Talk:2016 Lahore suicide bombing

Naming convention
Naming problem

Just noticed a duplicate article. This title, is better suited for Western audiences. Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park attack or Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park bombing may be better for the locals.

How about comparison with "2016 Brussels bombings". It is not Zaventem and Maalbeck bombings. Needs discussion.

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. It was rather sudden. Also note that my comment above was copied here by someone else. I typically try not to over post or cross post but this copied comment is ok. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I apologize the merger and copying was done without anybody's permission, would you oppose if I moved you comment to the consensus discussion below, or you yourself if you wish to participate in it. Also I've removed my own redundant comments from this topic and other ones as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus
Due to the fact that we have four different pages, all created for the same explicit purpose I must propose a discussion as to how we're going to approach the necessary merger of information and to which specific page. The pages in question are 2016 Lahore suicide bombing, 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park attack and 2016 Lahore bombing. Currently the latter two are redirects to this page, the contested article was made 15:26, 27 March 2016, and the current article you are sitting on at the exact same time. The other two I don't know. I would like to request a discussion on the following topic: "Which page do we keep, and which pages do we merge to it". Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC) A second round of pings for those I believe are involved Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Finally, for god's sake, talk it out don't blindly rush about destroying everything. Enough is enough, and if necessary I will bring admins to the discussion. Please, I would prefer we discuss it, but that means stopping and talking.
 * Personally I believe that Lahore should be the main article and the others should serve as redirects. The other names are too specific in my opinion Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, thank you Inter&#;anthro, and second, I agree with the above sentiment. A broader name that would be accessible to all audiences is probably the best. As has been mention above, 2016 Brussels bombings not 2016 Maelbeek attacks. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As everyone is against me so I'm out of it. I created the article first and then the other article was created. So it should be deleted or merged but no one wants to merge it. Someone copied the content from the article I created and pasted into this article so It could look better. Now keep this or that. I'm don't care. Please don't mention me in your messages Thank you.-- Musa  Talk  19:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi please don't feel offended. I know that editing on Wikipedia can be frustrating at times but just because the concencus resulted in a page being moved does not mean your contributions were not appreciated. If you are still interested in the subject you can still edit the overall article a per WP:OWNERSHIP. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will only say these two things but will not ping you. 1. Your article was not created first, I gave time stamps for creation you should read them. 2. Nobody is against you, especially not me, I tried to get consensus on this topic before anything else. I have spent around 4 hours on this alone, it is now 5 am and my battery is very low. I want all to work together, but that requires consensus. The dramatic nature of the speedy deletes, disingenous reverts (not all but some), the utterly unnecessary AfD which will be archived for the foolishness that it was and above all the utter bulls fest that everybody decided to run served only to impede discussion. What should have happened in the first place, is a discussion to be held, a consensus to be achieved and finally actions to be made. But the shoot first attitude that was displayed on all, including my, parts prevented that from happening. This discussion is still open. The article will be named once consensus is achieved. Or we'll all end up receiving topic bans for idiocy. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite my appeal to contest the speedy deletion of the article, 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast has been deleted under the A10 guidelines. Unfortunately that means that all the material that could have been merged to this article is gone. There is nothing to be done but to work together from here that includes you if you will participate. It shouldn't matter who created what article first. And if it is so important than it will be recorded that the first article on the topic to be created was Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park attack at 12:04 UTC. