Talk:August 2016 Quetta attacks

Semi-protect

Is it possible to semi-protect the page? People are continually changing the photo to improper things.El cid, el campeador (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, India has nothing to do this. Stop changing this page. El cid, el campeador (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest reverting IPs, then reporting repeated vandal IPs and then going to semi protection if need be. As of now the case seems manageable by reverting out vandals. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

India has been blamed by multiple sources, inclduing CM Balochistan Interior Minster Balochistan and Former President Musharraf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.112.1 (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And they have been mentioned with attribution. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Now they have been removed from suspected list.--39.46.112.1 (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There is whole big section below which mentions it all. Try scrolling down and reading the whole article. Not everything can be bulleted for quiz contest preparations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you getting so angry ? I have read it, claims by IS and JUA should have same bearing as Officials reaction i.e RAW was behind this terrorist attack. All three must be mentioned in Suspected Perpetrators list.--39.46.112.1 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have requested for page protection here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrators in infobox should be empty

Just because they claimed doesn't mean it is automatically true. We should wait for authorities to conclude investigations and confirm the perpetrators. I suggest names of both groups be removed from "Perpetrators" in infobox. They can be placed under "Suspected perpetrators" instead. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Investigation are still ongoing. It should be renamed "Suspected perpetrators" and include all three RAW, IS and JUA. --39.46.112.1 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Perpetrators have claimed the attack openly to media and in addition published this on their website, published the specifications of the bomb used in attack and the pictures of the suicide bomber. Collagium. You may speak. 02:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

IS and JUA have history of claiming attacks which they didn't carry out. No need to remove their claims but RAW should be mention because it was blamed by the Officials. --39.46.113.120 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two groups have openly claimed responsibility for the attacks and it is not speculations. Both the name should be in the infobox. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Who asked for removing those claims ? Mention of RAW involvement is must along with those claims. --39.46.113.120 (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It's fair enough to put ISIS and the other terrorist org under 'suspected perps.' But I vehemently opposed putting unsubstantiated claims about RAW in the info box to any extent.El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Speculations vs facts - perpetrators

There are some edits made to this article who have gone ahead and turned this very serious matter into speculation. Kindly note that the perpetrators Jamaat-ul-Ahrar and Islamic State have claimed responsibility. Speculative comments by politicians are also provided place in article but they should be limited to what they are i.e. personal opinions of quoted person. Kindly don't cite opinions as proof. Collagium. You may speak. 11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Interior Minister is no ordinary politician, he is responsible for the security in his jurisdiction. These groups also claimed responsibility for Amjad Sabri's murder which was actually carried out by MQM a secular Political Party with alleged links to RAW. http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/did-mqm-murder-amjad-sabri-senior-journalist-najam-sethi-presents-a-new-theory/. --39.46.112.1 (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Why include speculation and hearsay when facts are available? Also, the news you have given above says that 'Senior journalist Najam Sethi presents a new theory' and the speculation is based on a theory on a ongoing case and that too assumes even more speculation about MQM. Collagium. You may speak. 02:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also not sure how MQM-Sabri-RAW and all are lined here. That would be WP:SYNTHESIS which bloggers and "journalists" do. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

After that theory of Najam Sethi, it was actually quoted by Paramilitary force Rangers that MQM was involved in Murder of Amjad Sabri. Links are in Urdu though. MQM-Sabri-RAW works here because It is ISIS-JUA-RAW theory. No need to Mention MQM-Sabri-RAW in actual article though, which could be both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. But RAW must be mentioned in suspected preparators list otherwise we will be omitting official line which could lead to WP:NPOV issues. --39.46.113.120 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There are constant edits on contested points by some editors without building consensus or discussing on the matter. The matter of involvement of any other country can not be just put in wikipedia without substantial evidence. Also, the press release didn't say anything about RAW let alone proof against RAW as can be read here [1].

The news source [2] went on to allege that :

'The army chief, who visited Quetta hours after the deadly bombing, had said that the terrorist attack was an attempt to target the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. His reference to CPEC makes it abundantly clear that the security establishment believes RAW could be behind the blast.' [3]

This is very definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Collagium. You may speak. 13:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So the statement of Security officials don't count it means ? what counts ? Multiple sources weren't used nor we derived any Source itself mentioned the it as such. WP:SYNTHESIS clearly says

• "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

which of these was the case here  ? --yousaf465'

It means synthesis by the news site cited above. Let me clarify:

1- 'While a splinter group of the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, claimed responsibility for the Quetta bombing as well as target killing of Balochistan Bar Association president Bilal Anwar Kasi, security officials did not rule out the possibility of involvement of the Indian intelligence agency RAW.'

