Jump to content

Talk:2008 Ahmedabad bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cleanup

[edit]

We could use yesterday's Bangalore page as a model to clean this one up. It's rather poor at the moment. Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital suicide bombed after victims were admitted

[edit]

I read in DNA (newspaper) that a hospital was attacked by a suicide bomber. However there's no mention of it in the article. --59.182.124.81 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

banglore rename

[edit]

please dont change it before consensus reached. we can discuss here the name issue...Alokprasad84 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I request all to have a look at this discussion and take part in it if you strongly feel that Bangalore should be called Bengaluru. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fair enough if it's consensus there. The original comment on this page said discussion first. However, ont he Bangalore page it says officially bengaluru, well i've just questioned that citation. if not then Bangalore seems best. Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I'm not an expert in this. I been following Bangalore page for a while now, with everynow and then some editor or other wanting to rename it to Bengaluru. There seems to be a consensus in that city article on keeping it to Bangalore. So for the sake of consistency on Wikipedia, I would assume its best for us to call it Bangalore. BTW great work by editors on this article. I think I would stop following news updates and just come over here and go through the history. :D Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people are familiar with Bangalore, but have never heard of Bengaluru. I think this is reasonable justification for keeping it the way it is (Bangalore). 75.149.80.221 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguement is certainly coherent, and I'm inclined to go with it. But see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroda It kinda throws everything off balance.

ps- That's what I do, 2 days later and the wiki article has got it all ;) Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/16_serial_blasts_in_Ahmedabad_See_Map/articleshow/3287588.cms. We need such maps here in Wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reactions section

[edit]

Can we get rid of this section? Its just the usual templated responses to terrorist attacks. Everyone knows what they will say and it just takes up huge amounts of place. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indians love to read about Who said what. The reactions of Indian politicians are quite colourful... Blame all around etc. Let it stay.
unfortunately, or fortunately, it depends, in the interests of consistency this is the used across wikipedia pages for events like this. Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a merger be a good idea?

[edit]

So far both the bombings in Ahmedabad and Bangalore are considered to have been part of the same series in the investigation, given the similarities. Wouldn't it be a good idea to merge both these articles, or else the sections on investigation and reactions would be too redundant. It would be quite a task to merge them, but would be pretty easy later to expand them without repeating details in both pages. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

need pro freedom section

[edit]

in the criticism section all anti freedom remarks are written. We need to write the effects of these measures on the liberty of the citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.202 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you have references that state so, feel free to add. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

why are you removing the conspiracy link?. when we have a article about a conspiracy,dont vandalize.

There is one alegation of conspiracy, but with the investigations going on there is no need to have conspiracy theory as see also article. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that one allegation is not from citizen but a high level member of the opposition party.one quote is enough to warrant to add those links.dont censor manchurian candidate 04:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not! Please refer to WP:UNDUE to get yourself clear on the rules in Wikipedia. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 10:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then why dont you remove conspiracy links from 9\11,7\7,3\11 pages.

by having a small link is making you uncomfortable.Its NPOV if you dont allow me to post those links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that 9/11 conspiracy is not by one single person/party. There are several parties who have made that alegation. There are loads and loads of documentaries on it too. If you still didn't realise, I was the one who included that news into this article, which will very well explain that I am not against the possibility of conspiracy nor do I follow the bandwaggon of such theories. For what it is worth, it is stated there and thats where it ends. Hope you realise that you are barking up the wrong tree in this issue. Once again, its not as important as to have a see also on conspiracy theories. Why don't you just include Ahmedabad/BJP/2002 Gujarat violence etc., into this section? You have section on Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Surat etc.,. Won't those be more close to this article than conspiracy theory. Sorry mate, you can't be more wrong. I am removing it, and please don't involve in a edit war on this silly issue. PS:Please sign your comments. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theory should be included

[edit]

Its by Sushma Swaraj, one of the major players in the Indian politics. So however crazy it may sound, it should be included to preserve neutrality and impassioned reporting on the incident.

about merging, although the plots are "thought" to be similar, the investigation is by two different agencies, in two different states. so its ok if some of the matter is repeated separately. i feel merging both would just make the article more chaotic.

Veryhuman (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but the above question was to have a link to conspiracy theories articles in the see also section like the editor has done here, which I think is WP:UNDUE. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

finally it has been added.Thanks very human and for the above user you are wrong,this is a neutral encyclopedia and not one sided. manchurian candidate 04:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

POV? If I wasn't neutral why would I add this to the article [1]. Please explain to me what has 9/11 conspiracy got to do with Ahmedabad bombing at all? Let me get my point straight to you again, I am not against keeping the section on conspiracy in this article (me being the one who added that in the first place), but over emphasising it with links in the aricle's see also section is defo WP:UNDUE. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research in deduction of CCTV failure as to add on to conspiracy:...the hard drive was blanked which further leads to some conspiracy angle. The referece doesn't say that it adds anything to the conspiracy angle. If you have citations that state so, please feel free to add them here. Otherwise it stays Origian Research. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just for sympathy i removed the 9\11 link but the other link stays as it points to some inconsistencies which adds fuel to the fire.

Sympathy huh? I think you need to read the rules of wikipedia a lot mate. You have completely failed to assume good faith. Please fix that WP:SYNTH statement that you added in the conspiracy section, if not I or someone else will have to remove it. May I also request you to sign your messages with four tides like this ~~~~, which is also mandatory while posting messages on talk pages. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i removed the 9\11 link but some things dont add up like military grade explosives being found in the blast http://www.indianexpress.com/story/343083.html http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE120080731180338&Title=Bangalore&rLink=0

cctv camers at border were not working and hard drives being blanked. http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080059451

I think these two points should be added. manchurian candidate 07:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, these are wonderful information on the explosives used and would be wise to have a section on that and expand further as more forensics are revealed. I do respect your suspicion about the grades of explosives found, but to add that to the conspiracy section would make it WP:SYNTH as I mentioned earlier, since no mainstream media is reporting this as such. We are not here to add our personal opinions to Wikipedia but to add information from reliable sources. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right but i just wanted to consult you.its upto you and other members, 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First media source supports her theory. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Columnists/T_K_Arun_Sushma_makes_a_point/articleshow/3307960.cms please add this

Thanks, I added the info to the conspiracy section, although the article doesn't spell out a conspiracy theory, but that the investigations need to be looked into another angle, Id est that even Muslims were targetted in the blasts. Not sure if it fits into the investigation section or here, but still it gives a good story where Sushma's comments are made. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It never ends plz add this.US national escapes India even after a look out notice. http://www.timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsID=13921

plz add a separate article for this

Nice article

[edit]

Informative, well-sourced and well-balanced. Kudos to those involved. --Emperor Genius (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead

[edit]

Have the dead been named yet? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Kashmir

[edit]

I have removed the Greater Kashmir sources as its biased non reliable self published source. Also one fact was solely supported by it, so I have removed it too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2008 Ahmedabad blasts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 Ahmedabad blasts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2008 Ahmedabad bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 Ahmedabad bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Ahmedabad_bombings&oldid=1252581785"