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I do not appreciate the sudden mass of moves that have taken place across several pages and talk pages (of which one still needs to be moved: Talk:2016 Lahore bombing) without any consensus whatsoever. However, since it has already been done I invite all involved parties to begin the discussion on this talk page about the naming convention to be applied. If need be the page can be renamed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It would appear as though content was copied here without proper attribution (diff). I would be rather annoyed if someone did this to my work, since all Wikipedia content is licensed through attribution.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the merge was done improperly from all directions (without consensus), there's several articles involved, do you know from which specific one the trouble information is from? Mr rnddude (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, since there was no mention in the edit summary. Normally if someone forgot to attribute in the edit summary, I would add a talk page header informing that some of the content was copied from other articles. It also looks like some articles were deleted, so there is no way for me to check the revision histories to see where it came from. It's quite a mess, but if any editors have specific concerns that their work is being improperly attributed, I can see if I can contact an administrator to look through the deleted revisions. Technically if we rewrite the text, it is no longer a violation of CC BY-SA 3.0.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that will have to do, and yeah speedy deletions were proposed on at least one page without consensus. Again. Consensus. It is important. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored the history of 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast. You can check the history of that page and see the original editors of some of the material in this article. You can also see whether there is any more material that should be imported. I left that page as a redirect, however. You can access the page directly in the redirect message under the article name. Rmhermen (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It would appear as though text has been copied from that article without attribution. I have made a proxy edit to ensure there is an edit summary to include that article and added Copied to both talk pages.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Facebook glitch
I'm not sure how important the paragraph about the Facebook glitch is to the article. It seems to come from a source that specialises in tech rather than major news headlines. Perhaps this could be useful on Facebook Safety Check article?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  04:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it since there were no objections. After seeing similar content on the Facebook Safety Check article, I decided not to duplicate it there. Regards,  Jolly  Ω   Janner  04:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reactions
There's been two reverts that I know of to this specific section, I am opening this up preemptively to prevent an editorial war. has recommended that a discussion is made on this as of the last revert. Thoughts on; Reactions - international and domestic "Yay" or "Nay". Mr rnddude (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend using prose mentioning countries/entities condemning attack without specific statement unless notable. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that the reaction from India may be important, but not a full length quote. Aside from that, I have nothing new to add on the matter. Both myself and most of the regular editors involved know the deal here. I will let the seemingly obvious consensus at Village pump (policy) speak for itself.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments should be limited to interested/involved nations, and then written in prose form, not a list. Most readers do not care about the "thoughts and prayers" of uninvolved nations. WWGB (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They're all interested, or they wouldn't be talking. I'm down for hearing from Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Pakistan's government and anyone saying something unusual or doing something. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should add those reactions. People do interested. In my opinion, if they don't interested, then why don't you delete the reactions from world leaders and summarize it like in this one in Boston Bombing article, Paris attacks article or those so-called "high profile" attacks?User:PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2016
 * Because whenever there's an argument about this there always end up being about a 50/50 split on yes/no and there's yet to be a precedent set that would allow for this to be changed. It's also not so much an issue of oh nobody's going to want to read that... it's an issue of, we have this same story every time. No nation (except warring ones) is going to give out anything but condolences and condemnation for terrorist attacks, we already know this. So why does it have to be repeated on every singe article. But that's just my two cents. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Background of Islamic attacks on Christians in Pakistan
From the Associated Press.