This part is not given anywhere in the press release and news never stated who said that. No verifiability.

Then the news goes on to say that -

2- 'The army chief, who visited Quetta hours after the deadly bombing, had said that the terrorist attack was an attempt to target the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. His reference to CPEC makes it abundantly clear that the security establishment believes RAW could be behind the blast.'

How it makes that clear? He didn't say even a word about RAW. How is this not a synthesis? The source makes assumptions without any basis and you want to cite it. Collagium. You may speak. 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Security officials especially Intelligence agent aren't publicly named which is a standard practice. News source clearly attribute it to security officials.--yousaf465' 13:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So you want to ignore the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of RAW involvement, the person cited is not verifiable and there is absolutely no mention that on what basis he is making this claim, also you are going to ignore that the Islamic State and JUA have already taken responsibility and you are also ignoring the basic fact that even the allegations say that they might (emphasis on word allegation) have connection to RAW would not make them perpetrator.

By this 'logic' we have to modify several Wikipedia article and include nations like USA, Israel etc as perpetrators of the things the local press loves to blame them for. Recently USA is being blamed for Turkey's attempted coup d'état why not put Barrack Obama as commander of rebels as not only local press but even Erdogan is blaming him. Collagium. You may speak. 14:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't ignored nor removed JUA and IS claims, which you guys are doing by constantly removing RAW even it it has been blamed by multiple Pakistani Government and security officials. I support including all three (RAW JUA and IS) in suspected preparator.. Word of those terrorist groups is being treated as word of God while ignoring what Pakistani Government and security officials have said. Donald Trump is not a Government Official yet. --yousaf465' 14:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

RAW isn't going in the facts box. The facts box has a high standard of proof. Just because a government official says something doesn't make it admissible. There are no facts to back up the allegations. At least the terrorist organizations claimed responsibility. I don't even think RAW felt the need to reply to any allegations, them being so factually baseless. El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Since when Intel agencies started responding to allegations ? Planted claims by RAW are quite enough. --yousaf465' 14:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pakistani government, officials and agencies are known for making false statements and unverified claims. Most famous being Osama was not in Pakistan. Any speculation and unverified claims cannot be put in the article (let alone infobox). I say, delete the claims made by Pakistani politicians, officials and agencies (about RAW) from the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed We shall remove all speculative comments from the article. Collagium. You may speak. 15:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yusaf465 First of all, the perpetrators are already listed clearly. You can't blame a nation for something this serious without any concrete proof by just quoting politicians. Political statements are not facts e.g. Iran's president has blamed USA for Paris attacks[4][5]. Even in this very case the first one to blame RAW was Balochistan's CM who made the accusation without waiting for investigations and even before the nature of blast itself was confirmed! Collagium. You may speak. 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all you spelled my username wrong!!. Bush blamed Al-qadea just after 9/11 attacks. He was President of America at that time. Iran's President wasn't Mayor of Paris so his opinion nor that of Modi the Gujarat's Hitler matter on this attack matter. --yousaf465'

Comparing Modi to Hitler is a good way to show that you are editing just for the sake of pushing your agenda, not a good way of showing neutrality. El cid, el campeador (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@yousaf465 Please act in a civil manner, be constructive and don't try to derail the discussion by using inflammatory remarks. Failure to do so will cause you to be reported. Thanks. Collagium. You may speak. 12:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask for removal of ISIS or JUA claims, but some of guys are asking for removal of Pakistani officials version. As for NPOV, I wasn't editing Modi's article. Which could have been vandalism. For my username comment, wikipedia should allow emojis on talk pages . If Paris Mayor blames ISIS for Paris attack, how could you react ? don't add ISIS to suspects list because a Politician blamed it on ISIS ? --yousaf465'

• What Pakistani Government and Politicians say are nothing but pure gossip and allegation value. No truth in any of the statements made and to that effect, the article has neutrally mentioned about RAW. If we were to go by what Pakistan and its officials say then 9/11 was inside job of USA, Osama was not in Pakistan, Russia is responsible for the condition in Pakistan and the list goes on. Yousaf, this is Wikipedia and not Pakistani newspaper / news-channel. We dont spread rumors here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Arun Kumar SINGH.

