy to kill the terrorists, but did find that the Gibraltar authorities showed "... a lack of appropriate care in the control and organisation of the arrest operation". That's all; the Court rejected all other claims. The Court's final decision on the issue of assassination is this: "The Court therefore rejects as unsubstantiated the applicants' allegations that the killing of the three suspects were premeditated or the product of a tacit agreement amongst those involved in the operation". Given that, regardless of whether one considers excessive force to have been used, it cannot possibly be counted as assassination. Securiger 05:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Some members of the intelligence services broke the law and supplied information too and aided loyalists in targeting Republicans. But that is a long way from the HMG authorising SAS conducted assassinations. Members of a ASU killed when carrying out an attack or conduction a reconnaissance may be unlawfully killed (for example if they attempt to surrender and are then shot) but they are not assassinated. Philip Baird Shearer 13:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

School of the Americas

As with the UK mention against the IRA, I have some problems with including the School of the Americas. Shouldn't the usage of the word "allege" tell us that this is unsubstantiated rumour? Unless we get an officer from the SOTA telling us that they have a course in Assassination 101, I would ask that we remove that reference. (it comes across as tepid, accusatory, and non NPOV). Davejenk1ns 19:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but not only is there fair circumstantial evidence (testimonials and whatnot) floating around about the SotA, at the very least it's a rumor a lot of people have heard, and we can neither confirm nor deny it truthfully; however, since it is something people hear, it's addressed, with the word "allege".
Besides, it's really more of a "semi-substantiated rumor". :) Wally 03:16, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, it still doesn't belong here, until we see official or credible evidence of Assasination from the SotA. Much of the "evidence" out there is published by parties with specific political agendae and axes to grind against the school. Unfortunately, the school itself will never confirm or deny such policy. We might as well start putting "the CIA allegedly shot Kennedy" and "Jews allegedly masterminded 9/11". Once Wikipedia starts including rumours, it is a short hop to consipracy/polemic goofyland. Davejenk1ns 12:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. When a rumor is widely-known and has a dedicated group of adherents, and their allegations can neither be confirmed nor denied, we have a duty to at least note that a rumor does exist (and, to my mind, not necessarily such a silly one... no one I've queried has been able to give me a reasonable purpose for what SotA does do for their size and funding). But you have a very good point; it's not at all provable beyond a reasonable doubt. I still object to removing it all, but perhaps we could flesh it out a little more as a compromise?
Try this (out-of-context): "Many 'assassins' academies' are rumored to exist, covertly sponsored by major world governments. One name often mentioned is the School of the Americas, allegedly both run by the American CIA and home to, amongst others, the various Cuban exiles charged with removing Fidel Castro. Compelling and conclusive evidence, however, is rarely discovered to back up such claims." Wally 16:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
All that needs done is a Citation so that we can Verify who made the claims regarding the School of the Americas Sam Spade 05:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Start here? http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html

Just a quick link I pulled up, more to come when I can look into the subject a bit deeper. Wally 18:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Hrmmm, an op-ed piece from the Guardian doesn't hold much water for me, but... well, I am not trying to defend the SotA, but let's get back to the focus of this article: assasination. To say the SotA "teaches" assisnation is misplaced. It most likely teaches counter-insurgency, interrogation, commando tactics, and other unpleasantries of modern warfare, but the acutal skills of "assasination" can be found anywhere-- aim the gun, pull the trigger. (Remember Full Metal Jacket?). These skills are just that: skills. Assasination connotes (as stated in the article) killing in the name of a certain motivation (political, sexual, mental obsession). There must be a definable difference between assasination and simple combat killing.
Certainly, many graduates of the SotA are baddies, but Correlation is not causality. I would posit that pet officers of the nutjob running many of these banana republics end up being the ones to get chosen to go to Georgia (obviously an honor for a military man), but their disposition toward unseemly acts (inlcuding assasination) doesn't have much to do with the school. Davejenk1ns 11:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Minor nitpick

Mention's Charles Manson's cult as "anti-government neo-fascist" ... aren't those oxymoronic? Fascist being pro-gov't control? --anonymous

Not neccesarily. Though I wouldn't characterize the Family as "fascist" you could be an "anti-goverment fascist" assuming you mean the current goverment. A better term if we're going to adopt that label for them would be "revolutionary." In that they did plot the overthrow of the current world-order.

Assassination as military doctrine

I think a mention of the American's perception that Skorzeny's commandos were trying to assassinate Eisenhower during the Battle of the Bulge shows that military assassination, or the threat of it, if well timed can be a very effective tactical move. In an interview with the NYT Skorzeny denied that he had ever intended to assassinate Eisenhower and could prove it. (Page 155, Commando Extraordinary, by Charles Foley). There is also a mention in the same book (Page 35) of a British commando raid on "capture" Rommel. If he had been removed from the board, then that might well have had strategic effects. I think that these examples would help elucidate the points made. Also a mention and a link to Asymmetric warfare would be useful in this section. Philip Baird Shearer 00:47, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

dormant vandalism

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/wiki.phtml?title=Assassin&diff=3632276&oldid=3607350 i have likely reverted all of it. Badanedwa 21:15, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

passive voice

is still used in most of the article. Badanedwa 05:10, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Is that a big thing, though? I had always thought passive voice was better if we're trying to maintain a more scholarly, objective take on things. Not sure, though. Wally 00:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, so you're right. In the next couple of days I'll go through it and fix up what I can, and you do the same, and we'll see if we can't knock this problem off. Thanks for noticing it! Wally 03:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I prefer avoiding passive voice whenever conveniently avoidable. This is to ensure readability. Sounding (or reading) scholarly is subservient. Mission9801 08:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


The passive voice should be avoided in all writing, especially "scholarly" writing. I believe that most academics would agree that the active voice is is not scholarly. More important, Can we get some clarification on the origin of the word though?

a list of assassinations would be useful

There are so many lists in Wikipedia, it seems a list of assassinations is in order--especially because the entry stakes a claim on a definition (even if this definition is emergent, or still-to-emerge). I think there are also factual issues to be checked. (What topic could possibly call more for fact-checking than this one???) This is important work. I have a dream that, in the future, people of the world can come here to find out what has happened...simple as that. Not to drag this out, but I stopped reading the article (I will go back and do my best to make as numerous and specific criticisms as I can) at the mention of John Lennon. I believe it was in a high school class that I was shown a documentary about Mark David Chapman, and it was obvious that this was not a "crazed fan" but an emissary, intended or not, of the fundamentalist church whose dogma he believed. I will do more research and fix the line, but it seems this article is FAR from finished. As long as I'm here, the entry for Robert Kennedy claims he was killed by Sirhan Sirhan's point-blank shot. This is somewhat disgraceful. Even-handedness is necessary. There are so many unaddressed details about this assassination, that there should be an article just on IT. At the very least, we must acknowledge that all witnesses and evidence placed Sirhan no closer than 3 feet to Kennedy.

Lee Harvey Oswald's murder not clear-cut assassination

The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald is not a clear-cut case of assassination. He was NOT a prominent person - as most definitions mention. His death is important mostly only because there was little chance to hear from him. Article on assasination should NOT make his murder so prominent, since there is doubt about whether or not his murder was an assassination. --JimWae 06:20, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Requested move to Assassination

In staying with the convention of other articles such as murder or despotism, shouldn't this article be moved to assassination? It wouldn't make much sense for either of the articles used above as examples to be included under murderer or despot, so why is this one? --tomf688 (talk) 18:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. I vote yes. I also question if Dahlgren Affair - a botched raid that may or possibly may not have also been a botched assasination attempt should go in here. I am sure there are plenty of other botched assasination attempts that could go in here - including those against other US presidents (Jackson, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Ford ...) and plenty of other world leaders. I also find the sudden inclusion of several US-centric assassinations - without regard to era - breaks up the flow of the narrative.--JimWae 01:57, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Support. I vote yes. Assassination is a more general term. Nobbie 13:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 08:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:02, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Loaded term

is often considered to be a loaded term. is a weasel term who considers it a loaded term and why? Sources please --Philip Baird Shearer 14:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The original text is not mine, but I agree that the term does carry a negative connotation. I hope [1] is satisfactory. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No it is not: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assassination

If in place "murder of a public figure by surprise attack" is not sufficient to cover all assainations "to kill a public figure by surprise attack" would be closer. One could make a case for the use of the wrod murder, if murder is defined as "murder under the jurisdiction of the victim's legal system" --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Which only proves the point. Legalese aside, the term murder is even more emotionally charged than killing. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

mergefrom Targeted killing

Targeted killing is in my opinion just a Euphemism (Doublespeak) for assassination. Having "Targeted killing" as a seperate article will lead to pov arguments in on other pages as two which is the correct term to use. EG as cropped up this week on State terrorism see Revision as of 10:22, 6 December 2005. At least if it is only a redirect the content can be kept in syncronisation which will reduce the likelyhood that there will be revert wars. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal: as the article corrrectly states, assassination is a loaded term, especially in the wartime context, and therefore would violate WP:NPOV.
Examples of asassination: Leon Trotsky, JFK, Ghandi. Examples of targeted killing: Hamas "engineer" bombmaker Yahya Ayyash or Rigoberto Alpizar. Regrettably, sometimes police or military operations involve killing an offender in order to save innocent lives. Let's not mix an arsonist with a firefigther.
Euphemism#Doublespeak "attempts to confuse and conceal the truth" - I don't see how this is applicable here. Please explain. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is to judge who is the "arsonist" with a "firefigther", or who is the terrorist and the freedom fighter? I do not think that assassination is a loaded term and if you look a the previous section in this article I have asked for a source which says that it is. See List of assassinated people#israel and Palestinian Authority Territories Your idea would suggest that we need two list one for "List of assassinated people" and another for "List of targeted killed people" Who is to judge who goes in which list? For example was Rehavam Zeevi "targeted killed" if not then what about Sheikh Ahmed Yassin?

In American domestic politics there is a need for them to use a different term if the American executive is to assassinate a forigner, but that does not make the word itself a "load term". Many English spleaking countries now have a "ministry of defence" which were previously called "ministry of war" but that does not make war a "loaded term".

As I pointed out on the Talk:Targeted killing, assasination covers both peace time and war time "targeted killings" and on both sides of the fence for example:

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I provided the requested reference. Are you comforable calling the killing Rigoberto Alpizar an assassination? I am not. Of course there is some overlapping between the two terms, but I don't think it warrants the merge. The current definition of TK applies when "anticipated acts of terrorism are prevented by killing a person deemed to be related to those acts." ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Rigoberto Alpizar (who I had never heard of before) was not assassinated or "targeted killed" any more than Jean Charles de Menezes was they were either murdered or lawfully killed.

In the definition "anticipated acts of terrorism are prevented by killing a person deemed to be related to those acts." Who defines who is a terrorist? If I were paranoid I might decide someone was trying to kill me and be terrified at the thought. If I were to kill that person would that be a targeted killing?

Few it any would say that an IRA Active Service Unit member killed when on active service were "assassinated" or "targeted killed", any more than they would do so for any member of military unit engaged in warfare eg Mairead Farrell (leader of the Gibraltar three) who was killed in 1988 [2]. They are more likely to say "who?", "don't know", "lawfully killed" or "murdered" (as she was unarmed) depending on interest and political affiliation. If she was subject to "targeted killing" then when Michael Stone was bundled into a black taxi boot after his grenade attack at the funeral of the three, was that an attempted "targeted killing" as it stopped an act of terrorism by attempting to kill a person deemed to be related to those acts[3]? The two British Army soldiers dragged from their car and killed by an IRA mob a week later at the funeral of one of those killed by Stone [4] could by the definition you gave be called targeted killed. Because the people at the funeral were anticipating an act of terrorism and prevented it by killing two persons deemed to be related to the anticipated act. Seems to me that the definition can be used to justify an awful lot of killings which are not assassinations, so why is it that most of the times that the US administration uses the term it is used for assassinations? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It was your idea that these terms are interchangeable, and now you are asking why one is not used instead of another? See their respective definitions: they have different meanings. Also, the word assassination has negative emotional/ideological/political overtones. Intentionally or not, your proposed merge would lead to losing that difference and imposing POV. I hope this answer satisfies your concerns. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not. I find using examples helps to clarify meanings, so please explain why the above are or are not "targeted killings" as to my mind they fit the definition you have given "anticipated acts of terrorism are prevented by killing a person deemed to be related to those acts", which to me makes the definition almost useless.

Also you have not answered the question: who defines who is a terrorist? For example when the IRA tried to take out the British Cabinet in 1991 during the first Gulf war, as the IRA believe that the British had a "shoot to kill" policy against them in Northen Ireland was that attack a "targeted killing" attempt? If not why not? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see moral equivalence. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying that people at the funerals were less than moraly equivalent to others? Further Wikipedia has a stated policy WP:NPOV. And you still have not answered the questions I have posed:

  • please explain why the above are or are not "targeted killings".
  • who defines who is a terrorist? (see example).

--Philip Baird Shearer 14:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In case I didn't make this clear earlier: we need a separate article because "targeted killing" is a stated policy. It is because of WP:NPOV policy we need an alternative to emotionally/ideologically charged terms like "assassination".
Who defines: my or your opinion don't matter. It would be wrong to redirect or merge TK into "assassination" because the opinions of authoritative sources differ, and the article's intro honestly says "controversial" and includes links arguing various cases. I invite you to collaboratively improve the quality of WP articles in neutral way. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"targeted killing" is a stated policy. Who's stated Policy?

  • Just because a person or organisation uses an euphemism for something does not mean that the euphemism is a valid distiction from a common English word. A British civil servent became famous when he said he was being "economical with the truth", that does not mean that most people considered what he was doing was lying.

You have still not answered my questons:

  • Are you implying that people at the funerals were less than moraly equivalent to others?
  • please explain why the above are or are not "targeted killings".
  • who defines who is a terrorist? (see example). --Philip Baird Shearer 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge completed (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). Tazmaniacs 16:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I don't think that the conspiracy theories are off topic, I think they directly relate to the effects of assassination on society, and are a result of assassination itself. I think the Wikipedian who posted it did a fair amount of research and documentation, I think it should be left in. Chris 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Which was that? I've been away from the page for awhile. Wally 01:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

From the histoy of the Article: mark for cleanup, see critique on talk page User:BluePlatypus 22:00, 23 January 2006

This article is very unencylopedic in scope and style. It needs a lot of work. A lot of things need sourcing, like: * One remarkable recent example involved a political figure who made the mistake of keeping to a regular route and schedule. - Who, When? How recently?

  • indeed, the death in battle of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, while not an assassination, led directly to the Catholic defeat at Lützen as the infuriated Swedes rallied behind their fallen leader .. Says who? I've never heard the battle described that way, and I've read accounts of it in several history books. They all describe the battle as having been won despite the loss of the King, not thanks to it. And the Wikipedia article on the battle corroberates that with: A panic began among the Protestant ranks, made worse as rumours spread of the king's death..
  • The overall style is rambling and imprecise. Full of "weasel-words" and sweeping generalizations. It reads like a high-school report, not an encyclopedic entry.
  • No sources, and the impression I get is that most of the article is based on the authors' personal opinions, i.e. original research.

Another example: As the Middle Ages came about from the fall of the Roman Empire, the moral and ethical dimensions of what was before a simple political tool began to take shape.

First off, it's factually wrong. The Middle ages started centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. Secondly, it's intent is wrong: There were no ethical dimensions to assassination prior to the Middle Ages? I find that hard to believe. Who says the 'ethical dimensions' began to take shape then, other than the author?

Although in that period intentional regicide was an extremely rare occurrence

Says who? I don't believe regicide was 'extremely rare' in the Dark Ages at all.

the situation changed dramatically with the Renaissance when the ideas of tyrannomachy (i.e. killing of a King when his rule becomes tyrannical) re-emerged and gained recognition.

How can it re-emerge if it didn't go away?

There were notable detractors, however; Abd-ul-Mejid of the Ottoman Empire refused to put to death plotters against his life during his reign.

Anachronism, Abd-ul-Mejid didn't live anytime near the renaissance, you can't skip four centuries like that.

As the world moved into the present day and the stakes in political clashes of will continued to grow to a global scale, the number of assassinations concurrently multiplied.

Weaselly and interpretive. Multiplied according to who? Any figures on that?