SOME ATTACKS ON CHURCHES, HOMES AND INDIVIDUALS SINCE 2002


 * Islamabad, 2002: An American woman and her daughter were killed along with three other people when multiple assailants breached security and attacked a multidenominational church inside the diplomatic enclave where the foreign missions are located.
 * Islamabad, 2002: Attackers with grenades hit a Christian-run hospital, killing four people.
 * Eastern Punjab, 2005: three churches were destroyed, but no deaths were reported.
 * Gorja, eastern Punjab, 2009: A mob burned an estimated 60 homes, killing six Christians.
 * Eastern Punjab, 2010: mobs of militant Muslims attacked four churches after controversial U.S. pastor Terry Jones called for people to burn the Quran.
 * Islamabad, 2011: Gunmen killed prominent Christian politician Shahbaz Bhatti, who served as a minister in the government of Asif Zardari, husband of the late Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto.
 * Peshawar, 2013: multiple attackers, some in suicide vests, killed 85 Christians.
 * Eastern Lahore, 2013: Mobs of Muslims burned nearly 200 homes belonging to Christians in the Joseph Colony.
 * Eastern Lahore, 2015: Two suicide bombers attacked two churches, killing 15 worshippers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.98.6 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a bit more depth:


 * The 2002 grenaded four included one non-Christian. The Gorja burning totalled nine. Shahbaz Bhatti wasn't killed for being Christian, but for promoting blasphemy law reform, similarly to Sunni Muslim Salman Taseer. The Peshawar church attack totalled 127. The Lahore mob is generally blamed for burning about 100 homes, stemming from a personal beef about drunken barbershop blasphemy. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Isnt it a bit undue to outrightly mention that the attack was targeted at Christians when Iqbal Park is not frequented by Christians (it's located in a Muslim majority area) and especially when 14 of those killed out of 72 are Christians and rest Muslim. The attack did take place on Easter in Pakistan, but I wonder how did the suicide bomber differentiated Christians among Muslims in that crowd?— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think almost all of the news stories mentioned that Christians were targets.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Target, doesn't necessarily mean hit. The statements by the group's (Jamaat-ul-Ahrar) spokesperson made as I recall also specifically addressed Christians as being the target. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We know that already, and the same is also mentioned in the article. But the issue I am pointing is that undue weight given to this right from the lede, and then unnecessarily relating previous attack in the Background section without highlighting (with due weight) that though the attackers (planned) to attack Christians, but those who suffered the most were Muslims.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be undue weight if the majority of sources didn't mention it, WP:UNDUE applies to giving weight to minority viewpoints, most (of the ones I have seen) sources have explicitly stated precisely what is written in the lede. So WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Regarding the background for the attack and the group involved, they are known to target religious minorities, they've done it before, they did it now (and they'll do it again). This is again, mentioned by a fair portion of the sources. So again, WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Note: this is just my personal opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that they had attacked Chritians in the past and the fact that they say they will do it again should be added and is already present which is sourced by Ref [14], but it is indeed undue to mention:
 * The 2013 suicide attack on the historic All Saints Church in Peshawar killed 75 people.
 * In March 2015, the Lahore church bombings killed at least 15 people in suicide attacks on churches in Lahore.
 * The above info comes from a news published on 24 December 2010 and 22 September 2013 - years before this attack. How does that become related? The article is about the current attack, not the history of attacks on Christians, that's all I want to say. Just because the sources include some history and provide linkages to the past does not mean it must be added here. Sources say many things, does that all get copied here? The source also mentioned about the 'Blasphemy law protests' on the same day, should that be also mentioned here? The other source also says that since 2003, more than 21,000 Pakistani civilians, does it should also be added here because '(majority of the) sources says so'?
 * A mere mention of Christians have been targeted in the past too should suffice, I guess.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with you there, the attack on the All Saints Church is more or less irrelevant here, the reason its mentioned is because it was the deadliest attack on Christians in Pakistan but that is entirely superfluous and a separate issue to this article. The second is only as relevant as the attackers, they perpetrated the second attack but again I don't think its particularly relevant to this article, it belongs on the article about that attack and maybe on the article on Jamaat-ul-Ahrar. I think the section was written so as to illustrate that attacks on Christians are part of these events. But you bring up a good point, the history of attacks on Christians should be discussed elsewhere. And finally not everything in any given source is pertinent to the discussion, so again I agree. In summary, yeah, the mention in the lede about this attack targeting Christians ought to be sufficient, and also that they regularly target religious minorities as well as you mentioned. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. BTW, this wasn't the deadliest attack (if by numbers dead) on Christians (14 died). It is unfortunate :( that more Christians had died in attacks in the past.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No I meant the attack on the All Saints Church being the deadliest attack on Christians in Pakistan, not this one. And yeah, sorry I misunderstood your point at first but I get where you were going with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Questionable title reversion
I made this move and was reverted. Can somebody read my edit summary and explain my reasoning behind it to those who would oppose it? Thank you--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many suicide bombings Lahore gets per year. It's certainly possible that there could be two in a year. However, I think we normally disambiguate them by month, rather than by scenario. A park bombing isn't very descriptive and the name of the park isn't a common name for the attack. "Lahore bombing" (or suicide bombing) is by far the most common wording not just worldwide but within Pakistan. We take that common name and them disambiguate it by year or, if applicable, month. I'd rather we just left it as is for now and wait until another suicide bombing occurs in Lahore this year.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Park bombing is still more accurate. Like the school shooting articles are all distinguished by schools. Suicide bombing is too broad of a term. Knowing that security is beefed up in Lahore, I doubt we'll see another park bombing. Or perhaps we can include the name of the park?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Lahore suicide bombing" has 160,000 Ghits, "Lahore park bombing" has about 37,000 Ghits. We go with common name. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * School shooting is used because it is a widely used term; park bombing is not.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "park bombings". Just bombings that happen in parks. In contrast "school shootings" are something specific to schools. The fact that this bombing occurred in a park and not, say, in a mosque, church, or marketplace is irrelevant. The fact a shooting occurs in a school is, on the other hand, usually quite relevant and indeed often central to the incident. That a shooting is a school shooting tells us something about the perpetrator's age and motive, as well as who the victims are. That this shooting happened in a park has nothing to do with the perpetrator's background or motives, nor anything about the victims. CapnZapp (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Delivery method?