And to User:yousaf465 We are here for making educated value additions to an Encyclopaedia. Nothing less, Nothing more. Kindly keep in mind while talking about 'Hitler Modi' or emojis that This is not a Forum or Chat room. Collagium. You may speak. 15:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What Scotland Yard says is also pure gossip ? India funding claims: Documents purport to reveal MQM leader's statement Which Pakistani Official said 9/11 was inside Job ? Yes this is Wikipedia, and we add claims of both parties in here to maintain WP:NPOV --yousaf465' 14:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

RAW boosts funding in Balochistan You guys need tactical level intel ? --yousaf465' 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly my point. Pakistani media and politicians are known are spreading such rumors. In this Pakistani news channel, they are blaming India for 9/11. So now what; we are going to include India as a Perpetrator for 9/11? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The source is not 'scotland yard' but a document of unknown origin purported to be from London Police which emerged on Social Media! I will not go into merits of other things as you clearly are here to derail discussion. Collagium. You may speak. 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

BBC is also social media ?Pakistan's MQM 'received Indian funding'--yousaf465'

Youtube is not a reliable source on Wikipedia --yousaf465' 15:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Arun Kumar SINGH since when times of India started publishing from Pakistan ? And this TOI article isthe actual source of that youtube video Part of funding for 9/11 came from India, former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar says

• Two things. 1) Muttahida Qaumi Movement is a legitimate political party and not a terrorist organization. Pakistan too funded Aam Aadmi Party in India. So what do we say, AAP is terrorist organization? 2) The BBC reports clearly reads that their source is "an authoritative Pakistani source". So it is not theirr independent story but has been planted by Pakistani authority. Stop making a fool of yourself Yousaf, I know it must be hard and frustrating for you guys, but this is the fact. Until the facts are established, RAW cannot be termed as a confirmed Perpetrator and will be mentioned only at "speculative" level. And I am NOT taking about taking YouTube as a RS but am just showing you the face of Pak media that reports random rants. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think I already mentioned "stop making a fool of yourself". The TOI article your posted, against point backs to Pakistani militant Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh who obtained the money from India by means of kidnapping of one Burman. So, joke is on you. At this point, all I can say is I feel sorry for you guys. I know it must be really hard for you. Anyway, I don't want to be a part of such conversation on WP (which is totally off topic). Be rest assured, you cannot push your biased POV on any page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistani Media only mentioned what Times of India said. Please check your sources before blaming Pakistani Media. BBC also had this for MQM

• "Last year another British judge hearing another such case found: "There is overwhelming objective evidence that the MQM for decades had been using violence." Did I asked you to remove blame from Omar Sheikh  ? --yousaf465'

@yousaf465 Kindly read your sources. Here are the excerpts from Nation.com.pk

'Documents purported to be property of the London police surfaced on social media late Friday'

'It is unclear where the documents originated and who released them online.'

Also the very first line of BBC source says 'Officials in Pakistan's MQM party have told the UK authorities they received Indian government funds, the BBC learnt from an authoritative Pakistani source.' So they are not citing the forged document but a Pakistani Source.

Anyway, can you stop derail of this thread with all this MQM talk? Collagium. You may speak. 15:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• And since you mentioned about India funding MQM, I think you should also read this article. There is a difference between one side crying wolf and someone coming and taking responsibility of an act of terror. Pakistan is only crying wolf, whereas militant organizations have claimed responsibility of the attack. I don't think there is any point debating a subject with any Pakistani; so I am stopping here. You can carry on with your ranting. Your updates will be dealt with in line with WP policies and consensus. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Did I asked you not to use MQM opinion  ? --yousaf465' 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Guys, I think we are digressing off-topic here. If this doesn't stop, we may need to hat this thread because it's quickly turning into a WP:SOAPBOX. Regarding the allegations presented, we are not here to establish the truth. Our job is to only present what is cited in reliable sources and is easily attributable, in proportion to the coverage. It is certainly true that India has been mentioned by authoritative officials and sources. Therefore, we include those claims in the article and attribute them to whoever said them. We also attribute the claims made by the militant organisations. What we don't do however is mix up allegations/claims with what is established so far in the investigations, therefore the distinction between both needs to be clear per WP:NPOV. As long as we tread this line, we are fine. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• This debate is largely resolved, in part thanks to edits by @El cid, el campeador, as the domestic reactions section now provides statements from Pakistani establishment despite their speculative nature. Collagium. You may speak. 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Same can be said about ISIS speculative claims, but we didn't asked for its removal. My question still remains If Mayor of Paris had blamed Al-qadea for Paris attacks you could have called it speculative in nature and removed Al-qadea from the Perpetrators list ? --yousaf465' 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I really don't get your point. Haven't ISIS and Jamat-Ul-Ahrar accepted responsibility of their involvement in this case and all other cases including the Paris attack wherever they were involved? Also, kindly read the Paris attack article. [6] Collagium. You may speak. 16:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

