Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing/Archive 1

Sources are giving possible Iranian motives

So should we start linking stuxnet and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists to this article as possible motives that are being listed on some of the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarian rakista (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, especially since there is absolutely no proof. In any case, all prior Muslim attacks on Jews in Europe have been done by Sunni Muslims, not Shia Muslims. Shia Muslims have not used suicide bombs since the Lebanese Civil War either. These allegations are quite fishy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And badabing, the suspect is a Sunni straight out of Guantanamo: Mehdi Ghezali. Hopefully this'll be a lesson to the Israelis and the West. Their true enemy isn't Iran or Shias, but al-Qaeda and the countries that sponsor them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would put Mehdi as a suspected perp in the article, but the U.S., Bulgaria, and Sweden deny it was him. It's unclear where the media outlet that said it was him based it on. Whether to put it as a new section under "Perpetrator" (such as "It was repoted that... did it... But... deny it... It's unclear who did it...") is a different question, and doesn't make a difference to me either way. I think we should wiat a bit before deciding that. And also, Hezbollah has done bombings, and they are a Sunni organization, but you forget that Iran directly controls and funds them and gives them instruction and training. While thousands of Iranian youth weren't suicide bombers, they did kill themselves to explode mines in the Iran-Iraq 8 year war. Thirdly, there were Iranians arrested in Bangkok earlier this year who planned on bombing Israeli/Jewish targets. Fourthly, it'd be silly to say "Their true enemy isn't Iran or Shias" (I agree on last part, but then again Sunnis and Muslims aren't the enemy, it's certain countries and governments and organizations, but to think Iran isn't an enemy of Israel or certain Western countries is silly) and instead "al-Qaeda and the countries that sponsor them." Rest assured, the West and Israel are well informed about al-Qaeda, and every few months I hear reports about how Israel thwarted an al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Jerusalem or thwarted an al-Qaeda inspired group in the Sinai... --Activism1234 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur with FunkMonk, This is not the MO of the shias (they are the remote control bombing type), the way the article is right now will prove embarrassing to Wikipedia's credibility, once it is (likely) revealed this tragedy had nothing to do with Iran or Hezbollah, even US intelligence said attack by Hez/Iran is only "plausible" Israeli media's hysteria seems to have spilled onto this Wikipedia article for now, let us hope cooler heads prevail.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/netanyahu-blames-hezbollah-iran-for-bombing-of-tourists-in-bulgaria/2012/07/19/gJQALwkxvW_story.html60.241.171.231 (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide who did it, although I will once again remind you that Hezbollah is Sunni, and a number of officials have placed the blame on Hezbollah (Sunni) and Iran (Shia), with Hezbollah acting as a proxy and carrying out the attack. So it sorta invalidates that point. At either rate, it's not for Wikipedia users to make assumptions and then base the article on that, and remove properly referenced and important info. No, it wouldn't be a damage to Wikipedia at all - Wikipedia just has the information of what X said with Reference Y that said it was A. If it turns out that it was actually Z who did it, that will later be put in. If anything, it would be embarrasing to X that said it was A... Not Wikipedia... It's the job of Wikipedia editors to include relevant and properly referenced information, and that has been done here. There have not been any assumptions or statements that C did it, but rather "According to B, C did it..." etc, which is how it works on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 02:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbullah is sunni?? HAHA60.241.171.231 (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I Think you should at least have some elementary understanding of a topic before you start editing a Wikipedia article.60.241.171.231 (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, very late here. Was thinking of Hamas for a minute. My bad. But if you're goin to claim Hezbollah hasn't done suicide bombings, you need a reality check... --Activism1234 02:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime are terrible institutions and well capable of this etc... and this tragedy is unspeakably horrible, but there is just no evidence they were involved in this attack Also note I qualified all my statements and edits, with likely and on the whole etc of course it is plausible that they are involved but there is just no evidence. We need to have an article that reflects the uncertainty.60.241.171.231 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The background section does not deal with this attack. At whole. Period. Now, as for the second part regarding what you said, personal opinions do not count to go on Wikipedia. A number of U.S. officials high up in the intelligence establishment (granted, they'd know more than most people, including the people here...), Israeli officials, and a prime minister said that the signs point to Iran. Whether you want to believe that or not is up to you. But it doesn't mean they didnt' say it. To write on Wikipedia "Iran and Hezbollah were responsible. <ref=U.S. officials, prime minister, Israeli officials said it>" would obviously violate NPOV. That's now how you write on Wikipedia. But that's not how it's written. It's written as "According to... Iran and Hezbollah..." There is also a passage that Iran denies the attack, which also ensures neutrality. If it is successfully proven later that the attack was actually from the Organization of Iran Didn't Do It, then that too would go in the article, as the confirmed perpetrators, but it wouldn't mean that X and Y and Z didn't say someone else did it originally... This is just how Wikipedia works sir/madam. I hope you understand. --Activism1234 02:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I am giving your arguments the benefit of the doubt by not removing them and simply adding a POV template which is well deserved. Now would you be able to add a paragraph reflecting the doubts expressed in the washington post article I placed above? Now that would an be impressive display of neutrality.60.241.171.231 (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The article you gave predates references in this Wikipedia article about the U.S. officials talking to the New York Times. In Wikipedia, we don't copy word for word from media outlets - referring to "he didn't offer concrete evidence." I woudln't expect a spy agency like the CIA to offer their evidence to the public about how they busted terror cell X. I think it's quite clear that all that is written is that he made a statement, proof of no proof, and that's the end of it. According to X... It also doesn't have anything to do with the background section. All that our Wikipedia article says is "According to..." It doesn't list anything as a fact, and it's important to understand that. --Activism1234 02:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Think about it, It seems you are getting a lot of push back from a number of independent, disinterested parties who happen to stumble on to your section, now multiple people see a POV problem with it, you are obviously not an expert on the subject (not knowing if Hezbollah is Shia or Sunni) and you hold a strong POV (a terrible combination for a Wikipedian) and yet no-one has deleted any of your work, I would be pretty happy with that and go and take a moment for self-reflection. All I have done is simply add a template declaring the fact that there is a discussion going on.60.241.171.231 (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple pushbacks? That's coming from the same guy whose the one arguing over and over about this... Hardly counts as multiple. A user below wrote "The background section is currently removed (by whom?) perhaps due to POV concerns. It simplifies the article but also leaves it out of any context. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)" (when the background section was removed). Secondly, don't call it "my section" - this section has been seen in multiple referenced RS media outlets. Why? To give users background. Which is the point of the section. So people can know that there were previous attempts or successful ones (although not on this scale), and now we have this. You had all this stuff leading up to it, and finally this one. "Obviously not an expert on the subject" - please don't make assumptions, it doesn't further your case. Unless you're a sock, which could very well be, your only edits have been on "Wikipedia help "Jennifer Hudson" "World gvt" "Rings" "Frontline" "Flux density." This is your first edit related to Hezbollah, Iran, terror attacks, terrorism, Israel, etc, as far as I can tell. Your statement is a tad hypocritical. This hypocrisy is compounded by your claim that suicide attacks aren't common or used by Hezbollah. Now if you would look at my user contributions on the other hand, you'd see an extensive list of edits on the topic. Not that it would make anyone an expert, at either rate. You then repeat a refuted claim that I offered an explanation above to, and then claim I hold a strong POV (another hypocritical statement) when in fact, as I explained multiple times, all my edits are either "According to X" or "Implicated" with proper RS references that demonstrate it, and not "X did it" or "Well all these references say that X was implicated, but my gut tells me that's not true, you know it's not really their signature attack for some reason, so let me go ahead and remove it or add a POV tag." You should also take note that I added in Germany's comment, that they condemend the attack but said Israel shouldn't rush to blame Iran either (and this is before you popped up). If you'd take a look at the edit page for this article, you'd see tons of examples of vandalisma and blanket removals for the silliest of reasons, as well as removals to specifically twist certain sentences. I know that you've added the template, and I have not removed it either. But so long as this "discussion" will simply be a one-on-one argument that in the end reverts to accusations, false assumptions, outright lies, and personal attacks, I really don't intend on continuing this for much longer... It's silly. If other people want to give their opinion, they can go right ahead. But I stand by everything that I said, particularly that the background section has been stated in multiple RS media outlets to familiarize readers with events that led up to this one. It doesn't state that anyone does it, all it does is offer facts (since a definite link wasn't proven, "implied" which is a fact) or quotes. This is done across Wikipedia. There's nothing much else to add, other than good night/good day.--Activism1234 03:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Prediction: as this article gets more and more attention from disinterested editors It will become more and more difficult to keep the speculative stuff in there, and eventually (hopefully for your sake) you will give up, at that point I hope you take a moment to think about what motivated you to fight so hard instead of just waiting for the evidence to come out.60.241.171.231 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from officials are written across Wikipedia, as well as how a report progressed and the different assessments. If we were to go with your view, there'd be tons of articles that were half-complete because an identifier was never confirmed (because gasp, the country that was proven just denied it and you'd say there's no proof then), and then factually referenced info written in an NPOV standpoint that writes it as "According to x..." would be gone. That's why it looks simply like vandalism. Don't make predictions, I fight hard to keep relevant, properly referenced information reported in an NPOV way that makes international headlines, rather than vandalize an article and remove properly referenced info. --Activism1234 04:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right I shouldn't have made such a prediction, I'm sorry. Specially as it turned out I was mistaken.60.241.171.231 (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Background section

