Talk:Raymond Allen Davis incident

Untitled

The introduction / first para says' "although the US protested... he was arraigned by Pakistan" when it could / should have been "although the law took its course, the US continued to protest".. what ethnocentricism!!

Aafia siddiqui

The are has been an attempt by the Pakistani government to swap Dr Aafia siddiqui for Davis. Muslims, and the Pakistani people especially have long demanded the release of this woman. Even in captivity she was treated like an animal by the Americans, subjugated to strip searches and the like; A woman! Anyways, it is a shame that this swap attempt has not been mentioned in the article (at least not clearly; the word Aafia is no where in the article). For the sources, here is one: "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41594034/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/pakistan-hints-prisoner-swap-us-official/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That was in the article once. I know, as it was I who added a reference to it, but someone appears to have deleted that.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Women and men are treated quite equally in the US, including strip searches of prisoners for contraband, such as weapons or drugs. One upside to the already bad situation is, that same sex people strip search the prisoner, women search women, men search men. When the converse occurs in the US, more than eyebrows are raised, rage ensues. I'll give you a hint, I'm in the US, a land where I've personally held a semiautomatic handgun that was less than 8cm by 9cm. Need I say more on our suspicion of any convict or prisoner? One does not like it, but the reality is what it is. I'm not really happy about a foot of snow being present tomorrow night and I have to shove it with a herniated disc, osteoarthritis and a separated shoulder. It is what it is, one deals with what is as it happens.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please explain controversial or complicated edits on the talk page -- not in our edit summaries?

Another contributor excised a passage, that was referenced to al Jazeera, claiming al Jazeera was not a reliable enough source.

First, it is essential if we are all to cooperate to prevent triggering edit warring to not rely on edit summaries to explain controversial or complicated edits. The initial impulse when you are annoyed by a controversial edit, which another contributor has explained with an brief unsatisfactory edit summary, is to reply in your own edit summary, when you revert their edit. Result -- instant edit war. So don't do this.

Second, third parties who are trying to go back and figure out how the an article evolved should be able to look to the talk page for the explanation of controversies -- not the edit summaries.

Third, explanations in edit summaries generally don't make any sense, without stepping through the edits in question. This really sucks! So don't do it.

If your edit is complicated your edit summary should say something like: "revert -- see talk" or "complicated -- see talk"

As to "Al Jazeera" not being a reliable source -- says who? Al Jazeera's English service has an excellent reputation for fairness and independence. The excised passage struck didn't strike me as a controversial passage that would justify the hand-wave to BLP in the edit summary. Geo Swan (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a well respected source. To be honest, I personally know some of their correspondents, as we shared a villa complex in Qatar. So, the reference and statements, if not OR or not explicitly stated in the article, should be reinstated. My *own* opinion is that pressure was applied, but that is based upon personal experience in military situations abroad and hence, OR.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Diyya in Pakistan

The article claims that the practice of Diyya is common in Pakistan. Yet, the two citations for this claim, number [2] and [89] do not substantiate this and only refer to the Raymond Allen Davis incident. Either the statement should be updated to remove the term "common" or better citations should be used.

Quoted below from Release section: "He was released under a principle of Sharia (Islamic law) that allows murder charges to be dismissed if diyya is paid to the deceased's families (if and only if, they agreed without any pressure), an arrangement which is legal and common in Pakistan.[2][89]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.2.36 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)