I could continue through the entire article. But I've made my point. --BluePlatypus 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare invented the word ASSASSINATION!!!

I never knew until someone told me (an English teacher- who is backed up by a search for "Who invented the word assassination?") so it really seems like something that should be featured in the article. 82.5.225.131 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Offensive

Many things in this article (particularly in the etymology section) are offensive to the Nizari Ismaili sect of Islam. For example, 'notion of a hazir imam'. I urge writers to be more conscious of the beliefs of others.

Someone in this talk insisted that the term does not carry emotional/ideological connotations. While this premise is highly questionable, the article as it stands now is not written from NPOV. Hence the tag. You can't have it both ways. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why there should be any question of the etymology. Arabic: حشاشين, translates as 'consumers of hashish', hashish (حش) being the arabic word for grass and referring quite specifically in this since to marijuana. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam: "Derived from the Arabic hashshashin, 'consumers of hashish', through Medieval Latin assassini. The name was adapted by crusaders for members of the Nizārī branch of the Ismā'īlīs at a period when the sect was characterized by extreme militancy." A basic understanding of how words are formed in Arabic would rid someone of the confusion of the origin of the word. -Yung Wei 綪永徽 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. --68.214.35.104 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

etymology through حشاشين + assassini

i have edited the etymology section, adding arabic script and some details to the actual etymology. i have also removed the folk etymologies that had been placed there. neither of these two which i have deleted were accurate and do not stand up to even cursory investigation. additionally before making this edit i consulted multiple arabic dictionaries and mid-east related encyclopedias and dictionaries. this should end any further dispute regarding the etymology. -Yung Wei 綪永徽 2 April 2006

TEDDY Roosevelt

Hi,

I came to this page after reading Time magazines bio on TEDDY Roosevelt. It mentions an assasination attemp on him. He was shot while campainging (as a private citizen) for the presidency and his Bull Moose 3rd Party. He had a steel eyeglass case and thick speech in his breast pocket which slowed, but did not stop the bullet. Although he was not president at the time, seems like he should be on your list of notable assisination attempts. Along with any other serious presidential candidates who've been shot at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.24.227.102 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Article

I am going to work on making this a spoken article. Mk623SC20K 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Iffy sentence

In the U.S. section: "On December 3, 2005, the US was blamed for another incident, in which alleged al-Qaeda #3 man (operations chief Abu Hamza Rabia) was reportedly killed in Pakistan by an airborne missile, together with four associates."

Does this violate WP:NPOV? also, "#3 man" is pretty informal language for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix this myself. —EdGl 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its a strong POV thing. #3 looks to be a grammar issue. you could say the "third in command" rather than #3 man.
The second item looks to be just phrasing. Rather than "the US was blamed" it could be rephrased "the US was suspected by some"... Since a footnote citation is given as to the surce of the claim, it doesn't look to be a major POV (if any at all) thing here.

King & Davis & Che

There is no mention in the article of the murder of Martin Luther King. Though not elected to public office, his case is one of even greater political involvement than John Lennon - and so would be a "harder case" to classify.

Che Guevara would be another "hard case" to classify, I think.

The Dahlgren Affair was not an unambiguous attempt at targeted killing of only specific individuals. It was a planned attack on an entire city in time of war, apparently including the killing of the leaders of the rebellion. Should all killings during war of leaders of opposing forces (military leaders as well as political) be counted as assassinations?

--JimWae 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. War and political leaders are a legitimate target in a conflict, provided an official state of war as recognized under international rules of war exists. The hit on Yamamoto during WWII is part of the game as was cruise missle strikes against Saddam's palaces. Che's case is more difficult. He was leading an armed band in Bolivia, directly engaged in armed guerrilla operations, but he was also operating outside the rules of the Geneva Convention in many ways, such as lack of clear, consistent combatant identification. Some would argue that he thus was not entitled to any Geneva protections, in the same way that the Sept 11 bombers (or any other suicide bombers) are not entitled to Geneva Protections since they ignore its rules to gain tactical advantage. Running for Geneva Cover after capture, after cynically ignoring or violating it before when it was convenient, smacks to many of hypocrisy, and of handing murderous terrorists another way to game the system. Arguments to the contrary could of course be made. It is weird that Martin Luther King is not even mentioned on this article, whereas marginal (in this context) entertainment industry figures like Marvin Gaye and Jodie Foster are.

Fidel Castro body double

The article states that "The late Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, Cuban ruler Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein all used body doubles". An editor has pointed out this Fox news source [5] which says the same thing. Now I'm 95% certain that in the case of Castro, this is not true and is at best an urban myth. Castro frequently appeared in public with minimal security in comparison to most leaders, was famous in Cuba for wandering out on his own, boasted that he didn't even wear a bullet proof vest on a visit to New York - and proved it - etc etc. I heard an unlikely story that older brother Ramon acted as a body double - which came from anti-Casto activists and had very little credibility. Regardless of what Fox news or a US army guy says it runs contrary to well documented evidence, neither of the above should be considered a credible source on Cuba by the way.--Zleitzen 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine that you feel that way, but if an expert on the subject claims it it's worth putting in there. I also made sure it just says that 'he believes', and that there is no conclusive proof. If someone wants to draw the conclusion that he's biased for whatever reason that's fine. But it's not a requirement that we state that is the ONLY source that says this, we can't verify there are no other sources, but we can verify that is a valid source. Now I personally have no love for Fox News, but it is a major media outlet, and Reeder is a qualified person to quote, it's not like we're quoting O'Reilly or something. LilDice 15:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
After Castro survived numerous assassination attempts made by the US alone, you'd have to prove that he did not have doubles running around as decoys. It's an incredibly simple security measure and obviously one that can be ready made to fool foreign intelligence services looking to knock a leader off. Despite the ban on directly killing heads of state, the US has a neat little habit of diverting munitions to military targets of opportunity that just happen to be holding heads of state. Shadowrun 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
One cannot easily prove a negative. One can only point out that there is acres of material showing Castro wandering around Havana and elsewhere with minimal security - the numerous occasions he has slipped out into the night whilst on foreign visits - even in the States. The numerous serious biographies that have never mentioned a body double. One can also point out the credibility of the source. Either a US intelligence guy on Cuba is honest, accurate and correct on the subject of Fidel Castro, or two million Cubans who live in Havana and have often witnessed the very real Fidel Castro wandering the streets are correct. It matters little, but I trust the residents of Havana - my own eyes - and a knowledge of the subject – over some "US army guy". Anyway, some WP:ATT has been applied on the page now so there is less concern about a claim being presented as fact. --Zleitzen 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Messing with the page

some one has been editing the page inappropriately with "your mum" added in under further motivations 7 lines down and 2 words and under that lines it has been edited with "your really fat mother --Cladors (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Extrajudicial Executions and Assasinations should be merged here. Have you ever seen a legal assassination? "Extrajudicial assassination" is a pleonasm. I don't think the merge will cause any difficulties (beside, it really is a stub). Tazmaniacs 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. MadMaxDog 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitional issue

The article starts out with "Assassination is the murder of a political figure or other important individual". That's fine. The list of assassins in the table shows people like Mehmet Ali Agca, who failed in his attempt. If he had failed in an attempt to murder Joe Bloggs the non-entity, he would not be called a murderer, simply because no murder occurred. Yet if he tries to assassinate the Pope, and fails, he's still called an assassin. This seems out of kilter with the opening sentence. Not sure how we can resolve this. Any ideas? JackofOz 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He would be called an 'attempted murderer', and might still be a viable example for the murder article. What you really have seems a problem with the name of the table (which I renamed in the meantime to change the focus, BTW). Is it really necessary to make a mouthful of it and call it the 'Notable assassinations and attempted assassinations' subsection? I think not, though you are certainly technically correct. MadMaxDog 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make this harder than it needs to be. Simply put, Agca failed in his attempt to become an assassin. Does he really belong here at all? I have less of an issue with the title of the table than some of its contents. Maybe we can have a separate section listing some famous failed assassination attempts. It still troubles me as it stands now. JackofOz 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
On brief reflection, what I think should happen is this: Have 2 tables, Notable Assassinations, and Notable Failed Assassination Attempts. Then we could remove the right-hand Comments column of the existing table. Those that succeeded would belong to the first table, and those that failed would belong to the second table. Any comments in the existing Comments column that are other than "succeeded" or "failed" could become footnotes to the relevant table. If you agree, I'm happy to do the work required. JackofOz 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I'll think about a name change again, but I find that splitting the table is pointless at this stage (and maybe at any stage, for it is not to be exhaustive, but only to list some notable cases for example reasons - therefore, it is doubtful whether two lists would improve the article, even if they are both good quality).
There is no article for attempted assassination, nor should there be. A failed assassination (of the level as cited for the Pope for example) is close enough to a real one to deserve dealing in the same context. MadMaxDog 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You make good sense, MMD. I'll think on this some more. Anyway, thanks for tweaking the title of the table. That's a very good compromise, at least for now. JackofOz 07:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I realise this is a thorny issue, and this article is actually better than most when it comes to consstancy, but the article says that politics has to be a prime motivation, but then describeed the killing by Mossad or Palestinian guerillas as assasination. I make no comment on the morals of this, but surely taking out foot-soldiers is tactical not political? Personally I think this is because the definition is too narrow, rather than the mossad reference being incorrect. Epeeist smudge 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Israelis also consider it "sending a message", and whenever they can, they target major figures (though when those can't be found, they will go for lower level people - for, again, purely political reasons: they don't want to be seen doing nothing). So I think no change is necessary - but you can surely have a go at changing the definition, and we can then see if that takes care of your point without widening it too much. MadMaxDog 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I have a problem with the shooting-down of Adm. Yamamoto -- an enemy soldier -- during wartime and actually in the theatre of war, being classed as an "assassination." How was that military action essentially different from any other? --Michael K. Smith 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the ambiguity you refer to. Also it clashes a bit with the definition provided above. However, it is a) in the history section of the article (which does not have to follow the definition guideline put forth as strictly) and b), it is generally considered 'unsporting', for want of a better word, to go after specific people during a war. Which is a bit weird, morally (surely the LEADERS of a war are valid targets, not just the 'peons'?), but probably derived from the honour codexes that have developed during the ages. MadMaxDog 09:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I see a problem with terminology used in the table on Notable Assassinations & Attempts. Currently they are listed as either "Failed" or "Successful". This immediately struck me as biased (reflecting the perspective of the assassin). I decided to change the terms:

"Failed" >changed to> "Attempt failed"
"Successful" >changed to> "Leader killed"

My change was immediately reverted, with the comment that I was using too much "political correctness". This seemed an odd reason for reverting since I don't consider myself to be a big PC'er. But at the time I did not think of a solid rebuttal for asserting the change. ...then a few days ago it struck me that the reason why the old terms were inappropriate was that it violated the NPOV policy. I re-implemented the change, citing the solid justification. Once again, this change got immediately reverted (although it took more than 9 hrs this time instead of 8 minutes - heh). The second reversion was presented with the rationale that "...'successful' is an adjective referring to an action, NOT a moral judgement". Here are my thoughts on that: I agree that 'success' is a word that refers to the action with no moral judgement. The problem is that it is a biased descriptor of that action. Put yourself in the shoes of a President's Secret Service agent. Can you imagine seeing your President die after taking a bullet and then calling the event "successful"? If not, then this is an indication that NPOV is not being upheld.

I will refrain from re-applying the change to give some time to see if anyone can present a solid argument that "successful" does indeed fit with the NPOV policy, or if it is in some other way a more appropriate term than "leader killed". ~ ChrisnHouston 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I should have maybe avoided the words politically correct. As for the 'immediate revert', well, I do watchlist obsessively... Anyway, I still hold the opinion that using "successful", even with your comment explaining the view from the perspective of a bodyguard etc..., is not a violation of NPOV. Neutral point of view is concerned with an unbiased view - if you yourself agree that there is no moral judgment involved, why should it then be a problem?
We would not change a (well-referenced) Wikipedia statement saying " X-land troops succeeded in crushing all remaining Y-land military units in the opening weeks of the Second Great Whatever War", even though it would certainly not be considered a very "successful" event to a Y-land citizen. Why should we act otherwise here?
I am mostly concerned with replacing a simple, directly understandable word like "successful" or "failed" with a more complicated, and not as generally applicable construction. MadMaxDog 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


I see NPOV and morality as distinctly different issues. A comment can have absolutely nothing to do with morality, yet be infused with bias. Example: "The rower succeeded in winning the silver medal." If the goal was winning gold, then being awarded silver can be seen as a failure. A friend of mine got silver in the 84 Olympics, and to this day he considers it a failure. That is his point of view. My point of view is that his accomplishment was a success. Polar opposites, yet both valid.
This is why words like "success" and "failure" must be used judiciously. The words are infused with a particular criteria that can be TOTALLY DIFFERENT from one user to the next. The author of an article may be totally oblivious that the values of major factions (perhaps even the majority) are not getting communicated. How many American Republicans would agree that the result of Ronald Reagan's shooting was a "failure"? How many Catholics worldwide would view the outcome of John Paul II's shooting a "failure"? I'd guess none, if not a very slim minority.
Now I'll address your land troops example... I would not object given the wording you used because it is clear that "troops succeeded in crushing" is clear that "succeeded" fits with the goal of "troops". Now if the Assassination article would state something like, "shooter succeeded in killing", then I would not object there either (for the same reason). Likewise, I would be fine with a statement like, "Secret Service succeeded in foiling". In all of these examples, it is clear that "succeeded" represents the goal of the subject in the statement. The objection arises because the table in question does not have a distinct subject to make it clear who's values are being represented in the word "success/failure". The reason for a change to "attempt failed" is that it makes it clear that "failed" is the perspective of those making the "attempt".
I do agree that it is important to avoid cumbersome terminology. But I don't see the change in question to be awkward at all. A statement you made that I totally disagree with is that the changed language is a "not as generally applicable construction". To say "leader killed" is much more general than "success", especially considering that a large group of readers (I'd say the majority) would consider a lot of these examples to be a "failure" in protecting the leader. ChrisnHouston 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I added a ":" to each of your comments to better define the individual responses of each of us. Getting back to the matter at hand, I do see some merit in what you say, but remain unconvinced that your proposed change avoids being cumbersome (I'll admit that's partly on subjective reasons). I have however a possible solution, which I will implement in the table in a moment. I hope that will be suitable, even though you possibly wonder what all the fuss was about when my solution is not all that different from yours. Cheers MadMaxDog 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it! Nice work. And thanks for being flexible. ChrisnHouston 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
An idea for a tweak just came to me, so I gave it a go (rationale provided). See what you think, M^2D. ChrisnHouston 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Selective assassination

I consider said article to be a canidate for merging into here, unless we want to split up the subcategories already in here dealing with government assasinations etc... MadMaxDog 05:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"to fatally hit a man-sized target"

This likely implies that the target is not human. Who would want to "assasinate" a cow or a table? I'm changing it.. Ozkaplan 08:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Why is Martin Luther King, Jr. mentioned, and not Malcolm X?