Hello,

Currently the background section goes after the attack.

To me, this is silly. Before readers read about the attack, they should be familiar with the background. It also makes sense chronologically to go from early to recent.

I believe it should be moved back to before the attacks.

What are others' opinions on this? --Activism1234 23:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing a number of other articles, I agree that the background should go back to the top. At the time that I had swapped it to the bottom, it was longer, and had made some unsourced conclusions that were contradicted by other parts of Wikipedia. Now that the article is longer it will fit just fine at the top. There should certainly also be a "See also" for any other events or pages that are relevant. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, there will inevitably be POV statements about this event, and it would be good to separate out sections of the known facts of the incident and its response vs. the political repercussions, accusations, statements from unreliable media etc. NPOV is going to be hard to maintain. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "POV statements?" Are you referring to editors making statements in the article? Or statements by world leaders or officials? In the latter case, like everywhere else on Wikipedia, such statements go in quotes to show this is what X said, it's not necessarily what we or I say or others say. If you're referring to the first one, then that will need to be cleared up in a good way. Do you have any specific examples? I have an issue with the removing of Iran and Hizbollah from the 1994 attack, since otherwise the only reason to keep it there is because it's the 18th anniversary, but readers may be confused why that would matter if it's not the same perpetrators. Thus I recommend using language similar to what is used for the attacks in the months before ("implicated"), such as "Argentina has blamed Hezbollah and Iran for these attacks." --Activism1234 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just noting the edit war and trying to find a stable ground from which to add things. Given how recent the event is, it doesn't do well to reach a foregone conclusion about who is responsible for it (even if there are well-founded reasons to believe in what must have happened). Your "X has blamed Y for Z"; "Y has denied Z"; "W has taken credit for Z" is all we can hope for until more facts are established in this particular incident. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to raise the point though, perhaps a new section in talk page, on whether to refer to this as a terrorist attack or just as an attack. Many media outlets are referring to it as a terrorist attack, and obviously Bulgaria and Israel and certain other officials as well. --Activism1234 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the 1994 attack to the bottom of the 'background' section since it is only news because the Israeli PM used it in his statement. There is no direct line to draw there and honestly there have been so many terrorist attacks on Israel/Jews is there any date that cannot shallowly be invoked like the '94 attack? I don't deny it, I just question it's validity to this attack when everyday could be propagandized and claimed as a day Israel was 'attacked'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put it there because of the Israeli PM's speech. The info has been stated in many media outlets as well. The point was that this happened on the 18th anniversary of the attack, which can't be a coincidence, so just brief and concise background info on the actual attack was given before going into the attack that took place on the same day 18 years later. Yes, there were many terror attacks against Israelis and Jews, but very few took place outside of Israel (as is the case in Argentina, Bulgaria) and on the scale of Argentina. And Hamas isn't a group that operates outside, while Hezbollah has been known to, and the info also leads up to Amos Harel's newspiece that Iran was responsibile for it through proxy Hezbollah. So for those reasons I felt it was important to just briefly mention that info so peopel will be familiar with it. [And if it wasn't Iran/Hezbollah, it is very very likely that they chose the date on purpose, sorry if I was misleading before.]--Activism1234 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think moving it in the section considering there is no source connecting it directly or claimed attacker motivation to it would necessarily diminish it. Much of this supposition is premature. I would even be open to a suggestive quantifier that it 'may/could be' connected to the date rather than affirmed. That is unless you have a source that can confirm beyond simple calendar association. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, the attack was done on the anniversary of the Argentina attack. Putting in info about Argentina is useful background info. I didn't include tons and tons of info, just a brief paragraph so readers are familiar with it. It doesn't imply anything. It was mentioned just like that in many RS media outlets. Moving it to the bottom certainly would not diminish it, but I just don't feel that it makes sense chronologically or would flow well. The argument isn't about whether to keep it or remove it, it's about where to put it, and I think that chronologically speaking we should leave it where it is. --Activism1234 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That attack is already mentioned quite prominently in the opening with a link to the details. I only suggest that until there is a connection a qualifying separation be noted like 'may'. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is in the lead, but it's not explained at all (it's the lead, and shouldn't be). Putting in "may" may (may?) make it seem like POV, as opposed to just stating the facts as reported in RS media outlets and history and letting the reader decide. The article doesn't say "It happened on the anniversary, and the perpetrators did it for that reason." It's just there, and my personal opinion is that is best. I'm unlikely to change my opinion. If anyone here has something else to say, or wants to offer their opinion, go right ahead. --Activism1234 05:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The background section is currently removed (by whom?) perhaps due to POV concerns. It simplifies the article but also leaves it out of any context. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist attack?