The article itself says nothing about how the explosive was delivered. The infobox says suicide belt, but there's no reference. The description of the blast suggests a much larger explosive than what a single suicide belt would normally result in. A suitcase? A backpack? A truck, even? Any info on this? CapnZapp (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A relatively in-depth and recent article from the Washington Post simply describes it as an "explosives-packed vest" (link).  Jolly  Ω   Janner  11:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Targets in the infobox
Per Infobox civilian attack the target parameter is for "The target and/or purpose of the attack". Explaining that muslims were accidentally killed is irrelevant and draws away from the purpose of it in an infobox (infoboxes are meant to hold quickly identifiable info, not sentences). That's why I moved this fact as a footnote of the field. I'm not disputing the accuracy and relevance of the fact that muslims were killed, but where to put this information.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Target was christians, numerous editors keep on adding muslims. Reliable source needs to be provided that "The target and/or purpose of the attack" was also muslims. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with putting in the footnote, full sentences in an infobox make it more cumbersome to read (since it's there as a basic summary). I also think the issue here is that quite a few people are confused by the infobox; When they read target: "Christian..." they assume that this also means that Christians accounted for the most casualties and then take issue with it because the majority of victims were in fact Muslims. It baffles me that this is confusing to people though, to be honest (target =/= victim). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, just state the target. On that basis, I'm also removing "civilians" - the target was "Christians" (in general), not "Christian civilians". zzz (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The target stated by Jamaat-ul-Ahrar I am not disputing were Christians. However if you look at the method (indiscriminate suicide bombing) and location of attack (public park in Lahore, a majority-Muslim city), there is no way that a would-be suicide bomber could know their attack would only kill Christians. In other words if Muslims were not the target, the bomber would have made an effort to exclude them from harm. However this does not seem to be the case since a majority who died were indeed Muslims. User:Ana570/Ana570 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is partly correct, however, target =/= victim. Secondly, the footnote serves to identify this fact. Because of the issues with editors and readers understanding this distinction, Jolly Janner put a footnote in to serve the function of informing people that the majority of victims were indeed Muslim without burdening the infobox with unnecessary material. Lastly, "...there is no way that a would-be suicide bomber could know their attack would only kill Christians. In other words if Muslims were not the target..." is a deductive fallacy. <- I hope I am using this term correctly. Also, if you note below there is currently a dispute on whether the infobox should even discuss children, let alone religious background. Ideally, the deaths section should only count number dead. Though recently with terrorist attacks the distinction is also being made between victim deaths and perpetrator deaths. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of children in the infobox
I thought I'd put this under the above heading, since it follows a similar principle. Why do we list the number of children who died? Perhaps this is a key piece of information that belongs in a section about the victims (or just the bombing since we don't have such a section)?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I'm already here, as per the infobox civilian attack template, ideally the section should count the number of deaths (in this case 75.) Mr rnddude (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Victims paragraph
I am not really understanding why the "Victims" paragraph was removed.Belochterre (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Because it is made up entirely of personal opinions from non-notable people, and utter trivia, for example, "donned her best red dress", "put flower-shaped barrettes in her hair", "rode an elephant". What is encyclopedic about that? WWGB (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK so I will only add the parts that show what happened to the victims and their injuries.Belochterre (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. Merely stating that someone had an injured leg, or a relative was angry, is not notable. This encyclopedia reports things that happen to notable people, and significant opinions of notable people. Reporting a myriad of injuries and unimportant opinions does not belong here. WWGB (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * but doesn't reporting the injuries of a few people during this event enhance the article?Belochterre (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, trivial details often only burden the article with unnecessary information making the important details more difficult to access. There is no reason to include the injuries of specific non-notable people. They won't add to the article in any useful way and won't "enhance" the reader's experience. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand now. So should i put the information in the reactions paragraph or just leave it all out entirely.Belochterre (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave it out entirely, the reactions is a section oft debated on whether it should even exist (mostly because it becomes heavily burdened with the obvious fifty or so passages of "we offer our condolences" that most national leaders give, a perfect example of adding without enhancing/improving the article). Currently it deals with the president's and other notable Pakistani leaders reactions and also the military response to the event, more than enough as far as many are concerned. Again this is discussing trivial information not vital to the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405011527/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/27-Mar-2016/lahore-blast-govt-announces-three-day-mourning-in-punjab to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/27-Mar-2016/lahore-blast-govt-announces-three-day-mourning-in-punjab

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111065156/http://www.afp.com/en/node/2799017/ to http://www.afp.com/en/node/2799017/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)