Talk:Raymond Allen Davis incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WTF!

The assertion that he's a "diplomat" is controversial. In addition, last week the State Department spokesman denied his name was even "Raymond Davis". The creation of this article is premature. That means: Raymond Davis (diplomat).... LOL. Scieberking (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

i second the argument placed by scieberking. he is being called a diplomat under sheer assmumption-99.227.90.213 (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

His diplomatic status is in dispute. The title should be changed. 182.178.216.218 (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and done Hudicourt (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me the article might better be titled "The Raymond Allen James Incident" or something like that. The article is not so much a biography as a description of an on-going diplomatic incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie42 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree Hudicourt (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Article shouldn't be deleted. This is a page about a person whose name is unknown. An example of such a page is the page for Subcomandante Marcos. It has not been moved even though a candidate identity, Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente, has been suggested for this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.183.158 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The article should not be deleted. While, this article should have deleted, if it was only about Mr. Davis or Mr. Anonymous (his name is in question). There is no other claim to fame for Mr. Davis, therefore the article would have been a prime candidate for deletion. However, in this case the following issues are present: a. This case sets a precedent for diplomatic immunity and as such impacts the whole global diplomatic community. If Govt of Pakistan acknowledges Mr. Davis's diplomatic immunity and withdraws the case. The it makes EVERY diplomat immune to murder or manslaughter charges, and thus this case could be used as a precedent by other less savory people (not every country has the clout of US, but it is still possible, but we are dealing with people, who take a short term view). The case of the Saudi Prince & his servant comes to mind. However, if US Govt allows the case to proceed, even that would set up a precedent and limit diplomatic immunity in certain areas. b. This case acts as a cause celebre. It directly impacts the relations between two countries and as such deserves an article. One way or the other, the article does play a part and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.130.60 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this be added to current events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.132.161 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is, finally, what this article is all about, a current event Hudicourt (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Express Tribune has an unnamed Pakistani military spokesman claiming that the two men shot were intelligence agents google search results but it's been removed from their own servers... Should this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAGETRON (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It redirects from "Raymond Allen Davis" which is good. I put in a link on the disambiguation page for people called Raymond Davis as well. The Urdu page is called Raymond Davis (American attaché) translated from (ریمنڈ ڈیوس (امریکی اہلکار Remanḍ Ḍevis (Amrīki ahlkār). Somebody should fix that that knows more Urdu than I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.183.158 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is a current news developing article, and a significant case in the current USA-Pakistan relations. THIS ARTICLE SHOUL NOT BE DELETED. (Jalal0 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

MSNBC article here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41488592/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/ says that Hyperion is a Nevada company, not a Florida company like article says. Might want to change this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffreyW75 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Hyperion company was listed in several States and at several addresses. I think that the list of Ex-adresses provided in the main article for Raymond Allen Davis are in fact the different addresses where Hyperion was registered.Hudicourt (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The title still suggests that Raymond Davis is a diplomat whereas his diplomatic status is in dispute. It should either be called "The Raymond Allen Davis Incident" or "The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Dispute" 115.186.48.55 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. Whether or not Davis turn out to be a Diplomat is now irrelevant since the incident has and is causing a real and undisputed Diplomatic Conflict between the US and Pakaistan. "Diplomatic" no longer refers to Davis but to the incident. Hudicourt (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I took this paragraph out of the article:

"Recently a poster on Talking Points Memo has stated that he went to high school with Davis at Powell Valley High School in Big Stone Gap, Virginia http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/mysterious_shooting_in_pakistan_becomes_internatio.php?ref=fpb An article also appeared February 9, quite a while after the incident, on WCYB TV giving the name of the high school.http://www.wcyb.com/news/26800526/detail.html"

It was posted by an IP number 24.59.183.158 from Virginia. An on-line 'poster' below an article cannot be used as a reference. Plus that paragraph, which attempted to prove Davis's identity was inserted on top of the article, before the part that questions Davis's identity. Third, the poster in question, who claims to know Davis, and who refers readers to a 'Free Raymond Davis' Facebook page, cannot even provide that Facebook page with a picture of Davis, other than those that were taken from Pakistani websites about his arrest. So far, Davis has no mother, no father, no wife, no sister, no brother, no children, no colleagues, no ex-colleagues, no neighbors, no ex-classmates, nothing that can establish that he is a real person. Hudicourt (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The photo link was used because the photo was on a private page and was not my own work. I have posted there to try to get it uploaded by the author to Wikimedia Commons.User:HarryBowman

I think there's enough detail in the article now to divide it into some sort of sections instead of the hodgepodge we have now. Possible sections:

1. Davis' own background: family, training, his company
2. The shooting details: events before/after including the victims' own robberies, the actual Davis shooting, post shooting arrest, Davis' possessions, the victims possessions)
3. Local reactions: protests, the victim's wife's suicide
4. Government reactions/stances: US/Pak differences on immunity
5. Court actions and trial details

etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAGETRON (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the following paragraph out because several news reports have conflicting facts about the number or rounds fired and about the autopsy report that explains the nature of the wounds on the two victims.

", firing a total of nine rounds.[http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/02/lynch_lobbied_p.html One man was hit by 5 rounds, while the other was hit by 4 rounds.http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=10597 Of the 9 rounds, 8 hit the men from the back.http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=10435" Hudicourt (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Going through the refs, there is definitely some original research going on here. As a current event and a BLP, I think the article should be reduced to only the stuff that can be backed up by good secondary sources, at least until everything washes out. David Able 18:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, have at it! – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No time now. Busy in the real world. Just saw this on my lunch break and thought I'd open a section for discussion. Will take a look at it after work over a large glass of wine:) David Able 19:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Defense/Defence

wanted to touch base on here so it doesn't turn into an edit war, but are we going to use the British or American English rules on this? --Hourick (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would gravitate towards AmEng (though having lived in the US for 15 years I have trouble remembering which is which) - it's in effect a biography of a US person, albeit focussed on one incident. – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Did a little minor editing and hope we can do keep it consistent. That was hard work, time for a nap. :D--Hourick (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of further establishing consensus, I also think the AmEnglish to be preferable. David Able 00:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and coverage

The article still needs a lot more work done in terms of neutrality and balanced coverage. I also have a feeling a lot of the information is just from the American point of view i.e. American reaction to the situation. At the same time, a Pakistani perspective and reaction should also be added, especially a mention on the speculation of local media and law enforcement agencies (most of which see Davis suspiciously and as an undercover agent). Mar4d (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I just chopped out a couple of paragraphs on diplomatic status that were pure original research and editorialising. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

looks better now. The Pakistani government has stated that the victims were member of Inter-Services Intelligence not ordinary citizens. this has been reported in TIME and is an important bit of info missing[1], [2]--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But Ukexpat, what you "chopped out" were direct quotes from The Vienna Convention itself. How can that be "pure original research"? You also deleted quotes (with references) from a former Pakistani Diplomat. So I don't understand how you write here about "agreeing" with Mar4d when you appear to me to have actually deleted material that added to an understanding of the Pakistani perspective. I.e it is the US perspective that claims Davis has immunity. And it is the Pakistani perspective which is disputing that on legal grounds that withstand closer scrutiny. It is therefore the American perspective which does not hold up and which the article at present appears to support. Therefore the article appears to favour the American perspective and I fear you have repeatedly undone an attempt to redress that imbalance--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What I chopped out was editorialising as to what the Convention means and wording that appeared to tie that to the sourced statements. It is not our place to make claims as to what the convention says or does not say, just to report on what the sources say about his immunity or lack of it. See User:Wikireader41's comment below, also relevant here. – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about "tone"

Been bouncing back and forth to this article for a few days. I notice that it is tagged for problems with "tone." Can someone perhaps identify some problematic sections to help get started with fixing this? David Able 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I added that tag because at the time it was written more like anti-US editorial than an encyclopedic (and BLP) article. It's a little better now, but still not where it should be. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we agree that the "tone" issue is resolved and that this tag can be removed ? Hudicourt (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think so.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Balance in the introduction