By your statements it seems claims by terrorist organisation are not speculative but official statements are speculative ? --yousaf465' 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It is very clear you are here solely to derail discussion by raising these pointless questions over and over again despite them being already answered by various editors. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Kindly stop disrupting this talk page. Thanks. Collagium. You may speak. 18:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You are till giving too much weightage to ISIS and JUA claims, and have accepted it as whole truth. Proper way is to add all three, because Pakistani Government and officials thinks so. Home Minister Bugti claimed, administration had evidence confirming RAW was stoking violence in the province by bankrolling terrorists and Anti-terror fight to focus on foreign agencies

"Regarding the military’s view that threat to internal security was morphing due to growing nexus between hostile foreign intelligence agencies and local militant groups, the meeting reviewed the subversive actions of external agencies and decided to “scale up the existing efforts to neutralise hostile elements through a coordinated and focused approach.”. --yousaf465' 07:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Again same question... Kindly understand that ISIS and JUA have claimed responsibility for the attack. Do not modify the article unless there is solid evidence to the contrary.

Regarding sources cited by you Bugti's claim is already quoted in the article. The second source is a generic statement on the terrorism and that is also quoted in the article now. Collagium. You may speak. 08:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying the same thing, ISIS-JUA claimed it, while Pakistani Government blamed it on RAW. We as Wikiepdians have to include all three. claims/blames. Just adding ISIS and JUA claims in preparators while ignoring Pakistani government version is violation of WP:NPOV--yousaf465' 09:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your refusal to understand the point is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If in your opinion accepted claims of terrorists and allegations of foreign hand are same then it is your personal opinion. Also, you should read the article as views of Pakistani govt are properly quoted in Domestic Reactions section. Collagium. You may speak. 09:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You have repeatedly accused me of not listening, but you are constantly ignoring the statements of Pakistani Government officials, the latest being the Foreign office who while responding to a question about involvement of RAW said this "Indian intelligence agencies remained involved in subversive and terrorist activities in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan and Karachi. Involvement of foreign elements working in cahoots with their local contacts in the condemnable terrorist attack in Quetta, which took a huge toll on the lives of innocent people, cannot be ruled out.

How can the claims and officials statement being considered equal is my personal opinion ? --yousaf465' 10:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the text you quoted '.....cannot be ruled out'. These types of statements are currently provided space in Section Domestic reactions. Though I am very much positive that they don't deserve any place at all in the article considering their speculative nature. Will raise the issue to completely remove baseless allegations from the article. Thanks. Collagium. You may speak. 12:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case you haven't read Home minister statement "administration has substantial evidence confirming RAW was stoking violence in the province by bankrolling terrorists". FO spokesman is responsible government official and they don't rely on speculations. --yousaf465' 13:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure that he meant that retired Naval personnel who was captured from Iran and presented as 'proof' through obviously doctored video. Even a layman can see that the words are edited and pasted in that video. Also, since Pakistan is know for fabricating evidences do you really believe that if they had any evidence they won't show it to the world? The point is, Pakistan has blamed India for floods and USA for earthquakes and its been going on a long time. So yeah, unless there is solid evidence just claims of Pakistani politicians (which I will re-iterate blamed RAW in this case even before nature of blast was known!) are not going to cut it. Collagium. You may speak. 15:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

FO spokesman is not a politician. Intelligence works before during and after the attack. --yousaf465' 15:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And that allows Pakistani politicians to blame India/USA/Afghanistan/others for everything under the sun without showing solid evidence? Collagium. You may speak. 16:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That might be your personal opinion. Here is article worth reading, but I could still oppose removing ISIS claims. When ISIS claims terrorist attacks, it’s worth reading closely--yousaf465' 13:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Donald Trump?

