Talk:Pakistan Stock Exchange attack

Requested move 29 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closing early and moving page as there has been unanimous support. Page moved without prejudice against fresh RM if anyone disagrees. Deryck C. 14:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Pakistan Stock Exchange attack → Pakistan Stock Exchange attack – no need for year, because it's the only notable attack at this location Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom suggested. 114.125.252.85 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Ytpks896 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support' WesSirius (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nominator above. 36.77.115.51 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support an attack on Stock Exchange cannot be ensured to happen every year. So there is no need to mention the year in the title. Abishe (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: I suggest a move to be performed per WP:BOLD given the lack of objection. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but it needs an admin to do it because the proposed title exists as a redirect. Jim Michael (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this RM needs to speedily close as moved because there are strong consensus to change the title. 180.242.5.183 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — Emperork (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Agreed with the reason @Abishe: is giving. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Akmaie Ajam (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reactions section removal

I'm removing the "Reaction" section (it really should be Reactions) because it's pointless filler. No foreign country is going to celebrate an attack. Totally pointless. Add relevant reactions from financial markets or the investigation by local authorities to the aftermath section. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In the past

"In the past, BLA leadership has visited and stayed in India to seek medical treatment."

This sentence has no relevance to the responsibility section and has been removed by at least three different users in the past 24 hours. User:Addict Banker and User:Guy in the Mall who have made strangely identical edits to readd that sentence are expected to explain why this must be added to that section. M4DU7 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Gotitbro and User:Siddsg to share their views. M4DU7 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Addict Banker's (along with related IPs) edits were reverted by multiple editors citing valid wiki policies, which were WP:SYNTH at best and WP:POVPUSH at worst as none of this is mentioned in current assessments of the attack. Guy in the Mall reinserted those problematic edits without explanation, and readded some POV quotes (quotes from secretaries are not noteworthy), rearrangements (reactions to allegations go last) and quote reductions incorrectly citing WP:LONGQUOTE (one line quotes do not fall under that policy, along with the disruptive cherry picking reduction). None have provided clear reasons for their edits and Guy in the Mall's recent edits should be reverted failing valid reasoning. Gotitbro (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the "rearrangements", I believe the Indian Ministry of External Affair's statement came on Monday 29 June, while Imran Khan's address to the parliament was on Tuesday 30 June. So in that respect, until and unless the MEA released a follow-up rebuttal to Khan's statement (which can be added), I would say the sequencing of statements is actually correct chronologically. Your take, M4DU7? Mar4d (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Both accounts were blocked as socks, I'll be reverting their edits for now. Though responses to allegations are listed after them regardless of chronology (as also seen in various reports of the attacks). Gotitbro (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, though you should cite examples for the chronology part. AFAIK, that would amount to a misrepresentation of the source (i.e. "response"). Mar4d (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it reads better if we keep Pak Foreign Minister and IK's quotes together. As a compromise, we can note that Indian External Affairs Ministry's statement was a response to Pak Foreign Minister's claims. M4DU7 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will reword the statement to reflect this attribution. Mar4d (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)