Many media outlets are referring to this as a "terrorist attack", not just an "attack", as noted by Activism1234. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree (proposer) --Activism1234 03:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The following countries or international organizations have described it as a terrorist attack (there could be more, these are the ones I know for sure):

• Bulgaria
• France
• European Parliament
• Iran
• Israel
• NATO
• Russia
• UK
• U.S.
• United Nations Security Council
• Quartet
• Canada
• Norway
• Poland
• Serbia
• South Korea
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United Kingdom

As you can see, it's quite diverse, ranging from Iran (true, they could just be lying...) to Israel, from the U.S. to Russia (better example if you ignore Iran), from NATO to Russia, etc. It also meets the definition of terrorism as seen on this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How does it meet the definition of terrorism? So far there is scarcely any evidence that it was a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack must generally entail a political goal (here I include goals like ideological or religious, etc., under "political"). But what was the political objective? To stop Israeli tourists visiting the Balkans? --78.98.12.110 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally blowing up people for no reason is considered terrorism. And of course the citation I added which says it was. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No; what you say directly contradicts the respective Wikipedia article on terrorism. --178.40.42.226 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I really do not care what the Wikipedia article on terrorism said, I added a reliable source which says the attacks was terrorism. I see no further need to discuss the issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is true, you do not need care what the Wikipedia article on terrorism said, but you did not add a reliable source; instead, you added only a piece of propaganda. We need better sources for that claim. --95.103.50.222 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think The Telegraph is an unreliable source. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Since the time of my posting this section, there have been many many more countries that called it a terrorist attack. See the "reactions" section in the article for more info. It can be gathered that a large number of the international community view it as a terrorist attack, and the referenced sources point that as well, as well as the referenced sources above such as The Telegraph. Please note - I've updated my list above with a few more countries that condemend the attack. The United Nations Security Council and United Nations Quartet also called it a terrorist attack. --Activism1234 06:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

POV

The article needs to be brought to a neutral POV, at the moment it presents Iran's blame as practically factual going on nothing but Netanyahu's accusations (e.g. "The Revolutionary Guards, the Ministry of Intelligence, and Hezbollah helped carry out the attack." presented as truth because it says so in some Israeli paper). There is an ongoing investigation, the primary sources should if at all possible reference Bulgarian authorities not Israeli papers. Helixdq (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --JTBX (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

[Per this, the suicide attack is a claim at the moment. There are also claims it was a bombing, Al amanar info avalable on its page no need to pov-oush without assertion, there are other overlins and redundancies (people should read before adding anything), the trivia about Argentina is irrelevant where netanyahu mentioned it i moved the link), and it does give over UNDUE emphasis to israel's view.Lihaas (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but getting to NPOV is going to be hard work because much of the news is still fragmentary. I can count three POVs: "Iran/Hezbollah did it"; "Hezbollah didn't do it"; "We don't know yet but we have some suspicions". In the short run it might make sense to carve out a "Blame for the attack" section and sequester the important but at times politicized statements of leaders to that section. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Helixdq, you should note that it wasn't stated as a fact but was rather written that Amos Harel said in Ha'aretz... He has much credibility btw, it's not some random newspaper (and the newspaper is very critical of Netanyahu). If it's not added yet, it should be added that CIA, Bulgaria, and Israel have concluded it was a suicide bomber and had a fake U.S. passport. --Activism1234 13:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait with such a section until there is some actual proof. As of now, it's just premature knee-jerk reactions when the Likudniks immediately point at Iran. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The suspect is found, not Iranian. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A suspect has been named, but just because international media are repeating a name doesn't make it so (especially since the ur-source is a Bulgarian TV news channel of questionable authority). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's widely reported, and all there's to go by at the moment, so there's no need to remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria, U.S., and Sweden denied it was Mehdi. As Edward said, the original report may not have had such good basis. I'm not sure what's your deal with the defamation you use, but it doesn't deny the fact that X blamed Y or leading military expert A said it was B. The only thing to remove possibly would be the latter in the case where it turns out to be proved false. --Activism1234 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is clearly adopting a pro-Israeli view, and is not neutral. The suggestion of a connection with the 1994 AMIA bombing, which was also blamed on Iran despite the absence of proof, suggests only a bias towards Israeli, not an objective interpretation of the known facts.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not POV to list claims and allegations by important parties, provided equal weight is given to counter claims and denials. Do you have any particular claims in mind which you think unbalance the article?#I think it is ok to refer to the 1994 AMIA attack, because both were attacks on Jewish targets which some have blamed on Iran. Readers can draw their own conclusions. As long as the relevant articles are balanced, I think it's ok to refer to them without that increasing the 'proof' of Iranian involvement in this case. Assuming no credible admission of responsibility it will always remain murky. Especially given the possibility of rogue elements within a state or organisation.--Flexdream (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seven or eight killed?

The intro says eight were killed, but the body paragraphs below state seven. Huffington Post reports of 8. [1] ComputerJA (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

All killed have been listed, so that should clear it up. --Activism1234 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality of sources

The lede paragraph that provides the name of the alleged bomber is sourced from an Israeli paper that in turn quotes unnamed Bulgarian media sources, and a Swedish tabloid (in Swedish). I'll copy that text into the talk page and remove it from the article; wikipedia needs to be more careful. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know what the edit said, but if it named him as definitely the perp, then that could even be construed as vandalism, at the very least it was PoV (a person above practically rejoiced that a report said it was some man, but didn't mention Iran). If it named him as a suspected perp, then that's a different story. But now the U.S., Bulgaria, and Sweden have denied the report, so no need for anyone to put it back in. Unless we make a section about the identity of the perp and we say originally it was reported that Mehdi was the perp but U.S., Bulgaria, and Sweden denied this etc. --Activism1234 20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Page title

"Attack" is quite generic — it could easily be used as a name for a minor incident in which one person assaults another on board a bus in this city. Why not simply Burgas bus bombing or 2012 Burgas bus bombing? Surely bombings on busses in Burgas (whether notable or non-notable events) are rare events and not likely to be repeated frequently. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the second one. --Activism1234 20:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also agree on the second one.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So let's honor the king (and 2 other editors) and change it? --Activism1234 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also agreed on 2d one. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would remove "2012" from the article name as there is no other Burgas bus bombing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

^I was thinking the same. 2012 is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind either way, you have a good point, but on the other hand, a lot of attacks have the year before them, for example "2008 Mumbai attacks." --Activism1234 01:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Or the "1993 World Trade Center bombing"... Just pointing out that the general title naming has been to put the year beforehand, unless perhaps you have a good reason why these precedents shouldn't be followed or there's a flaw in them that doesn't apply here. --Activism1234 01:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Those two examples make sense because there have been other Mubai attacks, and obviously another WTC "bombing". This case, though, is unique. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspect section

