Talk:Mecca Masjid blast

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mecca Masjid blast article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

India: Telangana Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Telangana (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Saffron terror was copied or moved into Mecca Masjid blast with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Comment

Can we see if Wikinews has a thing about this? Felixboy 16:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup atm we have 2 articles with very little content and 1 which is starting to grow. I will add the link to the largest one below but not to the article yet as it is not yet decided which one to keep and the content is a bit ....sparse :-).--Markie 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terror

Is the attack related, should the article be added to the War on Terror template? --Effer^AKS 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Makkah Masjid

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or magazine. Each day's headlines do not warrant a new article. This sort of article is more suited to WikiNews. IMHO as far as Wikipedia is concerned this information should be incorporated as a new section to the Makkah Masjid article. --Kbh3^rd talk 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does document very notable world events such as terrorist attacks. As for a merge with the Makkah Masjid article there may be an argument for that if this article does not get any bigger (but i'm looking to add more about the aftermath soon). Also with the recovery of 2 unexploded devices there is a good chance of arrests and a court case. Hypnosadist 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

useful links

[1]

cleanup

this article needs to be cleaned up to make it more like the other articles of attacks in India. It is written like a scholarly journal with the quotes and whatnot. Lihaas (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Probe

Hai Editors As per the lates news & probes The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has found that the extremist group that planned and executed the Ajmer blast of October 2007 was also responsible for the Makkah Masjid blasts in Hyderabad in May 2007. www.indianexpress.com

www.hindu.com

peacetimes.net

Shall we edit the page with this content?

Broadheart (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems to suggest that Muslims carried out the attack when Aseemanand has himself confessed to being involved and also confirm that Hindu radicals carried out the attack. Section needs to be edited--Aa2-2004 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

belligerents

There is no consensus on who bombed the mosque. I have changed the page so that it notes that very Pclearly. Also, to our resident Islamists, Abhinav Bharat is not part of the Sangh Parivar, so please keep your slander off Wikipedia.Pectore^talk 14:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p:Hindu terrorism should not be added as a category (nor actually should "Islamic terror), until we actually find out who the perpetrators are.Pectore^talk 22:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no response for anyone for two weeks (even after repeated pleas to come to the talk page and discuss), I will summarily revert any addition of "Hindu" or "Islamic" terror category until (A) a user comes to discuss the issues dispassionately and logically on this talk page or (B) the investigations come to some fruition.Pectore^talk 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you and me can't decide whether or not to add this category. Should be taken to a wider audience. Also declaring that I'll be keep on reverting seems too childish in this vast forum.Wasifwasif (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we don't know which of the two groups did the bombing, since we know it was one of them, then it would be proper to include both the Islamic terrorism and Hindu terrorism categories. We shouldn't exclude both of them just because we don't know which one it is. Including both of them addresses that fact and lists the article in a category that relates to it. Silver seren^C 19:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should exclude both precisely because there is no consensus on who the actual perpetrators are. Including both of them does not address a "fact" because there is no "fact" to address, only mere speculation. Both HuJI and AB are "suspected perpetrators" not "perpetrators" and as such do not belong in a category which requires some sort of closure for inclusion. As for you Wasif, I'm not sure whats childish about using the talk page as a forum to promote encyclopaedicity. For the record, more sources support the assertion that it was Islamic terrorists, but neither category belongs on the page until a point of closure.Pectore^talk 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of putting articles in a category is to conglomerate articles that are related to each other. Because those two groups are the main "suspected perpetrators", then that means that both kinds of terrorism are related to this article, until a specific verdict is made, and then one of the categories can be removed. But, if both are suspected, then both should be included for searching and conglomeration purposes, since the subject is definitely related to those two categories. Silver seren^C 20:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are not related to each other. If no proper investigations have been concluded, then anyone could be the perpetrator. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for expected future events (given India's justice system, I would be surprised if this ever gets closed). Encyclopaedicity trumps ambiguous benefits like "searching purposes". Categorization on these kinds events is tantamount to rubber-stamping mere speculation.Pectore^talk 14:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems ok untill the real perpetrators are brought to light. and to you @Pectore, the best way to sort out differences in wikipedia is 'discussing' and not continous reverting which can never promote encyclopaedicity which i meant childish. sorry if it was understandable the other way.Wasifwasif (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d edits

