Talk:July 2016 Dhaka attack

Twitter

Twitter is not a good source to use in the middle of a terrorist attack. Claiming 20 dead off the back of a tweet is irresponsible and contributes to the spread of rumours. Fences&Windows 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Now replaced by a news reference. Fences&Windows 21:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"Secularists" and "other Muslims"

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

It's a relatively "small" objection but it's pretty relevant nonetheless. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Tried rewording. Hows the new incarnation?Lihaas (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

The identity of the attackers

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