To Wikireader41. The reference you provided again does not support the statement you have inserted, viz. the reason why Qureshi was sacked. It actually has Qureshi asking that precise question, as he does not know either. So sorry, but I have again removed your edit. Also, as this is the introduction I do not feel your addition is necessary here. My aim is to achieve balance. We have the US view and now we have the Pakistani view. Neutrality. If you add the unsupported and unproven surmise that he was sacked for his view then we again have an inbalance of neutrality, imo. As it was before, the intro ONLY had the US view (that Davis had immunity and should be immediately released). For balance I added the contrary Pakistani view, as expressed by Qureshi (but also held by others including in Canada as has been explained to you in the previous discussion topic). I have also moved this "Pakistani Taliban demanded that Davis be hanged or handed over to them". to the aftermath section as I also do not think it helps or is appropriate to have this in the now balanced introduction section. Hope you agree its fits better there. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added several citations which say the same that Qureshi lost his job due to Davis affair. Here are a few more. Qureshi stands tall among pygmies[3]Qureshi’s ouster, Qureshi dropped for opposing Davis immunityIt’s not a rumour, Americans did get Qureshi’s scalpThe Davis effect this is a very notable effect of the incident and definitely belongs in the lead. That Taliban is against Davis is a very important aspect which helps the lead become more neutral not less by giving views of all parties. it also helps the readers know who are the main parties supporting and against davis. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. If you persist in removing this cited info you may find yourself blocked (again).--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the Taliban mention should be left as a mere footnote in the bottom paragraphs; they hardly have any political standing in national affairs. Mar4d (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts entirely. The PakistaniTaliban and their wishes don't belong in the leader. They are a fringe movement and their opinion is not represenative of either of the main protagaonists viz. the US administration and the Pakistani Courts. Please can we move it to the 'aftermath' section. You wrote: "it also helps the readers know who are the main parties supporting and against davis". But the PakistaniTaliban can not be called "a main party", so WP:GEVAL and WP:NPOV violations. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi WR41, The problem was that you wrote he was sacked because of the viewpoint expressed in the leader. But the reference you provided merely had him asking 'why' he was sacked. I.e. your ref didn't support what you had written. Isn't that a WP:V violation then? As it stands I see now you have added another newspaper article saying that was the reason for his dismissal. So your two references aren't in agreement. Yet you have summarised that (in your own wording) as a statement of fact that this WAS the cause of his dismissal. Well maybe that's correct, but your previous reference did not support that, and even with the new reference you have given no hint of any controversy or doubt about this, so isn't that a further violation of WP:NPOV? Plus I am quite familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE so still think that mentioning the Taliban did not help make the leader more neutral. I see you have now added the Obama quote to the balance what the Pakistani Taliban want, so have less of a problem with it now. Sorry if my edits irritated you. We should all be able to update this article fairly and harmoniously if we keep to wiki policy and be prepared to amend when corrected. As has been noted before the article has had a tendency to favour the American perspective, and I agree with that viewpoint and think we need to watch that. I request you consider what I have written. Can't you move your addition to the 'aftermath' section where the Querishi comment is fleshed out further. I still think it fits better there. If you disagree I suggest I remove my Quereshi quote and your addition altogether from the leader and use another source as a counterweight to the US demand for immunity and immediate release.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pakistani Taliban enjoy widespread support and are not a "fringe movement". (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you support that statement with anything other than your say so?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Talibanization has been going on for years. in addition many in Pakistan do not have the balls to go against what the taliban say even if they dont agree with them. The recent Taseer assasination is another example of the power of religious right in Pakistan. In interests of NPOV their stand of this belongs in the lead. ----Wikireader41 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. The Taliban are a group of armed rebels who happen to be based along the Afghanistan border, a region that has hardly ever been under Pakistani control (historically). They do not enjoy "widespread" support and neither do they have any political power; in fact, their influence ("Talibanisation") doesn't stretch beyond the FATA proper (and to a maximum extent, Peshawar) so whatever goes on in Lahore and Punjab is pretty much irrelevant to the Taliban. Saying that, this is a diplomatic incident between the governments of Pakistan and the United States. What the Taliban think doesn't matter, because their opinion does not hold political significance in this. Mar4d (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tehrik-i-Taliban_Pakistan Here it is shown on the wiki page for this group that they operate in and presumably have most support in a relatively tiny area of Pakistan. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sacking of Qureshi bulk of the RS state that he was sacked due to his position on Davis. Here is another one which says why he was sacked[http://www.nytiH how often is it that the Foreign minister is sacked because of his position on another countries citizen ?? This is a crucial aspect of why this incident is so notable and therefore belongs to the lede.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But wiki doesn't work on a basis of only using material with the most numbers for or against any viewpoint. So "bulk of the RS" is not the issue here. My concern is that neutrality of point of view is being diminished. It would help to come at this with the intention NOT to emphasise any particular perspective. NPOV. Qureshi lost his Cabinet position: that remains the basic fact here. It is NOT the official Pak position that he was "sacked" nor has there been an official explanation for WHY he lost his post. I think it would help the article if we try to use wording that reflect that. Also I notice that you have deleted wording that emphasises his previous high rank and his continued respected status. Even when it comes from quotes from reliable secondary sources. Why is that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed wording due to link not working

I have removed the following addition as it appears twice in the article and here the link which is provided as verification does not work WP:SOURCE Wikipedia:Verifiability.

"On February 12, Pakistan' Government made Cabinet changes during which the Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, was sacked, over his refusal to comply. He claims that he lost his job because of his stand on Raymond Davis."'http://www.hindustantimes.com/My-stand-cost-me-my-job-Qureshi/Article1-662029.aspx/

Can you find a link that works? I have no problem with it appearing here. I think it works well in the 'aftermath' section. I only request that you find a functioning URL and that the duplicate statement be removed from the leader as I don't think it is crucial to an understanding of the basic incident. And just out of curiosity, may I ask why you feel this aspect of the case (the cabinet reshuffle and Qureshi's replacement) is so important to the article and to a balanced understanding of the events that this needs to be stated twice, once in the leader and again here?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Overseas Protective Security Services

I think that the author of this article mis-interpreted the Raymond Davis invoice that was found on Davis. "Overseas Protective Security Services", as I interpret the document is not the name of the company he works for, but is the nature of the work being invoiced, that is 180 days of "Overseas Protective Security Service" at $780 a day (which was pretty much the going rate of the security contractors I knew of in Iraq). He then invoices 28 days of training at $350 dollars a days (less dangerous I guess) and 10 days of Administrative days at $100 dollars a day. His final invoiced items are his travel costs and his personal insurance. There is also an item called "Domestic Protective Security Service" that he bills at $350 dollars a day, but the number of days is zero. Probably his State-side rate. So in my view, Davis is hired as some sort of security contractor for 198 days. He pays for his own travels, for which he bills the US government (so he is not a government employee for these people have their airline tickets paid for them). There are no living expenses or per-diems on his invoice, so he is probably provided with living expenses by someone else or pays for it out of his own pocket.

So although this last paragraph correctly quotes the source document, I think the source document is wrong and that paragraph should be removed or corrected, possibly by finding another source with a better interpretation of the released invoice Hudicourt (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to have an american viewpoint. :-) Its hard for someone not familiar with the US to properly understand it. If you can find a reliable source that bears out what you say, then go for a rewriting of it. I myself don't think it would be a good idea to delete it entirely as this IS now in the news, and right or wrong, media outlets are definitely saying it is regarded as proof Davis was not a diplomat. So if you can find a source that contradicts that understanding then that would be a very useful addition. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New heading "Ongoing updates"

I've created a new heading and put all the updates that were under the heading 'AFTERMATH' there. I've rearranged the order they were in previously to put them in chronological order. The intention is so that updates, developements and any relevant new events can be added with greater ease and flow of understanding. But if anyones feels strongly against this, or if I have inadvertently truncated a line of information or seperated any items that should have been together for mutual cross-reference, then I apologise in advance. Suggestions for a better name for this heading are also welcome.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "Recent developments" which I think is a little better, but we should be careful not to add trivial stuff to this section, and to remove/move stuff when it is no longer "recent", say after a month or so. – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes. Not bad, although..., I had tried to avoid a heading with any specific time frame, such as "recent" as it will create problems further on down the line, as you yourself have intimated. I.e. When is something no longer 'recent'? But... How about "Further developments" or "Ongoing developments"?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "further" and "ongoing" both have the same "temporal" issue and I have an aversion to "ongoing" generally as an overused and pretty meaningless word. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Lets forget ongoing then :-). I suggest we use "Further developments" as I think it sounds less temporal and from a practical perspective will last longer as a heading than "Recent developments".--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Lahore police report that was submitted to the court

An article was published by the Daily Times on Feb 15 that prints the full police report, as was submitted to the Court by the Lahore police. It is interesting and contains many details.

The article is located here: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\02\15\story_15-2-2011_pg7_17

Since this text is not an article but a direct quote from a police report, could it be included in full on the Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident page ?

Great find! How about we add it to the External links and/or the See also sections?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the copy paste ([[WP:COPYVIO) - the link is sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

micro-editing wording that give a pro-American bias?

May I take this oppurtunity to raise a concern I have. Its probably an old, old one. Its with editors coming in, not contributing information, not adding anything to our understanding, not providing any research from reliable sources, but just to alter others' wording so that it is either a.) slightly different, or b.) just says the same thing but in wording that is no better or worse, or c.) even has a slightly different meaning? and d.) is sometimes even worse wording plus less informative?

E.g. Compare

"according to official testimony by Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State, the person involved in the Lahore “incident” is not actually named Raymond Davis and his real name has not been made known. Crowley in two Department of State briefings to the press, stated that 'Raymond Allen Davis' was not his real name.

OK its two sentences saying almost the same thing, possibly from two contributors. So sure, it could be worked on. But is this really better?

Official testimony by Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State, has not confirmed the person involved in the Lahore “incident” is named Raymond Davis.

"Has not confirmed the person is named..."?

Is that really better English? And... why so ambiguous? This is not a statement saying It might be his name but its not yet confirmed is it? It is a categorical "confirmation" that the name IS false. It was official clear confirmation that the guy is NOT called Raymond Davis. So... what can we conclude? Crowley was either giving deliberate misinformation? Or a quite major double mistake was made there? Either way, curiously that has never been explained or referred to again in the western press, not that I am aware of, anyway. And more importantly, nor is it reflected in the bulk of information in this wiki article. And I see that the leader, which once DID reflect that ambiguity, has now also been changed. Summary: I feel we need to again alert ourselves to possibly subconscious editing that leaves a pro-American bias to this page.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone, changes a content and that change does not reflect what the source document stated, you are free to change it back, as long as you can back up that your wording better reflects the source. The only reason I got involved in editing this file, is because someone nominated it for deletion. I felt this story would become big, so I edited it in order to eliminate the reasons which I thought the person had for nominating this page for deletion. And its still here.... Hudicourt (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Can you say what the "reasons" for the complaint were that are "still here"? My own concern was the tendency/drift to a perceived pro-American bias. More specifically, that replacing the wording with: "Crowley...refused to confirm Raymond Allen Davis was his real name" was to clearly misinform. Regretably I think that there is a danger of that becoming a tendency here with this article. That may be because the western coverage of the story is so poor when compared to the Pakistani coverage. I share your prediction that this story will become bigger. Thus this article may have some importance and therefore the greater need to watch for bias. We are fortunate that so many sources from Pakistan are available in English. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I would like to point out there are different people from different places who are contributing to this article. I think the different sentence you pointed out has nothing to do with pro-American bias; it rather seems to be edited by a person who speaks English as a second language. Hence, poor grammar and different sentence structures are likely to spring up, given the differences Pakistani English has from American English. I'll try to keep a lookout myself for more bad grammatical errors. Mar4d (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, Mar4d, I would just like to say that I am VERY appreciative of your micro-edits, with wording and links etc., Good work.

This issue is much more complicated than just pro-American vs pro-Pakistani. It's far from Black and White and has many shades of grey. As long as one admits, such as in this article, Drone attacks in Pakistan that CIA-operated drones fly from a Pakistani Air Base, it means that there are Pakistani government condoned US CIA technicians living and working in Pakistan, manning those drones. It also means that there is a network of Pakistani government condoned US CIA operatives gathering targeting intelligence for those drones, and there is a Pakistani government condoned US CIA support system looking after all these people. If Davis was, as some claimed, a CIA man, who was in any way involved in this or other Pakistani government condoned CIA operations in Pakistan, it means he was perhaps in Pakistan with the tacit approval of the Pakistani government meaning there are Pakistani elements trying to protect him and look out for him, even if those people cannot do it openly. In such a case, it would he Highly unlikely that Davis would have been issued a Pakistani Foreign Office Diplomatic ID card, stating "Raymond Allen Davis, CIA Drone targeting specialist, has full immunity if arrested". This is why we must stick to the facts of the story as they are revealed and why those who are of the opinion that Davis was arrested doing what he was in Pakistan to do, his job, may not be wrong when they claim that he had the TACIT approval of the Pakistani government to be in Pakistan to do exactly what he was doing. So there may be Pakistani elements calling for Davis's immediate and unconditional release. Those same Pakistanis who permit a CIA drone unit to operate from a Pakistani airfield to bomb people within Pakistan. Lets stick to the facts and insert them in the article as they become known to us. These fact as neither pro-Pakistani, nor pro-American: they are just facts. Hudicourt (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If editors have an english language weakness then surely they shouldn't be here changing fluent english-speaking editor's wording. Sure its a complicated and murky story with shades of grey. So, Yes, lets keep to the facts. And lets maintain neutrality. Precisely what I am and have been encouraging. I am quite aware that Pakistan appears also to have something it doesn't want to come out, and am also sure there is more to this than meets the eye. But the Crowley quote allows for no misinterpretation. He clearly stated Davis is not the correct name of the CIA operative. Now... Was that was a deliberate 'misinformation' press-briefing to 'buy time' and protect Davis' identity that backfired? Or is the 'Davis' name actually false but now is being consistently used to cover up a fake passport? We still don't know for sure what is correct. Is he named Davis or not? To change that to the ambiguous wording "...has not confirmed is named..." seems to me to try and spin it back so that there appears to have been a consistency of statement from the US. I find it hard to believe that was the result of a language issue. And that simply does not fit the facts. Notice how the statemnt that he "worked for the consulate" was changed later to he "worked for the embassy" which is yet further evidence of US contradictory information. Then we have the information about the car that killed Rehman. Was it a consular/embassy vehicle with diplomatic plates? It appears not. Yet news reports and this wiki article repeatedly referred to it as if that were a given fact. As the article stands today there are still at least two references to Davis being a consular consultant without mentioning the later "embassy employee" contradiction, nor the recently revealed ATF373 CIA link. So keeping this free from bias and/or US/Pak misinformation will require vigilance. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How we repeat possible deliberate misinformation

I would again like to draw attention to how we apply neutrality and accuracy to contributions to this page. It is clear that the US has been involved in deceit. And now it has been admitted that US media outlets were complicit in that deceit. It seems highly likely that the ISI and therefore Pakistani officials are also not being totally clear and transparent either. This is a page about an incident involving covert personell so naturally there will be things wished to be concealed by both sides. So I think we need to be alert to deliberate mis-information. There are a few things that get repeated over and over again in news reports that are either clearly false, or contentious and unconfirmed. So again I would like to encourage all editors to be vigilant and careful how they choose their wording. Here's some examples of things that I am watching out for:

1.) it is repeatedly reported that the hit-and-run vehicle which killed Rehman was a "consulate vehicle". But I have not been able to find any reliable source for that. I have found reliable sources stating it had false number plates. A consulate vehicle with false registration plates? Erm...I don't think so... For this reason I think we should remove all references to it being a consulate vehicle in this article, even if the referenced source states it. My guess is that this has been put out there (to the agreed mutual benefit of the Pak and US) to make it easier to claim immunity for the driver and not make the stand-off harder to solve.

2.) The victims: 'ISI operatives' or 'petty criminals'? Which is it? Or is it both? My guess is that it is 'ISI operatives' as the family and neighbours are reported as denying all hints of criminal activity and categorically denying any past criminal records. My guess is that this also was initially put out there to cover the ISI identities.

3.) What is the actual name and real identity of the 'killer'. Is he called Davis or not? Crowley categorically stated that this was NOT his name. The US departments involved in this did not start using that name till some days AFTER the incident had happened. No explanation has ever been given for Crowley's statement. So basically we don't know at this time, yet this page and the way we use that name assumes that name and ID to be accurate. For this reason I think we should i.) take away the Biography template and ii.) also try and clean up the article so that use of that name is used somehow to reflect that continued amibiguity.

4.) The killer's employment? Is he a 'consulate consultant' or an 'embassy contractor' and/or a 'CIA operative' and/or involved in something else potentially more damaging if revealed? We don't know yet. So I would like the page to reflect that ongoing ambiguity also. People are now adding material stating that he is a CIA operative is if they personally know this to be true or as if that were a self-evident fact. The truth is we don't know and new conflicting and contradictory information may very likely be revealed in the future. So I am suggesting that how we cover this and new revelations should be treated carefully.

Basically, I am saying that just because an 'official' or a reputable news media says one thing or the other does not mean this is actually correct and factual. This incidence involves covert operatives from both sides. Mis-infromation is deliberately being put out to the media. So I am suggesting we shouldn't repeat official statements AS IF they are statements of fact. E.g. Better to say "it has been reported by..." etc., than "he is..." or "they were" etc.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Toyota Land Cruiser, the police "challan" did report that the car had fake plate number LZN-6970 and another article claimed that that plate was in the name of a "Sufi Munawwar Hussain, a resident of Sahiwal district in Punjab province"

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\02\15\story_15-2-2011_pg7_17

http://arabnews.com/world/article245233.ece

But all articles I've seem claim the Toyota drove to the US consulate to take refuge.