I am not adding him myself because to do so would be to reward you for your childish, and conspiracy-driven VANDALISM during the last couple days. If someone adds a non-sensationalist, NPOV listing for him WHICH REFLECTS WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE REFERENCED MAIN ARTICLES about him, then I have no problem with having him in the list.
Except that the list, like all such lists, threatens to grow out of control... sigh. MadMaxDog 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced POV edits to Martin Luther King

User:Ghost of starman has been editing the list entry of Martin Luther King's assasination, basing his 'claims' on a totally unreferenced stub article of the supposed murderer, then deletes references from The King Center (see diff). Please watch for further such edits. MadMaxDog 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits. They are 100% true, and a Memphis jury agreed in 1999 during Mrs. King's wrongful death suit. The only people who dispute this are either lying or ignorant of the facts. Do a little reading on the subject before you try to censor a more knowledgeable person. I do not relish the idea of an edit war with you, stop being so immature, and do a little basic reasearch on the subject.

http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine02112003.html

http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/mlk-civil/120899_verdict_ctv.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/022100a.html

etc. et al. The only real assassination going on is YOUR assassination of the truth. Knock it off. Ghost of starman 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How interesting that you provide the references here, in a talk page, instead of at Martin Luther King, or at the actual places where you did your edits (preferrably before this whole thing started).
As noted, I do not think we are getting anywhere, the Three-Revert-Rule prevents me from doing another revert (I may have broken it already) and I have asked for outside mediation. I would ask you not to change the appropriate tags. Thank you. MadMaxDog 11:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is nothing personal against you, understand? But what I'm writing IS the truth, and also is the belief of the King family themselves, and the afforementioned jury. I can't stand disproven government cover-ups being presented as truth on a neutral encyclopedia. I think we both mean well. Ghost of starman 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Ray was convicted of the killing. Claiming that the other person you mentioned did it is an egregious violation of WP:BLP. If you do it again, I'll lock the page. If you continue to do so, I'll block you. I hope I'm very clear on that. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who was convicted of the killing, it matters who DID it. I didn't realize Wikipedia was a propaganda stooge site. Nobody who knows anything about this case believes that Ray did it, especially not the people who were actually THERE! Threatening to block me is pretty useless, as changing IP is trivial. If you insist on perpetrating falsehoods, and being an ignorant fool with his head in the sand, then by all means, I'll leave it alone. For now. Ghost of starman 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


By the way, can you prove that Marrell Mccollough is actually still a living person? Because I sure can't, and it's likely that he isn't. So you are wrong to claim a violation of WP:BLP until you can demonstrate that this person is still alive. Why don't you try following your own rules, Mr. Admin? Ghost of starman 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Amazing how people won't address the root of the problem. You can either add Malcolm X to the list, or suffer continued vandalism. I would, but I don't know the format.

Stop vandalising' (yes, YOU, you wrote this from the same IP) and we might consider it at some point (I'm starting to think the whole list was a bad idea). Until then, I'm not moving my ass for somebody with the manners of a spoiled brat. There is an article on Wikipedia on Malcolm X, which includes his assassination. Therefore there is no conspiracy or neutrality problem. What you are doing is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum because the Malcolm X link is missing a crosslink from another article. Go somewhere else and do something constructive. MadMaxDog 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Some points

Hi,

I've been spending a lot of time reading and re-reading this article in preparation of making a Spoken Article out of it. Some of the larger issues I came across:

  1. Reference to Ford out of the blue, in the 3-views section of definition problems. What's this Ford case being discussed? (Yes, I know... but a reader new to the topic would probably not!). I am in dubio regarding the proper place to introduce Ford into the beginning of the article.
  2. Not adhering to the definition chosen, for example in 4.1 As Tool of Insurgents. Since when is a police officer a political or famous figure? It seems to me that if we are to follow the definition, both ETA and Basque killings and terror campaigns do not count as assassinations. I know the definition says 'usually'... but then it's not much of a definition, is it? Can someone more versed in the English language shed some light on this?
  3. In lieu of 2: Some weasel words appear to have snuck in.. worst offender: 'Many have claimed that a successful assassination of terrorist leaders Osama Bin Laden might have prevented the September 11 attacks.'... personally I don't see exactly what information this would add. "If we would have killed the mastermind behind *insert random man-made tragedy here* it might not have happened"... right.

Input on these issues would be appreciated! If no replies come in, I'll WP:Be Bold and make edits to the best of my judgement... but I'd prefer some discussion prior to altering a well-established article.

Kander 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Add Tsar Alexander II to the list?

Just bumped into this article and missed Tsar Alexander II of Russia in the list. According to the correspondent article here in Wikipedia (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia#Assassination) he belongs in this list (which i'd modify myself gladly if i had any idea how to) Thanks a lot for your help! Jaui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.16.249 (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oswald/JFK

A citation request was placed on the chart next to the Oswald/JFK listing. I have removed it for a few reasons. First and foremost, the subject matter is ubiquitous. The fact the government report suggested Oswald acted alone and that some disagree is as much a known fact as saying "The United States is a country in North America". Beyond that, however, it is simply impractical to place a citation in this particular forum, because it would require WP:NPOV violation in order to choose what citation to use. Both names are linked in the chart, and the connected articles have copious citations and references and links to articles related to the assassination. Anyone seeking verification of the statement made in the chart (the statement preserves NPOV by reflecting both sides) can easily go to the two articles linked and find the desired sources. 23skidoo 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote or statement?

Under the sub-heading "Military Use," the first line is confusing. Is "Assassination for military purposes has long been espoused" a quote or a statement? If quote, it needs to be sourced. Jophus00 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable list

In my browser (Safari3), the notable list is below the references, etc, yet when I go to move it up, it's already up there. Why is it split from it's regular section when I view it? —ScouterSig 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

"Assassin" should not redirect here. An assassin is not the same as an assination, and assains have a much different history, such as ninjas and hassassians.Rayvn (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

An assassin is not the same as an assassination, but the concepts are very closely related. Assassins are people who perform assassinations. Having two articles would lead to a huge amount of duplication — what would go in one that wasn't relevant to the other? And Ninjas and hashshashim are mentioned in this article, so what's the problem? —KCinDC (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
They are too different for one article, and the noun also includes pop-culture references. A regular encyclopedia, as well as a dictionary, would have two different entries. Mainly, in that assassins are used outside of assassination, such as regular kill-for-hire etc. Assassinations involve governments; assassins do not necessarily.Rayvn (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Assassination as murder?

In the introduction assassination is described as "murder", in some dictionaries this is the case, in others it is "killing".

In this article Yamamoto's death is listed as an example of an assassination.

Since "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox to 'Get Yamamoto'," would this mean the US president was a murderer, or that this was not really an assassination as it is defined in the introduction?

This could be cleared up by using the term "killing" rather than the more specific "murder" which is the same but applies only when the action is viewed as "unjustified". Constan69 (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is nearly always murder in the jurisdiction in which it takes place unless it is the killing of a combatant in war (eg the assassination of a head of state, field marshal, or a specific subordinate). If it were not murder then there would be a trial locally or an extradition request and trial, before the killing took place. --PBS (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge in selective assassination

see Talk:Assassination/Archive 2#mergefrom Targeted killing & Talk:Assassination/Archive 0

For all the reasons given when discussing the reasons for merging in targeted killing. It is a content fork (and possibly a POV fork) that is not needed. --PBS (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected selective assassination to here as no one has objected and "Silence implies consent" (WP:CONSENSUS). I have not merged in any of the material because AFAICT there was nothing in that article that would improve this one. --PBS (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

per WP:CONCENSUS, "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community". Has there been such exposure? I doubt it. You replaced the article with the redirect, and after this was reverted by someone who objected to the "merge", you repeated your edit, claiming "silence = consensus", not realizing the revert itself means the community is no longer silent. I too oppose this "merge" (for lack of a better word to describe replacing the content with a redirect), and have reverted your actions once again. Please don't quote policy that doesn't apply, and note that assassination sanctioned by a sovereign government is different than that sanctioned by some organization. Odedee (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As this page has now been a redirect for the best part of a year you will have to show that there is a consensus for this content fork. An assassination is a targeted killing by definition so what is the justification for an article called targeted assassination? -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The image File:Shot Dead on Arrival.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Free encyclopedic public domain source (CRS report)

I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Assassination_Ban_and_E.O._12333:_A_Brief_Summary%2C_January_4%2C_2002

PS : I think this would warrant a new page, Assassination ban (United States)

I'd like to see something about UAV's or Drones being used as methods of assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.39.31 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Entomology of Assassin

According to the following link: 

http://www.damninteresting.com/fortress-of-the-assassins

"A more probable competing theory is that the name is derived from the name of their leader Hassan-i-Sabah, since “Hashshashin” literally means “followers of Hassan.” The name itself was a derogatory term used by Europeans to describe the supposedly hashish-using sect. The term “assassin” most likely comes from a pet name Hassan had for his followers: Assassiyun, or “people who are faithful to the foundation of the faith.”

This wiki article states that Hashshashin literally means "takers of hashish". Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.161.219 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the article on Hashasin @ [6] clearly states that the meaning of "takes of hashish" is far from literal and far from a consensus... They are two very contradicting pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.30.140 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Papal assassins

In many Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church, there are unusual claims that the Holy See had previously used hit-men to remove potentially embarassing political figures. It might be valuable if additional sources could be gathered on this controversial subject. [7][8][9][10][11][12] ADM (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Drone Aircraft

The article here includes a list of questions regarding the use of drone aircraft for targeted strikes on enemy targets. I understand that there is some debate about whether this constitutes an assassination, but I don't understand what it is about drone aircraft that makes them unique from other forms of airstrike. I understand that drones get a lot of attention nowadays, but how is a drone killing fundamentally different from any other form of precision munition?

I think a big part of the problem is that the line between military and civilian has become blurred by the unconventional forces we are fighting. We need to stop using the word "civilian" as though it implies innocence and start thinking in terms of "participant" or "non-participant." This is very relevant to our understanding of modern war and demonstrates why the Geneva Convention no longer fits the modern battlefield. (Under the Geneva Convention, our opponents are all "unlawful combatants" and have no rights or protections at all)

But to return to the question at hand, I think a solution would be to remove the debate about drone aircraft and focus on the underlying question of what constitutes assassination in the first place? Specifically, at what point in the enemy order of battle does a person rank so highly that he is regarded as a political figure and not a military target? In the past, enemy generals have been fair game for snipers (Carlos Hathcock comes to mind). I don't understand the difference between sniping an enemy commander with a direct-fire weapon and killing a commander of equivalent position with an airstrike. The real problem is that our enemies do not wear uniforms, and therefore the line between "military commander" and "political leader" is blurred to the point of nonexistence.

I'm interested in hearing other perspectives on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Targeted Killing Not Assassination?

As you have obviously tackled Newspeak: Targeted killing vs Assassination, I would appreciate it if you weighed in at Talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki#Assasination_vs_Targeted_Killing, as I may not edit Targeted killing for Assasination due to an edit war I have managed to get sucked in to. The latest episode appears to be that some do not want to even wikilink the word Targeted killing, and won;t even allow the word Assassination. This is all happening at Anwar_al-Awlaki and Talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki#Assasination_vs_Targeted_Killing. Please help us in the talk page as obviously it has been trashed out for this article. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I see targeted killing as a form of assassination, as is apparently the consensus here, with some exceptions. Yes, if Anwar al-Awlaki is killed without trial, it will be murder, at least according to Yemeni tribal law which is what he has where he lives. Also according to my interpretation of US law (denial of due process before execution = lynching), but I doubt that my POV will be enforced in this case.
There are some differences between targeted killing and traditional assassination, which is why targeted killing has its own section here and isn't simply passed off as a euphemism. It's actually a more specific term and should be used where it applies. Thundermaker (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Targeted killing" is a euphemism for murder. End of story. It is a war crime.JohnC (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New page; Targeted Killing

As reflected in the article itself even as I came upon it, there is clearly a substantial body of thought that targeting killing is not the same thing as assassination ("Pro:...They also oppose the use of the term assassination, as it denotes murder, where targeting such leaders is seen as self-defence, and thus killing, but not a crime.[33]").

Assassination is categorized under murder, which is an unlawful killing. Obviously, it satisfies someone's POV to put it there. But there is clearly not a consensus view in RSs that it is unlawful, and assassination.

See also:

Absent consensus disagreement, I'll therefore create a new page for Targeted Killing to avoid any confusion it seems to be causing by it having been parked here. It should also be dramatically improved, as this can be a very good article, with views presented on two sides (as is the case now, but in somewhat brief fashion).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE : Seek consensus. The Consensus on this article is that Targeted killing is a subset of ASSASSINATION, Targeted Killing is not parked here, it is a subset of here. This editor was pushing a pov, and didn't even want a wiki link to this article, as he really can't give a good reason to blank a wikilink he is now trying to remove the wikilink target. Pray tell - You say as reflected in the article itself even as I came upon it, there is clearly a substantial body of thought that targeting killing is not the same thing as assassination, yet i can not find ANY SUCH DISAGREEMENT WHATSOEVER. I see strong disagreement as to whether the use of assassination : targeted killing is legitimate or not. I do not see one shred of dispute in this article that as you came upon it targeting killing is not a form of assassination. BIG DIFFERENCE. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Please desist. You posted a quickie here in talk and then went right ahead and made a very major redirect edit without seeking concensus, espcially in relation to an issue with an active editwar that is now being spilled over here by you - after a block warning in the edit summary of Anwar al-Awlaki. Posting here, then immediately doing the edit is NOT SEEKING CONCENSUS. I reverted your edit here. I know you are unhappy about there being a wikilink on the word targeted killing at Anwar al-Awlaki that goes here - and as you can't reasonably blank the four square brackets there with a leg to stand on you are now seeking to break the link, and then later replace it with some sanitized POV copy about the wonderfully civilized practice of Targeted Killing - that is utterly ridiculous. Sorry - it is STATE TERRORISM - like it or not - just because you do it does not make it nice or in any way DIFFERENT. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, 98.248.59.58, can you cool down a bit ? Your emotion won't help and editor's personal opinions about the real world aren't relevant. I'm also not really in favour of a separate article about targeted killings, preventative killings, execution policy, targeted thwartings, interceptions, extra judicial killings, killing of non-state actors and the myriad of terms used to describe these actions. Furthermore the term targeted killing itself isn't restricted to state sanctioned killings. It's routinely used by human rights groups to describe assassinations by paramilitary groups/insurgents/death squads around the world. It's true that there are some that take the position that targeted killing, in the sense that the Supreme Court of Israel uses the term, is not the same as assassination but I don't think it is at all accurate to say "there is clearly a substantial body of thought that targeting killing is not the same thing as assassination". The terms are often used interchangeably and side by side by both media and academic sources. Treating targeted killing as if it is not a form of assassination is essentially a POV fork. It's a bit like spinning something off from the Palestinian political violence article and calling it "Hamas' rocket based resistance methods" on the basis that there is a 'substantial body of thought' that that is what they are engaged in by firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I arrived here a bit by accident but have written quite a bit regarding Israeli assassinations. Just my 2 cents, I've rarely seen opposition to the use of the word assassination in place of/synonymous with targeted killing. I personally don't see any intrinsic positive or negative connotation to the A word (ie most people are unhappy with the assassination of Lincoln, and likewise unhappy that the assassination of Hitler failed). Whether Assassination belongs in a category on murder is something separate, because it is often illegal for one party and legal for the executor (if a state). Joshdboz (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy create / support The term assassination is indeed the targeted killing of someone. But it’s more than that. My two-volume World Book dictionary (and many other dictionaries) add something like this: “especially the killing of a politician or similar public person.” The term “assassination” is generally understood in an especially negative light in common usage because it is widely used to describe the unlawful, premeditated and targeted killing of U.S. presidents.

    This new page’s first use will be in service of our Anwar al-Awlaki article. In that particular situation, U.S. government officials say al‑Awlaki is “actively trying to kill Americans”. Moreover, al‑Awlaki declared holy war upon America. The U.S. president (with the apparent approval of the National Security Council) directed the CIA to capture or kill al‑Awlaki. The term “assassination” is therefore wholly ill-suited for describing a government that is acting in accordance with its laws and under the law of war to kill an enemy who seeks to kill innocents. Moreover, the current situation leaves us in the untenable situation where the Anwar al-Awlaki article links “targeted killing” to a subsection of Wikipedia’s Assassination article. This improperly reverses the order of definition; much like trying to define “rodent” as a “squirrel”.