Aren't the completely baseless and unevidenced claims of a Pakistani politician who doesn't like India and knows his people don't like India the same as Donald Trump blaming rape and drugs on the Mexicans? I just don't think them blaming RaW without any semblance of evidence warrants being the article. Politicians blame countries they hate all the time, but there is no evidence to back it up, and the same is here. I'm not going to start an edit war, and it can stay in. But does it make any sense at all?El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now the Army has said it too. Threat emanates from India-managed Afghan soil, generals told

Did you read the article? It says that the threat comes from India managed Afghan soil. It doesn't say anything about India being responsible? It says that there is facilitation from within Pakistan, and that the outside threat is either a terrorist/radical organization like ISIS, or another 'anti-state' organization. RAW isn't named except in the comments, which only goes to show the anti-Indian anti-RAW speculation and conspiracy theories. So no, the army didn't say anything. And even if they did, speculation against a country your country hates isn't uncommon, like I said. Pakistan and India HATE eachother. Take any blame the two countries put on eachother with a boulder of salt. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You haven't read these articles [7] and [8]

"Home Minister Bugti claimed the administration has substantial evidence confirming RAW was stoking violence in the province by bankrolling terrorists." Why ignore Interior/Home Minister ? Could you have ignored if Tony Blair had blamed 7/7 on Al-Qadea ? By no means I want to hurt the feeling of the victims of those terror attacks.--yousaf465' 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Army's version

To quote the actual news source

"security officials did not rule out the possibility of involvement of the Indian intelligence agency RAW."

"His reference to CPEC makes it abundantly clear that the security establishment believes RAW could be behind the blast."

No one will be allowed to undo counterterror gains: COAS

The official COAS statement does not mention RAW at all. Also reference to economic corridor establishes nothing at all. Collagium. You may speak. 13:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Express Tribune mention it as such. --yousaf465'

See the ongoing discussion above wherein I have linked the press release. Collagium. You may speak. 13:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC

Statement of Security officials don't count it means ? --yousaf465'

As it was already being discussed above I would ask you to post it above in 'Speculations Vs Facts : Perpetrators' as otherwise it causes duplication of arguments/issues. Thanks. Collagium. You may speak. 13:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved

Moved the RAW speculation to the reaction section. Because that's what it is, a reaction w/o evidence provided. Case closed. Now let's leave it there and all move on.El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• El cid, el campeador, I think that the best thing do do under the circumstances. Thanks for the move. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Good move, brings coherence to the sentence structure and inherently reduces chance of friction. Thanks! Collagium. You may speak. 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• In that case ISIS and JUA claims should also be be moved to reactions section, because it hasn't been confirmed by neutral sources ? --yousaf465' 16:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No need for that as they themselves have accepted the responsibility, presented the evidence in support of their claim. Thus unless there is strong evidence to the contrary there is no need to remove them. Collagium. You may speak. 16:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do quote the evidence provided by the investigators here. --yousaf465' 18:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to remove ISIS and JUA despite their openly admitting responsibility for the blast then its your personal opinion. I am quite sure none of the other editors/Admins will agree with you. Collagium. You may speak. 19:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want nor I did removed any claim by JUA or ISIS, instead I proposed adding all three JUA, ISIS and RAW in Perpetrators section.While you guys are hell-bent on refusing to accept the Chief Minister and Interior Minister statement while considering the the claims of Terrorists as the only truth.yousaf465' 07:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Section 'Perpetrators' contains this : 'ISPR quoted Army Chief Raheel Sharif as saying that the attack was targeting China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)'

I propose that we move it to Domestic Reactions section. Objections, if any, are welcome. Collagium. You may speak. 19:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No objection on moving Army chief reaction to DR section. Still no evidence of ISIS and JUA claims has been provided by you. They should remain in suspected Perpetrators though. --yousaf465' 07:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yousaf, please see WP:DEADHORSE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Not just WP:DEADHORSE but also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. @yousaf465 Kindly stop making unilateral edits by ignoring the talk page consensus. Collagium. You may speak. 08:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Horse is dead even before being killed  ? Do any one of you oppose moving CPEC statement to Reactions section? If you do then we don't have consensus. In that case we should leave it there.

