Jump to content

Talk:2016 Lahore suicide bombing

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 107.72.98.6 (talk) at 05:12, 29 March 2016 (→‎Background of Islamic attacks on Christians in Pakistan: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Naming Convention

Naming problem

Just noticed a duplicate article. This title, is better suited for Western audiences. Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park attack or Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park bombing may be better for the locals.

How about comparison with "2016 Brussels bombings". It is not Zaventem and Maalbeck bombings. Needs discussion.

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was rather sudden. Also note that my comment above was copied here by someone else. I typically try not to over post or cross post but this copied comment is ok. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize the merger and copying was done without anybody's permission, would you oppose if I moved you comment to the consensus discussion below, or you yourself if you wish to participate in it. Also I've removed my own redundant comments from this topic and other ones as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Consensus

Due to the fact that we have four different pages, all created for the same explicit purpose I must propose a discussion as to how we're going to approach the necessary merger of information and to which specific page. The pages in question are 2016 Lahore suicide bombing, 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park attack and 2016 Lahore bombing. Currently the latter two are redirects to this page, the contested article was made 15:26, 27 March 2016, and the current article you are sitting on at the exact same time. The other two I don't know. I would like to request a discussion on the following topic: "Which page do we keep, and which pages do we merge to it". @Spirit Ethanol, Musa Raza, Callinus, Kristijh, and Inter&anthro:Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC) A second round of pings for those I believe are involved @Muhammad Numan MN, Rossbawse, Obaid Raza, and Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy: Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, for god's sake, talk it out don't blindly rush about destroying everything. Enough is enough, and if necessary I will bring admins to the discussion. Please, I would prefer we discuss it, but that means stopping and talking.
Personally I believe that Lahore should be the main article and the others should serve as redirects. The other names are too specific in my opinion Inter&anthro (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, thank you Inter&#;anthro, and second, I agree with the above sentiment. A broader name that would be accessible to all audiences is probably the best. As has been mention above, 2016 Brussels bombings not 2016 Maelbeek attacks. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone is against me so I'm out of it. I created the article first and then the other article was created. So it should be deleted or merged but no one wants to merge it. Someone copied the content from the article I created and pasted into this article so It could look better. Now keep this or that. I'm don't care. Please don't mention me in your messages
Thank you.--Musa Talk  19:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Musa Raza please don't feel offended. I know that editing on Wikipedia can be frustrating at times but just because the concencus resulted in a page being moved does not mean your contributions were not appreciated. If you are still interested in the subject you can still edit the overall article a per WP:OWNERSHIP. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will only say these two things but will not ping you. 1. Your article was not created first, I gave time stamps for creation you should read them. 2. Nobody is against you, especially not me, I tried to get consensus on this topic before anything else. I have spent around 4 hours on this alone, it is now 5 am and my battery is very low. I want all to work together, but that requires consensus. The dramatic nature of the speedy deletes, disingenous reverts (not all but some), the utterly unnecessary AfD which will be archived for the foolishness that it was and above all the utter bulls fest that everybody decided to run served only to impede discussion. What should have happened in the first place, is a discussion to be held, a consensus to be achieved and finally actions to be made. But the shoot first attitude that was displayed on all, including my, parts prevented that from happening. This discussion is still open. The article will be named once consensus is achieved. Or we'll all end up receiving topic bans for idiocy. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my appeal to contest the speedy deletion of the article, 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast has been deleted under the A10 guidelines. Unfortunately that means that all the material that could have been merged to this article is gone. There is nothing to be done but to work together from here Musa Raza that includes you if you will participate. It shouldn't matter who created what article first. And if it is so important than it will be recorded that the first article on the topic to be created was Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park attack at 12:04 UTC. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do not appreciate the sudden mass of moves that have taken place across several pages and talk pages (of which one still needs to be moved: Talk:2016 Lahore bombing) without any consensus whatsoever. However, since it has already been done I invite all involved parties to begin the discussion on this talk page about the naming convention to be applied. If need be the page can be renamed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear as though content was copied here without proper attribution (diff). I would be rather annoyed if someone did this to my work, since all Wikipedia content is licensed through attribution. Jolly Ω Janner 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the merge was done improperly from all directions (without consensus), there's several articles involved, do you know from which specific one the trouble information is from? Mr rnddude (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, since there was no mention in the edit summary. Normally if someone forgot to attribute in the edit summary, I would add a talk page header informing that some of the content was copied from other articles. It also looks like some articles were deleted, so there is no way for me to check the revision histories to see where it came from. It's quite a mess, but if any editors have specific concerns that their work is being improperly attributed, I can see if I can contact an administrator to look through the deleted revisions. Technically if we rewrite the text, it is no longer a violation of CC BY-SA 3.0. Jolly Ω Janner 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that will have to do, and yeah speedy deletions were proposed on at least one page without consensus. Again. Consensus. It is important. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the history of 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast. You can check the history of that page and see the original editors of some of the material in this article. You can also see whether there is any more material that should be imported. I left that page as a redirect, however. You can access the page directly in the redirect message under the article name. Rmhermen (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It would appear as though text has been copied from that article without attribution. I have made a proxy edit to ensure there is an edit summary to include that article and added {{Copied}} to both talk pages. Jolly Ω Janner 02:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook glitch

