| Revision as of 07:16, 25 August 2011 editThisthat2011 (talk | contribs)3,570 edits →how would you feel if we re-titled..: re← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:54, 21 October 2024 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,048,701 editsm →top: Task 30: banner adjustment following a discussionTag: AWB |
| (223 intermediate revisions by 94 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 600K |
|
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|minthreadsleft = 15 |
|
|
|algo = old(3d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:November 2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1={{WP India|class=GA|importance=High|mumbai=yes|mumbai-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=23:41, 29 November 2008 |
|
|action1date=23:41, 29 November 2008 |
| Line 42: |
Line 28: |
|
|action4oldid=294782448 |
|
|action4oldid=294782448 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=PR |
|
|itndate=26 November 2008 |
|
|
|
|action5date=15:19, 18 November 2012 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/2008 Mumbai attacks/archive2 |
|
|
|action5result=reviewed |
|
|
|action5oldid=523593837 |
|
|
|
|
|topic=War and military |
|
|topic=War and military |
|
|
|itn1date=26 November 2008<!--20 October 2010--> |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2009-11-26|otd1oldid=328069549 |
|
|
|otd2date=2011-11-26|otd2oldid=462488136 |
|
|
|otd3date=2013-11-26|otd3oldid=583197877 |
|
|
|otd4date=2014-11-26|otd4oldid=635351184 |
|
|
|otd5date=2018-11-26|otd5oldid=870618565 |
|
|
|otd6date=2023-11-26|otd6oldid=1186738995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action6 = GAR |
|
|
|action6date = 08:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|action6link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/2008 Mumbai attacks/1 |
|
|
|action6result = delisted |
|
|
|action6oldid = 1243643809 |
|
|
|currentstatus = DGA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks|Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (2nd nomination)|14 December 2015|22 December 2015}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=high|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Explosives|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hospitals|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hotels|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low|Islam-and-Controversy=y|Sunni=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history||Indian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low|attention=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Low|History=y|Politics=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=High |assess-date=March 2019 |history=yes |attention=top|maharashtra=yes |mumbai=yes |mumbai-importance=high |history-importance=mid |maharashtra-importance=high |politics=y |politics-importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{press |
|
{{pressmulti |
|
|
| title= 'Citizen journalism' offers intimate view of Mumbai attacks |
|
| title= 'Citizen journalism' offers intimate view of Mumbai attacks |
|
|author=News Service |
|
|author=News Service |
| Line 63: |
Line 83: |
|
|author3= Sam Dolnick |
|
|author3= Sam Dolnick |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}} |
|
{{Pbneutral}} |
|
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
{{Indo-Pakistani WPCB}} |
|
{{Indo-Pakistani WPCB}} |
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2009-11-26|oldid1=328069549}} |
|
|
{{ITNtalk|20 October|2010}} |
|
|
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=3|target=Talk:November 2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive %(counter)d|dounreplied=yes|bot=MiszaBot II}} |
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
== Dead link == |
|
|
|
|
|
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! |
|
|
|
|
|
* http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1227738722.36 |
|
|
** In ] on 2011-04-24 14:49:45, 404 Not Found |
|
|
** In ] on 2011-06-16 13:46:36, 404 Not Found |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dead link 2 == |
|
|
|
|
|
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! |
|
|
|
|
|
* http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_A_major_terror_target_/articleshow/3654886.cms |
|
|
** In ] on 2011-03-29 09:22:55, 404 Not Found |
|
|
** In ] on 2011-03-29 15:13:32, 404 Not Found |
|
|
** In ] on 2011-06-16 13:47:56, 404 Not Found |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Requesting move== |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''page moved'''. ] (]) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → ] – I'm proposing the inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the title for obvious reasons. The renaming will make it clear that although the attackers were Pakistani citizens (and backed by the Pakistani state according to some accounts), this attack has not been considered to be an attack by the ] on the ]. ] (]) 07:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I support the move. Also like to mention that There Misplaced Pages articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks.<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..]