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mecca_Masjid_bombing&action=historysubmit&diff=436960829&oldid=436928049 Inane edit summary}, for an edit bordering on vandalism. Note the removal of sources and the adding of unproven allegations. Unproven allegations should not be given a place on Wikipedia, which values verifiability.Pectore^talk 15:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should be having this conversation in a centralized location and not across all of the articles you're trying to remove the categories from. We're having it at Talk:Saffron terror, please just keep the conversation over there. Silver seren^C 19:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is about his edit summaries and tendentious editing on this page (which you have extended and approved of through your own edits).Pectore^talk 19:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with his removal of the sourced info, I only care about the categories. So feel free to discuss the sourced info thing here. I assume you notified him about this section? Silver seren^C 20:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his and your revert-warring on this page, I would assume its on his watchlist.Pectore^talk 02:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shindes Comments

Lets talk about shindes comments. Why do you guys want to remove them? He took them back but that was after much pressure. Do we want to censor information? I dont think so. Shouldnt we present all sides of what happened? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

First Shinde is not some expert on terrorism to begin with, second this deserved inclusion only because he is a union home minister, third he apologized for his comments and said I had no intention to link terror to any religion. There is no basis for suggesting that terror can be linked to organisations mentioned in my brief speech in Jaipur (emphasis mine). Among the organizations mentioned one is a main opposition and other is a social organization,I need not mention that these organizations are not even facing any trail in connection with terrorism. Shinde's comment doesn't merit any inclusion in wikipedia after his apology.--sarvajna (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He apologized for the saffron terror comment after 25,000 people marched to his house and the government was threatened to shut down by the opposition. He never apologized for linking RSS and BJP to the Mecca Masjid. Don't you think it would be better to mention everything rather than to just delete information? This way all sides of the story are shared and it is not censorship? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

People threatened to shut the government? I don't know if that makes any sense. People march for everything, opposition march even if the government does something good, people march every other day for price hike but the government doesn't regret it, people protested against FDI in retail (if you know that) but government passed it. A union home minister is a far more powerful person, he need not tender an apology for making a comment which he thinks is right. He apologized because there is no legal weightage, yes we could have mentioned all that you are saying if this person was somekind of expert on terrorism. He is just another politician from a party which is opposed to BJP/RSS.--sarvajna (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

shinde apologized just because the BJP threatened to stall parliament. Any one who watched the series of occurences followed that controversy will very well know that. Add both his comment and apology. Simply deleting will add only to the agenda of weakening this article as many had tried in the past. Wasif (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BJP is in opposition and it stalls parliament every now and than, I can give you a long list of occasions when BJP had stalled the parliament not just threatened. If government was afraid of opposition than no business would have ever been carried out. Shinde's comment has no weightage what so ever.--sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shinde never apologized for linking BJP or RSS to terror, but religion(Hinduism) to terror. What proof do you have that he apologized to BJP or RSS for linking them to terror before the political pressure was put on him or even after? The comment in this page have nothing to do with his saffron terror apology. If you have documentation that he apologized to them, please share. Why do you wish to delete this information? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

This is what he said I had no intention to link terror to any religion. There is no basis for suggesting that terror can be linked to organisations mentioned in my brief speech in Jaipur (emphasis mine). The organizations mentioned in his brief speech in Jaipur were RSS and BJP.here --sarvajna (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mecca Masjid bombing. 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mecca Masjid bombing. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817155045/http://www.southasiaanalysis.org:80/papers40/paper3971.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers40%5Cpaper3971.html

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) 13:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mecca Masjid bombing. 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) 22:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved

[2] This content was moved/copied from this article Saffron terror —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]