Hi Hudi. Yeah, sure. The vehicle DID drive to the consulate. No doubt. But significantly it was then not – and still has not? – been delivered to the police and neither were the occupants, despite official requests to do so. So that is a separate issue to whether the vehicle was a consulate one, which would require it to be carrying consulate registration plates (which it wasn't). I look at it like this: magine if the 'Davis' guy had managed to drive away and get to the consulate; that wouldn't mean his vehicle was also a consulate vehicle either.

I've already stated that I think that the Biographical template referring to the person of Raymond Allen Davis should be removed. Hudicourt (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful about not promoting someone's anti-US or anti-ISI/Pakistand Gov't POV or conspiracy theary. Let's stick to using the most conservative interpretations of the most reliable sources, and don't participate in propaganda wars -- save that for a blog, not WP. guanxi (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to use more well-known reliable sources

We should try to use as many well-known Reliable Sources as possible -- more NY Times and less Pakistan Today. I'm not saying Pakistani news media is somehow unreliable -- I don't know much about it -- but it is not well known to readers and editors. It's hard for to judge which are RS's -- I don't know Pakistan Today from The Express Tribune from the Daily Times; one or all could be the equivalent of the New York Times or of the National Enquirer. Arguably, if the source isn't well known, it's not an RS because part of the standard is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy -- an unknown source doesn't have a reputation. I'm not saying we should remove all the Pakistani media; I'm saying we should use well-known RS's as much as possible. It's better for readers, who can judge sources they know; it's easier for editors; and it may save labor -- another editor could come and make a good argument for removing much of the material, which would be a big headache. guanxi (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm revising my opinion. We have to identify which Pakistani sources are RS and which aren't. We can't just assume they are all OK. Anyone have ideas? I don't want to remove them, but we can't assume something is an RS, we need to have a reason to believe it. guanxi (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can come at it from both ways, i.e. we have to have a reason to disbelieve it also. There is no hard and fast dividing line for RS. And that will depend on the subject matter. E.g a 'Watchtower' publication is an RS for Jehovah's Witness ideology but may not be for the theory of evolution. Do you see what I mean?

And then you have admitted you don't know much about Pakistani publications: "I don't know much about it... It's hard for [me] to judge which are RS's -- I don't know Pakistan Today from The Express Tribune from the Daily Times". Thats fair. But if so, then the question naturally arises as to how are you judging that you feel you can fairly make this statement:"Many of the sources in this article are unquestionably... non- RS and need to be removed." Huh? How do you know?

E.g. you have specifically mentioned the NY Times as an example of what you call a reliable source. Maybe you didn't know, but they are the newspaper that has received the most fierce criticism for being unreliable in their reporting of this incident and for deceitfully carrying the government line by witholding the alleged CIA status of the 'Davis' agent/operative. Who knows what else? This is a tricky subject matter. And thus my suggestion to watch out for deliberate misinformation.

It is undoubtedly and regrettably the case that if we had followed your recommendation from the beginning then this article would have been hopelessly biased and non-neutral (therefore NPOV violating) AND inaccurate.

And then this sentence of yours ironically seems extremely non-neutral: "if the source isn't well known, it's not an RS because an unknown source doesn't have a reputation". Dude!? :-o Ru serious? So if you – who admit you don't know anything about Pakistani media and erroneously thought that the NYT has been a 'reliable source' for an incident that the US administration at its highest levels has been practicing a deceit about, if you and others like you don't know a source then it is an unreliable source. Sheesh, ...that's a tough one to swallow;-J

Here's my suggestion: we take the RS decision on an 'information' by 'information' basis. a.) Does the information seem plausible and accurate? b.) Is it also reported elsewhere? c.) What is the stated source and can that be confirmed? d. does the originating source have a track record of reliability. e.) does the imformation assist in adding to an overall accurate understanding of the subject of the article. If it passes these questions it can be assumed to be a 'reliable source' and would need a discussion before deletion. Of course something could be deleted even it passed a, b & c but not d and/or e. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mystichumwipe. I'm sorry if my concerns touch a nerve, and it's easy to get overheated about these things, but please note that I talked only about the article, not other editors. Let's stick to that subject. There's no point in ridiculing me; it doesn't help the article and doesn't make me more agreeable. I like being agreeable. I'll address your comments about the article:

• Maybe we can come at it from both ways, i.e. we have to have a reason to disbelieve it also. There is no hard and fast dividing line for RS. -- The WP policy is the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material -- meaning, it's up to the editors to prove it's an RS; they just can't just assume it is until someone else disproves it. I don't want to enforce that rigidly, but I'd like to use sources that can be shown to be RS.
• The NY Times as a source -- If you want to provide alternate RS's to the NY Times, that's fine with me. However, when we lack an alternative, I think we need to use the NYT. They meet WP's standard for a RS, even if they don't meet yours.
• Your suggestions for evaluating sources -- Instead of recreating standards for Reliable Sources and Verifiability, let's just use the existing ones: WP:RS and WP:V? Otherwise, we're in for a long, long debate, that will last until Ray Davis is long forgotten.

Whether we use your standards or WP's (and I don't think there's much question there), we're still left with the problem of identifying which Pakistani media is an RS. Which returns me to the original question: Does anyone have any ideas? guanxi (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Pakistani Wikipedia, or equivalent thereof. What do they say is/isn't RS? That might be a starting point. Just an idea. David Able 01:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea. Here's a little info: List of newspapers in Pakistan -- but it doesn't tell us which are RS. I've heard of Dawn and I've periodically read The News International for years, to get some perspective on events around there; my loose impression is that they are likely an RS, but I certainly wouldn't rely on that. guanxi (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I take back what I said about The News International. [| This story] is a bit of a conspiracy theory, with its headline and lede completely unsupported by rest of the article, which itself depends completely on 'unnamed sources', who themselves provide only conjecture. Other stuff they do is better, but this is poor journalism. guanxi (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are both arguing for the same thing. I am naturally also arguing for proper application of WP:RS. It merely comes down to interpretation of that. Here is the WP Policy that I have been arguing for. You'll find it in the first line of the second paragraph: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made". I have merely expanded on how we apply that.Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Due_and_undue_weight (talk) 15

1. 36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your view of the NYT, the WP policy is again clear:"News organizations ...even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." I am suggesting to you that the very basis of your complaint does not fit with WP policy on RS. There is nothing there that states "use more well-known reliable sources" which is your topic heading. For example the Washington Post will of course be more well-known to Americans than the any newspaper from S. Africa, New Zealand, Australia or any other english speaking country. Therefore for an american editor to use that as a criteria for deleting material would be hopelessly biased and arbitrary. Accordingly your measuring stick "well-known" is a subjective criteria and your statement "more NY Times and less Pakistan Today" is quite shockingly biased and (forgive me for being blunt) a touch racist.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not forgiven and that is an outrageous personal attack. This discussion is over, and it is time for you to step back from this article. guanxi (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for causing you offence. I did not intend to nor do I attack you personally. Please don't take it personally. I merely suggest that to dismiss a Pakistani news-outlet (that you admit you have no knowledge of re: their reliability), whilst encouraging people to give greater weight to a discredited (in regard to this article's topic) American newspaper, is as I described. It's the statement you made I refer to, NOT to you personally. Please don't be offended and consider how what you have written would seem like if it were written by a Pakistani contributor writing "I know diddly-squat about US news-outlets so suggest we use more well-known Pakistani ones. I.e. more Pakistan Today and less New York Times"--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Many problems with sources

A couple editors kindly asked that I discuss things on the Talk page before making edits. I'm happy to accommodate them.

• Many of the sources in this article are unquestionably POV or non- RS and need to be removed. Just skimming the list: Counterpunch, the Iranian Gov't station Press TV, blogs, etc.
• Directly citing State Dept briefings isn't appropriate. It's Original Research -- statements can easily be taken out of context. And gov't statements certainly fail NPOV.
• The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that someone has to distinguish between RS and non-RS Pakistani media. We simply can't repeat everything said by any Pakistani publication and call it RS. I'll update my post above with a request for a means to differentiate them.

guanxi (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

False name implications

The following has been removed and I put it back. I'd welcome other's opinions. Shall we take it out? It was deleted because it was thought to be an Original Research and NPOV violation. But I don't see how that applies. Not all comments in an article have to be neutral. That would be unworkable. I understand that it is only the article as a whole that must be balanced and neutral, not seperate quotes and sources. NPOV = "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views". Well, ...it is a persons "view". And one that seems accurate and relevant, and therefore to my mind "significant". Can anyone find an article in a British or American newsreport prior to this opinion that addressed this issue. Even now, I myself have not seen it mentioned in any of the main-stream western press. Only in the online Salon news outlet. And with the main media in America now admitting that they have been deliberately witholding information and had knowingly helped practice a deceit, I would say this is another reason for this being "significant".