    Since the U.S. government’s targeting of one of its own citizens is unprecedented, there clearly needs to be a new article properly describing the unprecedented circumstances; either that, or don’t link “targeted killing” and let the Anwar al-Awlaki article self-referentially explain the meaning. With regard to the I.P. editor’s statement of Sorry - it is STATE TERRORISM - like it or not - just because you do it does not make it nice or in any way DIFFERENT, I think this is simply a case where moral relativism is colliding with common sense. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

    • While I agree in having a new article, I would prefer that new article not start with the assumption that killing someone like awliki is "legal". I am old enough to remember the US Congress passing laws in the 1970s that explicitly prohibited this kind of killing (because there were persistent rumors that the CIA had quietly arranged killings in the past.)
    • If Awliki was resident in the USA there would be no question that killing him, rather than arresting him, and trying him, would be illegal. If there was a guy, from nation X, but living in the USA, who was encouraging people to kill political leaders of nation X, or random people from nation X. Couldn't the USA arrest him for hate crimes? Encouraging killing is not protected speech, in the USA, is it? Even if the USA couldn't arrest him for encouraging killing, or chose not to arrest him for encouraging killing, the organs of justice from nation X could request his extradition. And if nation X wasn't a torture state, the USA would probably hand over this individual. But the USA would take a very dim view if nation X sent killers to the USA, to kill the individual. I believe, technically, this would be a breach of respect for US sovereignty, and an act of war.
    • Similarly, Yemen, Sudan, or any other nation where the USA went in with cruise missiles, could treat those missiles as an act of war.
    • Attacking individuals one considers enemies, who are resident in a neutral nation, is a breach of the laws of war. So I do not believe it is clear that this is "legal". Geo Swan (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree whole heartedly with Greg's thoughts. SteveB67 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I find it ironic that you miss the applicability of "politician or similar public person" to Anwar al-Awlaki. He's an al-Qaeda spokesman and recruiter, the closest thing there is to a politician within the Jihad movement. Splitting this article would be POV-forking and would make it harder to reach terminology consensus on the pages of targeted individuals, so Oppose. Thundermaker (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No irony, Thundermaker. What al‑Awlaki is doing (inciting others to commit homicide) is illegal in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen, and in wherever else the hole he is hiding in might be located. Noting your …the closest thing there is to a politician; any reasoning that attempts to place al‑Awlaki and people like him on the same plane as the politicians of countries amounts, IMO, to the “moral relativism” I referred to above. It is a worldview I reject. Sorry.

    Besides, your post, Thundermaker, seems to be predicated on the notion that a small group of individuals is free to flout the laws of the nations in which they reside and decide for themselves who they are at liberty to kill. It is just as wrong—and illegal—for eight militia members trying to kill police officers in America as it is for individuals residing in Yemen to flout the laws of Yemen. Both often declare that their god speaks to them that the killing is OK. Timothy McVeigh believed this nonsense too (the wholesale killing of innocent civilian non-combatants was OK to fight a “war”). But, that’s just my silly, silly take on it.

    Besides—again—with regard to the I.P. editor’s statement of Sorry - it is STATE TERRORISM - like it or not - just because you do it does not make it nice or in any way DIFFERENT, I don’t know precisely who he is referring to when he wrote …“just because you do it”… but he seems to not be talking about Wikipedians and is using the term more broadly. As such, his or her musings about the shortcomings of state policy are far beyond what we should be discussing here. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(Using my previous indentation because I hate triangle-shaped discussions.) For the purposes of this article, I disagree that assassination is a form of state terrorism. Terrorism is harming innocents; assassination is killing enemy leaders (justly or not).
On the other hand, I don't think that you'd be elevating jihadist imams to anything they aren't already by acknowledging their similarity to politicians. Hitler was a politician, how's that for moral relativism? Assassination also traditionally includes killing of evil kings and dictators, not just democratically-elected US presidents who emancipate slaves. Thundermaker (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Does my trifurcating my post, above, to separate out that last paragraph help you to see that Wikipedia is not a venue for recreating Billy Joel’s song the Piano Man, where he drowns himself in suds to escape the absurdity when he laments “And the waitress is practicing politics, as the businessmen slowly get stoned”? I’m not going to debate you as if we are college students in a liberal college professor’s World Politics class. This is just about whether the link is appropriate. The I.P. editor first tried to change the text in the article to “assassinate” and, failing that, now is trying to link it to a backwards definition (“rodent” equals “squirrel”). Both techniques are attempts at POV-pushing because the I.P. editor equates America’s lawful actions by an elected government as being morally equivalent to someone who lives in a hole in Yemen and is breaking the laws there. Greg L (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I support a separate article. They are related, but different enough, at least as far as sources go. It seems to be mostly legal assassination by powerful countries, but we aren't here to judge but report what sources say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me try to better explain my thinking, by analogy. The subject: Abortion.
Do some people think it is Murder? Certainly.
Do some others disagree? Certainly.
Would it be NPOV to have Abortion be a subsection of Murder?
(rhetorical).
It's the same here.
All manner of highest-level RSs, academics, and jurists disagree with the proposition that TK is Assassination. Our job, is to follow the RSs. To put TK under Assassination in the face of thise would be rampant POV-pushing, the same as putting Abortion under Murder.
No harm follows letting it have its own article. And there is more than enough material to warrant an article. POV-harm will be done, however, by putting it in a section that, for example, the above RSs say it certainly does not belong in.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry if my earlier comments were confusing, I think multiple issues are being addressed here. I support a separate article if there is literature that attempts to define TK as a distinct subset or even an act separate from assassination; it's not for us to decide on the merits of the arguments, it's a simple notability issue. However, because these terms are for the most part used interchangeably in the media, I do not think we should normally make a distinction between the two, and if the wording is a matter of controversy (perhaps in the al‑Awlaki case) that should be addressed in the each separate article on case by case basis. Joshdboz (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. There is such literature that defines TK as an act separate and distinct from assassination. I've set forth some examples above (when you have a moment, you may find them interesting). The second point raised is an issue separate from thisthread. But was decided already, on the Al-Awlaki page. There, though the RSs said only one thing, an editor sought to substitute the other. (They only said TK). As the above literature makes clear, the two are viewed as different by some serious RSs. And, therefore, not interchangeable. Though a POV-oriented editor may seek to treat them as though they are. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I support separate articles -- Some years ago I contributed a table in a discussion about the merger two articles related to this one -- execution and extrajudicial killing. It is complicated, and the boundaries of these different kinds of kiling are not entirely clearly defined. I am going to reproduce and update that table here. Perhaps the new article could address both "decapitation" and 007-style, liscenced to kill, authorized assassinations. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
kind of killing actor notes
  • authorized assassination
  • 007
  • liscenced to kill

state actors

  • totally authorized.
  • totally clandestine.
  • legality not always clear, depends on country.
  • Clearly illegal under US law.
  • "decapitation"
 state actors
  • totally authorized.
  • typically this term is used during wartime, for targeting the leaders of the enemy country -- treating them as military targets, even if they are technically civilians.
  • sometimes clandestine.
  • sometimes acknowledged afterwards.
  • legality not always clear, depends on country.
  • The USA made fifty decapitation attempts in 2003, against Saddam and his most senior leadership cadre.
    • The only success claimed was "Chemical Ali" -- but this claim was in error.
    • Dozens or hundreds of civilians were killed in these decapitation attempts.
    • The US military was authorized to launch depatitation attempts without further explicit civilian authorizaton, if they anticipated killing no more than 30 civilian bystanders.
  • mob hits
 organized crime
  • With a few notable exceptions, always performed in the private sector, for the private sector.
  • summary execution
 state actors
  • Generally only performed during martial law -- shooting looters for instance, when public safety precludes taking the time to take them into custody.
  • highly controversial.
  • authorized.
  • not clandestine.
  • a war crime, when practiced on the battlefield.
  • during the Iraq war and Afghanistan war some US commentators have recommended dropping charges against GIs who killed unarmed prisoners who were no longer a threat, if they suspected those prisoners were "terrorists"
  • extra-judicial killing
  • extrajudicial execution
 state actor
  • Clandestine
  • Organized
  • Not officially authorized, to preserve plausible deniability.
  • Examples Project Phoenix, the Janjaweed.
  • Perps generally "off-duty" state personnel, acting on unofficial orders, or on hints, or on tacit hints that legal means won't work, and they should do whatever they can to take care of matters.
  • Sometimes attempts are made to make the killings look like the work of non-state volunteers.
  • Arguably also clearly illegal(?)
  • canonical vigilantes
  • lynch mobs
 volunteers
  • semi-organized
  • no state involvement.
  • clearly illegal
  • manson-style
 lunatics
  • Organized, kind of.
  • clearly illegal.
  • I am including this in this list just to distinguish these killing from lone gunmen style murders.
  • Huh?!? Assuming you’re serious—(and even if you ain’t)—why don’t you add “targeted killing” to your list and provide us with your first-pass effort. As Congress gave the president broad authority to wage this war, and since he approved that measure against al‑Awlaki and since that approval would have required the authority of the National Security Council, it is within the rule of law for the U.S. Since the CIA uses Hellfire missiles from drones in this particular theater of operation, it is therefore also not a “007-style” attack. BTW, here’s a picture of girls learning. Greg L (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I am always serious -- at least when I am not kidding. Seriously, humor is usually culturally relative, and doesn't translate well for contributors from the different cultures who work on an international project, like the wikipedia, so it should be avoided. Why didn't I add "targetted killing" to the table? Because decapitation; 007-style, liscence-to-kill, and death squads could all be described as targetted killing. Or, if you have an official definition, it should be used to distinguish from those other styles of killing. WRT Hellfires employed in "this particular theater of operations" -- the USA has already employed Hellfires in neutral countries. Neutral countries are not "theaters of operation". WRT US domestic laws rescinding the 1970s legislation that explicitly prohibited assassination -- I was not aware of this recent law, but my understanding is that the international agreements the USA is a signatory to over-ride domestic laws. Targetted killing, in a neutral country would be a violation of the laws of war. Pakistan remained firmly on record as objecting to the use of Hellfire missiles in Pakistan the last time I looked. Pakistan could choose to react to those missiles by withdrawing from the coalition. It could consider the unauthorized use of those Hellfire missiles as an act of war. Some commentators claim Pakistan's governments protests are "crocodile tears", aimed at the general Pakistan population, and that, on a clandestine government to government level, Pakistan endorses the attacks. If the USA followed the passage of this law with withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, etc, then perhaps you could describe this as "legal". However, I predict you would find those withdrawals from the International agreements would prompt many WP:RS to describe the USA as an "outlaw state". Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Geo Swan, for deciding that a more focused article is needed to give this subject a proper treatment. I will be pleased to discuss matters of fact with you on the associated talk page of the new article.

    Please note that the U.S. law passed in the 70s outlawed the Executive branch, through the CIA, of assassinating the heads of foreign governments. That was something the CIA did with some regularity in the 60s in Central and South America. Terrorists who reside in holes were not on anyone’s mind at the time. Since then, Congress and the Executive branch have worked on new laws and procedures to cover the sort of stuff the CIA still has to do. And today, in the war on terror, Congress gave the president broad authority to take all necessary actions to defend the nation. There are highly secret congressional subcommittees that Obama keeps informed on what the Executive branch (CIA and the military) are up to. The targeted killing of all‑Awlaki was approved by Obama and, under the new procedures, that action required the approval of the National Security Council.

    As regards the Geneva conventions and other international agreements governing war, much of these laws were to ensure that civilian populations were not slaughtered as armies rolled through cities and were to ensure reciprocity in the treatment of captured prisoners: you treat your POWs humanely and we will do the same.

    During time of war, U.S. presidents have a surprising degree of power. During WWII, after German saboteurs slipped into the U.S. and were captured by the FBI, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2561 and transferred the prisoners to military control. In the ensuing courts-martial, the saboteurs were found guilty and hanged. Proclamation 2561 cited “the law of war” rather than the “Articles of War” because the latter would have triggered the statutory procedures established by Congress for courts-martials. The category “law of war” was undefined by statute and represented the more general principles and customs in the field of international law as nations try to protect their countries and peoples from slaughter. All this WWII-business is being reviewed by Congress today as they ponder how to preserve your right of freedom from fear. Mine too.

    You might disagree with what the U.S. is doing, but I guarantee you that the targeted killing of Anwar al‑Awlaki is in conformance with today’s laws of the United States as well as the general laws of war as understood by the other Western democracies. All are in agreement that the targeted killing of someone who has declared holy war on a people and incites others to commit terrorist acts (as al‑Awlaki did, and is doing, and is continuing to do) is an act of self preservation that is properly within the scope of the law of war.

    Having a Navy Diver son who works at a Special Forces command, I can tell you that enormous amounts of money is being spent worldwide by the governments of free people to squash terrorist activities. Our Navy SEALs are teaching the military forces of other free peoples how to board hijacked passenger liners to prevent terrorists from killing boat loads of innocent peoples (yeah, that sorta silly ol’ stuff). All this, so their populations can go to bed at night and not be in fear of waking up, choking on their own blood as they suffocate from nerve gas. All this, so Wikipedias can argue here about abstract principles of complex issues of the “law of war” and fancy the exercise as more of an abstract, intellectual sparing than it is a deadly serious matter of preventing tens of thousands of people in NY subways from being gassed to death.

    I’ll close with the below quote from Michael Yon, who is a former U.S. Special Forces operator who had lots of expertise in al‑Qaeda years before it was a word on everyone else’s lips:

“But as the second jet crushed into the second
  tower at the World Trade Center, I knew bin Laden
  was the culprit, and that Taliban were harboring
  him in Afghanistan. Despite the horror that day, I
  was relieved. If al Qaeda had possessed
  deployable weapons of mass destruction, atomic
  or otherwise, they would have used them.”
Greg L (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly, if the editors on this page provide input into the new article, it will prove to be an interesting one. I think Geo that you will find the first source above especially interesting, in regard to the points you raise.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support separate page for targeted killings. Assassinations are targeted killings and/or murder at the highest level of political (and in some cases military) echelon. Plain 'targeted killing' may be the killing of mid and lower level operatives. While the word assasins has a broader meaning of hired hit men, assassination infers targeting heads of state by individuals or other governments. --Shuki (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
But Shuki, that is simply not the case. 'Targeted killing' is used to describe all sorts of things e.g. here are some examples. The notion that the term means a particular kind of killing (for example the preventative 'execution policy', I think is the HCJ preferred term, of the IDF as set out by the HCJ or the US's policy) when in RS-world it means many things seems problematic in terms of framing the article scope and avoiding POV forking based on a narrow and by no means standardized use of the term. And to Epee's strange comment "As the above literature makes clear, the two are viewed as different by some serious RSs. And, therefore, not interchangeable. Though a POV-oriented editor may seek to treat them as though they are." I agree with the first sentence but the rest is ironically exactly the kind of thing that a POV-oriented editor that has framed the issue around the few states that have a declared preventative killing/execution policy and a narrow definition of the term inconsistent with its usage by many sources would say. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Sean -- let me make it clearer. POV leads to one improperly putting this category in a box from the get-go. Legal, or not legal. NPOV leads to it being a separate article, and letting the article describe the RS-supported views as to whether it is legal, or not legal. Certainly, the view that it is legal is not a fringe theory. Hopefully, put more simply, you find the concept less strange and more accessible.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel compelled to respond to Epeefleche's "To put TK under Assassination in the face of thise would be rampant POV-pushing, the same as putting Abortion under Murder" statement.

  • A UN Secretary-General has referred to Israel's Supreme Court endorsed execution policy toward designated terrorists as "targeted assassinations". This is hardly "rampant POV-pushing".
  • Consider the case of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh and have a look at how the very the large number of RS news sources that covered this case refer to it as an assassination. If Shin Bet came out tomorrow and said, "Yep, it was us" it seems absurd to think that the RS are going to update their stories to say 'targeted killing' and refer to it as a targeted killing rather than an assassination from that point forward. These reliable sources are not engaged in "rampant POV-pushing".
  • Consider an interesting paper like this in the Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 20, Number 2—Spring 2006in Hebrew looking at deterministic methods of measuring effectiveness based on over a hundred attempted assassinations during the Second Intifada. They are Israeli academic/economists analysing data for what some people call 'targeted killings'. They refer to them throughout as assassinations. Heck, in an earlier version of the paper they even explicitly state the following for the easily confused.
    • 1 Assassination is commonly defined as the murder of an important person in a surprise attack for political reasons. In the context of counterterrorism, other terms, such as “pinpoint killing” or “targeted killing”, are sometimes used to describe the same phenomenon.
These economists are not "rampant POV-pushing".

Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What I will say though is, if someone wanted to create an article specifically about the USA's assassination/targeted killing/preventative killing policy using the predominant terminology used to describe the US policy (not sure what that is), I would support that. There doesn't seem to be an article about that as far as I can tell and I vaguely remember that the legal arguments put forward by the US and Israel on this issue are quite different in terms of which bits of international law they think are pertinent.

