Talk:Bacha Khan University attack

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

Motive[edit]

@Muhammad Noman MN:, Muhammed bhai, please cite this, as in the Burkina Faso attacks on the main page. Otherwise its presumption.Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

While the current incarnation is better than the Peshawar title, 2016 Bacha Khan university massacre is even more precise (without the possibly POV "massacre"?).Lihaas (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best title IMO is 2016 Bacha Khan University attack, it's descriptive, precise, and NPOV. The article was created at Bacha Khan University attack, before someone made the undiscussed move to the incorrect title of 2016 Peshawar university attack. -Zanhe (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be very difficult to find a single common name among the sources. I rather liked the original title, but if referring to the year is how things are done, I would support a move to 2016 Bacha Khan University attack. Jolly Ω Janner 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either 'Bacha Khan University attack' or '2016 Bacha Khan University' attack are the ones that most fit the naming policies in place.Hollth (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Present title is good and no further move seems to be necessary. Nannadeem (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions "cleanup"[edit]

An anonymous user boldly, and quite rightly, cleaned up the reactions section by removing the international "reactions". I think the edit should stand, because they are just a collection of meaningless quotes. Perhaps we could add a sentence stating that condolences were shared by some foreign politicians/diplomats, but that's about as much as needs to be said. We are not a newspaper. Only meaningful reactions should be covered. Jolly Ω Janner 21:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, indeed I did remove pointless information. It looked to be of poor technique and rather unprofessional. I didn't expect anyone to challenge something like this. Also, the 'local' reaction needs to be further improved by including some type of actual substance, such as measures to tighten security or some type of militaristic or police response. 76.90.116.10 (talk)
I agree. "International reactions" are some of the worst offenders of WP:RECENT in articles like this. Reactions from heads of states should be reserved for regional powers or states directly involved. Reactions should also have to demonstrate something more useful than condolences to be included. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a mess, I don't even want to edit anymore. It's getting way too politically correct here. I don't care if those stupid looking reactions stand or not. Let Wikipedia burn :) 76.90.116.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and condensed it into one sentence. It's quite a mess with inline citations and could ideally do with being attributed to just one. Jolly Ω Janner 22:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide whats "meaningful" then that's pov. That said the current version seems good, lthough who in government said it is better. As in pm from country X or foreign minister from country Y.Lihaas (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to merge it into one sentence was more of a temporary measure to prevent anonymous editors from every country in the world adding their own country's response in a list. My concern with the current version is that, as Lihaas has said, we are selecting which countries to list. We could list every country in the world. The reason we have so many secondary sources with international reactions is that newspapers from each country will often include a quote from the newspaper's readers' country. I therefore think that any international reactions which go beyond just prayers and condolences should be included (i.e. military involvement, aid, any change in foreign relations). Anything less than that is not a "reaction". If other editors agree, I think we should go forward and remove that sentence all together, as none of the statements pass such criteria for inclusion. Jolly Ω Janner 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly Janner: To clarify, you mean you intend to re-format it as a list with flag icons (as it was) later on once the dust has settled a bit? It seems I've seen many other similar sections in other pages formatted in that way. I agree that countless quotes simply conveying condolences aren't that useful; but if it's necessary or preferable to include them, maybe they can all be condensed into a sentence or two. Something like, "Statements expressing condolences for the incident were made by representatives from the governments of Angola, Brazil, Croatia...."? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lihaas: I see you have expanded it to almost the size of its previous version without any reasoning in edit summaries. Care to explain? Jolly Ω Janner 09:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimant[edit]

We have two different names to the claimants, depending on the source: The Dara Adma Khel branch of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan according to Al-Jazzera and the Tariq Geedar Afridi faction according to Pakistan articles. Are these two different names for the same group or should both be listed? Hollth (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please study this page [1] (Sub-heading Current leader No.5) for answer to your question. Nannadeem (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Reaction to bacha khan university attack[edit]

There's already an article on the attack and a Reaction section. It isn't clear that there's any need for a split, but, if there is, the summary there should be aligned with the article here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack should be speedily deleted as it is poorly written compared to Bacha Khan University attack and also there is no need for it anyway, the information is already in Bacha Khan University attack. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There simply isn't enough material out there to warrant its own article on the topic. Note that I am not including an indiscriminate collection of quotes as "material". In its current state, the reactions article doesn't expand on what's already in this article, so I think a deletion is the best course of action. Jolly Ω Janner 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the views of Jolly. Nannadeem (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is such an overwhelming concensus over this that I just went ahead. Oh and if you feel like some quote doesn't belong, then please remove it without undoing the whole shebang. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Hussain[edit]