</font> 07:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support. See below. ''''''Question:''' What are the general standards for this sort of article? I notice that the september 11 attacks are at ] and don't use the word 'terrorist'. The title of this article appears to be in line with that one and I'm wondering if there was some sort of discussion on including/excluding the word terrorist from the title. --] <small>(])</small> 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::There seems to have been a discussion with 5 participants on this in the archives. Of the five, two seem to support the inclusion of 'terrorist', two oppose and one gave the answer as "26/11" as the new name. ] ] (]) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK. Thanks. Except for conciseness and consistency (with the 911 page) I don't see why terrorist should not be included in the title. Definitely more natural, recognizable, accurate and precise. --] <small>(])</small> 16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Requesting Move 2== |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''page moved''' per discussion. The previous move request had very little input, and although there was opposition to moving the article back, the stronger, policy-based arguments were made for ''not'' using the label "terrorist". This is a word we try to avoid, and therefore we should only use it when we have very strong reasons, as indicated by a strong consensus. - ]<sup>(])</sup> 19:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] → ] – The article reached GA quality with that title, after a wide discussion of concensus, and while ], it is unseemingly and unwarranted that the title, which was one of the sources of contention in this discussion, be change after a seven day period in which only 3 editors presented !v, editors which didnt actively participate in the GA process (unlike, well, myself). This article was also featured in the Annual Report of the Wikimedia Foundation using the "2008 Mumbai attacks" title. It is clear that this was done without any serious attempt, as is customary, to involve a wider discussion in particular of involved editors. --] (]) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<small>Relisted, ]<sup>(])</sup> 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, I might add, ]--] (]) 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' : There Misplaced Pages articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks. Terrorist attacks is more clear as per me.<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..]</font> 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(360d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
:: The ] were much more worse than the Mumbai attacks, yet we call them ]. We are writing an NPOV encyclopedia, in an encyclopedic tone, not a soapbox for your point of view, ]. I think "attacks" is something anyone can understand, and when they read the article, they get a full understanding of the events and can make their own mind. IF this renaming stands, this article most likely loses GA standing, and it will be thank to people putting their emotions and beliefs before the goals of the project.--] (]) 20:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How am I soapboxing here? Compare yourself by your own standards. Besides I have given an example and presented my views. That I can have my own views on '"attacks" is something anyone can understand, and when they read the article, they get a full understanding of the events and can make their own mind' should not be also ignored. As it is, I am not sure how the article will lose its GA standards because of more accurate title. By the way I have not passed value judgements on your views, please note.<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..]</font> 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] does not apply since the word terrorist is no longer contentious in regard to these attacks. It might have been contentious a decade back but events over the last decade or more clearly identify certain philosophies emanating from certain specific geographic regions as the ones adapted by terrorists. I feel this is an accurate title. I don't see any emotions involved here - it is just a dispassionate but an accurate title. ] (]) 06:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' None of the points you make in the original move proposition at the top have any substance that supports your move proposition. ] (]) 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' To be honest, I don't see how adding "terrorist" to the title is anything but helpful in clarifying the subject of the article, and is therefore a worthwhile change. I have to disagree with Cerejota when they say "attacks" is sufficient for anyone's understanding. "Attacks" can indeed have other implications besides that of being the result of terrorism - other than "September 11 attacks" which are so well-known worldwide as terrorist attacks (much more so than the Mumbai attacks, I believe) that nothing further is needed. Also, I hardly think adding "terrorist" to the title will effect GA status at all, nor will it effect the article's NPOV, as it was proved to be the result of terrorism! ]<font color="Sienna">waist</font> ] 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': Current title is a gross violation of ], and is unnecessary for disambiguation. Misplaced Pages ] value-laden labels like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" in its own voice: not in its articles (as demonstrated by ] and ]), ''certainly'' not in its titles. ] (]) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' on Quigley's grounds of neutrality. ] <sup><b>(])</b></sup> 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - I've relisted this discussion to allow it to run for another seven days, because this discussion is still potentially active, and it would be nice to see more input on this contentious and high-profile question. I have notified WikiProjects , and . -]<sup>(])</sup> 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per Quigley. "Terrorist" is a value-laden term. It is not needed for disambiguation and as of today both in Google and Google books there is a 10 to 1 preference for "2008 Mumbai attacks" over "2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks." That means: people understand the "2008 Mumbai attacks" mean the attacks by the dozen gunmen on 26 November that killed some 160 people, and not the petty mugging that was reported on page 6 of local paper. ]] 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per Quigley's argument. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' -- the phrase "terrorist attacks" is not a contentious label for this attack. -- ] (]) 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
