Talk:D.C. Five

Proposed deletion

I can see absolutely no basis for a proposed deletion for this article. If this article is read alongside articles such as Anwar al-Awlaqi and other instances of suspected terrorism perhaps the editor who proposed deletion would be able to understand the context a little better. The only reason I can imagine someone claiming this article more closely resembles a newspaper article than an entry in an encyclopedia is the title. Perhaps the title is somewhat awkward but the phrase "detained in Pakistan" is an adjective phrase and not a past tense verb as one would find in a newspaper headline. Supertouch (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To respond in kind to the PROD for this article which cited WP:NOT#NEWS as grounds for deletion, I recommend the reading of WP:NEWSEVENT to complete the understanding of the issue. While I am writing quickly now, I will simply mention in summary the guidelines laid out on that page as applied to this article.

1. Lasting effects: as terrorism is an ongoing matter which continues to shape our lives, any incident involving US citizens even accused of it has the potential to have lasting effects on legislation, possible travel restrictions, surveillence laws and so on. Add to that this case could possibly test the resolve of Pakistan in the war formally known as the War of Terrorism. The impact of this particular case and others like it were mentioned in The New York Times Sunday Magazine [1] where the author said:

   America is now at a watershed. In the last year, at least two dozen men in the United States have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. They include Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan immigrant driver in Denver who authorities say was conspiring to carry out a domestic attack; David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American from Chicago who is suspected of helping plan the 2008 attacks in Mumbai; and the five young men from Virginia who, authorities say, sought training in Pakistan to fight American soldiers in Afghanistan. These cases have sent intelligence analysts scurrying for answers.

2. Depth of coverage: As I wrote about this event sometime after it occurred, I returned to the beginning coverage of the story and quoted in this article consecutive days of coverage in the New York Times.
3. Duration of coverage: This story was first--as far as I am aware--reported on December 9, 2009 and continued to be covered well into January see: [2]
4. Geographical scope: After a quick search I found this incident to have been reported in the UK: [3] and Thailand: [4] for example.
5. Diversity of sources: This incident was reported by most if not all of the major news outlets as a Google search will support. The new user who was apparently experimenting with the tags does not warrant a response. Supertouch (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Title

In retrospect, the title of this article does sound more like a newspaper headline than the title of an article in an encyclopedia--even if I did not intend it to be sentence with a verb in it. Perhaps Detention of five Americans in Pakistan (Dec. 2009) would be more suitable. Supertouch (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Supertouch (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

typo in title

There's a typo in the title of this article. It should read "D.C. Five", not "D.C Five".

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on D.C. Five. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629172503/http://cbs5.com/national/pakistan.us.men.2.1530266.html to http://cbs5.com/national/pakistan.us.men.2.1530266.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)