Regarding the other complaint of Original Research, that I understand as referring to putting in our own personal opinions and research. Quoting a secondary source is therefore not OR as I understand it. So I don't see how this applies either.

Here is the addition/deletion in question: An American lawyer/civil rights activist has written: "Curiously, I have never seen this vital fact, which destroys all claim by the US to Davis’s diplomatic status, mentioned in any US or British news report." http://www.redress.cc/global/cking2010219 Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that POV opinions should be included as part of the article if they are significant. Addressing your concerns point by point:

• 1) Significance has a specific definition: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Because the viewpoint isn't represented in RS's (according to you), it shouldn't be in the article. You are giving it undue weight.
• 2) Your claim that info was deliberately withheld by the media an interesting theory, but you can't apply that to WP editing. Either an RS reports it or not.
• 3) The OR was directly quoting a State Dept briefing. That's a WP editor researching a primary source (and one which has a definite POV and doesn't qualify as RS). Quoting Redress.cc violates other standards, but I agree it has nothing to do with OR.

In general, I get the sense that you want to ensure that the truth of this story, as you see it, is exposed. It's a noble sentiment, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't a good tool for that -- it can only repeat what has already been exposed by RS's. Blogs and social media are probably better for exposing the story. Also, it's not an appropriate use for an encyclopedia; the most you can do here is ensure that nothing of significance reported by an RS is omitted. guanxi (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am not opposed to removing the quote, only request that it is done so for legitimate reasons. So to take your points one buy one:

• 1.) The policy is referring to "...each article or other page in the mainspace". We are discussing a single sentence which you are questioning and not an "article" or "page".
• 2.) "...that info was deliberately withheld by the media" is not my "claim" or a "theory". The NYT and others have admitted to it. So Reliable Sources have admitted it. You perhaps haven't followed the links here or read the entire article or been following this story as avidly as others here, or as it being followed in Pakistan. Its a huge story there and interestingly has received very little coverage in the western media until the Guardian broke the silence. Check it out.
• 3) Including material in an article that doesn't have a POV would be unworkable. This is a story of conflicting points of view. According to POV, opinions, if significant, are acceptable. The question then becomes: can the sentence in question be regarded as representing a significant opinion. I believe this one can. And the source is a reliable one of that opinion, so your RS criticism I don't think applies (as explained in the previous topic).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm always glad to have reasonable discussions:

• 1) Articles are composed of sentences. Let's not waste our time splitting hairs.
• 2) If an RS retracts a statement, we can use that. If you don't agree that the NYT is an RS, you are entitled to your opinion. But until you convince the rest of WP to change the WP:RS policy, the NYT is an RS. The standard for an RS isn't that they are perfect, and making one error doesn't impugn everything else they write (or we would have no RSs!).
• 3) Your may feel that it's significant but you need to show that it meets Wikipedia's standard. See #1 in my previous post for the standard. This one clearly doesn't meet it.

I know you'd like to include this material. All I can suggest is that you find a RS that reports it; there's no alternative. guanxi (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My argument remains that a. the statement is significant to the topic, and b. the source for it is a reliable one for that statement. I still do not agree how it is a violation of WP policy on either POV or RS.

1) Individual sentences in Articles do NOT have to be NPOV. That isn't hair splitting. "most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: 1. Who advocates the point of view 2. What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

2) see topic above on WP:RS and news organisations. "..even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis."

3) Naturally this isn't about my "feelings". Its about assessing the application of the critera "significant".--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't create your own standards, though.

1) Individual sentences in Articles do NOT have to be NPOV. -- I agree, but we need to decide which opinions are included and which aren't; we could fill a thousand pages with fringe opinions. So how do we decide? The standard is that WP fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. You've stated that this opinion is not printed in any RS, thus it clearly does not belong in the article. Until you show it has prominent representation in RSs, then it doesn't belong. Can you provide citations in RSs?

2) I don't understand what you are saying.

3) It's assessed by Wikipedia's standard, not by your or my personal standard. Please show how this meets WP's standard (discussed above).

guanxi (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "creating my own standards". Holy moly Guanxi!? :-o

I am attempting to scrupulously apply WP Policy. I keep demonstrating that to you with quotes from the Policy. Perhaps you hadn't recognised them as such. Check them out and see.

I have no argument about "fringe opinions". I believe this statement we are discussing to be a relevant one, and a factual one and the source is a reliable one for the statement. That's all. If you can demonstrate it is incorrect, then we can delete it without further discussion ;-). If not then the question remains: is the fact 'significant' in relation to the topic.

We appear unable to agree what an RS is. Please read my quotes from WP Policy again. Otherwise we are going around in circles.

And you appear to have misunderstood me: I am not saying that. I am saying this is a reliable source for the statement. And as the statement is correct, it therefore is "significant".

2)The NYT, (by its own admission) has been an unreliable source in regard to this article's topic for a period of a month. We therefore can NOT assume nor consider that it is reliable for any and all "specific facts or statements". This is something that ALWAYS applies anyway: reliability of each statement from any source "must be assessed on a case by case basis." This is a quote from WP:RS.

3)Yes. We are in agreement. It's assessed by Wikipedia's standard. Which I have applied to it it and still argue it is in accordance with.

A.) the statement is significant to the topic, and b.) the source for it is a reliable one for that statement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

adding ref tags to talkpages

Hi better not to add ref tags to talkpages it just gets messy and a reflist is needed and that just creates a list of them and better not to add <ref> tags. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues, uncertainty, in background section

I asked for some more eyes on this section at the BLP noticeboard. Here's my concern as stated there: (The section) seems to be largely a synthesis of local reports, and, in some cases, downright OR. My concern is mainly with all the speculation that is occurring, even in the valid sources. By the nature of this incident, it could have real world consequences if the person identified in the article is not the person involved in the incident. But then again the sources are saying this, not Wikipedia. So I'm not sure what action, if any, is appropriate. David Able 20:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well now, even President Obama identified him as "Mister Davis" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jk57cX9b3E Hudicourt (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but did he say it was the Mr Davis who lives in XYZ city, owns ABC business, and whose wife's name is Jane Doe. Cause we are currently saying that in the article. David Able 21:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As the title is "Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident" its really more about a specific INCIDENT and NOT soley about a specific single person. Therefore my feeling is that this shouldn't be treated as a purely biographical article. Sure, at the moment its partly that, but my feeling is that its more about the 'incident' and its political ramifications. So my hope and request is that we don't start undoing all the work here by making this fit some narrow criteria to make it a biography page. Instead, if that is regarded as a major problem then I would sooner change its category type so that its not a biographical page at all. Plus we still don't know if this 'Davis' from Nevada with the Hyperion business, etc., etc., is a false identity created to protect a CIA, USTF 373 operative operating on a false passport, or if that is his real name and background. I.e. That's surely going to be a part of the unfolding story. So we have to wait and see. In the meantime we have to reflect that ambiguity as best we can. Which I have attempted to do in the leader. In the beginning this article just had the US perspective that he was a diplomat who should be instantly released, and attempts to add a more neutral balanced perspective ended in a 'tone' warning being slapped on it for being too "anti-american". Yet all those alleged "anti-american" perspectives have been proved correct over time. So I think we have come a long way since then --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good points. This page was created as "Raymond Davis Diplomat" so was a bio page. Around the same time someone tagged it a Bio page is when I changed the title to the "Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident". I propose that the bio tag and info be removed, as this page if more about the incident itself, and not about the individual. Hudicourt (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a biography article to have problems with biographical info of living people. For instance, giving his wife's name. How does that improve the article about the incident? And yet naming someone (true or not) and giving out their geographical location and place of employment could, in the worst of cases, have dangerous consequences. David Able 03:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed his wife's name. I'd appreciate some solid reasoning and discussion before it's added back in. David Able 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything on this page needs to be sourced and has previously been printed in MSM, so we are not "revealing" anything. But honestly, since this is not a biographical page on a living individual, I think data such as his date of birth, his place of birth, his hometown, his high-school, and the name of his wife are irrelevant and could be removed. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the whole Biographical template was removed. It was added when this page was a biographical page. My two cents....Hudicourt (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also OK with the biographical template being removed. My guess is that 'Davis' is NOT his real name, though I think this is unlikely to be confirmed again officially. All this talk of his background, etc., which has been leaked I assume to be accurate but the 'Davis' name I believe is a false ID (as Crowley unfortunately for both sides confirmed). I'm assuming that top Pakistani Officials know this but aren't revealing it as to do so will only make it harder to sell to the Pakistani population if they eventually do a deal and release him. I.e Pakistani Officials ARE interested in aid packages, in US help in controlling their borders with Afghanistan, in CIA help with extremist Taliban groups, etc. So they are keeping their options open for deal bargaining. Consequently I am happy to make this NOT a biography page as I don't think it fits that category.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Until or unless the background information on Davis other than info that is directly related to the how/why he was in Pakistan leading up to the incident is removed or re-written in a fashion directly relating to the incident, the template should stay. How does where his (supposedly) lives and the business he (supposedly) owns have any baring on the article? More importantly, what do the sources say about that? David Able 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