I should also perhaps declare a possible conflict of interest in that I live somewhere where assassination/targeted killing is almost a national sport whether it's the almost daily targeted killing of monks/teachers/human rights workers/policemen/soldiers/islamist militants or the (attempted) assassination by sniper of a renegade army general downtown in the middle of an interview with the New York Times just yesterday, so perhaps my cynicism on this issue is coming through... Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean, you have missed the point by a very wide margin here. The question is whether to pigeon-hole the article, guided by one POV, or to let the article standing on its own, reflecting the variety of views the RSs state. You're saying that sources are not POV-pushing also misses the point. POV refers to editor bias. Not to source bias. Thought that is not uncommon misperception. You appear to be arguing something that is not at all the issue before us. So let me re-state it. Given that some RSs say TK is not assassination (as I evidence above), and some you say indicate the opposite, it makes no sense to pigeon-hole this article into one category or the other. That is the reason for it being a stand-alone article. In that stand-alone article, I invite you and all others to reflect all RSs (in appropriate proportion, of course) that bear on this subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You could have at least said 'missed the target'. To be clear, I don't want to pigeon-hole the article. I don't want to say that it is or it isn't assassination. I don't think that matters in the slightest. I just want people to be able to find information in a simple way and for that information to be presented within a sensible context. There are many definitions of assassination and some of those encompass targeted killing, others don't hence the arguments. It's semantics/splitting hairs for me. I think a better approach is to have an article about assassination, to have a very brief section within that article about targeted killing (although it should probably have a different name e.g. counterterrorism operations) and to have separate detailed articles about the targeted killing policy/legal arguments etc of specific states. We already have Israeli targeted killings. We don't have one about the US.
I also think your argument is a bit circular. It presupposes that 'targeted killing' is what you assume it to be. It presupposes that the set of sources you consider to be related to targeted killing define the term. They don't. Targeted killing doesn't just mean what your sample of sources about a particular kind of targeted killing says it means. Furthermore, targeted killing is just one of many, many terms used to describe state sanctioned killing. I think it's better to be specific about states and anchor the articles to those states and their counterterrorism operations.
Regarding POV-pushing, perhaps I was rather obtuse. My point was simply that an editor who makes statements that are consistent with RS that are not POV-pushing is also not POV pushing. They are simply making valid article content related statements. To describe that as "rampant POV-pushing" is misleading. There's no misperception on my part here. I'm acutely aware of POV pushing in Wikipedia from all sides and I oppose it all. It's one of the worst aspects of this place, well, that and the fact that there isn't enough swearing. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
From what you say it would appear that you are in agreement that instead of pigeon-holing it in an article that is a subset of "illegal killing", it should be fine to have a stand-alone article, and have that article reflect all RS views, in proper proportion. Given that, I think on that -- which is the issue here -- your view at the end of the day is in accord with what I (and most others) have had to say on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Epeefleche is correct about the new article. This is simply about having a new article specifically dedicated to a new phenomenon: the targeted killing of someone under the general law of war and in accordance with the laws of the country doing the killing. As a practical matter, this topic has an important distinction from “assassination” as that term is commonly used: purposeful and targeted homicide outside the rule of law (murder) of a politician or other public figure. All editors can work towards a proper consensus on that article, including those whose worldview is such that they write Sorry - it is STATE TERRORISM - like it or not - just because you do it does not make it nice or in any way DIFFERENT. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, “homicide” is the killing of one human at the hand of another. A coroner can make a finding of fact on a death certificate that an armed burglar found dead in my entryway died as a result of homicide. Depending on the state, either an inquest, or a grand jury, or a prosecutor may decide that the killing was a “justifiable homicide.” Now, “murder” (ignoring all its various degrees and cousins such as manslaughter) is unlawful, intentional homicide; a homicide (an act) constitutes “murder” (a legal concept) if the act was unlawful.

    “Assassination” is often understood as “an individual murdering a notable public figure such as a politician”; that is, assassination is typically understood as comprising these elements: A) it is a homicide (death of one human by the hand of another), and B) the action was carried out by some low-life individual, and C) the act was illegal, and D) the person slain was an important public figure.

    It appears that the language the U.S. government is using to describe what they’ve done with Anwar al‑Awlaki is “targeted killing.” Since these actions are in accordance with the laws of the U.S. (oh, yes they are) and are in conformance with the law of war as understood by the Western nations inhabited by free peoples, this latest move with Anwar, to me, would be best described as “state-sanctioned, targeted homicide under the law of war.” It is essentially a version of Roosevelt’s Proclamation 2561 during WWII except that there is much more congressional participation. Greg L (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg's non-article content related thoughts for the day
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oh, I almost forgot to conclude my post with some pictures for the day. Here are two Afghan schoolgirls who fell victim to the third poison-gas attack by the Taliban. According to Human Rights Watch, the majority of Afghanistan’s girls’ schools are non-functional because of more than 200 attacks. Silly girls. You see, they and their parents had hoped they might too receive an education and reverse the rampant illiteracy rate amongst Afghan girls. And here is one of the Taliban’s religious police as he beats on an Afghan woman who had removed her burqa in public. (*sigh*)

The Taliban unfortunately harbored the people responsible for 9/11. Yeah, that sorta changed things. The world was content to stand by and look on with curiosity as the Taliban blew up the 1500-year-old Buddhas of Bamyan. Like Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, knocking down two of the United States’ buildings stuffed with people was a tactical success. Strategically; a big boo-boo. So now the West seeks a long-term solution. Indeed, nation-building is a slow process. But rather than sitting back and saying “sucks to be you,” the Coalition members are trying to ensure that all Afghans will one day enjoy this, the most basic of human rights: Leaders shall govern only with the consent of the governed.

I mention this to address what I see is a fundamental weakness of the I.P. editor’s argument here: that there is a moral relativism and the United States’ attempts to kill Anwar al‑Awlaki is merely state-sponsored terrorism that is no different than if a terrorist assassinates someone. No. I will take a stand and not add wikipleasantries like “IMHO” to these two statements: There is right and there is wrong in the world. There is good and there is bad.

The United States could not have been more magnanimous in victory at the conclusion of WWII as it instituted the Marshall Plan to keep German civilians from starving in impending winter of 45/46. And Japan after the war might as well have been named MacArthur-ville. The general oversaw the writing of Japan’s new constitution and abided by the United States’ pledge to allow Hirohito to remain on the throne as long as he renounced his claim of being a living god. For 65 years, all Japanese citizens have enjoyed living in a democracy and not be voiceless puppets of their military leaders.

Once the United States had vanquished its enemies, it has treated them like friends. It fed its former enemies and gave them shelter. Nation building is nothing new to America. Afghanistan’s future has the deck seriously stacked against it. Hopefully, when America leaves, the future of the country will simply be in the hands of the Afghan people and not some nitwits who destroy girls’ schools.

Finally, I will not sit idly by as some editors try to make our articles on terrorists read as if they are nice people, for they are not. Whether it is al‑Qeada or the Taliban, they share a key attribute: they endeavor to deprive free peoples of their two most precious things: our lives, and freedom from fear. Greg L (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the POV-fork issue

The major rational objection to a split seems to be that it would be a POV-fork. Here's a proposal to remedy that:

  • Leave the Assassination#Targeted_killing section in place, with a "main article" link to Targeted killing.
  • Include (in the new article) the notable POV that TK is a form of assassination, without stating it as fact. Also the notable POV that it is not. The first use of that term should link back to Assassination (here).

Comments? Thundermaker (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You have it backwards. The POV is putting it as a subsection here. The reason is that here, it is under Assassination, which is under Murder. That's POV, as Murder means illegal killing. Which, as you can see in the first post above, significant RSs say it is not (as others disagree). The NPOV is to put in its own article, which neither says that it is murder or that it is legal justifiable homicide, and have the article present all significant views. Rather than a section here, a "see also" would be appropriate, as that does not suggest that TK is a subset -- whereas a section does.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Assassination is traditionally described as illegal because when directed against a head of state in that state of course it is. It is not necessarily illegal when done by a state (US for example) to an outsider, or Ford would not have needed to write his famous Executive Order 11905 prohibiting it. I do see it almost as a subset because with TK the perp and target have differing definitions of what's legal and what's illegal, it is most often done by stealth (UAVs from a distance), and the target must be notable enough to get the attention of a foreign government. I say almost because there are probably some people on the hit list who aren't public figures at all, known by the targeting government but not the general public. Thundermaker (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that significant RSs say it is not illegal. To put it in Assassination, which is grouped under Murder with other illegal killings, is POV. To let it stand alone avoids that, and is not POV. As to your last point, yes -- many who are targeted for TK are not at all well known outside of intelligence circles (though some are). At least before they are killed.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't say assassination is murder or illegal, template:Homicide does. And it says "Note: Varies by jurisdiction". I've opened up a topic on that talk page. Thundermaker (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Reliable sources such as my two-volume, unabridged World Book dictionary and Merriam-Webster, here, describe “assassination” as a form of murder. Murder is a legal judgement of homicide; it is a conclusion that a given homicide was an illegal act.

    The decision to designate Anwar al‑Awlaki for targeted killing was in accordance with the Congress, the President, and the National Security Counsel and is therefore legal according to the laws of the United States. As this is the English-language version of Wikipedia, we do not need to look towards the Persian version of Wikipedia nor the *reliable sources* it uses to see if Yemen and neighboring countries consider it legal or not to blow al‑Awlaki out of his hole (though such a treatise might be a fine addition to the new article).

    This is simply about having a proper article to properly treat this particular subject without an improper association with “murder”, which reliable sources indicate that “assassination” denotes. Musings about moral relativism and the second-guessing of Congress by volunteer wikipedians who fancy themselves qualified to debate nuanced legal issues such as the law-of-war are entirely immaterial to the discussion and will not be entertained here. It will be kept simple: what do the dictionaries say, and does the explicit association to the illegality of murder best fit the subject matter. Clearly not. Period. This is not complex, though some would apparently like to retire to the smoking room and make it so. Greg L (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I think it's important not to be too focused on the legal perspective here or get distracted by templates/category navigation. The scope of this article isn't defined by the narrow focus of lawyers and their opinions about murder/illegal killing/targeted killing/legitimate self defence by state and non-state actors within the normative framework of international law etc. This article isn't just about the legal aspects of assassination. In fact, it's hardly about that at all. Nor is the article a subset of "illegal killing". It's a subset of homicide I guess if you want to look at it that way but it's really just an article about assassination, a concept that isn't difficult to understand and a term that is commonly used without reference to legal arguments. Here's a recent illustration from Time about Anwar al-Awlaki, "Revelations of the link to Shahzad will most likely step up calls for al-Awlaki's assassination. The cleric has reportedly been added to the list of people preapproved by the White House for assassination by the CIA or special forces." The term assassination is used without any problems presumably because it's written by a journalist for public consumption using commonly understood terminology (just like someone saying honey bee when in fact they probably mean Apis mellifera, just one of several species of honey bee). The RS media don't worry about calling these things assassinations so I don't think there's anything improper about discussing the targeted killing of someone like a politician by a non state actor/terrorist subject to international law or the targeted killing of a terrorist by a state subject to international law in this article. I just think it's better to deal with the details of the USA's targeted killing counterterrorism operations in a dedicated article with a well defined scope. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
On an unrelated matter Greg, I note with interest the use of spherical nodules of graphite rather than flakes in your sewer cover to mitigate fracture formation. This, I have to say, is one of the more interesting things I've read in Wikipedia recently. It reminded me of something that I'd mostly forgotten, that fracture mechanics is interesting, for which I thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • To the contrary. When discussing legal concepts such as murder, Geneva III, and Protocol 1, it is of the utmost importance that one be sensitive to and informed with regard to legal concepts. The view that it is better to have the broad view of the uninformed, rather than the "narrow" view of the informed, is perhaps not one that is in the best interests of the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Games

I think there should be an section added about the game Assassin's Creed 1 and 2, in the first game you are an member of the hashashin named Altair. In the second game you play as the son of an assassin in Italy. your father gets excecuted along with your little brother and you are going to avange his death. Later in the game you meet Leonarda Da Vinci, he makes a special blade worn on you forearm for assassination (other people, add more info) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.159.41 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be good to add some kind of "Examples in fiction" section which would list summaries of assassinations in books, movies, and video games. But most of the content you're interested in probably belongs on the Assassin's Creed page. Thundermaker (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

William the Silent and the Regent Moray

A recent book on William the Silent claims that he was the first head of state to be assassinated with a handgun, but there is some dispute about whether he was a head of state. He was "leader of a state" but so was Moray, head of govt. as regent for the infant James VI. PatGallacher (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should there be a separate article called Targeted killing

RFC ran from 30 September 2010 to 30 October 2010. See closed discussion and comments.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should there be a separate article called "Targeted killing"? Is it separate concept from assassination, or is it an an euphemism for assassination? If it is the former then a separate article ought to exist. If it is the latter then it would be (at best) a content fork or a POV fork and the title should remain a redirect. -- PBS (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

  • Moot/Support Separate Article (and note that this is a questionable RFC). There's no need for this discussion. We've already had it above in this thread. I've given time for fulsome discussion. And conversation having petered out, and a clear consensus having been reached, I created the article on targeted killing. Philip, for some reason, doesn't like the consensus. So he deleted the article first -- really, who in good faith goes ahead and simply deleted the 100K text of a 150 footnote article? On the assertion -- in face of the above consensus -- that he can't see the consensus? Now, that having failed, instead of prodding the article or AfDing it, neither of which could be done in good faith, he says he can't see the consensus in the above months-long discussion which has concluded with a consensus. There is zero question it is notable in and of itself -- a google search will show you that. There is absolutely no reason for it not to have its own page. This has nothing to do with forking -- as the article sources make clear, and the consensus discussion makes clear. I don't know what his angle is. But his stating he can't see a consensus is absurd, as anyone reviewing it can see. I urge a speedy deletion of this moot request.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If there is a clear consensus then it will be clear at the end of the RFC. What is your evidence that the term is not an euphemism for assassination? -- PBS (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus. It is shown above. Your bald statement that there is none is absurd. Furthermore, as to "evidence" that is is "not a eupemism" for assassination, why don't you read the article, and the footnotes, with emphasis on this section "targeted killing vs. assassination". As well as the above discussion of your fellow editors, whose consensus you would like to ignore. This should simply be folded up as a disruptive waste of time. All I can see in your discussion, when it comes right down to it, is IDONTLIKEIT. Your suggestion, that in the face of the above consensus which you would like to ignore, that this 100K article with 150 footnotes should be made a subsection of an article that people and scholars largely don't even think it is a subset of is absurd.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche "There is a clear consensus. It is shown above." Then you are ignoring the comments by, Thundermaker (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010, JohnC (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2010, . Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 13 May 2010, Joshdboz (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2010 (not clear). At most a dozen editors took place in the conversation. Hopefully an RFC will bring in more. -- PBS (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than arguing if there is or is not a consensus and making personal attacks. Why not try to explain to me and to other interested parties why you think that target killing is not an euphemism for assassination. -- PBS (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than make absurd statements, why not read the comments in the consensus on the talk page above? And read the 100K targeted killing article that you absurdly think should be a subsection of yet another article, that many editors and scholars have indicated it is not even a sub-set of. But yes, I've told you this before. And in the face of it you've simply: a) edit warred (even after being warned) ; b) repeatedly deleted referenced relevant material (even after being warned); c) mis-stated the facts; and d) started this needless, disruptive, wasteful rfc improperly. Filibusters have no place here. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Instead of making statements about what you do or do not think is absurd, and continuing to make personal comments could you please explain to me and to other interested parties why you think that target killing is not an euphemism for assassination. Hopefully you can do this with sources so that we try to reach a consensus on this issue. There is no fire over this issue. The article name Targeted killing has been a redirect to this page for a number of years. Keeping it a redirect while this RFC runs does no harm. But if it is determined by the RFC that it is a content fork, then harm will have been done to the project for the time that the article exists (because a content fork will have existed). -- PBS (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK -- that's ridiculous. You think that deletion a 100K article with 150 footnotes does no harm? Why, it deprives readers of the article. What does no harm is leaving it as is. And what would do no harm would be for you to read the article and the above discussion, which answer your question, as I have said repeatedly. And what would do no harm would be for you to stop edit warring, and exemplify the behavior called for by you, as is required by wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It does harm if it is a content fork or a POV fork. Whether it is or not can be decided by the consensus built during this RFC. -- PBS (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
of the sources you have included in your article, which one do you think is the best one to justify a separate article? -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article called "Targeted killing"? -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? -- PBS (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Note
I disagree and think that comments should be interlaced not kept in separate sections. Keeping them in separate sections tends to polarise debate and make it difficult to answer points. For example to answer this point are you seriously suggesting that I should have copied it and placed it in another section? If not then how does someone know that I am replying to the point you have made? -- PBS (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Which paragraph above do you think is the best justification for having separate articles? -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, there should be a separate article on Targeted killing. The U.S. Government exclusively uses that term to refer to the practice. To redirect readers’ searches on the term to “Assassination” reeks of POV-pushing. Greg L (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Were the assassination attempts against Castro attempts at targeted killing? What about the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich? Just because a government uses an euphemism does not make it any less an euphemism. Governments are for ever using terms that have more than one meaning. For example the American "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" are not wars in any usual meaning of the word. Words can accumulate baggage so it is not unusual for governments to use different terms as they perceive the propaganda value of one term to be altered by its usage over time until it carries connotations with which they would prefer their polices not to be associated. For example the British used the term "concentration camps" during the Boer War, but after the abuse of that term by the Germans, the British called similar camps built during the Malayan Emergency "New Villages" (a concept the Americans used during their "Strategic Hamlet Program"). -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not a UC Berkely class in world philosophy. We follow the RSs. Period. And right now they quote government sources that always use the term “targeted killing”, which is invariably repeated verbatim by RSs; ergo, we need an article on it. And we don’t redirect to an emotionally charged different article that effectively covers a different topic; doing so is pure POV-pushing. If you don’t like that, go start your own newspaper like The New York Times or the Associated Press and change the real-world practices. In the mean time, WP:RS does not mention “Philip Baird Shearer”.

