| Revision as of 06:58, 25 August 2011 editThisthat2011 (talk | contribs)3,570 edits →how would you feel if we re-titled..: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:04, 25 August 2011 edit undoThisthat2011 (talk | contribs)3,570 edits →how would you feel if we re-titled..: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
| :::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) | :::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) | ||
| ::::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.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति]</font> 06:58, 25 August 2011 (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) | |||
Revision as of 07:04, 25 August 2011
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 Mumbai attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 2008 Mumbai attacks has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2008 Mumbai attacks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2008 Mumbai attacks at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) 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. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 26, 2009. |
 | A news item involving 2008 Mumbai attacks was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 October 2010. |  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 Mumbai attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
 Archives | ||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present. |
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 Ignasi Guardans on 2011-04-24 14:49:45, 404 Not Found
- In 2008 Mumbai attacks on 2011-06-16 13:46:36, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 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 History of Bombay in Independent India on 2011-03-29 09:22:55, 404 Not Found
- In History of Mumbai on 2011-03-29 15:13:32, 404 Not Found
- In 2008 Mumbai attacks on 2011-06-16 13:47:56, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Requesting move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
2008 Mumbai attacks → 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks – 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 Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Republic of India. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I support the move. Also like to mention that There are-link Misplaced Pages articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 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 September 11 attacks 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. --rgpk (comment) 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. Discussion. Zuggernaut (talk) 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. --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 13 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. Discussion. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requesting Move 2
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. 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. - GTBacchus 19:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks → 2008 Mumbai attacks – The article reached GA quality with that title, after a wide discussion of concensus, and while WP:CCC, 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. --Cerejota (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Relisted, GTBacchus 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I might add, WP:WTA--Cerejota (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose : There are-link Misplaced Pages articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks. Terrorist attacks is more clear as per me. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The September 11 attacks were much more worse than the Mumbai attacks, yet we call them September 11 attacks. We are writing an NPOV encyclopedia, in an encyclopedic tone, not a soapbox for your point of view, or an emotional, sensationalistic, account of the events. 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.--Cerejota (talk) 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. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WTA 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. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- The September 11 attacks were much more worse than the Mumbai attacks, yet we call them September 11 attacks. We are writing an NPOV encyclopedia, in an encyclopedic tone, not a soapbox for your point of view, or an emotional, sensationalistic, account of the events. 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.--Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 22 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. Zuggernaut (talk) 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! Shirtwaist ☎ 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Current title is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and is unnecessary for disambiguation. Misplaced Pages does not use value-laden labels like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" in its own voice: not in its articles (as demonstrated by September 11 attacks and al-Qaeda), certainly not in its titles. Quigley (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support on Quigley's grounds of neutrality. Arbitrarily0 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 India, Mumbai and Terrorism. -GTBacchus 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Quigley's argument. warrior4321 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- the phrase "terrorist attacks" is not a contentious label for this attack. -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Terrorist attacks" is a very contentious label in all cases. Bruce Hoffman quoted in definitions of terrorism 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. Quigley (talk) 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 Bruce Hoffman, 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. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 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. Quigley (talk) 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. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:38, 30 July 2011 (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)
- 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. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:38, 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. Quigley (talk) 14:34, 30 July 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 WP:WTA, it is best that it's usage be avoided unless and until there is general consensus for it. Joyson Noel 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support WP:NPOV Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support, reversing the previous move which was premature. Yes, consensus can change but in this case there was insufficient evidence that it had. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - User talk:Thisthat2011 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. --Cerejota (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
"More than 10"?
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? Shirtwaist ☎ 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.--Cerejota (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
how would you feel if we re-titled..
This is regarding the loaded question by User:Cerejota as follows (over here):
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 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.
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 User:Cerejota creating berating someone. Why didn't admins warn the badmouth?
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.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- 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.--Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- 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?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would feel very bad, because I am not. However, I support neutral titles for both 2006 Malegaon bombings and 2008 Mumbai bombings, 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, we do not care about truth, only verifiability. I hope this explanation is satisfactory.--Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (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.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 06:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think admins should come in and warn the user for personal attacks and misjudgements, especially in absence.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 07:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- GA-Class India articles of High-importance
- GA-Class Mumbai articles
- High-importance Mumbai articles
- GA-Class Mumbai articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Mumbai articles
- WikiProject India 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
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Warfare good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
- Selected anniversaries (November 2009)