@Musa Raza: Redirected this article here as the person has no notability outside of this event. This article documents Hamid Hussain's claim to notability, so there was no need to merge. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Musa Raza has requested that a formal discussion be had on the matter via my talk page. I have since added merger tags to both articles and this shall be the location for the discussion. Jolly Ω Janner 18:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: @Jolly Janner: You did not list any policy based reason as to why you want Syed Hamid Hussain be merged with this article. I don't think it matters how a person achieved notability. To me, he meets all of the criteria to have an article of his own. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's per Wikipedia:Merging, which is not policy. Mainly related to reason 4 "context If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>" article (and can be merged there); see also Wikipedia:Notability(fiction)." Jolly Ω Janner 20:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should be using the "context" reason for merging a "person" article with an "event" article. That page is about a human being not about a character from fiction. What applies to characters of fictions and movies etc. does not apply to human beings! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many examples where an honorable death made a person notable and those people were not notable before their death. We cannot take away their notability from them. I will mention them if need be.
WP:SINGLEEVENT: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." (I think his role was significant and large one)
WP:BLP1E lists three conditions that if they are all met, the article should not be written and I don't think he meets condition number 3.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meets number 3 as his actions were not significant to the event. It is possible (I don't think we will ever really know) that his actions may have saved a life, but over 20 people were killed and there were as many as 8, 10 perpetrators. No reliable sources seem to suggest his actions were significant enough to have changed the event. Jolly Ω Janner 05:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Third Opinion was requested. This appears to be a merge request issue. Third opinion is not applicable to requests to merge, which have their own procedure. If the request has run its course and needs formal closure, you may request formal closure at Requests for Closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added a request. By the looks of the backlog there, it may be a few more months before this is resolved. Jolly Ω Janner 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jolly Janner, the reference to requests for closure in the comment by Robert McClenon was poorly communicated, and has unhelpfully led you to insert this entry at that page. The requests for closure page will not deal with 3O requests. Please follow the procedure outlined in this link for proposing a merger. Whilst it may not be marked as policy, it does describe communal norms and practices, and there is no reason to avoid following it. After the procedure has been followed (and further comments have been received on the proposed merger), the merge request will need to be closed; if it is not closed within a couple of weeks, it may then be appropriate to list the discussion at the requests for closure page - but certainly not at this stage. If further uninvolved input is required, like in this instance, there is no issue with having a request for comment listed concurrently on the issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, this wasn't within scope for a Third Opinion request. There is an existing merge request. The Third Opinion request has been deleted. Is there a better way to request closure of the merge request? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This type of thing should not be approached mechanically as each situation is different. When the 3O entry was deleted, the advice which ought to have been given was to start an RfC as it was patently obvious from the contents of the 3O entry (and from the input here) that no meaningful outcome would arise. This is fairly basic dispute resolution. Closure does not even come into it yet as further uninvolved input needs to be solicited on the actual issue giving rise to the proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions expansion tag[edit]

Resolved

I recently removed some material that had been expanded into full quotes and put onto Wikiquote in the reactions section. Soon after, Mr. Magoo and McBarker placed a tag suggesting it needed expansion. This was rather bizarre, since if you wanted to put back the quotes and condolences of other countries then all that was needed was to revert my edit. I expect this would have taken less time than finding an expansion template. I'm confused on the matter; does Mr. Magoo and McBaker think it should be restored to its previous state, but is trying to avoid confrontation by suggesting someone else should make the revert? Jolly Ω Janner 18:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not expansion. It's incomplete and it says because "more notable quotes were moved to Wikiquote but some less notable remain here." The flaw is obvious when you look at this article with fresh eyes and it has quotes from Japan and China... It's quite the odd picture. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Oh and I do know "incomplete" is associated with expansion, which is why you were probably confused. I used it because the other template for under construction popped out a massive and thick bar that encompassed the page. It also did not show the reason. This incomplete section template was small and showed the reason. The only minus is that the template's in the category of "needing expansion". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What would a "complete" section by in your eyes? Jolly Ω Janner 18:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that familiar with Wikiquote, so I didn't bother looking at adding the remaining international bits there myself. That would be the obvious guess. After that we could "summarize" the general international reaction and have the Wikiquote template stand there especially next to the summary. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same path that I think the article should take. I'm concerned that the section tag will give off the wrong message. I don't think anyone reading this will have a knowledge of editing Wikiquote, so the tag won't do much in the way of encouraging readers to make those edits. I think it's more likely that it will encourage users to put back the information that was previously removed instead. Finally, since this has been noted on the talk page, I'm sure plenty of involved editors have now been informed. When I was trying to add the quotes from China, Japan and Germany, the news article didn't contain any quotes. I guess I'll have to try and hunt them down myself. The phone call from King Abdullah was presumably private. Jolly Ω Janner 18:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have the tag there for editors but for casual readers (most important group of people to consider when editing). That's why I especially wanted the reason visible. And so Wikiquote doesn't allow paraphrasals, but only exact quotes? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of a rewrite. For now, I've had to remove copyright violations in case of legal action. Jolly Ω Janner 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Magoo and McBarker:, I have finished my summary of international reactions. There was rather less to say than I had first anticipated. What do you think? Jolly Ω Janner 00:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good even though it's small, but because it was so short I thought it best to add one extra lineskip so that it really shines out now. I also found the line of "such as United States" a bit cheap and changed it to "most developed countries", but then I realized the source doesn't prove that, so I had to add some references back. I don't think there's copyright violation when we're not using the text from the references. But even though the references are back the article itself is still much shorter now, so no harm done, right? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the coverage of international reactions, especially now that Wikiquote has an article. And a note on the copyvio, which was originally pasted from news articles. It wasn't made up of quotes, but rather the newspaper's own interpretation of the reactions, so a fair-use rational on quotes was not valid. It's still visible in the separate reactions article's history, but should hopefully be deleted soon, as even holding them in the article's history can be problematic. Maybe mark this as {{resolved}} at the top if we're done? Jolly Ω Janner 09:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union representative represents EU, so with all of the rest I think it's fair to say "most". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright that about does it. I added the resolved tag. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bacha Khan University attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bacha_Khan_University_attack&oldid=1205587615"