I suspect that this will have poorly sourced statements, allegations and refutations, and other fragments of opinion mixed in - I was looking for a warning label to add in there to make it clear the relevant encyclopedic standards for same. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. As long as we have a suspect section, the info on Mehdi should be included, but appropriately - not "Mehdi was responsible" but rather "A report blamed Mehdi for the attack... Swedish citizen, released from GItmo... However, Sweden, Bulgaria, and the U.S. denied this report." Along those lines. And same for everything else. If http://conspiracytheories.com says aliens did it, then users shouldbe expected not to reference it, and those who do should be reverted. In other news, if it's in the international media outlets, write it appropriately and in an NPOV manner - but if it's some lone website, don't publish it. And even with the media outlets, make sure you don't write it as a fact, since the investigation hasn't concluded yet. So go ahead with the warning label. I also highly recommend semi-protecting the entire page. --Activism1234 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bulgarian investigators deny a Hezbollah link, so this should not be splattered all over the article just because Netanyahu and some Pentagon nitwits claim so. And if Mehdi didn't do it, where the hell is he? FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So now the suspect is apparently a Dutch/Iranian with an Arabic accent, which doesn't make any sense: http://www.timesofisrael.com/bulgaria-still-struggling-to-confirm-attackers-identity/ FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some media already announced that "Base of Jihad" has claimed responsibility for the bombing. [2][3] Should this be added to "Suspected perpetrators" in the infobox ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the text at least. It can't be put in the infobox, because no one has pointed to it as a suspect other than themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this news item, or how to incorporate it, the case is getting muddier by the day: http://www.timesofisrael.com/police-suspect-women-involved-in-burgas-terror-attack/ FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide what's right and what's wrong. For now, readers should be aware of all the information as it's updated. IF a suspect is identified conclusively and agreed by everyone that it was him/her, then we would obviously put that at the top and probably in the lede as well, but like all other articles, retain the previous information in a section such as "Investigation" so readers understand how the investigation progressed, what was initially thought, and can see why certain editorials, opinion pieces, or speeches blamed X or Y and why others said it couldn't be, etc. It gives context (and I imagine it'd be shortened as well, for example the passage on Mehdi has been removed, since it's 95% certain it was just a rumor and was denied by 3 countries, and wasn't a serious suspicion by various authorities). But for now, everything needs to be incorporated in a concise, logical, chronological way. --Activism1234 17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking at the specific link you gave. It says that the Times of Israel couldn't confirm it. I can't find this article on other websites, such as JPost, Ynet, Ha'aretz, or The Sofia Globe (Bulgarian website). Give it a few hours, then we'll take a look at it, I recommend. For now, someone may be interested in adding this article into "Aftermath": http://sofiaglobe.com/2012/07/23/foreign-tour-groups-have-not-cancelled-bookings-after-bourgas-terrorist-bomb-attack-bulgarias-tourism-minister-says/ It's about tourism in Bulgaria following the attack. I'd do it myself but busy right now (on a work break that will be over in 2 minutes). --Activism1234 17:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

UNSC denuncation

The passage contains the following line under "Reactions."

"The US, Bulgaria and Israel are reportedly pushing for a Security Council denunciation of the attack.[45]"

This line was appropriate at the time. However, the UNSC and Quartet have denounced the attack as a terror attack. I call to remove that line, since it's outdated now. Does anyone else feel the same way, or have a different opinion?

--Activism1234 00:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of background

An I.P. address added the POV template to the background section.

His/her reason - "This is speculative, There is no evidence this suicide attack (a signature alqaida tactic) has anything to do with Hezbollah/Iran (who on the whole do not use suicide bombing))."

The summary isn't connected with the section though. The background doesn't mention this suicide attack to begin with, and suicide attacks are not Al Qaeda's tactic solely. Hezbollah has been known to do suicide bombings extensively, but that doesn't make a difference - we cant, and won't, write "Hezbollah was responsible..." Rather, we can write "Hezbollah and Iran were implicated in many of these attacks" which is true and you can read all about this in the appropriate references, in which the respective countries offer evidence that links them. That's not disputed. Hezbollah also acts as a proxy for Iran. The summary as a whole doesn't make any sense and does not support a reason to put a neutrality box in the section.

The background section is meant to provide background info, that's it. It is properly referenced and doesn't violate neutrality. Many readers may be unfamiliar with the background and previous recent attempts to attack Israelis around the world, and this is another example, likely from the same source. It also shows readers this wasn't some random attack. Can you imagine an article on the French Revolution, for example, that didn't provide any background info, but just went right into the revolution. Many readers may wonder whether the revolution happened overnight because some guy felt like it. Everything in the section is factually written in an NPOV way with properly referenced sources.

I would like other's opinions on this. [I recall an editor above saying that a background section is important]. --Activism1234 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Remove as proposer --Activism1234 02:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Wait -- I am confident that with the right edits we can have a Background section that passes a POV test. Certainly the narrow case of previous interactions between Bulgaria and Israel regarding risks and security are relevant. I'm more skeptical that we can give a capsule summary of contemporary conflicts between Israel and Iran and between Israel and Hezbollah in the space available, and even if we could, it's not clear that it wouldn't be POV to include those (and not say include a similar Al-Qaeda narrative, or a narrative of a history of bus bombings, or any of a number of other stories). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to include anything between Israel and Iran. Nothing was put in there before, I don't expect anything to be put in (unless it's confirmed it was from Hezbollah/Iran). The background info simply contained what many RS media outlets contained, which explains previous attemtps or successful attacks on Israeli officials in recent months or days, culminating in the attack, so readers understand this wasn't some random thing by a guy who was bored, but this has been going on for a while and there have been other attempts/attacks, and now we have this. --Activism1234 04:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Argentinian attack

A user placed the factually correct info into the lead about the Argentinian attack. There was no reference. A user removed it asking for a reference that shows a link between the two. I added in a reference, but wrote that the original user never wrote anything about a link, other than it targeted Jews and was blamed on Hezbollah/Iran. References like the Huffington Post still found it important to mention in their articles, since it's relevant. The factually referenced information that is seen in multiple internatioanl reliable media outlets was subsequently removed by an I.P. account. His reason was ludicrous, saying that Hitler published Mein Kampf on the day but we didn't include it. The user fails to understand that other articles which say "X was on the anniversary of Y" do not list everything that happened that day in history either, only that which is important and can be found in referenced information. Mein Kampf was not a terrorist attack either. I would rever this silly edit, but I know it'd just be reverted again and it would give the impression of edit warring (which is clearly the goals of some users). A reference was asked for, it was provided, and then an I.P. address decided to revert factually referenced info. --Activism1234 04:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes i am the editor who added the Argentine attack. I also later did as i was told and added the reference to the sentence. I got the reference from the Israeli reaction section of the article. The coincidence is mentioned by Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu (do you need more notable than that?). Nowhere in the sentence i added does it mention or accuse anyone. It simply states the coincidence of the 2 events and that both were blamed on the same groups. It doesn't say: since both attacks occurred on the same day that Iran/Hezbollah are therefore guilty.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The ref I put in actually wasn't from the prime minister, but rather something Huffington Post voluntarily included in their own article. But your last sentence is completely right and what I've been saying. --Activism1234 05:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. Yes other editors are just removing it without giving any reasons other than accussing me of saying that by the 2 attacks coinciding i somehow am saying that this proves who the perpetrators are. The sentence clearly does not say that. Others are saying that it is not notable enough. I am not sure how that holds when even the Israeli PM draws attention to it.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The "undue weight" question is not whether the coincidence of attacks is not relevant; it's more the question of which of the many worldwide reactions you want to pull out to the lede, and which you want to keep in that long section. Similarly a "background" section which disappeared because of POV concerns had the same kind of issues; what do you emphasize, given a small amount of space? It's hard not to be POV, even if the materials are well sourced, given how little has been proven about the suspected perpetrator. Recognize that this is hard work to get right! Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand your point. My response to your point of what do you decide to put in the lead or not is: The coincidence of the 2 events are too important to exclude from the lead. 1) Both occurred at the exact same day. 2) Both targeted Jews outside of Israel. 3) The sentence is heavily referenced and repeated in multiple sources. Basically it is too notable and interesting to exclude from the lead.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I say that the background section should be included as well. There's no limit to space. Neither sentence or background section imply anything, unless someone has a conviction and digs deep into it... The sentence is explained above, the background section just explains to readers that in the months leading up to the attack, Israelis were targeted before, and culminated in this. It's not some random event. --Activism1234 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A particular editor changed my edit of the lead section from "The attack occurred on the exact day of the 1994 AMIA bombing, which likewise targeted Jews and was also blamed on Iran and Hezbollah" to their version of "Within two hours of the attack Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Iran and Hezbollah remarking that it had occurred on the same day as the 1994 AMIA bombing, which was also controversially blamed on Iran and Hezbollah". This editor previously tried to completely remove my edit from the lead. However, that action coupled with their newer version of my initial edit, gives me the impression that they are just trying to defend the innocence of Iran/Hezbollah. Their addition of "Within two hours of the attack" seems to try and convince readers of Iran et als innocence. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with adding words like this. However, these words don't belong in the lead section. These words should be added in the Perpetrator section. My edit simply stated an interesting and much publicized coincidence between the Bulgarian and Argentine bombings without going into the details of whether it proves anybody innocent or guilty. This is the appropriate edit for a lead section- at least at this point in time. I hope to gather others's opinions before i seek to revert the edit.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalize all you want

