Talk:2011 Mumbai bombings

2011 Mumbai bombings

 * 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. Consensus was there for a move. The presumption that there will be more, is not a reason to pre disambiguate this name. It can be changed if needed. I'll also note there was a history merge from when both names were used. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

13 July 2011 Mumbai bombings → 2011 Mumbai bombings – Can's this article be called as 2011 Mumbai Bombings. Karthik Nadar (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support on the lines of 1993 Bombay bombings.  Lynch 7  16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The current title has unneccessary disambiguation Mar4d (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agree that the disambiguation is unnecessary. --rgpk (comment) 17:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support article name should be changed, but probably not now -Abhishikt 19:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support obviously only 1 attack ghis year, and fro the above if there is another THEN we movei.Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - if another terror attack in the same city happens later this year, we can distinguish the two by date and / or more precise location. We don't wait until the year is over before assigning the article's title. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I think it should begin as the year, and then be changed if necessary should there be additional bombings. 204.65.34.103 (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: Thankfully, its not reached a state where bomb blasts in Mumbai are so frequent that we need a date and the year - I would go with 2011 Mumbai bomb blasts. In the event there is another attack this year, that can be covered in the prologue section of the 2011 Indo-Pak War article. (No, but more seriously, we can add dates in the event there is more than one attack this year, but as of now the year should be sufficient). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support In the case that there are multiple attacks in one year should day-month naming be used, such as 13 March 2003 Mumbai train bombing, 28 July 2003 Mumbai bus bombing, 25 August 2003 Mumbai bombings, 27 September 2008 Delhi blast,13 September 2008 Delhi bombings. In the case where there has only been one attack in one city per year, there should be a need for the city and year, such as with 1993 Bombay bombings and 2008 Mumbai attacks. warrior  4321   07:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I change my stand. Despite 2 days, this page does not show up on the first page of Google hits. Having a simpler name will boost the status of this page in rankings. If more blasts happen (lets really hope they dont), the name can be reverted. Current disambiguation is counter-acting and counter-productive. I vote for 2011 Mumbai blasts. Veryhuman (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support all other articles with only one event per year follow that convention, why is this an exception? JguyTalkDone 21:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Unnecessary disambiguation for now. Marcus   Qwertyus   11:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose what are you going to do if there are more attacks in 2011? Is year 2011 over yet? What guaranty is that there will be no future attacks?- Suyog talk to me!  18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case alone, we would need to retain it at its present name. If there are any more, then we can do that.  Lynch 7  18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Udyog: But the fact is that there hasn't been one since. We can always change it back in any future instance this year. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  08:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose All previous articles have been labelled as 13 March 2003 Mumbai train bombing, 28 July 2003 Mumbai bus bombing, 25 August 2003 Mumbai bombings, 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings,27 September 2008 Delhi blast,13 September 2008 Delhi bombings. Only the 2008 Mumbai attacks page has been labeled differently. I'd say, given the frequency of attacks in India and especially in Mumbai, best to make the date as part of the convention. Veryhuman (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - It seems that only one article, that of 26/11, is named as 2008 Mumbai attacks per year and the others per date (vide list by User:Veryhuman) though in some cases there is only attack/blast/bombing per year. Logically speakiing, a person unfamiliar to the topic would think that "2011 Mumbai bomb blasts" would be about all the bomb blasts in Mumbai in 2011 and not about those on a date - so the proposed title is misleading in a way, as it is in the case of 26/11. AshLin (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not yet. If we moved it now, we may have to move it back if there are any other attacks this year. If there aren't any more, then move, by all means. Nothing wrong with the title at present. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not yet. The issue is too sensitive right now. I agree to user:veryhuman's opinion posted above on this issue. --Siddhesh Joglekar (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Strictly Oppose Tejas Nair  undefined  21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying strictly oppose does not count, please look at WP:Vote and WP:DEMOCRACY. warrior  4321   18:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

 * 1) Comment I would rather go for 2011 Mumbai terrorist bombings or 2011 Mumbai terrorist attacks Zuggernaut (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its best if we follow convention, as in 2008 Mumbai attacks.  Lynch 7  18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to above. Please see list by User:Veryhuman. It appears that the converse is true about convention with only 26/11 being so named.
 * 1) Comment Have there been any other bombings in Mumbai this year? If not, there is no need for the day or month to be in the title of this article. Jim Michael (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None.  Lynch 7  18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be moved??? Any administrator in support? Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:06, 19 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.