** "Terrorist attacks" is a very contentious label in all cases. ] quoted in ] writes: "errorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism." In the body of the article we can and do quote government officials that call the attacks "terrorist", but Misplaced Pages itself should not take a stance against the ideology of the attackers. ] (]) 14:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Why would Misplaced Pages has to be the kind of view of "one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism"? It is not WP:NEUTRAL according to me, as those affected by terrorism would not appreciate it. Does ], the author himself, adhere to neutral policies of Misplaced Pages at all and why should it have any reflection on title itself? |
|
|
:::There is no doubt that the attacks were terrorist in nature in the first place, and it is undue to reduce correctness by quoting those who do not adhere to policies of Misplaced Pages.<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..]</font> 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The absence of "terrorist" in the title does not mean Misplaced Pages is judging the attack ''not'' to be a terrorist attack. The title leaves out many potential descriptors: "2008 Mumbai Islamist attacks", "2008 Mumbai Pakistani attacks", etc. ] (]) 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Because "The title leaves out many potential descriptors: "2008 Mumbai Islamist attacks", "2008 Mumbai Pakistani attacks", etc. ", it does not mean that the current title is not neutral in this case. There is no need to consider terrorist word as non-neutral on this topic.<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..]</font> 14:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)' |
|
|
::::::Lets me ask you something, how would you feel if we re-titled the ] to ]? Just sayin'--] (]) 10:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' The term "terrorism" is biased in that it is selectively used by the respective authorities to designate what acts do, and do not constitute terrorism. For instance, terrorism implies the use of terror. As such common sense dictates that if it has to be used, then it should be so in all instances in which people are terrorized, as in spree killings, counter-insurgency campaigns, communal riots, etc. However, as we all know, this is not the case. As per ], it is best that it's usage be avoided unless and until there is general consensus for it. ]] 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' ] ] (]) 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', reversing the previous move which was premature. Yes, ] but in this case there was insufficient evidence that it had. ] (]) 12:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - ] has been topic banned form all india related articles for three weeks for contentious editing. Since he commented on this RM, and on the previous one that was wrongly closed as move (lacking consensus), closing admin should take into consideration the context in which these positions are presented. --] (]) 14:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "More than 10"? == |
|
== Bibliography == |
|
|
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 23:04, 26 June 2032 (UTC) -->{{User:User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1971903847}}<!-- END PIN --> |
|
|
* {{citation |last=Jamal |first=Arif |title=Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TNO5MAAACAAJ |year=2009 |publisher=Melville House |ISBN=978-1-933633-59-6 |ref={{sfnref|Jamal, Shadow War|2009}}}} |
|
|
* {{citation |last=Riedel |first=Bruce O. |authorlink=Bruce O. Riedel |title=Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cAPRr-zLvEgC&pg=PA67 |date=2013 |publisher=Brookings Institution Press |isbn=0-8157-2409-8 |ref={{sfnref|Riedel, Avoiding Armageddon|2013}}}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Featured image change == |
|
Why does the lead sentence say "The 2008 Mumbai attacks (often referred to as November 26 or 26/11) were '''more than 10''' coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across Mumbai", when the section near the bottom of the article titled "Locations" lists 11? Shouldn't the sentence simply say "11 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks"? Is there some confusion about the actual number of attacks? ]<font color="Sienna">waist</font> ] 08:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yeha I agree this article ha sbene turne dinto a mess by lack of vigilance, from the Good Article it was. Lesson learned - as this point was indeed fixed once in the past.--] (]) 10:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
the featured image should be changed to something more iconic than a map, like the Taj on fire ] (]) 13:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== islamic terrorism? == |
|
== how would you feel if we re-titled.. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
isn't that quite a racist motive to say i know the nature of the attacks is truly unforgivable and inhumane but if you are going to blame a religion for the terrorist attack, that is a new low. ] (]) 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
This is regarding the loaded question by ] as follows (over ]): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:look at the 2006 mumbai attacks it is also done by extremists but the motive is just terrorism, meanwhile the 2008 mumbai attacks is classified as islamic terrorism. quite islamophobic it's disgraceful to disrespect a religion ] (]) 16:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