{{BLP others}} could be a replacement for the BLP WikiProject template. Fences&Windows 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"CIA-Al-Qaeda Link" section is questionable at best

Listen, isn't and never was a european times story, nor did it come from some BS whatdoesitmean site. Okay? It came from a reputable source that you can obviously link to with no problem, as I had linked to it before. I'm ONCE AGAIN removing the CENSORSHIP of the events on February 20th. You Jerk.

---

This is obviously a controversial topic, but this section especially stuck out as possibly inaccurate. So I did a little digging, and found that every story posted on Davis' alleged possession of nuclear materials is merely a reposting of an European Union Times story. I had originally tried to post the link, but Wikipedia's spam filter blocked me from posting any links to the EU Times - further proof that they are not a reputable news site. At no point do they actually quote the alleged "SVR report" to which they refer - not to mention that the EU Times have a less-than-sterling reputation for printing the truth. So I had a look at the source the EU Times cited in the Davis nuclear controversy story. It's called WhatDoesItMean.com, and it's obviously not a reputable news site. They don't quote the report either. There is no link to the report on any of these sites, and it's impossible to find online - I even checked the SVR's website, and there's nothing of the sort there. It makes me wonder if the report exists at all. I recommend that this section be taken down until the report can be found, or a credible source corroborates the story. As it stands, the only sources for this material are definitely not reliable. Thoughts, anyone?

For the record, the site is located at http://www(dot)eutimes(dot)net/2011/02/cia-spy-captured-giving-nuclear-bomb-to-terrorists/ . Like I said, Wikipedia wouldn't let me post the whole link.

147.126.46.172 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph and that nuclear allegation can be removed. Hudicourt (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The person came out of his car, fired a few more bullets and took photographs. This cannot be considered "normal" self-defense. It is possible that he is being paid per "kill" and he needed photographs as some kind of evidence. A normal person would love to get out from the scene without delay unless he is very confident of his "license to kill". His intention was not to scare away the "robbers" but to kill them at any cost. Perhaps many agencies will take a picture as evidence for the "kill" and perhaps some one can comment on this?180.149.48.179 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Peace and harmony? BLP? al-Qaida?

For the sake of peace and harmonious-editing, instead of talking generally about the whole WP:RS thing , perhaps a more smooth way of dealing with any concerns would be to highlight individual and specific information that people have a difficulty with and dealing with them, item by item.

Having said that, regarding reliability of the Pakistani media sources being undetermined, I would again like to draw our mutual attention to the "case by case basis" part, of WP:RS policy, which I think is crucial to an understanding of what is seen as the problem with the current complaints. Reliability of ALL sources is undetermined and "must be assessed on a case by case basis".

WP:RS policy is very clear:"News organizations. ...even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." Applying this fairly and neutrally should help everyone feel that the article is being updated and edited from a neutral POV and NOT from either a predominantly American or Pakistani perspective.

I see now that the rather dubious al-Qaida 'nuclear' thing has been re-added. If the EU Times is not an RS as has been suggested, (though I know nothing about it) and the story originated from there then maybe we should delete it. I see a Yahoo news link has now been added for the same information, which would on the face of it pass as an RS. But if Yahoo got it from the EU Times then I agree we could remove it. Any thought?

Also the BLP issue is not in debate, is it? It appears no-one objects to the BLP template being changed to a current event template. If no-one does object, then who wants to do it? We should be maybe do this quickly. Best wishes.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo, ANI, Time of india are al lattributing the report to the eutimes.com which is no where near being reliable. One of their other current headlines is that a US earth quake weapond test cause the new zealand earth quake. The site is a conspiracy theroy imitating news site and there is no way these claims should be included. I'm going to remove for the time being and ask for discussion here before it is re-added.

As is common with current event articles wiki needs to remain an encyclopedia, not abreaking news source. If the info is reliable a claim of this significance will no doubt be picked up by other news outlest at which time it can be re-added. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia information lock down

Are we again under lock down like here Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia? The whole US media is following a US government censorship request and is repressing information about this case. I would be just naive to think they did not include Wikipedia as well in this case as the did did in Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia. Recent editing activities might support this theory. Dawn is a reliable source and US media is censored. What do we do? Jimbo want to come out and tell us what information the US government wants to include? Did he and other editors already help to censor certain information like a possible connection to the Drone attacks? This all strongly reminds me on Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued censorship 6 Dawn is a reliable source. IQinn (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith - it's a mischaracterization of the edit - I meant to remove the EU online non-RS, not dawn and reverted before you posted the comment. Please acknowledge. I don't know if Dawn is a RS or not. Does not seem to be consensus on that point yet. I do think its a bit much to assume that "The whole US media is following a US government censorship request and is repressing information about this case".Bevinbell 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dawn is a reliable source. So why you keep cutting out this information? You also seems not to have much background knowledge about this case as you seems not to know that US mains street media was/is censoring important information about the case. IQinn (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

original reporting by Dawn is deemed to be reliable, Dawn copying and pasting an article from Allvoices is not. it is a huge claim being made and if thre is any validity to it then numerous other outlets will also report it. As of now, Dawn and Allvoice are the only outlets reporting this. this is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news website. It can wait for a ocuple days for inclusion (if in fact other outlets do pick it up). 206.108.31.36 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, having read Dawn a fair amount over the past 9 months, it is not at all a reliable source.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Dawn is Pakistan's oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper." That is sufficient to make it wp:reliable. It's reliability or lack thereof in the non-wiki sense of the word is another question, and I appreciate your personal opinion on the matter. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help if we said something like "according to Pakistan's Dawn News" and let readers take that for what it's worth.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whats the urgency to have this included? What harm comes from waiting a day or two to see if this claim is reported by other outlets? If there is anything to it believe me there will be sotries popping up globally. If it doesnt then that will be the indication there was nothing to the claim in the first place. 206.108.31.36 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Iqinn re: gov sensorship....check my IP...I'm a Canadian (and a liberal one at that) but I just dont like seeing anon, POV claims that have huge implications. If these claims are true the GLOBAL media will report it. There are enough news agencies in Asia, Africa, ME and Eurpoe that have no problem reporting embassing and disparaging info on the USA. 206.108.31.36 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued censorship continued Dawn is a reliable source. My 3 reverts are gone and 206.108.31.36 / 207.216.253.134 is edit warring and his edit history suggest he is a sock puppet so it would be good if somebody else re-includes the information the IP keeps censoring. I agree it should be attributed to the sources and i think that was already partly done. I agree that Dawn is a reliable source and the way the things go here as the moment is the same as in Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa man, you need to take a breath and relax a little bit. I'm not a sock puppet, I just happen to edit both from work and from home (you'll find the 206.xxx.xxx.xxx ip may fluctuate as its a large network and I edit form multiple office locations). No one is trying to hide and I have not held myself out as being more than one editor (actually, I've made it very obvious/clear I am the same editor). No one is arguing with you that Dawn can be a reliable source. Currently Dawn is making an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary references, which, Dawn alone does not qualify as. Why are you so passionate about having this claim immediately included in an encyclopedia article? I ask again: what is the harm in waiting another couple of days for other outlets to pick up the story? Only two things could happen: Dawn remains the only source for such info in which case othber outlets have decided it is not credible (meaning it should not be included in the article), or they do decide its credible and we add it in a few days form now. Does that not sound reasonable? You also need to back off with the conspiracy claims. Just because someone is not wholesale anti-american does not make them a CIA spook. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How long have you been editing Wikipedia? What is your Wikipedia user name? No need to wait and to censor it Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style.