Infobox terrorist attack question
When I look at the date field in the infobox at the top of the page, after the day & time I see the string "(0 years ago)". That seems peculiar to include when an article is about a current event. Anyone know how to suppress it -- or reset it to something along the lines of "(current event)"? -- llywrch (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the template.--rgpk (comment) 17:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the tem[plate ? are you kidding\?
 * seems to be ✅ thoughLihaas (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a Template:Start date and years ago template in there. I got rid of it.--rgpk (comment) 19:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thnx for the fix. I'd have done it myself, but I'm at work. -- llywrch (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ajmal Kasab's birthday?
The citation verifying Ajmal Kasab's birthday coinciding with the terrorist attacks is a piece of handwritten document shared on scribd that lacks adequate verifiability. Due to the sensitive nature of this fact in question, I am currently removing this piece of information(for the fear of it being used as a rumor-manifesting quote) temporarily. Should any editor find additional verifiable sources for this information, it may be reinstated Batram (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. In fact his DOB is shown as September 13, 1987 in the wiki page here. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I saw it now and it is a mistake from myside. Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I read about it on CNN-IBN, and added an earlier edit without citation. Most news sources now deny the fact. Vivek (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, many sources published before today do mention his date of birth as 13 July. See the discussion at Talk:Ajmal Kasab. utcursch | talk 18:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Vote to reintroduce it once there's verifiable information.Vivek (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, discussions on the page linked above do not represent an adequately verified source for this issue. For the moment, there is no reason to believe that 13th July is indeed the birth date of Ajmal Kasab. Should any administrator feel otherwise, kindly quote the relevant link here. Batram (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Can someone get non-copyright images related to the incident? Any Wikipedia editors having access to photos clicked on personal camera phones etc. might be useful. The current image part of the article (the kabutarkhaana one) is really not that relevant Batram (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was totally set to head to kulfi centre/opera house (and perahps bazaar) but the daru joints ae shu t and im the only political madman ;) tomorrow? should still be shut for invesitagatonsLihaas (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Also could some editor be so kind as to prepare a graphical location map for the places where the attacks happened so that it can be added over the infobox, as many of the wikipedia articles on multiple terrorist/insurgent attacks currently have? I am at work, so can't do it myself. Apologies Batram (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Background section not needed at this point
The following was in Background section

Background
Zaveri Bazaar, which is near the Mumba Devi Temple, was one of the scenes of the twin bombings in 2003 that killed 54 people.

The 26/11 attacks also occurred on A Wednesday. Highlighting of A Wednesday is not warranted in this article. There is no basis for highlighting the fact that both attacks happened on a Wednesday, it mostly is purely coincidental. If it is kept as is, it may be used for rumor-mongering in the media. I am deleting that line.

The rest of the background section is a single line which does not warrant a separate section. If other info crops up during investigations, then a background section can be put in. Right now, that section hasnt reached an adequate level of maturity. Veryhuman (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, the line relating to the nakabandis (while probably very much true) is OR.  Lynch 7  20:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the latter is NOT or. do you live here? have you seen life here? in [prev attacks they existed all over the place.(Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)).
 * I've been around long enough to know that its true :)  Lynch 7  19:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:NOT and WP:NOT
As with all such events, politicians are quick with there condemnation, other political rhetoric, and outpourings of sympathy and condolences, giving rise to potentially unlimited soundbytes. We must avoid the temptation to use (and overuse) this material. I have therefore substantially removed such unencyclopaedic text from the reactions section. Feel free to expand where there are concrete statements other than empty political rhetoric. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * reactiosn aexist and by convention and RS are notable(Lihaas (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)).

Reactions section being reformatted unnecessarily
It appears to me that the reactions under the "International" subtitle were changed from the standard Wikipedia list format to a more uncommon prose format. Can the editor in question (who made the said changes) explain his logic behind the same? Wikipedia generally follows a list format for international reactions to events of global magnitude to ensure easy and specific verifiability of the quoted reactions.

