Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:57, 20 July 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bulgaria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

A news item involving 2012 Burgas bus bombing was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 July 2012.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages at all - Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages... It's the job of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article about the U.S. officials talking to the New York Times. In Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. --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.

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 Misplaced Pages page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 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)

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)

Seven or eight killed?

The intro says eight were killed, but the body paragraphs below state seven. Huffington Post reports of 8. 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)

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)

Burgas airport? Important possible error

The article states the attack took place at the Burgas airport.

However, this RS states it was the Sarafovo Airport throughout all their articles.

Can anyone confirm with a different RS whether it was Burgas airport? If not I'll change it later to Sarafovo. --Activism1234 22:04, 19 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."

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. . --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)

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)

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)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Bulgaria articles
• High-importance Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject Bulgaria articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles