Talk:CIA headquarters shooting

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 25, 2008, January 25, 2012, January 25, 2013, January 25, 2018, January 25, 2020, and January 25, 2024.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Mid‑importance

	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 Wikipedia. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Pakistan: Balochistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

United States: Government / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

This information is inconsistent with the declassified documents released through the Freedom of Information Site (CIA): http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=0001060961 Paigeadele (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some housekeeping and rearranging. Nothing deleted or at least nothing major. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Background" section is there not as an in-depth bio of Kasi, but as the parts of his life prior to the shootings which will be relevant later on. Having it as a separate section midway through the narrative is confusing to the reader (like a "flashback" in a film, it breaks the flow) and the other alternative—introducing the facts as they're needed (examples: explaining his family background at the point at which he flees there, mentioning the flatmate only when he notifies the police etc.) is usually just as bad, because it splits up facts which you'd expect to find together. The "Motives" section I've placed after the trial, because it brings together strands that happen at different times (the flatmate's description to police, the confession during his capture, the death-row letters to a journalist) and is more analytic/thematic in nature (although parts of it are dropped into the narrative where they clarify key points, e.g. why he stopped firing, his surprise at the lack of a gunfight). Finally, the Karachi shootings I've moved back into the narrative flow of the trial and execution. If that section were greatly expanded, it might make sense to split it into "Trial", "Karachi shootings" (?) and "Execution" (again, keeping chronological flow), but I can't see that happening: firstly, because of a lack of information on them (it seems no-one was ever caught, so there isn't much to say about them except that they happened), but secondly, because the link between these shootings and the trial verdict was only speculated by the press—their true causes are not known (which is why we can only report the speculation and not label them as "political assassinations"). Thomjakobsen 18:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS

The manual of style suggests how dates should be written. Essentially, two methods are acceptable as long as only one method is used in the entire article. Since this even is American, the American method (September 5, 1956 rather than 5 September) may be preferred. I have fixed the inconsistency to the latter (like 5 September) because that would mean fewer changes. I don't object if someone changes all of the dates to the style used commonly in the U.S. (like September 5, 1956). Mrs.EasterBunny 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1993 CIA shootings title

This appeared in the 1st sentence. It's not the name usually associated with the event, just an editor's words. So shouldn't we not use it in bold. I am aware the suggestion from WP is to bold the title of the article in the 1st sentence. With biographies, this makes sense. In this case, it's like making up a title for a film. Who are we to make up the title if others' don't use it. This is not a big point and shouldn't be a huge debate. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial photo added

I've added a photo of the memorial of stars.

I also might note that yesterday was the 15th anniversary of that solemn day. It is nice that there was not a single vandal to the article despite a number of edits. Usually, there are no daily edits to this article but there was yesterday, the day the article was featured on the main page. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to title

Seeing a ref to the event in Dawn news story today, April 18, '09, I assumed this to be a report on CIA shooting someone. Changed to be obvious CIA employees were attacked. Attack on CIA employees might be better or 1993 Attack on CIA Headquarters Atmamatma (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC) (re. CIA drones kill five 'foreign' guests, typical in the news today)[reply]