Talk:2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting

Title

If we look at the titles of many current events, it's of the format 2005 XYZ and not "December 2005 XYZ". Further, only a countable number of people would know what IISC is. Manik Raina 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. It's awkward and slightly confusing. 'Bangalore' is unecessary unless it has various campuses (which I don't think it does). 'December' is also unecessary specification, as there have been no other shootings in 2005. Thus 2005 Indian Institute Of Science Shooting or similar would be more useful. Tolo 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shootout vs Shooting

Is "shootout" encyclopedic? Why not just "shooting"? --Revolución (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts also... "Shootout" is a gunfight, involving at least two sides; this was a shooting. GregorB 18:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The title of this page should be "December 2005 IISC shooting". --Kevin Hanse (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the title from "December 2005 IISC shootout" to "December 2005 IISC shooting".--Kevin Hanse (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M C Puri

I just created a stub for M C Puri. Those with more info, please update it. Chirags 20:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Attack

Hoping to start a discussion on the recent attack on the premier and reputed Indian Institute of Science, Banglore. Wondering if this and other frequent attacks in India i.e anytime anywhere attacks, are part of a larger problem ? Problems like illegal immigration, archaic laws, corruption, and I guess incomepetent government. To me it looks like our government's inability and unwillingness to accept the problem due to political compulsion and take on the problem head on. Here is what I mean

1. We have real issue of illegal immegration from Bangladesh. We have uncontrolled influence of foreign charity who in the name of helping poor are exploting them for their own larger cause but our government being "secular" is somewhat keep pushing the issue to the backburner as this is considere politically incorrect and controversial.

2. We have issue of incompetency in every agency of the government be it intelligence, police, beaurocracy but even inspite of repeated attacks all over, the government keeps denying the fact that this is an intelligence failure. To me unless you recognize and accept the problem you will never be able to resolve it.

3. Another issue is regarding our archaic law many of which where formulated under the raj. Again I guess due to political compulsion and the fear of rattling some political can of worm, our government has been dragging its feet on bringing some tough laws. Even the one enacted by BJP like POTA government seems unwilling to use them in the fear creating controversies.

Thanks but this is POV. Manik Raina 05:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For sure but any other POV's ... --srik 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorist" attack?

Is this word used for everything nowadays? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-30 00:12

What else would one call an assault with grenades and automatic rifles on an institution engaged in pure scientific work ? If this is not terrorism, neither was 9/11. It's hard to mathematically prove such things (No one has, for example proved that the hijackers did not have any personal grudge against the owners of the WTC for example :-) )... besides, perhaps you dont know, India has been a victim of terrorism for more than 20 years. Manik Raina 05:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were kind of reluctant terming it a terrorist attack but kind of made it official after about 24 hours. But I guess India is no stranger to such things. -- Srikns

Weapon

Why is it 'presumably' an AK-56? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers were reporting an eye-witness account who described it as an AK-47 like weapon. But today's paper confirm it is an AK-56. --Pamri • Talk 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble finding information on the AK-56. Maybe it was a Chinese-made Type 56? --Pravit 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See AK-56. It is a chinese made gun, but dunno, if it is the exact model you linked to. --Pamri • Talk 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the Chinese-made variant, the proper term for it is Type 56, since they are not produced by AK. It seems strange to me that the AK-56 article was just created today. --Pravit 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WEll I've reworded, "presumably" implies that the knowledge can be assumed from what we've been told. "Sherurcij owns three cats, presumably he like cats", but nothing in the article lets us assume that it is an AK/Type 56 rifle, other thans news reports. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

I was wondering what made this event so important to be in the "news section" of the main page? Small terrorist attacks like this one happen everyday in the world.--81.241.171.229 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even 9/11 was a small event, unimportant for rest of the world. So according to you, there should be heavy causalities in this kind of event so it can become a news item for you? Are you enjoying reading this? I sure hope not.

Why do suicide bombers in Baghadad who kill four Americans make headlines ? Perhaps there is a bit of hypocrisy

here. Manik Raina 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- 9/11 got a lot more media coverage around the world, it's not about the amount of casualties.

It's about the effect this event might have on the world. This event is as small as a suicide bomber in baghdad, in my opinion neither of these 2 events should be featured as "in the news" on the main page. Wikinews seems more appropriate for this kind of event.--81.241.161.71 16:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is not every piece of news is important to everybody. As you can see we did not talk abt people being raped, killed in darfur region. As Indian we do get affected by incidences happening in India and particularly this one which seem to be kind of first in terms academic institution being attacked -- srik 14:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bio offshoots?

I came to this page from the main page a few days back. I was astonished to find a series of bio articles which consist entirely of "this guy was murdered". Then someone went so far as to link those to the 2005 deaths articles.

I don't know this Puri person, I'm sure he was a fine guy. But just because he was murdered doesn't mean there should be an article on him. Lots of people are murdered every day, and they don't get articles. The wiki is an encyclopedia, not an obituary, and unless someone can point out some reason that he should have an article that does not revert to "he was murdered" then I think it's a candidate for deletion.

Maury 15:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, that article is a probable candidate for AFD. But since he is a retired professor at IIT, I thought it better to leave it for a few days, hoping someone else could shed some light on his notability other than this incident. I suggest, you can merge and redirect rather than delete the article. --Pamri • Talk 16:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]