Lets me ask you something, how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The attacks were of course conducted by a militant group who were denounced and criticized by all religions alike. Since the attacks were not supported by the religion in any way, such comments are truly unnecessary. Edits have been made to remove the religious involvements in the attack. If you still feel that any of the lines in the article disturbs the religious sentiments, please reply. ] (]) 14:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==GA Reassessment== |
|
The question is about terrorist attack or not. Not Hindu/Christian/Muslim/religionXYZ/Atheism/Martian-religion/ or any of anti-of-any-of-above or any combination. |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/2008 Mumbai attacks/1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Add A Fact: "Mujahideen Hyderabad Deccan false claim" == |
|
Your loaded question of "how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks?" is in horrible taste, especially when I couldn't reply & suddenly find a bunch of guys coming out here to freely give votes but not warning anyone like ] creating berating someone. Why didn't admins warn the badmouth? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below |
|
Leaves a bitter taste in mouth, not mine. Please tell us all how would you feel if I accuse you after feigning no POV if randomly typing down loaded questions is learnt by reading the Bible, are you doing your bit against heathens, bla bla etc. Please keep your filth in your mind before vomiting it out. It stinks.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति]</font> 19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
Amid speculation regarding the identity of the terrorists, an unknown group calling itself Mujahideen Hyderabad Deccan claimed responsibility for the attacks in an e-mail; however, the e-mail was later traced to a computer in Pakistan, and it became obvious that no such group existed. |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
The fact comes from the following source: |
|
|
: https://www.britannica.com/event/Mumbai-terrorist-attacks-of-2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference: |
|
:I apologize for offending you, as that was not my intention. I did wanted to stress why we try to use neutral titles. You should realize that the word "terrorist" is loaded with POV, and we should avoid it.--] (]) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<nowiki> {{Cite web |title=Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008 {{!}} Events, Death Toll, & Facts {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Mumbai-terrorist-attacks-of-2008 |website=www.britannica.com |date=2024-09-11 |access-date=2024-10-03 |language=en |quote=Amid speculation regarding the identity of the terrorists, an unknown group calling itself Mujahideen Hyderabad Deccan claimed responsibility for the attacks in an e-mail; however, the e-mail was later traced to a computer in Pakistan, and it became obvious that no such group existed.}} </nowiki> |
|
|
Additional comments from user: This should be added too right |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This post was generated using the ] browser extension. |
|
::I will accept apologies once you explain this question: |
|
|
::how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? |
|
|
::Please explain this. Why should I defend any of terrorist attacks and nor I want to debate post-voting. So now if I claim that you are defending terrorist attacks on 26/11, how would you feel?<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति]</font> 19:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would feel very bad, because I am not. However, I support neutral titles for both ] and ], but you wanted this article renamed to a non-neutral version. The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light. I, and others, do not care about sides. In fact, ]. I hope this explanation is satisfactory.--] (]) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 14:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Can you clarify what "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." is supposed to mean? This is a personal attack. By the way, "I and others", do not care about sides as well - that you have so wrongly judged many times.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति]</font> 06:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think admins should come in and warn the user for personal attacks and misjudgements, especially in absence.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति]</font> 07:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It is not a personal attack, it a truthful observation of your previous behavior for which you got topic banned for three weeks. If you do not want further action be taken against you, I suggest you desist from concentrating on editors, and concentrate on content. You have to rebuild the trust of the community, not the other way around. If you do really feel I have done a personal attack, take it to ]--] (]) 07:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
How is connecting "I support neutral titles for both ] and ]" with "you wanted this article renamed to a non-neutral version." a truthful observation of anything. If the voting was still going on, how can you pre-judge anything as non-neutral, etc. If the discussion on voting was going on, your arbitrary question came once you pre-judge my point as something you yourself connected to "both ] and ]". I don't think I should have to spend time in "rebuild the trust of the community" when such random connections are going on. Have you got any warnings for randomly connecting and pre-judging everything?<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति]</font> 07:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.png){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