I copied and pasted the article to my sandbox here. Feel free to vandalize it all you want and violate 3RR to the point of 7RR.

On a side note, it may be useful in resolving disputes and then putting it into the article here. --Activism1234 05:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You should have a look at WP:VANDALISM. What you see is editing, not vandalizing, and it would be nice of you not to accuse other editors unjustly. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When I.P. addresses revert and revert and revert with summary boxes that include "LOL," it's vandalism. --Activism1234 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue

I think the weight given to Israel's official position on the attacks is not undue. Time will tell how this will shape international relations, but officially implicating other states in sponsoring terrorism is a serious and important matter. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done60.241.171.231 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some people who are constantly confusing Wiki encyclopedia with Israeli foreign-relations bulletin, so they force accusations against Iran (hevily violating of WP:NPOV) and connecting bombings from 1994 (WP:SYNTH). I removed it. Please remember that such moves are the same as blaming Mossad and including Patria attack at "See also". --109.165.140.217 (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The claims are reported by sources in conjunction with the tag. Are you stating we should ignore this material despite their widespread reportage? Ankh.Morpork 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok so I re-added the undue weight tag which will hopefully be a compromise, I am agnostic about inclusion of bibi's remarks in the lede.60.241.171.231 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, it appears there is an inability this week to read referenced sources like the Huffington Post and understand they wrote stuff like the Argentinian attack not quoting any person's speech. --Activism1234 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything against using any material, but please put it at right place - at Reactions#Israel/Iran/etc, not at leading section. --109.165.140.217 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a look at the article history it was in a pretty bad state of propaganda before, I tried to make it as NPOV as possible without upsetting the Iran-did-it-crowd by removing bibi's statement, I prefer the lede the way it is now (without bibi) but I'm also ok with it being there with the undue weight tag. That's what I was doing.60.241.171.231 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is reasonable, what is not acceptable is the complete removal of this sourced material from the article. The material is reliably sourced and simply saying "SYNTH" does not excuse the bowdlerizing of the article. Ankh.Morpork 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can check Ahmadinejad speech in this link and see that there's no mention of this attack, just about US-Iran economic clash. Israeli activist are violating WP:SYNTH/WP:NPOV by connecting it to attacks. --109.165.140.217 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please view the second cited source.Ankh.Morpork 12:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's ISRAELI source. Can you figure it out? We all know that Israelis like to play with citations of Iranian president, but encyclopaedia isn't place for it. Here is another Iranian source FarsNews, again - attacks are not mentioned. --109.165.140.217 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you just seem like a mad raving lunatic. For the record, nothing in this Wikipedia article about the statement said he was referring to the attack. You're digging way too deep into these things. Although an Iranian media outlet was referenced as well as a reliable Israeli one. --Activism1234 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source that just transcribes the speech? 60.241.171.231 (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• What's the rush? We are not the newspaper. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to US opinion

The actual Bulgarian investigators deny a Hezbollah link, yet the article is filled with unverified claims from anonymous US "officials" that accuse Hezbollah, most of those could be cut or summarised, since there is absolutely no proof. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do the Bulgarian investigators have proof? It's the same case as the U.S. You have officials who are telling media outlets certain things. All can be reported. --Activism1234 19:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that the Bulgarians are actually doing the investigation and are sitting with all the material, whereas the US officials, well, they seem to just be yapping. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. said on the day of the attack they would cooperate with an investigation. It's very possible that they are, and the CIA/FBI said they were. Nothing that anyone says is taken as proof, even the Bulgarian authorities. It's all written as something they say. Whether it's true or not may or may not be determined in the future. --Activism1234 20:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bulgarians say they're working with the Israelis, they haven't mentioned the US. Of course there must be some work with the US, but again, the word of the Bulgarians should have more weight, since they're actually working on the material. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bulgarian interior minister was quoted in the article. Any subsequent reports are free to go in the article as well. I'm sure that neither of us have any doubts that even if the CIA/FBI isn't working with them, they still can know somewhat what's going on, based on intelligence services. Now, let's look at how the Bulgarian interior minister is reported on Wikipedia. It's fine. It's based on the referenced sources. Personally, one may say "He's not denying Hezbollah did it, only denying it was a local Hezbollah cell." But that still doesn't mean it shouldn't go in. Just that local cell should be added (which it is). --Activism1234 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not the mention of US opinion, but the fact that it is smeared all over the article, in every single infobox. It shouldn't be, the killer is unknown, that's the only fact we have, everything else is unfounded libel at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Can someone point out what this article has to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? --Activism1234 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ask Bibi. It should probably be removed until there is some actual evidence. Could just as well be a right wing nut. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That answer really doesn't help you out... It makes you seems mad, and you seem to again deny that international RS media outlets like the Huffington Post have reported on the Argentinian attack on their own... Give a credible and real response to the question I posed here, or please don't comment here. No reason to turn this into lunacy and get nothing done. --Activism1234 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting so worked up over a somewhat light-hearted response makes you look "mad". Calm down, the point was clear: There is no evidence, so the tag should not be here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I.P. address vandalism

The I.P. address 192.223.243.6 inserted the following line into the article under perpetrator, in relation to senior U.S. officials being reported in The New York Times.

"The government sources were anonymous and no proof was offered."

The summary box said that it was for NPOV.

In fact, it does the opposite. It makes it seem like they're not credible, the New York Times is not credible or reliable, and we shouldn't trust them. In reality, nothing should be written, and it should just go as is - believe it if you want, don't if you don't want to, but this is what senior U.S. officials told the New York Times.

Across Wikipedia, senior sources are not written with the last line either.

I would like to remove it, but want to check that everyone else understands and is O.K. with it due to 1RR (unfortunately it seems like everyone is violating it here, especially IP addresses...). --Activism1234 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, it is WP:OR, please read WP:VAND. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:OR. It states in the lead that it refers to items for which no "reliable, published sources exist." Please don't claim that the New York Times is an unreliable unpublished source. --Activism1234 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the Times that's unreliable, but US "officials" that are. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The way it's written in the article doesn't make any implications that it is a fact. It just reports what the NYT said, which is a reliable source used across the globe. It's not a question of whether the NYT made it up. You are free to question whether the sources are right, but the fact is that this is what the NYT reported, and we have to assume that the NYT used reliable known sources. And if they didn't, it doesn't change that this is what they reported. Nothing is written here that it is a fact.

