Talk:Five dead in attack in Pakistan

{{protected|Edit warring}}

I'm unprotecting under the assumption that people can behave civilly now. Amgine, or whomever, feel free to reprotect if you see the edit war start back up. Actually, the conversation in this talk page seems better than in the usual fights, as far as I can tell. Nyarlathotep 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
Category:Sindh and Category:Karachi need to be added. Ali Rana (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done — Gopher65_talk 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unpublishable in this condition

Contradictions between the article and it's own sources prevent this article from being publishable;

Contradiction #1; Day of Bush visit;

Article; "The explosions come just a day before United States President George W. Bush is scheduled to visit the nation"

Source; "The explosions happened the day President George W. Bush is scheduled to arrive here."

Addressed --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction #2. Moroccan girl

article; "over fifty more were injured, including a young Moroccan girl."

source; "Moroccan national girl is missing, sources said."

article: "Some 52 people were injured, including a young Moroccan girl who was hit by debris" - inaccurate claim. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions 3; number of bombs;

Article; "Two explosions near a US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan killed five"

Source;"Police initially said two car bombs had gone off, but provincial police chief Jahangir Mirza said that a single bomb may have triggered a second smaller explosion in a burning car."

Addressed --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction #4; number of deaths

Article; "Two explosions near a US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan killed five"

Source; "killing about two people on spot and wounding over 40, a senior police official, Manzoor Mughal, told KUNA by telephone.

Assertion backed by second source. Title is "Two car explosions near US Consulate in South Pakistan kill over 5, wound 40". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, Bush statement adds nothing but propaganda to the article; especially since no terrorist group has been identified. Perhaps it was just someone who was crazy or who had relatives killed by a US bomb somewhere; there is no proof at all that terrorists did this. Neutralizer 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your actions aren't actionable, because you chose to make this argument on your own ignorance.

• It is the day before, because Bush will be arriving quite late, and will not have time to visit. Note, that's visit, not arrive.
• Forbes/AP: "Some 52 people were injured, including a young Moroccan girl who was hit by debris, said provincial government spokesman Salahuddin Haider." KUNA's article was published before the AP.
• And here's where you screwed up. That was after the car bomb, note - only the first was denoted as a CAR BOMB. Forbes/AP: "Police initially said two car bombs had gone off, but provincial police chief Jahangir Mirza said that a single bomb may have triggered a second smaller explosion in a burning car."
• So what? It's attributed to him, and the statements are relevent, especially since they were the first lines of the transcript after a reporter asked him about the events in Pakistan. Check the White House source.

There are no actionable objections here - absoluely none. You searched for a needle in a haystack, only to find out your needle was a pin. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Association with Bush. First source: "Two car explosions near US Consulate in South Pakistan kill over 5, wound 40," ... "Officials said the bombing could be timed for Bush's visit to Pakistan." --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and a prime example of anglo/american centric point of view

This article was rushed through publishing and into lead..with absolutely no collaborative work...why ??? Another car bomb somewhere in the world????

1. There is no proof or even evidence that the bombing was done by "terrorists"; it might( or even likely) have even been done by US. ops or the CIA for their geopolitical purposes (no dead body of the "suicide" bomber has been found and, suspiciously, the AP report even says; "His body was not recovered".)...1 theory is as good as any other and if somebody really wanted to threaten Bush...why not wait til he actually arrived?

2. It is conspiracy theory pushing to suggest that the attack was connected to the Bush visit. There is no evidence whatsoever that the attack was connected to the Bush visit; so there should not be any of his propaganda quotes included in an article about an event that has not been shown to have anything at all to do with the USA. This did not happen in the USA; it happened in Pakistan so if you want a quote; please report one from a government leader of Pakistan.

3. The title says "near US consulate"..maybe it was near the Iranian consulate too...we don't publish tabloid type innuendo here.

Please deal with these issues before publishing and putting up in lead place again. Neutralizer 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• You are getting really tiring. You are making your actions on the other members of the press, not this article specifically. You are inserting your problems with the other articles without reading this article, and substituting this article for MSM. That's a huge problem, and you need to realize it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So when policys dont fit here? International 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Title still problematic

Thanks ; its much better now; but I think we all realize saying "near US consulate" is an unnecessary innuendo. I will remove that reference. Neutralizer 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• It was less than 20 meters away. IT'S A SAFE ASSUMPTION. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree to rename if "According to Pakistani officials" is added. Pakistani officials can make innuendos, wikinewsians can't. --MateoP 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea because we don't make assumptions here; we report events as they are...Since it was actually the Mariott attacked; perhaps we should just say that? Neutralizer 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear lord - you're contradicting your own comments again. Wake up; don't you see anything remotely wrong with what you just stated and your first statement? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mateo; I trust your judgement on the title; I have already changed it once. Neutralizer 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush quote

I reverted the edit removing the Bush quote because this is a direct response to the attacks the article is about, thus making it a relevant item for inclusion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• sugestion, put this last in the article:

"During a press conference in New Delhi, India, President Bush stated he would still travel to Pakistan despite the explosions." International 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected: Parties make discussion to reach compromise text.

I want the parties to this site disruption to COMMUNICATE on this talk page and reach compromise regarding possible issues with this article. DO NOT further edit this article until consensus is reached on this page. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy about this because there were detailed points given above and I addressed them. As soon as I'd done that and put the article back up as lead there were efforts to add in "fluff" that was to the detriment of the article and made it unclear. I have been left with a feeling that despite trying to address the concerns of those who claim this article represented the POV of the current US administration they have continually moved the goalposts as to what is acceptable. I feel I have gone out of my way to justify myself on items I have removed, and items I have added. However, there always seemed to be some need to underplay the damage/death toll or twist it into something blaming the US administration for the attack. If you raise a list of points criticising an article and they're all addressed, then is it any wonder you're thought of as interfering or disrupting if you suddenly find another lot of even more trivial reasons to colour the article with your personal perspective? I'm sorry I lost my temper in one of my edit summaries, but this was getting ridiculous. Incidentally, this isn't on my watchlist so this may be my final comment on this page. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the work Brian did; I just wanted to clarify that the temper loss Brian refers to happened on an edit where Brian (perhaps mistakenly) removed the President's quote [1], so that led me to think Brian was ok with leaving that quote out. Neutralizer 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

compromise text suggestion

"During a press conference in New Delhi, India, President Bush stated he would still travel to Pakistan despite the explosions." In the end of article.

remove:

"During a press conference in New Delhi, India, President Bush stated he would still travel to Pakistan despite the explosions, saying that: "Terrorists and killers are not going to prevent me from going to Pakistan. My trip to Pakistan is an important trip. It's important to talk with President Musharraf about continuing our fight against terrorists." Bush also expressed his condolences to the individuals lost in the attack during the conference."

Clean and no spinn. International 23:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's a quote, not a spin... I do not see an issue with it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a compromise suggestion. If you take a stand for your point there will be no solution I guess. I take story of main lead as disputed. International 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What? It provides context to the article of Bush's statements, provided in full, not paraphrased. HOW can that possibly be spin? Please DON'T avoid questions if you bring them up. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion dont include Bush statement just the facts, very NPOV. His statment is spinn for media and in this case it is not necessary for the article.International 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Here is a quote, taken from an official transcript, from a response of the attacks. This is the most absolute NPOV we can get, attributing quotes back to their origination. Paraphrasing takes away from the neutrality. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at edithistory. This is a dispute. You want the text, other dont. This is a compromise suggestion. Currently the article is published and protected. Maybe it should be put in develop if no solution surface. International 00:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1; I'm comfortable with International's suggestion; even though I don't think Bush has anything at all to do with this story and prefer to see his name left out altogether. Neutralizer 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• 2; The actual explosion was in the Marriott hotel parking lot; that is what the article should say. Neutralizer 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do I even bother? This isn't a discussion. A discussion would actually appear as if users would look at other's comments. I do not see this on this talk page. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• 3; Finally, either the word "suicide" should be removed or a reference to the fact that; "His body was not recovered"-AP should be included; it is misleading to say "suicide" when no body has been found for that person; he could have jumped out before impact. Neutralizer 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MrM; I have read your comments; which of them do you feel is being ignored? Neutralizer 00:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Every single one of them, including the article at hand:

• "The explosions come just prior to United States President George W. Bush's scheduled visit to the country." <- This + proximity to US consulate = relevent
• "The explosions occurred at the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, about 60 feet (18 meters) from the consulate gate."
• "According to police, a suicide bomber apparently hit the vehicle of a United States diplomat..."

--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer...until you can prove that this was not a suicide attack, which I might add thats what every media outlet is saying about at least 1 explosion, then suicude stays. Find a source that says otherwise. Jason Safoutin 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I get your point; especially MrM's about the reference to the Marriott; but I really don't see why we want to say "near the US consulate"..one source says a particular diplomat at the Hotel was the target. Re; suicide; don't we need a body to report a suicide? Why not mention no body has been found? Neutralizer 04:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal re; President Bush's quote

Why not replace the Bush quote with this quote [2]by the President of the country where the explosion happened;

"We condemn this outrage in the strongest terms," Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, said in a message transmitted from Islamabad to New Delhi. "Our authorities are investigating the incident and those responsible will be brought to justice."

The explosion has not been shown to have anything at all to do with the USA or President Bush + Bush wasn't even in the country at the time; so it's illogical to include the Bush POV. Neutralizer 13:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This quote should be added, but I'm not sure bush's quote should go, not looked too closely at it myself. Nyarlathotep 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Consensus Publishing Alert

The above is your point of view. The article is not currently protected. However, you have been warned to gain consensus before editing the published article. You have been unable, at this point, to gain that consensus from the community. This does not suggest the article is in error, but that the collaborative nature of writing here has resulted in the article expressing something with which you have a personal issue. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, The above is your point of view and through your inappropriate article talk page warning above you are still protecting it. In addition, your comments are factually wrong in their entirety; the first dispute arose within 3 hours of the very first edit and there was never a consensus to publish Bush's POV with this article; in fact there were more editors who were opposed to inclusion of the Bush POV than favoured it. Then the article was protected for a day (including Bush's comments) until shortly after my comment above and you are still protecting it by preventing editing of it. This article has not been published by consensus and Bush's remarks should be replaced with those of the President of the country where this event happened; Pakistan. It is silly and wrong to say the inclusion of Bush's remarks is being done collaboratively as anyone can check the history to see that is not the case at all. The only reason Bush's comments are here and not the President of Pakistan's is because you and MrM. are constantly pushing the anglo/american centric point of view. Neutralizer 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to be rude, but a consistently anti-US stance is an anglo-American-centric point of view. I have not edited this article, but what I understand of the facts - a US diplomat was targeted by a suicide bomber a few metres from the US consulate - would suggest to me that the views of the US president would be relevant on the matter. I believe the comments of the host country's leader would likewise be relevant on the matter. I would certainly not remove the quotes repeatedly, claiming a consensus when on the talk page there was clearly no consensus.

Perhaps you should be reminded that a community consensus is when all members of the discussion have agreed to a compromise. Often this can be worked out through constructive conversations where positive suggestions are made, and editors achieve a compromise text. Where differences are intransigent you might gain agreement from all parties to ask an abiter to create a compromise text which will be accepted. In no way does consensus imply that one side of a dispute may delete en masse the text they are opposed to. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 03:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are again entirely factually wrong. You have stated often that you personally have an anti-US stance so perhaps you are talking to yourself. I have no stance in my edits other than NPOV. You make the assumption the diplomat was the target; the sources to not support your theory. The explosion was not a "few metres" from the consulate but about 70 feet away in a hotel parking lot. Your comment about "remove the quotes repeatedly" is grossly misleading. I removed the Bush quote once and then after Brian also removed it, I removed it again a second time for a total of 2. On the other hand MrM inserted the quote at least 3 times. The bottom line is that if the attack had happened in Washington some 70 feet from the Pakistan consulate, this article would not be quoting only the Pakistan leader and not the US leader and you certainly would not be warning editors not to include a quote from Bush. The anglo/american centric point of view is something you may not even notice you push for in our articles so I urge you to try to step back and be a bit more objective; and most importantly, don't make false statements about what others do, e.g."remove the quotes repeatedly" without checking the facts. Neutralizer 05:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)