Now, editors opposed to the “Targeted killing” article (i.e. you) were instructed at this ANI in regard to this dispute that the proper course of action is to instead conduct an AfD. This merge proposal is moot. There will no more edit warring and agitating over merging it to “Assassination” because Wikipedia had some liberal, all-volunteer editors active that particular week who fancy themselves as being enlightened beyond all comprehension who don’t like the U.S. government’s lingo.

Obama and the Joint Chiefs don’t have to consult “Philip Baird Shearer” before formulating national defense policy and the terminology that accompanies it. Nor do Epeefleche, me, or anyone else here have to run to your talk page to see if you approve of what Obama does and whether the practices of RSs are wise and properly considered the historical implications of the Bay of Pigs.

So that’s the end of it. Editwarring over a merge (*sigh*) ends. Debate at an RfC over merging (*big sigh*) ends. Bring on an AfD so we can (*really big sigh*) be done with this bickering and nonsense. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I think any two-year-old could tell you that "targeted killing" is the politically correct euphemism for assassination. WP isn't a place for this kind of "war-of-words" WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. NickCT (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments by Sean.hoyland
    • There was both support and opposition rather than a clear consensus when this was discussed but I don't think that really matters now.
    • The discussions didn't really address the framing problems raised in my view.
    • Is it a separate concept from assassination, or is it an an euphemism for assassination ? It's both. It's also other things. It depends on the source.
    • "The U.S. Government exclusively uses that term to refer to the practice."..so write an article about the US targeted killing operations/narratives just like there is an article about the Israeli targeted killing operations/narratives. We don't follow RS. This is the problem. RS have many things to say about assassinations, targeted assassinations (a UN term), targeted killings (a US preference), preventative killings, execution policy, targeted thwartings (in Israel Supreme Court legal-speak), interceptions, extra judicial killings, killing of non-state actors etc etc. Many, many RS use these terms interchangeably whereas we tend to focus on RS that see differences and ignore RS that don't. The targeted killing article starts with a statement that is akin to starting the article Jesus with 'Jesus is Lord' because it said so in an RS somewhere. It's perilessly close to proselytizing. It frames the article to fit the perspective of a subset of RS, it's circular/self-referential, it makes the sourcing of the article into a self-fulfilling prophecy and brings back happy memories of a lecturer who couldn't draw a circle to save his life always saying 'This is a circle because I say so'.
    • I still think a better approach is to have an article about assassination, to have a section within that article about the counterterrorism operations/targeted assassinations/neologisms and to have separate detailed articles about the targeted killing/thwarting/pick-your-favourite-neologism-because-it-makes-no-difference operations/policies/legal arguments etc of specific states like the Israeli targeted killings article, the US operations, the not at all new in any way whatsoever assassinations/murders/targeted killings of people the Russian State doesn't like e.g. the alleged FSB/SVR/who-knows poisonings of multiple North Caucasus "rebels" etc.
    • On the content of the existing targeted killing article:
      • The material related to Israeli policy (which the Israeli press has no problem calling assassination) needs to be moved to Israeli targeted killings article per WP:SUMMARY.
      • I'm not completely opposed to a separate article for targeted killings but the notion that assassination and targeted killing are different is an opinion not a fact. The notion that targeted killing is what our article says it is is an opinion not a fact. As I've said before, it's a term routinely used by human rights groups to describe assassinations by paramilitary groups/insurgents/death squads around the world. That kind of usage is not something that would even occur to a reader after reading our article because of the way we impose a particular usage on the reader. RS use 'targeted killing' to describe many things and there are many things with different names that are the same as 'targeted killing' according to their usage by the media and academic RS. There's no escaping this complicated reality that exists in RS-world when they talk about these issues. The current article doesn't seem to reflect this. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sean, I'm glad you're not completely opposed to a separate article for targeted killings. And I agree that the notion that targeted killing is not assassination is not a universal one, though the article fairly reflects a number of peoples' views on the issue. It is the same as the question of whether abortion is murder -- some people think it is, but we wouldn't delete the abortion article, on the argument that abortion is a euphemism for murder, and redirect it to a subsection of the abortion article. The answer is to not have a POV push where TK is slotted under assassination, but keep it as its own 100K article, and add other views from RSs that you feel are missing. End of story. It's really pretty simple. I'm addressing that issue only, as that is the only issue here, not the editing of the article. This is an article with room for Wikipedia to do what it does best -- get the positions/issues reflected in RSs out on the table in a cogent manner. POV-pushing (not by you) by one seeking to place it in a category that there is significant opposition to is as wrong-headed as making "abortion" a redirect to the "murder" article would be. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing I said really matters and nothing I'm going to say below matters given the more practical issue that we can't redirect (or merge) an article with 100K of reliably sourced information. The article will be substantial even with the Israeli targeted killings material merged over to the main article. There's nothing wrong with the information in the article. Whatever happens it is going to have to be smarter/more considered than a redirect.
So, to continue with what doesn't really matter, the POV push (..more like a drift) is in the other direction though. The current targeted killings article is certainly a POV fork in the sense that it represents the POV that a specific neologism, one of many, means something and doesn't mean something else. That is its raison d'etre. Within those self-imposed POV controlled constraints, it addresses that specific neologism according to policy. I'm not sure the comparson to abortion works. Abortion means one thing in practice in this context whereas targeted killing means many things in practice in this context which makes the comparison a bit problematic. Then there's what happens when you simply treat the words as symbols, assume nothing about their meanings (e.g. forget about whether they are euphemisms, ignore moral/legal interpretations etc) and observe RS usage. RS can and do substitute 'targeted killing' and 'assassination' for eachother on a routine basis in their reports about events (not meta reports about the terms). We can see for ourselves that they really are interchangeable in practice for many RS just like the terms 'abortion' and 'termination'. RS apparently cannot and do not do that with 'abortion' and 'murder' because, according to them, they aren't interchangable symbols. Why they're interchangeable in the first case but not in the second case doesn't matter but it shows that we can also treat 'targeted killing' and 'assassination' as being interchangeable without even considering what those terms mean, without caring whether they really are synonyms/euphemisms/morally-legally distinct, because using them that way reflects their actual usage by a many sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Anytime debate here descends into arguments about issues like “abortion vs. murder”, we’ve got a clear indicator that Wikipedians are presuming to tread into issues of public policy, morality, and the wisdom of governments. It’s amusing to see editors here who fancy that Wikipedia can decide public policy issues based on individual editors’ sense of whether RSs and governments are doing the right thing by advancing arguments like “jingoistic euphemisms” and “neologism” and declare that government policy doesn’t satisfy this or that wikipedian’s sense of Truth, Justice, and My Sense of Good and Holy.®™© None of that matters one twit.

“Targeted killing” is used by governments and reliable sources as an action that is distinct from assassination. There are now scholarly books like “Targeted Killing in International Law” by the Oxford Press, which analyze its implications in international law. RSs use the term as distinct from assassination. Wikipedians who attempt to circumvent the fact by hoping up and down and declaring that the RSs got it all wrong and the term is just a “politically correct euphemism” simply have no leg to stand on.

If such editors think they have the stature to change government and public policy, go to the politicians and the reliable sources and the international law experts and go get them to see things your way. Until then, Wikipedia will follow the RSs. Wikipedia is not a venue for individuals who think they have equal standing with RSs and the U.S. government and who fancy that they can hijack this place to make the world a Better and Brighter Place.®™© Greg L (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Geo Swan

We really need to be on guard for excessive zeal on the part of the "urge to merge" crowd. From enough distance all related topics look like needless forks. Aren't both Physics and Chemistry both based on those physical laws those Science nerds are always droning on about? Why can't we merge them?

Even if, for the sake of, "targetted killing" was just a euphemism for assassination, and nothing more, it would still merit a separate article, because a very large number of articles used the term. WP:VER says we seek for "verifiability, not truth". If WP:RS use the term as if it were distinct from assassination that is all that matters.

Contributors who want to merge the two articles because they know that the two terms mean exactly the same thing are lapsing from VER -- and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Writing from a neutral point of view requires us to set aside what we personally believe to be true. Those contributors who believe the two terms are identical have a strong obligation to set that belief aside.

FWIW, while I acknowledge that the two terms are related, I do not think they are identical.

I know there are contributors who believe that articles should be merged merely because they are related. I find it frustating to try to lay out what I regard as the terrible damage their efforts inflict on the overall utility of the project, because I find mergists hold this notion on some kind of pre-intellectual level, think that the benefits of merging are so obvious that explanations are not necessary and they don't have to listen to or respond to contrary views.

Reading the wikipedia is different to and superior to reading similar non-wiki web-sites, and it would be superior even if there were a web-site that had exactly the same content, word for word -- except it used ordinary old-fashined unidirectional URLs, not bidirectional wikilinks, and the other features of the wikimedia software.

The wikipedia provides readers with a watchlist. It is a very useful feature. And it is a feature whose value is significantly eroded every time mergists succeed in merging articles merely because they are related. As it stands now any reader who is uninterested in the topic of "assassination", in general, but who is interested in reading any changes to our coverage of "targetted killing" can place "targetted killing" on their watchlists, and leave "assassination" off their watchlists. If we were to merge the articles everyone interested only in targetted killing will be advised of twice as many changes, via their watchlist, half of which they aren't interested in.

The wikipedia provides readers with a "what links here" button. This is also a very useful feature. And it too is a feature whose value is significantly eroded every time mergists succeed in merging articles merely because they are related. When an experienced reader is looking for some particular bit of information, and doesn't find it on the articles where they first thought to look, they can click on their "what links here" button. When articles are focussed on a single topic, all the other articles that link to them have some kind of connection to that single topic. When readers check the what links here list they can find other related articles it didn't occur to them to check. But this doesn't work so well when mergists succeed in stuffing two topics, or multiple topics, into a single article. Geo Swan (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono
  • Support separate articles. Assassination has a strong connotation of an illegal killing by non-military means of a non-state. That’s no-doubt the very reason the U.S. Government coined the term “targeted killing” to describe the novel circumstances it finds itself in today. Greg L (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Call it a consensus

It seems like the vast majority here supports a separate article. I think the best thing to do is go ahead with that plan. The protected TK article as it stands is pretty unbalanced, we need to get the other side's view represented. The view that TK is assassination is completely absent from the other article as it stands in its protected state. I am assuming PBS will not resume his side of the edit war given the number of editors supporting the separate article. I am going to go request unprotection now. Thundermaker (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The RFC has a long way to go, since when did majorities make for a consensus?
Greg L can you name name one targeted killing that was not an assassination. I think you misunderstand what assassination means. Assassination does not mean murder, it means targeted killing. Now it may be that in some jurisdictions an assassination is murder, but for the side doing the assassination it is not. For example in Operation Foxley was a British plan to assassinate Hitler, on one in Britain would ever had been prosecuted for murder.
One of the clear indications that "targeted killing " is a political euphemism for assassination is the attempt to say that only killing by states is "targeted killing". What happens in a civil war where for political reasons one side does not recognise the other as a legitimate government? Is one side carrying out assassinations while the other doing exactly the same thing carrying out "targeted killing". When the insurgency wins the war do the target killings suddenly become assassinations and the assassinations become "target killings"? Take for example the Anglo-Irish War.
If we make this artificial divide then we have POV problems. For example At the moment it is agreed that various people were assassinated in Northern Ireland during the troubles. What is not agreed is who carried out the assassinations. In the 1980s IRA argued that the British governments had a shoot to kill policy. The British denied it but does that mean that even if the British denied involvement in the killings should Wikipeida articles describe these as assassinations or targeted killings? Does it not depend on whether one believes the Republican or British sources? Using one term assassination means that we do not have to make that political decision. (Northern Ireland Book's Allegations Stir International Libel Fight NYT, 9 August 1999)
Epeefleche and Greg L: If targeted killing is not assassination then should we change the wording of the the death of Billy Wright from "Wright was assassinated by INLA prisoners inside Maze Prison to "Wright was assassinated (or if the British culled in his killing "targeted killed") by INLA prisoners inside Maze Prison"? Now it might be thought that it was just a conspiracy theory that the British saw Wright as an impediment to the Peace process, but it is widely enough believed that the British authorities felt in warranted initiating an inquiry. The enquiry into the assassination lasted five years and included on the panel was a Bishop and a professor from the University of London -- it found no evidence of a collusion. In the smoke and mirrors of the troubles in Northern Ireland making a distinction between government sanctioned "targeted killings" and other assassinations in Ireland is a waste of time, because as everyone knows history over Ireland is as important as the present day. With British Irish Republican relations it always come down to the Mandy Rice-Davies riposte "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" (Identification Trail for Truth on Alleged Spy in IRA Proves Tricky LA Times, 19 May 2003).
At a international law level it is not at all clear that what the Americans call "Targeted killing" is legal for example see the paper INTERPRETIVE guidance on the notion of Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law by Nils Melzer, Legal adviser, ICRC, (© ICRC, May 2009). It would depend on how direct the involvement in hostilities were. But the example give at the end of the paper about delivering fuel indicates that at least some of the attacks by the US which they term "targeted killing" would be illegal under international law in the view of Nils Melzer, Legal adviser, ICRC. So if they are not all legal is there a distinction between "targeted kills" and the others and in which case what is the correct term for the others? If on assumes they are all assassination, and it is the specific targeting of an individual, whether or not it is legal then then there is no distinction and so they can all be described as associations with no POV connotations. -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this whole debate is summed up by Clark Hold in this article Semantic Minefields, in the NYT published on 15 May 2010:
Scott Shane, the Washington reporter who wrote the article, said he chose his words carefully because there is a political and legal debate over whether killing Awlaki would fit the definition of an “assassination” by the government, which is prohibited by executive orders signed by three presidents — Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. “To adopt the very term that’s in dispute as our own seems highly unwise,” he said.
But this is an internal US debate because of the presidential order. There is no reason why Wikipeida has to murder the English language to fit in with American internal political semantics. Assassination is only murder if it is done to someone on your side, the British participates in Operation Foxley were not involved in a conspiracy to murder Hitler although they were involved in an operation to assassinate him. This reminds me of the debate over terror bombing: The terror bomb us we strategically bomb them, only in this case outside of US politics no-one stigmatises word assassination and although they may draw distinctions between the legal and illegal assassinations, they do not use different words for the thing. This distinction is similar to the US law allowing the kidnapping of a person from a country that does not recognize that the US has such a right (see David Leppard US says it has right to kidnap British citizens, Sunday Times December 2, 2007. "Alun Jones QC, representing the US government ... [said in a British court] 'If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.'" I am sure that if a foreign state was to attempt to kidnap a US citizen and were apprehended doing so the US would prosecute the perpetrators and if the person who had organized the kidnapping could be kidnapped in that state and bought to the US they would be prosecuted for as criminals for plotting a kidnapping near identical to the one that bought them to the US court for which no US crime was committed. In the same way the US can assassinate someone and it may be legal in the US while being illegal in a foreign jurisdiction, we do not have to make artificial distinctions, just because American politicians find it convent to do so for political/legal domestic reasons. -- PBS (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I support separate articles. The difference between assassination and targeted killings is sometimes non-existent but there's no question that there is a sizable body of RS devoted to exploring the legality and execution of targeted killings as a separate concept. It is a question of POV on what is a targeted killing versus assassination but as long as we stick to designations used by good sources things should be ok. PBS is right, a lot of US targeted killings are basically assassinations with window dressing but that should be explored in the article. I can't see what we gained by deleting it. Sol (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. We've had months of input on this issue on this page, ranging from this through the last eight days of comments above. As Choyoo aptly remarked a week ago: "How many more people do you want?" Well, now we have a bunch more. As Thundermaker remarked above, "It seems like the vast majority here supports a separate article." And as wp:consensus notes, "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." I think its time for the consensus to be noted, as has been suggested by others above, and this months-long conversation rolled up.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche This RFC open on the 30 September the day you created the article. One week is not a months long conversations. Also I not that instead of addressing the issues raised you attacking people who hold a different opinion from you. Why not debate the issues being raised instead or did you not see the specific question I asked you above? -- PBS (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"This" RFC is a redundant extension of precisely the same conversation that has been taking place on this page since May. The "issues" have been discussed ad nauseum these past months in the above comments by many editors. No person is being attacked. Though perhaps one could argue that one editor's failure to respect consensus is being highlighted. But that is not an attack on the editor; rather, it is an appropriate comment on what is becoming an ever-more-glaring lack of respect for wp:consensus on the editor's part. The above quote from the guideline about filibusters is one that bears examination. I also hope that Thundermaker's above statement is a good assumption, where he writes: "I am assuming PBS will not resume his side of the edit war given the number of editors supporting the separate article." --Epeefleche (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the archives? This has been discussed for far longer than you have been involved in the discussion. But I am pleased that you are willing to discuss the issue and that you are not making personal attacks. So when will you start to discuss the points that have been raised in this RFC? -- PBS (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The points have been discussed at great length both since May. The consensus is clear. No need for you to filibuster to block it. As an admin, in accordance with wp:admin ("Administrators are expected to lead by example ... to follow Wikipedia policies.... if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies ... while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.") it would be inappropriate for you to continue to seek to ignore consensus, and for you to continue to edit war. I see no reason for further discussion, or for further opinions -- what we have above, over these past months, is quite enough. Not only for me, but clearly for the vast majority of editors who have commented here, as has been pointed out to you by me and others. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Jeez, give it up, PBS. Go look up at the very top of this talk page. What’s it say up there in the apricot-colored template? “This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime.” (Oh… that little inconvenient truth.) You’re getting all hung up on the “politics” connection (that template is up there too) and are inferring a irrevocable connection where none exists: that a government protecting millions of its citizens from being killed by a terrorist in an attack with weapons of mass destruction is a political act that is therefore tantamount to murder.