(ec)I have no idea why you are mentioning the NYT, you said the addition of "The government sources were anonymous and no proof was offered." was vandalism, it is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the summary box said it was for NPOV, when the opposite is true. It makes it seem like the NYT isn't reliable. On Wikipedia, when we reference a reliable media outlet that quotes sources, this last line isn't put in. What's written is just that sources told the NYT - no names are given, so it's clear it's anonymous, as any intelligence report to a media outlet would be, and people generally don't expect government intelligence groups to divulge their proof. All that is written is that sources told the NYT... There's no need for the last line, unless the NYT itself said that they didn't offer any proof. In fact, the NYT writes it as "identified," which goes even above and beyond. It's not up to us as individuals to decide for Wikipedia whether they're reliable or not. Each of us are free to decide on our own and for ourselves. But on Wikipedia, all that is done is to reference the RS source and what they said. --Activism1234 21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

If he said "The enemy deals a blow to the Iranian nations step by step; but, in return, it receives a stronger, heavier blow,” President Ahmadinejad said", why is it stated he said this attack itself was a reponse to attacks on Iran? Seems to be made up, just like all the other allegations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Per RS references and the quotes he gave. The way it's written on Wikipedia is how it's been reported but doesn't imply anything. If we want to dig deep into it, then you could say that what he was referring to in "response" was not a response from them, but it was "divine" and "in return." That's digging deep into it, but you'd have to dig deep into it to think that the thing on Wikipedia implies anything. It's a statement he delivered following the attack and celebrating it, so it went on Wikipedia, and independently you are free to make of it what you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on the actual article.--Activism1234 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything? What I quoted above is not what the Wiki article states. But I can see someone else has already fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The edit, however, makes numeorus mistakes... --Activism1234 21:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(Copied over from my talkpage): About this edit of mine [4], I believe my wording is within the bounds of responsible paraphrasing and, as such, true to the source, albeit less literally than the direct quotations. If anybody has quibbles with details of wording, feel free to tweak. However, what is non-negotiable is that we must not present A.'s statements as if they were undoubtedly related to the Burgas attacks, as the previous version did. The previous version claimed that he "described the attacks" as an Iranian act. This is quite patently false, as he didn't in fact mention the attacks at all. Do not reinsert any wording of that kind.

I am giving everybody fair notice that I regard this as a WP:BLP issue: claiming that a living politician took responsibility for a terrorist act, as the previous version did, is a very serious matter, and falls under the rule that "exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence". As such, I reserve the right to use administrative means to prevent such claims from being reinserted in the article. Other than that I am totally open about the wording though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked wording to remove the unreferenced statement. The new wording has a brief intro and then only quotes, so it shouldn't be an issue anymore. If people still have an issue, please raise it here first so it can be discussed.--Activism1234 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's still unacceptable. While it no longer explicitly makes the claim that he was referring to the Burgas attacks, it very clearly insinuates that he did, through the simple juxtaposition. A reader seeing these quotes like that has no other option but to assume they refer to the same topic as the previous statements, so it's basically no different from making the claim outright. It is absolutely essential that we make explicit that the connection between his words and the Burgas attacks was not in his speech itself, but an interpretation made by those Israeli media. That, or remove the passage entirely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's based on your interpretation that he wasn't referring to it... In this way, only quotes that he made are used, and everyone is free to interpret it as he wants. It doesn't mention what he was referring to, only that he said it hours after the attack... For example, I personally viewed it as he saying that either they were responsible or the attack was righteous even if they weren't responsible. And in fact, the PressTV source didn't offer his full remarks, while 2 other referenced sources did, saying that he said it was in response, but for now I left it out since there was a whole argument over it... --Activism1234 22:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also don't forget that the same passage has Iran's remarks denying it... I really don't see how this makes a claim that they were responsible, it just says this was a speech given a few hours after the attack, and before it says Iran denied it. --Activism1234 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Look I'm not trying to distort anything, and it's important to cooperate together on this, and I am willing to. I offered what I felt above. --Activism1234 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you are consciously "trying" to distort things, but fact is, your version is distorting things. I have made another attempt at fixing the passage; if that's still not acceptable, the only solution is to remove the passage entirely. I repeat that I will use administrative tools to enforce this if I have to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I like your edit much better than your previous one, although I recommend explaining why exactly this is interpreted as such (use a quote). --Activism1234 22:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm saying keep it as it is, but insert a quote somewhere, for example the one about receiving heavier blows from Iran. You can also insert what you wrote before about it being seen as gloating over the attack, as I don't think that's disputed, if you'd like. But yeah definitely much better, thanks. --Activism1234 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese flag next to Hezbollah?

I know that Hezbollah is intimately intertwined with Lebanese politics and domestic and foreign issues (and if I'm not mistaken, they have people in the government as well...) but do Hassan Nasralah's really fit in the context of an official Lebanese response? It seems as if he was speaking as a member of Hezbollah, and not in any capacity as an official Lebanese spokesperson. Therefore, I propose removing the Lebanese flag icon and perhaps moving his/Hezbollah's comments to a new "non-state parties" section.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It can go either way. I mean, the flag of Lebanon is used, but the passage doesn't say anywhere that this is the actual Lebanese response. Rather, it's the response of part of the Lebanese government and of a Lebanese armed group, so it still is part of Lebanon. If another Lebanese parliamentary faction had a response, I would think it'd go there as well. --Activism1234 14:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• It cannot go either way (and that's one of the problem with those silly flags). I don't know who put the Lebanese flag in front of a Hezbollah response, but that's so wrong that I am having a hard time understanding how anyone could get it in their heads to equate a country and an organization (terrorist or otherwise) inside of it. I don't know who Skycycle is, but I'm glad they reverted it. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hezbollah is part of Lebanon's government, like a political faction. They also exert control over parts of Lebanon, as well as the government. It'd be like putting under U.S. response on any page "The Republicans said" or "The Democrats said." Or perhaps under a response from Gaza "Hamas said..." That's probably why it was put there, if I had to hazard a guess... --Activism1234 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Although I'll add I don't have strong feelings about either one. --Activism1234 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No no no, you can't use a flag like that. Sarah Palin does not speak for the US, Hezbollah does not speak for Lebanon. Look up WP:MOSFLAG, which is quite clear--use of the flag is to be used "where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality". "Strong feelings" one way or another don't come into the matter: we have to remove flag icons where they don't apply, and if we don't, we are equating (in this case) Hezbollah with Lebanon, which would be amazingly incorrect. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't get the impression from the passage that Hezbollah was speaking on behalf of Lebanon. All that it appeared to be was a passage on Hezbollah, and the Lebanese flag appeared to be used since Hezbollah is officially part of the Lebanese government and exerts much influence and control over Lebanon. The example with Sarah Palin is extremely different. --Activism1234 22:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
        • It's simple: the flag can only be used for representing the country. Hezbollah is not the country of Lebanon. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
          • WP:MOSFLAG gives examples of areas in which flags can be used. "such as military units, government officials, or national sports." Now, do national sports teams really represent the views of a country? No, but it's still put under there, and it doesn't mean either that the passage will say it represents the views of the country, but rather is just a passage about what the sports team said with the appropriate flag next to it. "Government officials" appears to be the most appropriate here, since Hezbollah is officially part of the government (and on the same token, it'd appear that Sarah Palin would in such a case have the U.S. flag next to a passage about her if it was here). I'm fine with how it is currently, but I'm just saying...--Activism1234 23:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Btw, Drmies, I hope you find the following information useful. Hezbollah has veto power over legislation in the Lebanese Parliament. It and its allies control 19 of the 30 cabinet positions. Former Lebanese PM Hariri called the government a "Hezbollah government." Hezbollah is the face and power that represents Lebanon, and to deny that it's not part of the government or part of Lebanon is absurd. They are intertwined in the government in every way. The facts above can not be denied, no matter what your viewpoint is. --Activism1234 03:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
              • And Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska. I don't know if you put that Lebanese flag back in the article, but that's a serious mistake. Hassan Nasrallah is not, from what I can tell, an official spokesperson for the Lebanese government. The rest is just so much hogwash--that is, original research and politicized rhetoric. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ummm if the flag represents the country then when does the country speak? Does its mouth open and issue a statement? Its the government that speaks. Now here you have the cake and eat it too. First Hezbollah is said to "lead" March 8 (dubious and silly if anyone has an iota of understanding in Lebanese poltiics), then when the "leading" party chief makes a statement its not from the government which is comprised 'solely of siad alliance? What logic is that but heavily blinkered by reading some idioting mainstream western media?Lihaas (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fatalities box