Unless the editor Ohconfucius specifically lists his objections to this standard practice followed on Wikipedia, the edits may be reverted. Batram (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - the format used about 8-10 hours ago was a more readable one. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ though Batram - Batram (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh puleez! If only you could have bothered to read the preceding section, where I laid out my rationale. Just because "standard format" exists and someone has toiled to make it so, doesn't mean it's worth keeping. I see you've kept my version of 'domestic reactions, but insist on your 'international' one. I don't know who bothers reading such crap rhetoric anyway, repeated umpteen times, one for each country or leader who has a soundbyte. Only on getting to the last line does the reader feel short-changed by the sheer lack of substance. No, I probably would have stopped half way, and skipped to what Obama had to say. I guess that's why the call such comments "empty rhetoric". I just call them "sweet nothings". -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that most readers might not bother reading all reactions or soundbytes, as you call them, listed in there. On the other hand, we as editors of an encyclopedic page have to ensure that we present all the facts related to the matter without any kind of POV. You, for example, might have skipped to Barack Obama's reaction, I might be more interested in knowing the Sri Lankan President's take on the matter, hence we've to list both quotes. We've retained your edit on the domestic reactions because that is how most of the domestic reactions section in other such pages look like, and we appreciate your work regarding the same. 'Lack of Substance' is not our fault, its that person who's giving the soundbyte. All that being said, we do have to maintain a standard format conforming with that followed on other similar articles, should we ever change them to prose format as well, we do it here too. Assume good faith Batram (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you get a sense of déjà vu as you are working down those comments, and then fail to remember precisely who said what, because they are all so darn similar? Actually, I feel the best solution to this 'lack of substance' is to summarise. Then we give all the information, without boring the reader, and without needing to consider which country'e views needs to be given greater weight. You may have noticed that I had left a sentence dedicated to the Pakistani response, which is quite notable due to the historical tensions. The others are marginally so, and could easily be grouped. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Agree as I do with all of your sentiments (including the feeling of a resigned déjà vu in reading these useless reactions), there is a greater chance that when we decide to summarize a certain section as neutral as a list of international reactions, there is a very frightful chance that an inadvertent POV might creep in deciding which reactions to highlight and which not to (a point, again, demonstrated by the fact that you would have preferred to keep the Pakistani and US reactions in greater highlight). I think the best thing to do right now would be to keep this section (at least the international) as it is and add the reactions as and when they become available. Later, once sufficient information becomes available on other sections of this item other than this section and the article becomes prohibitively large, we may decide to move this section to a separate article titled Reactions to the 13 July 2011 Mumbai Bombings Batram (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support User:Batram Veryhuman (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support User:Batram, and the need for comprehensive coverage and neutral POV. Vivek (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i am the anonymous from below. i agree that representing some points of view over others is not npov. in this article the 'reactions' section is by eye the biggest so far, though it doesn't directly belong to the topic of the article, but is rather related to the topic. i dont support the idea of moving reactions into a different article - i am not so much knowledgeable in the rules of wikipedia, but common sense suggests me that the idea of having a set of uniform articles, whose content may be fit entirely into the template, wont live here for long. i think that compactly summarizing reactions, as ohconfucius proposed, is a good solution -- 178.123.215.82 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The huge list adds little value. This topic deserves better. Look at similar articles. Lightmouse (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories
Murder in India category be removed. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? This article is about a mass murder in India. Jim Michael (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Check Ignoratio elenchi. Although Jim's argument is valid, Murder in India is not a relevant category. Murder is committed against a known foe..the victim is known. Terrorism is committed against a state and has entirely different objectives and methods than a murder. Veryhuman (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a case of ignoratio elenchi. Murder does not require that the perpetrator knows the victim. There are thousands of murders by strangers in the world every year. A political and / or religious motive does not mean it is not murder. Terror attacks in which victims are killed are simultaneously terrorism and murder. Jim Michael (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats why it is Ignoratio elenchi. It is a valid argument, but Murder category is not relevant. The closest category Mass murder, which itself is a sub-category of Murder. Such a structure makes categorization more relevant (See Overcategorization). For example, it would be improper to categorize My Heart Will Go On in Category:Music, although it clearly is a song with music. Veryhuman (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, Category:Mass murder and Category:Murder in India should be added. They are both relevant to this article, and are subcategories of Category:Murder. It would be overcategorising to add the parent cat Murder, but not to add subcats of it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edits
In section Reactions, Domestic, second paragraph.