The unfortunate thing is, the WP:RSs don’t take it that way.

So that is precisely why you are here filibustering to the point of tendentiousness: to POV-push that what the U.S. government is doing with the targeted killing of really, really dangerous people is wrong and want to link it to “assassination”, which has a very strong connotation of being a criminal act. That is precisely the reason why the U.S. government and other Western governments don’t use the term “assassination.” It doesn’t matter if you think governments’ targeted killing of individuals is criminal. The U.S. Government is considered a primary authority and we follow the practices of RSs. We don’t have to run to PBS to see if the RSs are all washed up and naive because they fail to consider the unreliability and evilness and badness of the U.S. Government when viewed in the context of the Bay of Pigs and all the other utter nonsense and POV-pushing you dredge up.

When a significant percentage of the RSs see things your way, then you can just go add them to the article and properly cite them to your heart’s content. And, by the way, the Haight-Ashbury Free Press and their article “The U.S. Government is ‘The Man’ and is really bad” isn’t an RS. What we will not do is is pretend we volunteer wikipedians are dressed in white robes, debating the proper limits on government power and issues of right & wrong on the floor of the Roman Senate. Greg L (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If as you say Greg L the US government is a primary source, then we ought to promote the usage of secondary sources over primary sources and see if there is agreement among secondary sources that the US governments distinction between legal and illegal assassination warrants the use of different words depending on who is doing the killing.
Greg L As I said above whether an assassination is a crime or not depends on the jurisdiction of any particular court. Think of it like spying, people who spy for you in a time of war are not war criminals those who you catch spying against you are war criminals. Both are spies but from the preservative of a belligerent only one of them is a criminal. Nowhere have I said what the US is doing in killing people is right or wrong. It is you who are using the word assassination to have negative connotations not I.
The common word to describe the killing of Reinhard Heydrich is that he was assassinated (A Google book search returns only one case that discusses if it was "targeted killing": Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism by Thomas Hunterpages 19,20 while assassinated returns About 9,280 results. So to argue that this is just my POV is a bit rich.
The problem we have is that you are assuming that assassination always has negative connotations, while I and many others do not (as demonstrated by the use to describe the killing of Reinhard Heydrich). It is summed up in a paper by Daniel Statman (moral philosopher at the University of Haifa in Israel)
In choosing the term “targeted killing” rather than “assassination,” I have sought to avoid the negative moral connotation that is almost inherent in the latter. If the argument of this paper is sound, then not all acts of assassination are morally wrong or, alternatively, not all acts of targeted killing are assassinations. Prior to September 11, 2001, Israel was the only country openly employing this tactic in its fight against terror, and it was strongly condemned for doing so by most of the international community, including the U.S. But since the September 11th attacks, the U.S. itself has adopted this policy in its war against Al Qaeda.
My Bolding. What I have said is that the American Government is using an euphemism for assassination for their own reasons, See for example Mark Tran White House approves assassination of cleric linked to Christmas bomb plot, The Guardian, 7 April 2010:
The policy of targeted killings is controversial. President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning political assassinations in 1976. However, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaida after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the US and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination.
Other people continue to refer to targeted killing as assassination, because assassination is "targeted killing" (It is not random killing). Take for example this article in the NZ intelligence activities revealed in banned book in the NZ Herald which is less than 24 hours old or
Here are a few more the first from ABC in Australia by Chris Berg The expansion of presidential power 6 October 2010. Although he thinks Obama's behaviour is pretty unedifying he does not think that it is illegal.
After all, that’s what he promised – ending the use of torture and extreme rendition, revising the Patriot Act, closing down Guantanamo Bay detention camp, eliminating warrantless wiretaps, and restoring the right of prisoners to challenge their detention.
So the debate whether the Obama administration has the legal authority to assassinate an American citizen without any due process is pretty unedifying.
I have now included links to articles by all the Major London based newspapers that have articles that link targeted killing to assassination and do not make the distinction that is being suggested by some in this RFC. The last on is in many ways the most interesting as it states it was an assassination by "militants in Pakistan" and then says "In what is believed to have been the first such targeted killing of a high-ranking soldier, Brigadier Moinudin Ahmed's unprotected jeep was sprayed with automatic gunfire at around 9.30am yesterday." Here is a usage to describe an assassination in what is clearly a crime by criminals under Pakistani domestic law as "targeted killing".
I hope that now I have presented information that "targeted killing" and "Assassination" are words for the same thing from all the highbrow dailies in London and a couple more one from NZ and one from AU that we can have a serious debate about whether we should have a POV Fork or whether it is not a POV fork rather than comments such as accusing editors who are presenting information for debate as fillibusters. -- PBS (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm… As Mark Twain popularized: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. (*sigh*) It’s so easy to put out misinformation and so difficult to demonstrate succinctly that things aren’t as simple and clear as you think.

    The links you provide mostly date to when this story first broke in early April of this year. Up to that time, the kill order had been classified information. The U.S. Government told only some select news organizations, like The New York Times and Reuters. When the The New York Times broke the story with their “U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American”, they used the terminology provided to them in their off-the-record meetings with government officials: “targeted killing”. It was a brand new term but The New York Times went with it. I’d have to do more research to be sure, but it appears Reuters wasn’t as rigorous as The New York Times. What is a two-bit news paper from Nowhere Australia to do(?), second-guess their Reuters feed? It appears all the Reuters subscribers simply regurgitated what they had been spoon-fed.

    Things have certainly changed after those first days when the story was first breaking. I think you will find that today, the most reliable news organizations far and wide use the term “targeted killing” because they recognize the distinction to “assassination” which implies an illegal killing accomplished by non-military means and also recognize their responsibility to avoid editorializing.

    Oh, op-ed pieces like “Barack Obama must justify covert killing. Or halt it” and blogs, like your “The expansion of presidential power” by Chris Berg don’t count as RSs. All they’re doing is being paid to POV-push (like you’re doing here for free). We have to look at the modern practices (modern being longer than just a few days after a new term is introduced) of primary RSs and and scholarly papers on the subject as it applies to international law, like “Targeted Killing in International Law” by Oxford University Press. We certainly cannot be looking at op-ed pieces by sensationalists who want to talk about “murder” and “assassination.” I can no-doubt find an op-ed piece opining that earth should be “sanitized” by burning Osama bin Laden to death and a video tape produced of it and broadcast to the world. We can’t have people advancing arguments here by quoting dueling extremists and nut cases. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. Greg L (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L, As a formatting issue please do not use bullet points in reply to non bullet pointed comments, because it breaks up the indention. I used one indention level ":" in my last posting you have used "::*" so this posting by me which uses ":::" is no more indented than your last one and for third parties who come to this conversation later it will be difficult to see where you last comment ended and mine stated.
FYI ABC is not a "two-bit news paper from Nowhere Australia", it is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation equivalent of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and the page is a reliable source (see Wikipedia:SOURCES#Newspaper and magazine blogs) Opinion pieces in newspapers are just as valid as any other reliable secondary source on these issues, while publications on the US Government policy by the US Government are primary sources and should be treated as such. Have you had time to read the Nils Melzer paper a link to which I posted on this page yesterday?
BTW Targeted killing is not a new term. It has been used as an euphemism for assassination for more than 20 years See A year of reckoning: El Salvador a decade after the assassination of Archbishop Romero by Human Rights Watch, 1990 page 16.
Also you seem to have concentrated on the newspaper articles which were there to show that common usage is not necessarily the same as the usage used by the US Government. You have not commented on the results of the Google book search on the for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, or the comments by Daniel Statman is there a reason for this? -- PBS (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Go look up at Thundermaker’s post that started this thread, PBS. What’s it say?


One thing is abundantly clear: there is certainly no consensus for merging. Yet you’re still making waves by restoring the {merge} template back to the “Targeted killing” article moments after I took you to task on your talk page. Since this RfC was going down in flames and the tag had been off the article for days, I find that stunt to be most curious. Was it too intended to bait and provoke? I won’t remove it. But when someone else does, I do hope you will behave yourself.

Because the term “assassination” carries a strong connotation of the killing of an especially notable human by the hand of another using stealth and by non-military means outside of the bounds of state or international law, the U.S. government developed the term “targeted killing” precisely for the purposes of avoiding that connotation. A state’s right to defend itself from catastrophic harm from terrorists who wear no military uniforms is well established in international law (see “Targeted Killing in International Law” by Oxford University Press).

The leading and most prestigious most reliable sources like The New York Times (ever since the story broke on April 6th), and the AP (here as recently as Sept. 25th) are using the new term. Accordingly, the new term is here to stay.

It doesn’t matter if there are old articles from early April that used that first Reuters news feed containing the word “assassination”; they too now use the new term. And your citing op-ed pieces and blogs matters not one twit because they are not WP:RSs.

Yours and your associate’s efforts to delete the “Targeted killing” article and then blank the page and redirect it to “Assassination” failed. This RfC to merge has failed. You and your associate’s arguments about 50s-era CIA dirty tricks in Cuba make it clear that a deep mistrust and hatred of the U.S. government underlies your desire to see “targeted killing” more closely linked to “assassination.” Such moves are a clear breech of WP:NPOV and amounts to nothing other than POV-pushing.

The “Targeted killing” article is an outstanding, exceedingly well cited work by Epeefleche. Wikipedia and its readership are the beneficiaries of that donation. My hope is that after this RfC is done, you two will behave yourselves. My fear is that the next step will be edit warring in the new article. That would be a most unfortunate outcome. It would be better if you accept defeat, stop making waves, and just walk away. Greg L (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think "outstanding" is relevant to the issue; and Epifleeche, I do wish you didn't actually use the word "absurd" to describe other editors' statements, even if you may have good reason for thinking it's true. It's just not helpful.

    As for the proposal, I cannot see how "targeted killing" could be regarded as a euphemism: it sounds harsher to me, not softer, than the word "assassination". Targeted killing has a separate, well-referenced definition and usage. The article is well-cited and distinctive. I believe there is a good argument that it remain separate. It would be better if both leads distinguished each other explicitly. Tony (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that also say that they are one and the same thing. Assassination is targeted killing, and targeted killing is assassination. What both parties to this dispute can agree on is that the phrases describe the targeting killing of a specific person not engaged in direct hostilities. For example when the king of the UK remained in London during World War II if the bomb that hit Buckingham palace had killed him that would not have been an assassination. The think were there is disagreement is whether such targeting and killing can be split into two neat categories. That targeted killing is a lawful extra-judicial killing of a specific individual by a state while assassination is only unlawful targeted killing by non-state actors and unlawful targeted killing by a state. The trouble is that like "enemy combatant" the US government is making up definitions to make distinctions that many others do not recognise. This I believe makes it a content fork of this article at best and a POV fork at worse. Let me give you an example of what is wrong with the new article.
"Targeted killing is the intentional killing – by a government or its agents – of a civilian or "enemy combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody." Four questions: Where is the source for this sentence? So the shelling and sniper rounds that targeted civilians in Sarajevo was OK? What is an enemy combatant? What would be different in meaning if sentence was rewritten "the intentional killing – by a government or its agents – of a civilian or "enemy combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody is an assassination"?
--PBS (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
PBS -- there are lots of people who say "abortion" and "murder" are the same thing. But we don't delete the abortion article, saying that it should only appear under the murder article as a subsection. Same issue, by very close analogy, here. The point is that there are loads and loads of RSs that say they are very, very different. It would perhaps be somewhat helpful if you were to respect the consensus here, which I believe may be a core wiki concept that admins are bound to honor under wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Not all abortion is murder (it depends on the jurisdiction) not all assassination is murder (it depends on the jurisdiction) and a "targeted killing" may well be murder in some jurisdictions. A better analogy using abortion would be having an article on "abortion" and another on "Pregnancy termination". -- PBS (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No. Unless you can show me that there are multiple highest-level sources that say abortion is not pregnancy termination. Which, of course, isn't the case. That makes your analogy ... perhaps, after careful consideration of it, perhaps slightly less than optimal. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. As per many of the other comments above, I feel there are sufficient differences between the two terms to warrant distinct articles. Two articles will provide better targeted-linking from other articles.  HWV258.  19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - for the same reason that homicide, murder, manslaughter, etc. are different forms with one or more different legal elements. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support to better define a specific concept that is well-documented in the article by reliable and verifiable sources that distinguish targeted killing from assassination. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for two separate articles. I think I spotted this on a talk page and immediately assumed targeted killing was a synonym for assassination, but the reliable sources allow the creation of a totally separate article. It's not for us to discuss the rights and wrongs of the labels, and it isn't for us to revisit previous killings (in Northern Ireland, Nazi Germany, or wherever) labelled as assassinations and consider whether targeted killing applies or not, it is for us to record what the reliable sources have to say. Bigger digger (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Many reliable sources do not agree that there is a dichotomy between targeted killing amd assassination as a Google book search on [Targeted killing assassination] shows. Here are two from the first page:
  • Terrorism and homeland security: an introduction with applications by Philip P. Purpura p. 58
  • How terrorism ends: understanding the decline and demise of terrorist campaigns by Audrey Kurth Cronin pp. 24,25
If you read the first few pages of the first book returned in the search Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism by Thomas Hunter pp. 5–7. You will see how people who suggest that there is a difference have to create an artificial difference. First Hunter acknowledges that "Though numerous scholars and other experts have tired, the concept and practice of assassination has proven a complicated concept to define." He then goes on to says "For the purposes of this discussion assassination is defined as the premeditated killing of a prominent person for political or ideological reasons" (page 5). ... "Targeted killing in contrast, is the killing of an individual of group of individuals wihout regards for politics or ideology, but rather exclusively for reasons of state self-defence" (page 7). But to make this distinction he has had to make up his own definitions and to do so he has had to qualify the definition of assassination as "for the purpose of this discussion". Making such an artificial difference may suit some and it certainly is convenient for the American government, but that does not make it any less a content fork as many consider targeted killing to be assassination.Hunter's artificial construction "For the purposes of this discussion" reminds me of those academics who redefine the meaning of genocide so that they can then use it as a polemic to condemn settlement in Australia and the Americas. Take for example Tony Barta who argue that if a group is decimated as a result of smallpox introduced unintentionally by European settlers or European farming methods causing a group of aborigines to starve to death, the result is in his opinion genocide. This is so far removed from the test of of guilty mind (mens rea) needed for genocidal intent as used in international lay by the ICTY etc, as to give the word a whole new meaning to genocide, and we enter Humpty Dumpty's world of "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less".
-- PBS (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
PBS-- Many reliable sources do not agree that there is a dichotomy between abortion and murder. That does not, however, lead us to delete the abortion article. And to say -- "a subsection under murder should be sufficient". We've gone over this endlessly with you. You are not listening to the nearly unanimous consensus above. WP:admin suggests that you should follow wp:consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
PBS, you've used your own assessment to criticise the text. That's original research and not a very solid base from which to criticise my point. Even if you could provide a reliable source that supports your criticism, that would merely provide more evidence for the need for this article to reflect the academic discussion of the term. Bigger digger (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There is an article it is called "Assassination". I am proposing that as it has been for a number of years "Targeted killing" should remain a redirect to this article and in this article the term should be discussed. Epeefleche, you seem rather hung up on Abortion and murder (is that an American cultural thing?): cider and perry made from apples and pears are we have four different articles, but we do not have a fifth called pear cider just because the marketing departments of some manufactures find the term helps sales instead we redirect pear cider to the most appropriate article. -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
PBS -- come off it. Are you really suggesting that just because you previously redirecting the then-existing targeted killing article to assassination yourself, we should ignore the clear consensus these past months on this page? That hardly seems like a compelling argument for you to ignore consensus, and browbeat every editor who agrees that you are wrong here. As to the abortion/murder analogy, which I gather you are trying to get your arms around, the analogy is that while some may see the two as the same, a sizable body of RSs, academics, and judges would see them as two distinct concepts (rather than one being a subset of the other). Same as here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support separate article. I really can't believe this is still being discussed after so long and after clear consensus. Quoting Epeefleche, "And as wp:consensus notes, 'Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling You talk about the process of an RFC etc, but you do not explain your reasons based on sources why you think that there shoudl be separate articles. What is it that you have read that persuades you that there should be separate articles? --PBS (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Avoid tendentiousness

