Talk:August 2007 Hyderabad bombings

Speedy deletion tag!
Hey man just wait. I started the article just now. It will take some time to grow. It IS an important event and deserves an article, just like any other major terrorist events. Please have a look at Template:Campaignbox India terrorism for a series of similar articles. Hang on, please. regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An administrator agreed, so you got it. Continue building it then. Happy wiking! Alexf (t/c) 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, stop plagiarizing
I'm sure we can do much better than to plagarize from other newspapers from this article. I realize this is just breaking, but at least put up an effort to try to write original material rather than just copying and pasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thylacine222 (talk • contribs) 03:03, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Move
Would it be a good idea to move this article to August 2007 Hyderabad bombings? Having the date seems like unnecessary disambiguation. 17Drew 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Past articles in the India Terrorism campaignbox use this format, however, it is different for some of them. If someone more experienced than me could weigh in on how exactly these things are supposed to be titled according to wikipedia that would be great Thylacine222 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete victim names
I don't see the purpose of violating the privacy of victims and their families. The names should be deleted. PedEye1 04:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. To a non-involved reader, names have no news value and IMHO only act as sensationalism, as a means to provide a greater emotional impact by de-anonymizing those who have died.  This is however utterly inappropriate for a *news* article.  It is only appropriate for an *entertainment* article. Toby Douglass 09:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits
Unfortunately, this page has less contributors and more idle critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.216.248 (talk) 05:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

19 unexploded devices
There are a number of questions here; were these devices intended to detonate in time with the others and failed? how were they found by the police? did the police find all the devices present in the city? Toby Douglass 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reuters article
Interesting little quote in the article linked to from the page;

Yesterday's blasts were designed to kill as many people as possible.

"The metal pellets in the bombs had worked as deadly missiles, killing more people," said Dr K Shastry, a senior doctor at a large hospital that received many dead and wounded.

In WW1, the Germans used ball-bearing filled artillery shells, because they believed them more lethal. There was eventually an accident in a munitions factory and a shell exploded amongst a group of workers, all of whom survived. The Germans discovered from that incident that their ball-bearing payload was actually rather humane in its effect - it tended to wound rather than kill. Of course, they immediately replaced the contents with something else.

But what's interesting here is that it may be that a single doctor (senior, but what's his speciality? perhaps he works in radiology and just happened to give a quote a journalist?  and how many doctors in a large *city* hospital anyway are going to be particularly knowledgeable about bomb making and the different types of wound from different types of bomb?) has given a quote and its been taken at face value and even expanded upon by the article author with his own prior comment, which of course seems to enhance the reliability of what is being said. Toby Douglass 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed image removal
There is an image in the article of the bloody corpse of a victim. I want to remove this. It is sickening and entirely unnecssary for the content of the article. Toby Douglass 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the move to delete the image. The image in all its goriness graphically shows the dastardly act committed by the terrorists. This picture is thus necessary to highlight the menace of terrorism and is a perfect eyeopener. LegalEagle 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia article, not a forum for pushing POVs. Furthermore, I do NOT accept seeing graphic violence when opening Wiki pages. Toby Douglass 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to be preaching but even for the most npov person an incident of bombing in an amusement park is a terrorist attack, which needs to be condemmed. Furthermore it is to be debated whether the image actualy brings out to the reader the real horror faced by the victims of the bombing and as the image has that very important quality hence no matter how graphic the image is it must be retained LegalEagle 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But that is *just* the point; it IS a point of view. The fact that you and 99% of readers might agree is not the point.  As regard to the effect of the image; what of those readers it would turn *away* because they find the image so grossly unpleasent?  the point I'm making is that the article does not *require* the image to achieve its purpose (and so be functional for ALL readers) and adding additional purposes to the article is improper.  Furthermore, I consider it dubious to argue that readers require graphic and sickening images to actually comprehend what has occurred.  Perhaps you should watch less TV and read more! ;-) Toby Douglass 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I Oppose removing the relevant image from this article. Wikipedia is not censored and the image is genuine one related to this article. If it is sickening for someone, then it is suggested not to visit this article. As such, the whole incident is sickening....and that doesn't mean we should delete the article itself. - KNM Talk 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing the image does not censor information from the article. Readers still know exactly what occurred and in a NPOV fashion.  As such, that point is IMO a red herring.  The second point you make is I think invalid; deleting articles because they are unpleasent *is* censorship, but you cannot argue that here as a reason for not removing *an image* from *an* article, when removal of the image does not censor the article. Toby Douglass 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove - The incident description is sickening enough without the graphic image. But if the image is to stay, there should at least be a warning. That way, one can decide if they want to "visit the article". Flair53 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I Oppose removing the image. It clearly states on Content_disclaimer: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." Under this, I believe that the image should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.104.48 (talk) 21:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * I would assert that this content disclaimer exists because some articles do indeed contain material readers find offensive. However, that does not mean we should maintain such material *when it is not necessary for the article*, just because we *can*.  The image is absolutely horrific and does not meaningfully contribute to the article.  It's not like seeing an unpleasent picture of a dissected corpse to show a heart in an article about heart surgury; it's actually simply a picture of a corpse which tells us what we already know, that people were killed in the attack.  It communcates the same information in a pointlessly graphic manner.  Accordingly, I wish to see it removed.  Toby Douglass 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the majority is of the opinion that the image needs to be removed, I wish to propose that we can blend both the views by leaving at the readers discretion on whether he wants to view a graphic image. An example can be like this
 * Remove. I've no major objection to the goriness in and of itself. However, it doesn't really add enough to the article to justify its inclusion under Fair Use. If a user were to come across the article sans image, I don't think any would say to themselves "Y'know, I wonder what the corpses of the victims looked like. Why isn't that included here?". I'm just not sure that the point the image is in to make wouldn't just as easily be made with text. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove. I don't object on grounds of the goriness of the image. I find it disrespectful to the deceased, and his family. Would you like to see a loved one like this? --Tcm1707 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove, for three reasons: (1) this is an encyclopedia not a news channel; (2) out of respect for the victim and his family, and for cultures that oppose such images of the deceased; (3) such images are the aim of the terrorism behind the acts, not showing the image deprives them of one of their hoped-for effects. Rexparry sydney 01:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

LegalEagle 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, again. My objection isn't that the image is too graphic, it's simply that it isn't necessary. Hiding it away doesn't really solve the problem. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with this solution. I concur with the arguments about respect for the dead and their relatives, but I see also other people feel the image should be present.  Toby Douglass 07:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reaction?
I couldn't help notice that the reactions sections is gradually becoming an unencyclopedic hotch-potch of quotations from editorial comments of different newspapers. I think all quotations should be removed and replaced with a few sentence(s) like.. "Major Indian dailies including such and such strongly condemned the act and criticized Govt. failure to properly respond to such crisis"..etc. etc. Arman Aziz 09:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

An end in near future ?
Will we see any end to this countless number of terrorism activities in India ?? When ?? I think the suggestion of setting up a National Explosive Control Bureau (NECB) is a pretty good idea. Only thing required is it should work well. --Jayanta 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Naxalite
Who ever write that Naxalite don't target innocent civilians is lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.196.188 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)