You are censoring information that comes from a reliable source. Please understand Wikipedia is verifiability and this has been sufficient verified. As Randy said that we do attribute it to Dawn News and it is up to the reader to decide not to you in your quest of censorship. You back off and revert yourself as you will find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia as your behavior is vandalism and it is highly damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED and we do not manipulate information. IQinn (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also add, after reviewing your own edit history, you clearly have an axe to grind with the US Military and the US presence in the middle east. Additionally you have a history of using non-reliable sources for very controversial claims (democracy now, epochtimes, etc.) So I would suggest before you start screaming from the roof tops of POV conspiracies you take a moment to asses your own credibility. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a long term editor and your claims are ridiculously wrong and your history and behavior gives us strong evidence that you are most likely a sock puppet. This is just a cheap attempt to draw attention away from the content issue here where you and other people cutting out information that is based on reliable sources Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style. Continued censorship Back off you are damaging our reputation with this large scale censorship. IQinn (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what make you feel I am a sockpuppet? On the topic of content and reliable sources I think you are failing to understand the principles of Wikipedia (which is surprising considering your tenure). First, wiki is an encyclopedia, not a news source. It is not here to present all the latest reports from various news outlets, but rather to present reliable, referencable facts about a particular subject. Second, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/references which the references for the content removed fails to achieve. Third, many of these sources I agree are reliable in most circumstances, but I would suggest the current political climate in PK is making objective, fact based reporting on this subject incredibly difficult, if not impossible. This is not to suggest that all PK sources should not be used but rather that exceptional, controversial, and decidedly anti-Davis claims being made in exclusively PK media, and not appearing in anywhere outside of PK sources should not be included until objective 3rd party sources are also reporting it. In addition, and in an attempt to show my non-partisan approach here, I would say the same standard should apply for US media sources as I believe the ability for political influence to impact news reports exists in both arenas. So, in summary, if exceptional claims are being made by either the side in this incident they should be excluded until such time that a 3rd party is backing up said claims. Would that be sufficient for you? 207.216.253.134 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your have obviously a deep knowledge in how to game the Wikipedia system that highly suggest a long term involvement. How long have you been editing Wikipedia? What is your Wikipedia user name?

Censorship 1 Dawn is a reliable source and the information is sufficient verified especially as we attribute this to the source. Your argumentation goes Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style and it is obviously the US media who is blacking out information.

Large scale cut out 2 of any connection to a found GPS chip and the possible connection to the Drone attacks in Pakistan continues despite this information is verified by multiply reliable sources also Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style. Back of you are damaging the Wikipedia project. IQinn (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have logged in to my account to satisfy your curiosity. I rarely do log in, but just because you asked here it is.Now enough with the conspiracy already, just because I am not in agreement with smearing this man based on controversial, sparsely reported, and significantly damaging claims does not make me a US gov spook. And it isn't just the US media that is failing to report these controversial claims, it is ALL media sources outside of PK that have failed to report them. Do you really think the US gov is able to exert control of media in say Sweden? Russia? Japan? Turkey? If not, then why are none of the outlets in these countries reporting any of this? It is exclusive to PK!

The GPS info has NOT been reported by multiple sources, a single story has been reprinted by a very small number of news aggregators. There is a big difference there. No other news outlet is publishing original content, this is all based on a single story which you claim was broken by Dawn and I feel was broken by Allvoices (it is difficult to determine as Dawn doesn't time/date stamp articles, nor do the publish the authors name.

Please answer my ongoing, simple question: what is the harm in waiting for additional, 3rd party, objective sources to report this info? I am happy to apply the same standards for both American and PK media as in this particular case it is very clear both govs are influencing their respective media outlets. You seem to be of the opinion that the US gov is doing this, but that anything being reported in PK is of absolute credibility and is beyond the influence of political pressures within that country which is absurd. Macutty (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argumentation goes Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style. Fact Dawn as well as other PK media are reliable sources and it is even recommended to follow PK sources as this all happens in PK and they are the ones who provide the information. Bottom line Dawn and other PK media are RS and we do include them and we have to be dam careful with US sources that are faking information on the request of the US government. Do you have any link that shows that DAWN is manipulating information on the request of the PK government. Please do provide them to us. The these claims are based on multiple reliable secondary sources. You are censoring Censorship 1, Censorship 2 information that is verified by reliable sources and that the reader needs to know. We attribute it to the sources and it is up to the reader to decide. Answering your simple question. You are censoring information and the damage you do to the Wikipedia project is huge. Get the stuff back now. As i have told you days before bring it to the BLP or reliable sources noticeboard. Your large scale censorship is damaging our project and together with the US media black out and past incidents Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia by best highly alarming. IQinn (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your response makes it clear that you have no interest in being reasonable or finding a consensus, but rather are here to push your anti-american POV. You continue to ignore specific requests to engage in discussions around sources and content and instead simply restate over and over that I am a US gov spook and this is all a conspiracy. Further your statements regarding the PK media are so far from reality that it is questionable if you should be editing this (or potentially any) article.207.216.253.134 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation of unreliability of PK media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/cia-agent-lahore-civilian-deaths?INTCMP=SRCH

Erm... but... that article also confirms (?) the unreliability of the American media.

I agree with iquin. We are in danger here of damaging the neutrality of the article and also thereby damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. I have been following this story from the beginning and know that for every Pakistani source used here there are often a great many other sources covering the same story, in India and Malaysia and the Middle East. So it would be very biased to start deleting information after just following one source up and finding it objectionable. So, we have been applying your criteria of waiting till other news outlets cover the same story. That the same kind of detail hasn't been appearing in Sweden or Europe may be correct. But can you and have you read the papers in French and German and Norwegian and Swedish, etc?! :-o. And then of course this story has attracted less attention due to the revolutions occuring across the North of Africa.

Please consider what I ahve written. What you propose strikes me as censorship based on ideas of western media supremacy regarding reliability. Plus didn't you know that it was the American press which was proven to be practicing a deceit and were forced to admit that deceit, NOT the Pakistani media

"Pakistanis see the episode as more evidence of imperialistic arrogance. For years the press has been filled with conspiracy-laden speculation about Blackwater – now known as Xe – the American military contractor with a reputation for violent ruthlessness, in their country. Papers have been filled with stories of armed Americans roaming the streets with disdain for the law and innocent life."

207.216.253.134 (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(206.108.31.36 / 207.216.253.134 / Macutty - same person) keeps cutting out tons of reliable source Guardian / The independent / The Atlantic / Dawn / Tribune / BBC ... + there is nothing normal here see also my reply below. IQinn (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re " It has been reported that CIA drone attacks..." bit

Re the paragraph that begins "It has been reported that CIA drone attacks...". The paragraph has three refs, and:

• The third ref doesn't check out, the URL is malformed or something, it just goes to the main page of the newspaper.
• The second ref refers to Davis as an "American killer" and "American double murderer", so this is not a normal journalistic ref and not a good ref.
• The first ref (it is Yahoo News, which I don't know how reliable they are, and they cite the ever-popular Mr. Many Analysts, but leaving that aside) is used to support the statement "CIA drone attacks in Waziristan, which had been occurring at the average rate of two to three per week since 2008, stopped after Raymond Davis was arrested. There were no reported drone attacks from January 23, four days before the Raymond Davis incident, until 21st February"

This is rank implication of causation and is similar to "Since Jones moved away, the weather has improved" or "In Obama's first month in office, crime rose 2%" or "Ms. Starlet spent a week filming on location with Mr. Star, and nine months later she had a baby" or whatever. It's not that it's necessarily false. Its that simply making the statement implies a causation that may not be there. The frequency of drone attacks are presumably dependent on a large number of factors. So let's not do this, OK? Herostratus (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you per WP:PRESERVE. Please do make more efforts to preserve information. bit. I added also additional sources and these sources were very easy to find. The article surely need some more work but this large scale removing of all information that might be inconvenient for one, party what is going on here at the moment is troublesome. It follows exactly the Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia blackout. There are still lots of high profile WP:RS despite the attempted media black out by the US government. No we do not claim that there is a causation and we do not say it is true. "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". IQinn (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Its synth info and needs to go. I made this point yesterday but you immediately revert then too. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I also see Iqinn that you have also been shut down on Jimbo Wales talk page and even Jimbo agreed that your Dawn source is far from reliable in this case. Please cease and desist until such time as reliable sources are available. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(206.108.31.36 / 207.216.253.134 / Macutty) there is no synth and reliable sources have been added. You have never shown that the sources are not reliable and you have never explained where you se synth instead you just keep censoring through edit warring over and over again. If that does not stop you might be blocked entirely from editing Wikipedia. I have also not been shut down and: "Jimbo agreed that Dawn newspaper is far from reliable in this case." That is false. Please be more careful when making statements. This is simply false. The bottom line is that the sources i added to the part of the article that is discussed in this thread are WP:RS and that there is no synth. IQinn (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity claim for Davis

I would like to create a new heading something along the lines of "Diplomatic immunity". It seem the whole incident hinges on 1. the US claim that he HAS immunity therefore should have been released immediately that was made known and 2. the Pakistan authorities arguing the point. Therefore I myself think it would be very useful to have the specific parts from the Vienna convention which are appropriate and relevant to Davis and his situation included here. The Vienna Convention is quite clear on it. And it does rather clarify the Pakistani refusal to release Davis. May I ask you UKexpat to explain why you keep deleting them? For example you have allowed for this statement: "...the question of diplomatic immunity depends on whether Davis was on the staff of the 'consulate' or the 'embassy' as the privileges and immunities of each are very different...." but then deleted the following relevant direct quotes from the Vienna Convention that then spell out that difference. Can you explain why please?