• Guys my username is not yousaf. --yousaf465' 08:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hello yousaf465, I hope you can read your own user page and the name written there. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Username written there is not yousaf. --yousaf465' 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• yousaf465, what do you think is written there? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• To copy your style. Now you have finally written it correctly. --yousaf465' 15:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• yousaf465, I think you should get your eyes checked. Thats how I have always written your name. You are just wasting everyone's time by dragging them in useless conversation. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be motive of @yousaf465. He has refused to listen to other editors and has treated this article talk page like a chat room or forum and is turning the article into a WP:QUOTEFARM. Collagium. You may speak. 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been fixed. --yousaf465' 16:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@yousaf465 I see that you moved reactions about Pakistani intelligence from military section (which is part of its military) to domestic section. If a sub-category is given in reactions section then it contains both reactions of and reactions towards that category. Next time build consensus before unilaterally moving stuff. Thanks. Collagium. You may speak. 09:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Reaction toward military by the civil society and politicians is already added in domestic section. I think there it belongs, Military reply if any should be in military section. --yousaf465' 12:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The reaction is entirely about military and thus pertains to the specific military category. The reactions made against particular political policies (like NAP) belong to Political section.

To be truthful I am not a fan of this 'Government' and 'Military' divide. As first of all it gives very clear indication that Govt and Military are two entirely different things, which ironically maybe true in current Pakistan, but it is logically incorrect.

Also, this creates a segmentation problem like we are facing right now.

Additionally, It quashes the hope of including rather neutral POVs e.g. I was intending to put perspective of lawyers who frankly suffered a lot of pain. However, the categories you created Govt and Military are restrictive. Thus if I want to include Lawyers then I have to create another category, for journalists another etc which will really look ugly to read.

I suggest that we merge domestic reactions, keep all the major points, shorten the quotes who are really long right now and create a clear structure which gives all the sides without going overboard. Collagium. You may speak. 12:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Collagium I agree with some of your suggestions. Yes we do need to fix the sentence structure. Date for each event should be added in reaction too.I was following the pattern of Paris attacks for categories.--yousaf465' 13:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Well there is one major difference though, the Paris article didn't contain any allegations from military but rather covers a military attack launched by French military in response to attack. Collagium. You may speak. 14:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

There is another difference, Pakistan's Military is involved in Foreign Policy, their opinion matters.--yousaf465' 14:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The latest figure quoted by the newspaper is 76. Islamabad hints at RAW’s involvement in Quetta carnage--yousaf465' 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• @User:Collagium Most recent figure by multiple reliable sources is 74. 93 seems is only quoted by one source. [9] and [10] --yousaf465' 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is rather perplexing as to how the number of casualties has gone down from 93, to 76 (quoted by you) and now to 74. However, 74 is the latest figure of casualties and that should be adopted. I agree. Collagium. You may speak. 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

93 is what I am seeing? Beejsterb (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

While 93 casualties is what many outlets have reported [11][12][13][14][15][16].

But many Pakistani sources have indeed claimed 74 to be the number of casualties.

It leaves us with three scenarios :

1- Casualties were over reported in the rush to be 'first' as is common among news channels or maybe they got multiple sources but reported the more 'eye catching' one. Likely as this is what news channels do.

2- There is a cover up by Pakistani government to reduce casualties. Unlikely as most people were lawyer and its a heavily covered news.

3- The media got confused and quoted figure of casualties from 2013 Balochistan Bomb Attack which were initially reported to be 93 (though later they swelled to 110). Collagium. You may speak. 07:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Most neutral sources also mention figure of around 70[17], [18][19] [20] [21]. The wording is at least. --yousaf465' 02:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's be respectful

We have it established that Pakistan is blaming India for the attack, or at least involvement with it. There is a good sized paragraph in the article, and even though the language is slanted in support of the allegations, some users keep adding more paragraphs. Let's respect Wikipedia and this article. The allegations are established, there is no need for another paragraph which blames India even more, especially since it talked about India being involved in other terrorist attacks, which is not relevant to this article. Let's please just let this lie. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• yousaf465 if you really want to add more about this same topic, try incorporating it into the already existing domestic reaction paragraph. This is a short article, and having most of it being about India is improper. Many people want any mention of RAW taken out, I think this is a very fair middle ground.El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

:It is FO spokesman reaction. What is wrong with it ? Paris attack article has reaction from all sections of French Society, even separate lines for French navy and airforce's reaction. Instead of removing it you should have searched for Indian reaction and included it in the article. A Standard practice. --yousaf465'

• It talked about involved in attacks in Karachi and elsewhere. Not relevant. But like I said, add it to the already existing paragraph if you'd like. No reason to put multiple paragraphs for the same message. But I won't fight with you anymore.El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Quetta is in Balchoistan and FO spokesman mentioned Balchoistan along with Karachi clearly. Your statement reminds me of Punjabi proverb, "all night he heard the story of Heer Ranjha and in morning he asked , heer was male or female ?

