Talk:July 2016 Dhaka attack

Twitter
Twitter is not a good source to use in the middle of a terrorist attack. Claiming 20 dead off the back of a tweet is irresponsible and contributes to the spread of rumours. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Now replaced by a news reference. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"Secularists" and "other Muslims"
It's entirely possible and there's an extensive historic precedent in there being Muslims who advocate for a secular society. The point being is that this article shouldn't imply that people in Bangladesh who advocate for secularism are atheistic or otherwise "not Muslim".

It's a relatively "small" objection but it's pretty relevant nonetheless. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Tried rewording. Hows the new incarnation?Lihaas (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Better. I'd still like to see secularists not being conflated with atheists as-- as mentioned prior-- it's entirely possible to be a secularist Muslim or Christian or what-have-you-- but it's better wording now generally. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The identity of the attackers
Your article says that someone or other said, "It is more likely that the attackers are from (the group) Al Qaeda on the Indian Subcontinent." Is it known that the attackers were South Asians? Clearly by their appearance, mannerisms and speech, witnesses would have been able to identify them as such. Any news about that? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The AQIS references have been removed. We have primary and secondary sources that state the attack was carried out by ISIS. Ottre 18:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we don't. It has been claimed by ISIS.  The Inspector General of Police Dhaka has stated that all attackers were Bangladesh citizens and they had been looking for them.  The US State Department has not confirmed any affiliation yet.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't hurt to wait another 24 hours for a counter-claim from AQIS. This LWJ article published 4 hours ago clearly says Islamic State was responsible for the attack. Ottre 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indian source like | this says that they're not from ISIS. Ayub 407 talk 08:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Title of article should be changed
The title of the article "2016 Gulshan attack" should be changed. Something like "2016 Gulshan attack" is only used if another attack in the area had taken place earlier or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.135.105 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath of the Attack
Should there be a section on recent coverage?

"In a talk at the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus on Saturday, Tahmid Hasib Khan took to the stage to describe in detail what happened at the Holey Artisan Cafe, offering for the first time his own account of one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in Bangladesh’s history"

https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/59x37x/tahmid-hasib-khan-survived-a-massacre-of-20-people-only-to-be-blamed-for-it

Hp0690 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Last names of the officers killed are not consistent
At one point it says

"Alerted by the gunfire, police detective Rabiul Karim and officer-in-charge Salauddin Khan started to investigate. Other police officers responded, arriving at the restaurant. The attackers then engaged in a shootout with the police. Police cordoned off the area around the restaurant and planned a rescue raid. The attackers however threw grenades and fired, killing officers Karim and Khan.[13]"

but afterwards

"Rabiul Islam, Assistant Commissioner of Detective Branch of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police, and Salahuddin Ahmed"

Maybe the last names are getting confused with those of hostages?

"Two of the hostages, Tahmid Hasib Khan and Hasnat Karim, were taken by police for questioning, and subsequently vanished amidst confusion about whether they had been released or not.[47][48]"