Karolle I'm not sure how important the paragraph about the Facebook glitch is to the article. It seems to come from a source that specialises in tech rather than major news headlines. Perhaps this could be useful on Facebook Safety Check article? Jolly Ω Janner 04:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it since there were no objections. After seeing similar content on the Facebook Safety Check article, I decided not to duplicate it there. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 04:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

There's been two reverts that I know of to this specific section, I am opening this up preemptively to prevent an editorial war. @Jolly Janner: has recommended that a discussion is made on this as of the last revert. Thoughts on; Reactions - international and domestic "Yay" or "Nay". Mr rnddude (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend using prose mentioning countries/entities condemning attack without specific statement unless notable. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the reaction from India may be important, but not a full length quote. Aside from that, I have nothing new to add on the matter. Both myself and most of the regular editors involved know the deal here. I will let the seemingly obvious consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to do away with including world leader responses to terrorist incidents speak for itself. Jolly Ω Janner 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments should be limited to interested/involved nations, and then written in prose form, not a list. Most readers do not care about the "thoughts and prayers" of uninvolved nations. WWGB (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're all interested, or they wouldn't be talking. I'm down for hearing from Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Pakistan's government and anyone saying something unusual or doing something. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Background of Islamic attacks on Christians in Pakistan

From the Associated Press.[1]

SOME ATTACKS ON CHURCHES, HOMES AND INDIVIDUALS SINCE 2002

  • Islamabad, 2002: An American woman and her daughter were killed along with three other people when multiple assailants breached security and attacked a multidenominational church inside the diplomatic enclave where the foreign missions are located.
  • Islamabad, 2002: Attackers with grenades hit a Christian-run hospital, killing four people.
  • Eastern Punjab, 2005: three churches were destroyed, but no deaths were reported.
  • Gorja, eastern Punjab, 2009: A mob burned an estimated 60 homes, killing six Christians.
  • Eastern Punjab, 2010: mobs of militant Muslims attacked four churches after controversial U.S. pastor Terry Jones called for people to burn the Quran.
  • Islamabad, 2011: Gunmen killed prominent Christian politician Shahbaz Bhatti, who served as a minister in the government of Asif Zardari, husband of the late Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto.
  • Peshawar, 2013: multiple attackers, some in suicide vests, killed 85 Christians.
  • Eastern Lahore, 2013: Mobs of Muslims burned nearly 200 homes belonging to Christians in the Joseph Colony.
  • Eastern Lahore, 2015: Two suicide bombers attacked two churches, killing 15 worshippers.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Lahore_suicide_bombing&oldid=712453427"