--yousaf465' 13:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• FO spokesperson said Indian intelligence agencies remained involved in subversive and terrorist activities in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan and Karachi." Islamabad hints at RAW’s involvement in Quetta carnage

While nobody is against including some major Pakistani statements but copy/pasting every quote in article is something that there are clear Wiki guidelines against. @User:yousaf465 kindly read WP:QUOTEFARM. Thanks. Collagium. You may speak. 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know, but Verification is also necessary in articles like this one. Quotes on talkpage is allowed? --yousaf465' 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is you are turning the Article into a WP:QUOTEFARM. Again, I recommend you read the guidelines. Collagium. You may speak. 16:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I did read the guidelines, that is why I mentioned the verification issue. Article has been fixed though.--yousaf465' 16:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's official

There is more information about the anti-India reactions then there are about the actual incident. This article has become a joke. El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador I agree. Unfortunately, certain editors are more focused on adding allegations about RAW then actually focusing on bomb blast and its victims. Says a lot about their priorities. I would like to propose following changes:

1- Rename 'Reaction' section to 'Response'section in line with Paris attack article. This helps in focusing actual events and happenings instead of political allegations. E.g. Counter terrorism raids (if any), committees formed, security increased etc.

2- Merge Domestic reactions subcategories into one. There is nothing special said by Pakistani military they are saying exactly what political parties are saying.

3- Make ALL quotes short and condense them. Not saying to remove Anti-RAW OR Anti-intelligence quotes but instead of making it a mess lets make it to the point.

Currently it is like :

'A alleged RAW and NDS may be involve, B reiterated A. C said RAW and NDS may be involved'

and

'A said that its failure of Paki Intelligence and they shall be sacked, B said that interior minister is to be blamed and its because of hate speech and failure to implement NAP'

Change it to something like

'A,B and C alleged that RAW and NDS were behind the attacks.......'

and

'On the other hand X Y Z said that intelligence agencies shall focus on their own instead of blaming others.'

and make article more about what really happened in the attack, how events unfolded, how and when bomb was exploded and the victims of the attack. Collagium. You may speak. 04:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to quotes

The article in its current state (as on 14th August 2016) is borderline unreadable due to messy and long quotes. I propose following changes:

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Mamnoon Hussain condemned the attack and expressed their grief over the loss. The government announced three-day mourning in which the National Flag of Pakistan will remain at half staff on government buildings.

Consequent to attack, a meeting was held to review the implementation of National Action Plan and it was decide that a task force consisting of senior officials from the security agencies of both the federal and provincial governments, will be established to monitor the progress.

Several politicians, including Balochistan Chief Minister Sanaullah Zehri, Home Minister Bugti, National Security adviser Sartaj Aziz and Pakistan Foreign office spokesman Nafees Zakaria blamed the attack on Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Afghanistan's intelligence agency National Directorate of Security (NDS). Pakistani military establishment alleged that the threat to internal security was morphing due to nexus between hostile foreign intelligence agencies and local militant groups.

However, Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) chief Mahmood Khan Achakzai, JUI Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Muhammad Khan Sherani and Leader of opposition in Pakistani Senate, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan alleged that the government was trying to save itself from any responsibility by blaming foreign agencies and demanded sacking of officials if perpetrators are not caught.

Kindly respond with 'Agree' or 'Disagree' followed by your reasons/suggestions. Thanks.

Collagium. You may speak. 04:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree after changes Following need be fixed.

NAP meeting was already scheduled (do check though), so it should be mentioned as such.

FO spokesman is a bureaucrat.

Is JUI enough or should we write complete name Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) ?

--yousaf465' 14:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

1- Maybe instead of 'a meeting was held' we can put 'a scheduled meeting was held'.

2- Good point.

3- Agreed. Collagium. You may speak. 14:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody else has any objections/proposals? Collagium. You may speak. 16:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Done! Collagium. You may speak. 03:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposition

Instead of constantly changing the death toll, we should have a range, like "74-93", as sources seem to disagree. I've worked on many terrorism articles and this is what we do. Beejsterb (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention major attacks like this often have a death toll range. Beejsterb (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Rephrase it with range. --yousaf465' 05:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Balochistan in Pakistan (claims hatched).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)