Here is a quick rough draft of what my suggestion would include...

Diplomatic immunity relevant to Davis

"...the question of diplomatic immunity depends on whether Davis was on the staff of the 'consulate' or the 'embassy' as the privileges and immunities of each are very different. If Davis is part of the consulate then the relevant article from The Vienna Convention on '''Consular''' Relations states in Article 41(1) that “Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.”https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf&embedded=true&chrome=true

For Davis to be regarded as "embassy" the Vienna Convention Article 1 states that the criteria “diplomatic staff” applies to "the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank”https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf&embedded=true&chrome=true. Yet Mr Davis in the mobile phone video of his interrogation did not claim that he had a diplomatic rank, but rather that he was "doing consulting work for the consular general, who is based at the US consulate in Lahore." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/10/us-diplomat-video-footage-pakistan

However, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, has stated he is on its "administrative and technical staff" http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/backgroundbriefing.html, so whether he is on its diplomatic staff is immaterial. Michael E Piston (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In Article 37.3 of The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations it further states that "members of the service staff of the mission" only "enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties". Mr Shaik has pointed out that this raises the question of if Davis can rightly be regarded as a member of the diplomatic staff then whether was Davis in Mozang Chowrangi in the ‘course of his duties’ and who should decide that. http://tribune.com.pk/story/115417/the-curious-case-of-raymond-davis

However, again per the U.S. Embassy, Davis was on the Embassy's administrative and technical staff, and therefore, if it is correct, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is immaterial to Davis's status. Michael E Piston (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also can someone explain what 'rm editorialising' means, please. I don't understand the term nor how I am in infringement of it --Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

well you are drawing your own inferences based on your own research about what diplomatic immunity means or not. we just need to report what the various RS are saying giving every viewpoint WP:DUE weight. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH may be policies you want to read. We are writing an encyclopedia and not arguing in a court of Law. Others could question if pakistan is a sovereign nation with its own laws anymore or just another American state where US law holds supreme. we clearly dont need those arguments here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I still don't know what "editorialising" means or how I am in infringement of that. Can you please explain further how direct quotes from the Vienna Convention can be someone's "own inference"?! :-o Don't direct quotes and summarisations of the viewpoint of a former Pakistani Diplomat with references from a reliable secondary source, pass the "giving every viewpoint WP:DUE weight" test? That was what was originally deleted. I'm not suggesting "arguing [like] in a court of law". I'm suggesting that providing the specific relevant Vienna Convention articles allows people to access the relevant information to this subject matter and make their own minds up based upon reliable, authoritative information compiled from a neutral position. I'm also suggesting that deleting them (and also an authoritative Pakistani perspective upon them) does not. The American position on immunity does not hold up under close scrutiny. Thankfully this wiki article, due to other edits, is now beginning to reflect that--85.228.51.7 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pakistani position on immunity does not hold up at all. the Wall street journal today ripped apart Pakistan and called it "Pakistan is the world's leading terrorist sanctuary, home to al Qaeda's leadership as well as the Afghan Taliban."[4]. not to say that many think of Pakistan as the worlds leading state supporter of terrorism and a failed state as such. I would put much more weight in what WSJ says rather than what comes out of the mouth of a sacked ex FM of pakistan. all you know this is just a ploy to get Americans to throw a few pennies more in the direction of Pakistan.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I talked to real Canadian career diplomats about this case.This is what he explained to me: A person with an official passport and an official business visa is someone who works for their government and who travels overseas on government business. However, not all government employees who travel overseas have diplomatic status. Those that do, have to be declared as such in the country in which they are posted and when they are declared as such,the local government issues these diplomats with a locally issued diplomatic ID card, which, according to all sources, Davis did not possess. A diplomatic passport and visa is not enough and here is why: are only considered "diplomats" with diplomatic immunity those diplomats who are posted in that country, at the embassy. For example, a US diplomat stationed at the embassy in India has diplomatic immunity in India. The Indian government supplies him with an Diplomatic ID card in India and this is what he produces to identify himself as a diplomat to an Indian policeman who would ask him for credentials. Suppose this same US diplomat in India wants to go on a temporary visit to the US embassy in Pakistan, he must first get an official business visa from Pakistan. He will enter Pakistan with his diplomatic passport and his official business visa in it but he is not considered a diplomat in Pakistan because he was not posted to Pakistan by the US department of State. If he is pulled over by a Pakistani policeman, he can show his diplomatic passport all he wants, he will not have a Pakistan issued Diplomatic ID card to establish his diplomatic immunity IN PAKISTAN, so he has no immunity. I think this is simple enough.

By all accounts Davis was not reported by the US embassy to the Pakistan Foreign Office as a diplomat attached to the US embassy until Jan 29, two days after the incident. When Davis was asked to Identify himself to the police who arrested him, YES, he produced an official US passport which contained a valid official business visa, but he did not have the Pakistani issued Diplomatic ID card that real US diplomats all have in their possession. He was not driving a car with diplomatic plates, although all US diplomats are entitled to such licence plates, precisely so that police can identify Diplomats at the moment they are pulled over. They are entitled to have such plates even on their privately owned cars, not just on service cars. In Canada, Diplomatic licence plates are RED. All others are white. Davis drove a white Honda Civic with private licence plates precisely because he did not want to be identified as a diplomat in Pakistani streets.Hudicourt (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the statement above that "By all accounts Davis was not reported by the US embassy to the Pakistan Foreign Office as a diplomat attached to the US embassy until Jan 29, two days after the incident", this is contradicted by the statement on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad that "on January 20th, 2010, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad notified Mr. Davis as a member of the administrative and technical staff under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations." http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/backgroundbriefing.html. The Embassy further asserts that " From that point, he enjoyed the status as a member of the staff of the mission. He enjoyed privileges and immunities against local criminal law, including inviolability of person, inviolability from arrest and detention, immunity from criminal jurisdiction. He has those privileges and immunities, and he continues to enjoy them." In short, it is the opinion of the Embassy that all that was required for Mr. Davis to have the diplomatic immunity of a member of Embassy administrative and technical staff was for the U.S. Embassy to notify the Pakistani government that he was a member of that staff, which was done over a year before the incident in question. The Embassy's position, if correct, makes all the discussion of what visa Mr. Davis held or should have held, what kind of car he was driving or even what he said about himself wholly irrelevant. Given that these appears to be the official U.S. position on the subject, anyone who is believes Mr. Davis doesn't have immunity needs to respond directly to these claims. Michael E Piston (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was an ex special forces US soldier given a visa by Pakistan?? nobody seems to be talking about it that why he was given a visa if he was not employed by Us embassy. He was member of "admin and technical staff" and these people have immunity [5][6] In the end it will be about getting more money from US in a financially Bankrupt, failed state led by corrupt politicians.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your question "Why was an ex-specialforces US soldier given a visa by Pakistan?" is based upon a false premise. The visa issued to Raymond Davis by the embassy of Pakistan has been found to be unverified. The name and address given for Raymond Davis has also been fraught with difficulties and are allegedly fake. Because of that a case has been registered against the officials of the Pakistan embassy for negligence and the government has been given until the 17th of February to provide the court with a clarification regarding the matter.http://dunyanews.tv/index.php?key=Q2F0SUQ9MiNOaWQ9MTk3MjA=.Therefore there seems no need to talk about why he was given a visa when it appears he may not have been "given" one, at all. Either that or it has been falsified, or has been acquired illegally or due to negligence. Instead of assuming that the US behaviour has been legal, open and honest and finding and then adding any sourced 'opinion' which supports that view to this article, may I suggest again that it would serve the neutrality of this topic to allow the relevant Vienna Convention laws to appear here. Otherwise it's just one opinion against another opinion and is inviting an editing war. So again I suggest adding the legal facts to this article somehow--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)