Either the statement was made or not. If there is doubt, then the statement should be removed. The cited source, if assumed to be reliable, the statement was made by Rahul Gandhi. --PunitRathod (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we already have a lot of reactions in the article. Sonia and PM should be enough I think.  Lynch 7  15:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support PunitRathod I had used that phrasing only temporarily so long as the news piece in question was still relatively new, and hence, not verified through multiple sources. I think its safe to assume now that he actually said that Batram (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose MikeLynch The statement in question is not, as indicative by the wording, primarily a statement of condemnation or condolence, but includes the said person's point of view over a wider range of issues, including Terrorism in India, Indian Police capabilities and US involvement in Afghanistan. Mr. Rahul Gandhi's opinion, as the General Secretary of the AICC and a MP, not to mention a Gandhi scion, especially such a diverse tone from those of the other members of the government, needs to be represented here for a balanced POV Batram (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with User:MikeLynch. There was no official response from PM when the edit was made. However, if there is still need to preserve Rahul Gandhi's opinion, we can compress the paragraph in one or two sentences. In the current state, there is too much importance (as compared to the rest of the section) to the view of a single person who is not even voicing the official view of the Government. --PunitRathod (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Commenting out the editrequest due to discussion. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

i criticize the 'reactions' section
i think it is not needed, as everyone knows their reactions. i read these reactions in every notable terrorist attack, and they are always the same. while they are all notable, are not they trivia? i think only the reactions with controversial points of view should be presented, as if, say, some organisation or state praised the attack, or maybe, if such reactions are present, only then to present all other reactions, therefore in the article where no controversial points of view are among reactions, no reactions section in needed at all -- 178.123.215.82 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

in all truth, i just don't like to read all the leaders being very 'disturbed' about attacks, as those people are ignorant and obviously not concerned about any attacks, maybe only in their countries. they release their 'reaction' and the second later they forget about it. it is hypocrisy, that's why i hate these sections. it is only the template, and who knows? maybe they got such a template in the government with only a country place to fill in. i only wanted to raise the awareness of the situation, maybe there is some lawful wikipedia way to forbid them -- 178.123.215.82 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your statement, but am unsure what to do; those people are important nevertheless.  Lynch 7  15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the unregistered user above has more or less echoed the same arguments presented in the preceding section by the User:OhConfucius. As I said before, I completely empathize with the resignation that a reader must endure while going through the apparently 'drab' and 'routine' reactions that follow any such attacks. Nonetheless, the fact is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we editors cannot be, should not be, the ones making the choice as to what information might be potentially useful and what may not to readers; our job is to decide what information is relevant to the article in question and can be verified with sources. Again, in support to my argument, I use what the unregistered user above said: "i think only the reactions with controversial points of view should be presented, as if, say, some organisation or state praised the attack, or maybe, if such reactions are present, only then to present all other reactions, therefore in the article where no controversial points of view are among reactions, no reactions section in needed at all". What we are effectively doing here is representing a negative POV bias, by saying that only negative reactions to such incidents are worthy of mention. Finally, its also about this: Wikipedia is a global website. I might be a citizen of an XYZ country with a size half that of Mumbai and might be heavily interested in knowing what my country's take on this attack was, even though India or Indian readers might not be that bothered about it. Remember the reason every such article has a reactions section, it is to ensure a globally sensitive source of information, and not to make the victims or the citizens of the country which faced the attack feel better. Like I said earlier, if any editor feels this section is getting too long, feel free to move it to a new wiki page. Hope this settles this issue once and for all. Batram (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Batram, July 2009 Ürümqi riots is a Featured Article that has what he could consider non-standard format for 'Reactions' section. I think it works well. We really don't need all the bullshit rhetoric that's in the reactions section right now. --88.160.245.226 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above that it is meaningless rhetoric. Any response that we cite and quote must be directly relevant to that country's actual involvement. None of the countries whose reactions are quoted had their own people as victims; none offered these statements as confirming material or other support. I have therefore removed it outright. However, if there are any statements from interested parties, I would have no objection to including these. I think that comparisons to 'reactions' section in the Ürümqi riots article isn't a valid one. My opinion is that there is great interest in the potential human rights issue, and controversy over what the PRC stated was 'terrorism' and incitement from 'foreign forces', thus perpetuating the debate as to the definition of terrorism. That is what makes the inclusion appropriate and relevant to that article. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Article moved
Thanks for moving the article. The previous title had unneccessary disambiguation of dates n all. Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)