I would like to get some users' opinions on whether the current box that lists the victims and perpetrator should stay as is, or whether we should create a new section with "fatalities" as its title and list what it says in the box.

Personally, I don't have too strong an opinion, but looking at other pages on terrorism, it appears we should do the latter. For example, Gaza street bus bombing does not have such a box, but rather a new section.

Let me know your opinions on this. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually enjoy the box, makes it stand out more than in a section. I say keep it. Skycycle (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. --Activism1234 22:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think consistency would be good, but I've seen other articles with names in a box, and others were it's listed in a section 'fatalities'. Personally I think a box should be a summary e.g. numbers of victims, while the details such as names and ages should go in the text of the article. I think that would be better. I'm not sure that putting the names in a box makes them more prominent to the reader than having them in a named section. --Flexdream (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What I would recommend is keeping the box, but putting the box into a new section called "Fatalities," as is in other articles. Before proceeding with this, I'd like other opinions. It just seems weird to me that the box is in "Perpetrator" section, while it deals with fatalities. --Activism1234 01:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it looks out of place in the perpetrator section. I think a separate section 'Fatalities' or 'Victims' to allow for wounded would be better. I don't know then if a box would be helpful or not.--Flexdream (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask Skycycle for his opinion, since he was involved in this above, and then we'll see where that goes. --Activism1234 20:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, agreed that it doesn't fit in with the 'perpetrator' section. Skycycle (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, i moved it into a new section, and also played around a bit with the size of the text. Only thing that bothers me now is the spacing between "Fatalities" and the box. If someone can find a solution, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'm open to other suggestions, including removing the box. --Activism1234 03:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Still looks like it's in the perpetrator section. If it was its own section it would also then appear in the list of contents. Could show as;

Victims

Maor Harush (24) Acre, Israel — Israeli tourist Itzik Kolangi (28) Petah Tikva, Israel — Israeli tourist Mustafa Kyosov (36) Yurukovo village, Blagoevgrad Province, Bulgaria — Bus driver

Amir Menashe (28) Petah Tikva, Israel — Israeli tourist Elior Preiss (25) Acre, Israel —Israeli tourist Kochava Shriki (42, pregnant) Rishon LeZion, Israel — Israeli tourist

I put the box into a subsection of "Attack," as done in many other articles. However, in Somedifferentstuff's interesting mind, it somehow isn't formateed correctly. He has not elaborated on it, and I intend to ask him. In the meantime, I will simply put what you wrote above in a subsection of "Attack." Thanks. --Activism1234 23:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that looks better now. Do you think the bomber should be added to the list of fatalities? I don't really have a view one way or the other. --Flexdream (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. It's pretty obvious a suicide bomber would get killed as well, and I think it's in the infobox anyway. Articles like the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing don't include the suicide bomber in the list, so I'll take it as a precedent. --Activism1234 14:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. It's clear from the article what happened so I don't think it's necessary to spell it out again. Seems good to me. --Flexdream (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Reaction split?