  • I agree with those sentiments. The RfC has run two weeks and is overwhelmingly in support of two separate articles. I’ve removed the merge tag from the article. Greg L (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The RFC will automatically end after a month. At that time we can see what the conensus is. In the mean time the merge templates should stay in place as an advert for this RFC. -- PBS (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No. I’m sorry, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Two weeks is long enough for an RfC that is as lopsided as this one. The consensus is clear and there isn’t a snowball’s chance that the outcome will change. The tide is overwhelmingly against you here. I’ve removed the tags.

I’m only peripherally involved in this dispute so please correct me where I’m wrong; is it not true that you disagreed with the existence of “Targeted killing” and nominated it for an Article for Deletion? Isn’t it true that the community consensus at the AfD was to keep the article?

Is it not also true that you and the shepherding author of “Targeted killing” then edit warred for a bit, where you were effectively making the article disappear by redirecting all direct searches on the article and all links from elsewhere on the project to “Assassination”?

And isn’t it true that failing all that, you then started this RfC to merge the two articles, which clearly (again) shows that the community is overwhelmingly against your desires and believes that the project needs the “Targeted killing” article?

We shouldn’t have to now conduct a little mini‑RfC as to whether this merge-RfC is sufficiently clear as to the community’s views; the consensus is clear as glass. Had you started your opposition with this merge-RfC, perhaps the community might be in a more obliging mood to let it run out for 30 days until it flat bots-out. But since you’ve wikilawyered pretty much every trick in the book and had abundant and strong evidence going into this RfC that the community wanted the “Targeted killing” article, I just don’t think the community is predisposed to further entertain you with still more jockeying and maneuvering and venue shopping.

I strongly suggest you not editwar or further agitate on this issue as you seem to be crossing the line of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is a form of disruption. As one of our “early” admins, I’m sure you’ve seen this sort of thing in other editors; it’s high time to see it in yourself. If you find yourself tempted to keep on pushing the community’s buttons on this sordid issue, please go find an uninvolved ‘Crat (who will hopefully give you some wise counsel). Greg L (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Greg L As you request:
  1. "isn’t a snowball’s chance that the outcome will change" in which case you should not object to it running to its conclusion.
  2. You are not on the periphery of this you have been very active in this discussion.
  3. To the best of my knowledge/relocation there has been no AFD on the page, if there has then please show the link to it.
  4. "Is it not also true that you and the shepherding author of “Targeted killing” then edit warred for a bit". No the page was a redirect for several years, it should have remain that until this RFC was finished (remained at the last stable version).
  5. "Had you started your opposition with this merge-RfC" The merge banners are mealy another way of advertising the one RFC which I asked Epeefleche to start before reverting and which (s)he declined to do so so I started it before the page was protected.
  6. I presume that you are aware that consensus is neither majority voting nor unanimity, that it lies somewhere between the two, In the case of this RFC a number of different views have been expressed, and I would have thought that no harm is done with letting it run to the end of the four weeks. What is your reason for not wanting the RFC to be as widely advertised as possible (which removal of the merge template does)?
--PBS (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with GregL on this one. PBS continues to refuse to respect consensus. In addition, wp:snow is about closing discussions because they don't have a snowball's chance, not wasting time by continuing them as he suggests be done. His reference to the page having been a redirect for many years is a misleading one, as he leaves out that he was the person who redirected the page! With barely any support for his view from others. Yes, tendentious editing is a phrase that comes to mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh dear; pardon me, PBS. I had my facts a bit off. You at first redirected “Targeted killing” to “Assassination.” Then you started an RfC on whether there should be a separate article. All the while, you edit warred with Epeefleche by refusing to let the article exist while the RfC was ongoing and you did this by insisting on redirecting the article to “Assassination”. Epeefleche took you to ANI over your conduct. So then you changed your tact and abandoned edit warring over *redirecting* and instead focused your efforts on making it an issue of *merging*. Accordingly, an RfC that began as one over redirecting and was going down in flames for you morphed into one about merging.

    In short, you have been exceedingly successful up to now gaming the system and wikilawyering when it could not possibly be any clearer that the community wants the “Targeted killing” article. There will be no more playing your games because the {merge} tag just serves to harass and torment the editor responsible for all the hard work creating that article. Of course, that isn’t part of your intentions, which by AGF, are assumed to be good and noble; but badgering is a side effect of your dispute with Epeefleche. Your antics are just a cold reminder that no good deed goes unpunished. That comes to an end now.

    As I stated above, had you started your opposition with this merge-RfC, things would likely be different. But since you’ve wikilawyered pretty much every trick in the book to frustrate another hard-working editor by effectively deleting his work from articlespace with your redirect, I just don’t think the community is predisposed to further entertain you with still more jockeying and maneuvering and venue shopping. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and is not required to cave to every demand you make. Two weeks is more than enough for lopsided RfCs like this one; it happens all the time. As WP:BUREAU says Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

    If you just gotta have the {merge} tag reinstated because you are just so certain an extra two weeks of advertising it will reverse the colossal landslide, go find a Crat to advise that such a move is a bright idea and is good for the community. “Makes PBS happy” comes up short. Greg L (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion break

Godwin's law? = satisfied. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Archived

RFC closed, per RFC bot (talk · contribs) edit, "Removing expired rfctag". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Targeted Killing Here

I was shocked to see the article Targeted killing. Euphemisms should not get their own entry. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article7074776.ece. Targeted Assassination redirects here.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Targeted_killing#Targeted_killing_vs._assassination gives an indication of the partisan nature of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can understand it, Targeted killing is only distinct from assassination in that it is not prohibited by Executive Order 12333. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, past consideration doesn't really mean that much. Consensus changes all the time, and sometimes it's best to address an issue fresh. What's more, it isn't really reasonable to expect a person to read through the most recent discussion, as it contains far too many runarounds ("Why are there two articles?" "Because we already decided there should be" "Why?" "We already decided" Rinse, lather, repeat).
I'd say it's best to simply outline the basic facts:
  • Yes, a 'targeted killing' is just an assassination. This is entirely true. It has a special name because "assassination" or "extrajudicial execution" have negative (or illegal) connotations.
  • People looking for information on assassination may be interested in knowing about targeted killings, but people looking up targeted killings probably don't care about assassinations in general.
  • There are special legal and political issues with targeted killings that don't necessarily apply to assassinations.
  • Ancient and cold war assassinations have little to do with dropping bombs on apartment buildings.
  • In order to keep the article lengths remotely manageable, having a single article would realistically require condensing the 'targeted killing' section to, well, the size it currently occupies in the Assassination article. In other words, it'd mean deleting the current article. However, that would mean the loss of some very valuable information: notable examples, legal arguments, and involvement/positions of different countries.
Basically, I can understand the argument. Targeted killings are assassinations. But it doesn't matter what they are. What matters is that people can get the best information on what they're looking up. 216.254.156.104 (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Targeted killing is the intentional killing

"Targeted killing is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. " What is the source for this statement. -- PBS (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence is not sourced properly. One of the sources given at the start of the article the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, does not support the first sentence (unless it is being used to synthesise a point of viw" what is says is:

  • "to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously"

Only as its second definition does it say "to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons" The Oxford English Dictionary defines assassination as:

  • "The action of assassinating; the taking the life of any one by treacherous violence, esp. by a hired emissary, or one who has taken upon him to execute the deed."

So using the only definition in the OED and the primary definition in Merriam-Webster I think that the first sentence should be changed to read: "To kill with treacherously with unexpected violence." There is no mention in either definition of the killing being murder. The use of murder causes all sorts of problems for example, after the proclaimed of Pope Gregory XIII in 1580 that "it would be no sin to rid the world of such a miserable heretic".[14] presumably her assassination would have been seen as murder in England but no in France, where the regime had been quite happy to massacre its protestants. If someone had killed Salman Rushdie although it would have been viewed as murder in the UK it Iran it would not. Similarly the KGB's operative or ally who killed Georgi Markov was not viewed as a murder once (s)he returned home. We have an article on the Phoenix Park Murders, but the term is not used for the killings that Michael Collins organised with the use of The Squad, although of course if the British had won the war they would have been tried and found guilty of murder. Therefore whether assassination is a murder depends on the jurisdiction under which the assassin finds themselves. Murder is not in itself a defining attribute of assassination. PBS (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Black's Law Dictionary defines assassination as "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."(Legal Research, Analysis and Writing by William H. Putman p. 215 and Assassination Policy Under International Law, Harvard International Review, May 6, 2006 by Kristen Eichensehr) No mention of it being murder in the definition. -- PBS (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche: you wrote in the history of the article "putting predominant/prior-reflected definition first" What is your source that "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons" is the predominant one when it is the second definition in Webster and murder is not mentioned in the OED? -- PBS (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche an interesting further search we now have:

However stacking up dictionaries does not really help (for example why include the OCD as well as the OED? It seems to me that we have two different definition here. The all agree on the killing of a person, most also include prominent and with the use of perfidy. What the do not agree on is that it is always murder. Why is it that you wish to emphasise that aspect of assassination? -- PBS (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Allows the reader to see the varying emphasis, which source uses which approach, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
What looks good to you ? -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche you have reverted without any prior discussion to a version of the lead over two weeks old. The definition I put in place that you reverted "Allows the reader to see the varying emphasis", I constructed it using the common parts of the various definition, yet you have reverted to a version that emphasises on specific view, why? -- PBS (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • PBS--you've exhibited extraordinary lack of concern with following consensus already on this talk page. Pls stop your continued edit warring, and POINTy editing, as was discussed at your AN/I. The first sentence I reverted to, which is the form that was there for some time, reflects most of the dictionary def'ns in the footnote. Please also stop deleting those def'ns that are not the ones you prefer. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Epeefleche in the edit history "He was emperor; it was accurate; also, the defn reflects most dictionary defns"
The article Julius Caesar says he was at the time of his death "dictator for life", the article Caesar Augustus says Augustus was the first Roman Emperor. I think you should take the issue up in those articles first before changing this article to say Julius Caesar was emperor.
See above "However stacking up dictionaries does not really help, for example why include the OCD as well as the OED?" The only summary that I removed was the OCD. Please explain why you think two Oxford dictionaries are needed when the OED is the more authoritative Oxford source. The definition I have put in place reflects the totality of the definitions given, not just a selected few. The summary was there for several weeks and instead of discussing a possible reversal here on the talk page first, you have just reverted to a version you prefer. I am going to revert again and let us discuss the changes you want to make before you make them. Just as I did before making the changes. Note that the last entry by me on this talk page was on 28 November 2010, I then waited until the 7 December 2010 for you to reply before making a change. Why not extend to me the same curtsey? -- PBS (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Psychology Expansion

Does anyone want to expand/create an area on the effects of leader assassination on the general public? I think it would be useful for this article. LittleBrother1 (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Especially US??

I don't think the US gets a special status on assassins motivated by financial purpose. 169.145.3.20 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

redacted, posted to wrong article. J.Rly (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isnt Osama bin laden mentioned?

Why isnt osama bin laden mentioned in the article? His killing seems to fit the definition of an assassination and it was a high profile event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.66.220 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as the US government doesn't officially admit that the intent was only to kill, and never to catch him alive, calling it an assassination must be regarded an opinion and not fact.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Somebody's been playing silly buggers...

I was just reading this article and it would seem that someone lacking a sense of humor has been messing with it. I would suggest, provided someone has the time, the removal of the "Uranus" and "political sexlife"-stuff.

-Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.234.219 (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"The CIA has allegedly made several attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro"... allegedly?

First off, the attempts to assassinate Castro by the US Government aren't just several, they number over 600 (as asserted by the documentary described at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/638_Ways_to_Kill_Castro). And those are just the ones directly tied to the government -- let alone the attempts by the US assets in the Cuban Exile community, such as Luis Posada Carriles. And why is the term "allegedly" used? Sounds like we're sugar-coating this one so as to maintain the rather generous presumption that the US doesn't assassinate folks.

Furthermore, there was a controversy some years ago where a US Congresswomen, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, publicly said (on TV in fact) that she supported any and all attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. If I remember correctly, she tried to stonewall the press and deny she said it, and then the unedited tape was released (and can currently be viewed on YouTube). Deserves a mention?

Also, the article refers to Salvador Allende as having "likely" died from assassination but I don't believe this is the case. Some folks still insist it was assassination and there isn't a consensus, but most investigative authorities deem it a suicide (including those involved in a politically neutral autopsy, post-Pinochet). 74.102.158.68 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What presumption the US doesn't assassinate folks? People are being killed on an almost daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence

should probably include "economic" as a type of motive for assassination, like assassinations targeting people who directly affect economics.74.100.56.221 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We need RS support for that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

should probably delete "military motives" or cite a reference. The only motives prescribed to assassination is political or religious. > Webster and Oxford on-line dictionaries found no definition that included "military motives". > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assassinate > 1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously > 2: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack > often for political reasons > - as.sas.si.na.tion > > http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/assassinate > Definition of assassinate > verb > murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or > religious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Assassination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

An assassination is a killing, but it may not be murder

Black's Law Dictionary uses killing, because an assassination may or may not be murder -- it depends on the jurisdiction. For example Georgi Markov (1929–1978) was murdered under English law, but Eastern Communist governments allegedly responsible for the assassination would not have seen the assassins as murderers and certainly would not have extradited them for trial in an English court. It is not just old Communist governments who behave like this, see for example the French Government and its lenient treatment of its agents who bombed the Rainbow Warrior (1985). It is inconceivable that even in Pakistan found the killing of Osama bin Laden to be murder, that the US would turn any member of its special forces over to stand trial in Pakistan. Therefore killing is a more accurate and neutral word for the act of assassination. -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination/Archive_2&oldid=1253128371"