It seems like the "Reactions" section is getting a bit too long for the article. I would like a few more opinions about this before heading forward. Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It probably won't get any longer. I've been primarily responsible for updating it and adding all those countries, and I'm 99% sure I got all of them. Pretty sure it will just stay like this. As more and more info on the perpetrator is gathered, and as time goes on, the "perpetrator" section and the "aftermath" section will likely increase greatly, and may balance out the reaction section. However, the reaction section isn't necessarily WP:UNDUE, as it's related to the bombing and simply lists various countries' reactions. Still, if a new article is created for it, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, and I don't oppose it, but I'm worried that the content will shift from being countries' reactions to some individual guy on YouTube or a blog who hates Bulgaria or Israel and is celebrating it (NOTE: hyperbole). But there are precedents for doing this, for example 9/11 has its own page on international reactions to it. I can see it going either way. But if you're concerned it will get longer, then there's no need to make it a new article, as it 99% chance won't. --Activism1234 00:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: In the event of a new article being created, there should be a notification on the page under "Reactions" with a link to that article. --Activism1234 00:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It has become too long and should be split off. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you consider "too long?" If there were 5 countries listed only, would that be too long? 10? 20? 50? --Activism1234 00:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:SIZESPLIT, an section more than 100k KB should be split. But that's disputed. -- Luke (Talk) 00:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said before, I don't necessarily oppose splitting it into a new article, but my personal recommendation is maybe to wait a week to see how much more info is added to this article about the perp and the aftermath, and new sections as well, a backgroudn section may be added based on the perp, and then decide whether it outweighs the rest of the article or not. Again, it's my own personal recommendation... --Activism1234 01:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At either rate, I strongly believe that what will be inserted into the main article (this one) instead of what is already there (if a new article is created) should first be tested out on a sandbox, so people don't go at edit wars or fight over what it should say, but rather we can use a sandbox to follow a template similar to perhaps the 9/11 page international reactions. --Activism1234 01:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand why these and other articles need "reactions" in the first place. "What a terrible thing" can only come in so many variations. Imagine adding a "reactions" section to 2012 Formula One season, United States elections, 2012, ... Drmies (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It shows what the world's reactions to the event was. This was a major event that garnered internatinoal reactions, since it occured on foreign soil. For example, I've tried searching for French condemnation/condolences of the Aurora shooting incident, but to my knowledge, could not find any (although I did find for Israel). The reactions show how the international community viewed the incident and responded to it, and no country should be marginalized or have their views rejected. It also gives the readers a sense of the scale of the attack and response to it. I would think it's what the victims want. And if the 2012 Formula One season managed to get a response from the Ashanti King, then go right ahead and include it... But I highly doubt it did... At either rate, you're shifting the discussion completely. A lot of hard work was put into editing that section and formatting it, and I, and I'm sure many other editors, see no reason to remove it. 9/11, for example, has such a section and article about it. There is also an article Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. And one for the 2005 london bombings... There are so many precedents for having such a section/article, and yes, they should stay. There are so many articles/sections like this on articles relating to terrorism, it's silly to take this one and try to say it doesn't need such a section. Again, I disagree wholeheartedly, and hope the conversation will shift back to its original topic. --Activism1234 03:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This is the topic, Activism. You and I have some fundamental disagreements on what an encyclopedia is--you seem to think it's everything you want in there, I think it should be what's relevant. "No country should be marginalized or have their views rejected"--whatever, that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. And why should "some individual guy on YouTube or a blog who hates Bulgaria or Israel and is celebrating it" be marginalized? Or, hyperbole and POV left out, some individual guy who loves Bulgaria and Israel? This is not a free-speech zone, this is not a website for activism. Considerations like "what the victims would have wanted" are ridiculous--it's original research at best. You know what they want, probably? To not be dead. Do not confuse honoring their memory with writing an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your comment. Generally, Wikipedia's policies is not to accept references to YouTube or blogs. Also, the random guy on YouTube with a burning hatred of Bulgaria, or of Israel, or of both, would generally be considered WP:UNDUE. However, organizations like Amnesty International are frequently quoted on articles relating to human rights, and what they have to say is particularly noteworthy. --Activism1234 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Its length negatively affects the readability of the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is not too long yet, and in any case, why not just keep the essential reactions? Who cares what South Korea thinks of this? FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I do, for one. Unless you're proposing to move that reaction into a new article. Maybe some South Koreans do as well.--Activism1234 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In international reaction section, let's delete Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Ghana, Hungary, Ireland, Kosovo, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine, and leave Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Russia, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. --87.225.60.151 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The view of supra-international organisations and the US and Middle Eastern countries should certainly be kept. I think we should wait and see if the article is expanded before trimming this section. Ankh.Morpork 19:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Ankh, you should trim to what's relevant: the major players. The UK, Japan, Italy, Germany, Brazil, etc--they are not major players. Of course the length distracts, and worse, it distracts from what actually happened. Reactions schmeactions--if you're going to cite so many, why not cite them all, verbatim, at length? We're not made out of paper anyway. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Drmies. I agree that the examples you cite are "not major players". I did not suggest otherwise. Ankh.Morpork 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, when I said "no", I meant "no, don't wait". ;) Sorry if I was unclear. There is no need to wait. I don't know about the supra-national organizations--if I were an original researcher, I might say they're not relevant since we're still duking it out over United Nations Security Council Resolution 242; or I might say that every organization has feelings and they should be honored. But consider this as an editor: does it actually add anything to the article? Go ahead and trim away; it can only improve the article. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations is a good representation of how the united world's countries feel on an international scale. Not always, but certainly in this case. There's a difference between fighting over what should be included on an article devoted to a U.N. resolution and what should be included in three sentences on a different article in which a resolution is mentioned. --Activism1234 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, can I ask why you went and removed a ton of info from the page so quickly, with the explanation "per talk page?" I haven't even gotten a chance to contribute here in response... It's ridiculous. Such a heavy edit should be given time for all users to respond, especially users like me who have spent tons of time working on it & have participated in this talk page. For example, why remove Norway? It's appropriate here. Norway is ranked one of the most peaceful countries, and they can relate to this from last year's terror attack, and much of the world "looks up" to what Norway says. Or Ghana? Ghana is useful in showing that even in places as far as Africa, the earthquakes of this terrorist attack were felt and condemend. But instead, it just got removed, "per talk page."--Activism1234 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this talk discussion was originally about creating a new article for the reactions, which I don't oppose. There are similar articles for many terrorist attacks, and they should be kept. This one shouldn't be singled out. I don't oppose removing most of the countries from this article (or removing all, and just leaving about two paragraphs of summary), if a new article is created for it, which is what this talk page was aobut. I have no clue how it got shifted - some I.P. address just said "let's keep this" and "let's delete that," and nothing was mentioned about moving it to a new article. And just like that, the entire topic was shifted. I don't see why a new article should not be created in this regard. --Activism1234 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have split the content from the original article to International reactions to the 2012 Burgas bus bombing. -- Luke (Talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok seems good. Drmies, disregard the above comments, no need to answer them, they're not relevant anymore. --Activism1234 23:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox spacing

A problem occured on my browser, and I believe many others, concerning the infobox for the victims. The infobox caused many spaces between the end of "Attack" and beginning of "Perpetrator." The only way I could get rid of this spacing was by moving the infobox down a few spaces.

If anyone knows of an alternative way to fix it, go ahead and try it out. I think the infobox still looks fine where it is, but if people have different feelings, then understand why I did it and if you have a solution please offer it. --Activism1234 05:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Same thing, same article, repeated twice

[[Moved from Somedifferentstuff's talk page]]

I respectfully request that you answer my statements on why the redundant POV passage is unnecessary. I have written this on your talk page before, but you have failed to elicit any response. I will repeat it here.

The article currently has this passage.

The Bulgarian Interior Minister denied media reports that it was a local Hezbollah cell, saying that the possibility was not discussed, and they were focusing only on "realistic options." He added that the bomber was a foreign national and not Bulgarian, and that investigators were following several leads, including that there was an accomplice.[28] The interior minister stated there wasn't yet proof he was sent from Hezbollah, and dispelled other media reports, saying that the DNA results would confirm the perpetrator's identity.

The last sentence is completetely redundant. I tried to compromise with you and say "reiterated" (which itself isn't true), but you seemingly don't care. I'm sorry, but we can't just go around to different articles and write the exact same thing in similar words twice in the same passage just to push a POV.

(interjected) I don't have a problem with removing the last sentence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(interjected) I don't have a problem with you removing the last sentence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Next, later in the passage, we have another redundant sentence.

On July 21, it was reported that Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, the official who is in charge of the investigation, "denied rumors in the international media about the bomber's identity and said there was no proof that Hezbollah was behind the attack."[37]

Now, the author on July 21 likely just repeated what was said the day before. It's unlikely that the minister said nearly the exact same thing two days in a row. There's no proof he did. It's also possible that she just published her article on July 21, rather than July 20. And then on July 22, she just repeated what she said before. Have an excellent and pleasant day. --Activism1234 17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The second passage is from an article dated July 22. You need to prove that Tsvetanov didn't have two different press conferences or discuss the issue two different times, which wouldn't be that unusual given the media attention that the incident garnered. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh you've just ignored everything I wrote. She basically repeated what she wrote again on July 21. Her article dealt with a completely different topic, it was about DNA tests, and she mentioned his comments also on the side, like I showed how media outlets often repeat what happened previously. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove anything - it's on you. I've proved that media outlets often repeat what happened in the past, without saying when it happened. His comments don't appear in the beginning of the article, since it's on a different topic. There is no proof whatsoever that he said this again, and if he did, I'd expect it to be in more media outlets and an article focused on that, or for it to say "He repeated again." Instead, it's just saying what he said before. You have also failed to answer my first part. --Activism1234 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The material is sourced and the article is dated July 22. You can argue with the source all you like. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."--Activism1234 03:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems a minor point easily resolved at WP:DRN. Take it there and see what other editors have to say. Ankh.Morpork 18:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.--Activism1234 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)