Jump to content

Talk:2007 Samjhauta Express bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article2007 Samjhauta Express bombings is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 24, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
February 3, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 18, 2011, February 18, 2014, February 18, 2017, and February 18, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article


Reactions

[edit]

Does anyone know the correct sum of money for the families of the deceased? It is listed in the article as 10,00,000.IronLance532 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Railway Minister Lalu prasad yadav announced Rs. 10 lakh compensation for next of kin of those killed in this accident and Rs. 50,000 for injured people. Pakistani Prime Minister announced Rs. 5 lakh and 1 lakh for same respectively. Kittu 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Title

[edit]

Why was it changed to 2007 Samjhauta Bombings?Samjhuata bombings were fine.The change was pointless.Am I the only one annoyed with changing the heading of everything to the year or even the date it happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dermo69 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's usually good practice to have the year of the incident in the title of the article. It helps disambiguate, say if this happens again. Nishkid64 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the date thing is pretty worthless unless another occurs, but there is plenty of precedent. Joshdboz 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, almost all other disaster or incident articles have the year or even the entire date in the article title. Nishkid64 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it read "Expressway" anyway? ffm 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An expressway is a type of highway. The train that this occurred on is called the Samjhauta Express, so we have taken that name in the article title. Nishkid64 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Sorry. ffm 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Passage removed

[edit]

ALthough the following satement is sourced but this only make guess of the situation there is no offical kind of thing "Initial media reports suggest that the prime suspects in the bombing are the Islamic groups Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, both of whom have been blamed for many high-profile bombings in the past.[1] " SO i removemed it put it here.User talk:Yousaf465

A fair removal, I guess. I've revamped the Investigation section to include the suspects the police have announced, and other people being questioned. Nishkid64 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I restored this passage. The reasoning is if Lashkar and Jaish are not to be mentioned for the reasoning described above, the same would apply to Purohit et al. No subsequent report or citable finding has ruled out Jaish and Lashkar from the list of suspects. Nothing concrete beyond a suspicioun has been established against Purohit et al to link them to this case. If one list of suspects is mentioned , there is no need to exclude the others. Otherwise , the article is not neutral and balanced anymore. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Leaders condemn India train blast". BBC News. February 19, 2007. Retrieved on Feb. 19, 2007

Vandalism

[edit]

Some one has completely vandalized the page using words not suitable for an encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.182.146 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed. I have also semi-protected the page because there are not many people watchlisting the page, and the vandalism goes unnoticed for hours. Nishkid64 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A link to an external weblog was removed for NPOV violation

SahirShah 10:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Someone else added their own blog which linked to Siddharth Varadarajan's editorial on the whole peace situation. I removed that blog link, as it was just pure advertising. I replaced it with the direct link. Nishkid64 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review comments

[edit]
  • "on the "Friendship Express", " - please use the actual name of the train - Samjautha Express and "Friendship Express" in brackets. On rethink, i don't think we need the phrase in the sentence.
  • " just after the train was passing " - either "just as the train was passing" or "just after the train passed"
  • "just 90 kilometres (50 miles) north of " - avoid using "just" for the second time in the sentence.
  • "At the end, the terrorist attack left sixty-eight " - change to "In the end, ... "
  • "Most of the dead and injured were Pakistanis." - please give a breakup as this generic statement was already covered in the lead para
    • Most of the bodies were charred beyond recognition, so the exact numbers cannot be determined. However, it has been established that most were Pakistani nationals. I have now mentioned this in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember TV news article following a pakistani man who was to be questioned as witness by the indian authorities, days after the accident. why is that not covered in here as the event led to a huge diplomatic row between the 2 external affairs ministries.
    • It's in the article. Check the bottom of the first paragraph in the "Investigation" section. I don't remember seeing anything about a "huge diplomatic row", though. Could you please locate the TV news article? I've looked through a number of articles, and I didn't find anything that mentioned any diplomatic problems between Indian and Pakistan. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the comments and revert back and i shall be glad to re-review the article for GA. --Kalyan 11:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some data points that i want you to consider - 1, 2. The person i was refering to is Rana Shaukat Ali who was injuired in the blasts and lost his sons in the attack. he was the witness that the 2 MoEA were wrangling about.

Okay, I'll work on it. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the details now. Tell me what you think. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is good to go. --Kalyan 02:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good work Nishkid64 Thank you!. (Hypnosadist) 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

[edit]

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagged for deletion

[edit]

This image is being targeted for deletion. I am not sure if the image uploader has been contacted, but it would appear that the article discussion has not. the IfD discussion is occurring here.

Investigations

[edit]

The sources and paragraph on Abhinav Bharat were removed by me because the articles establishing Islamic groups' responsibility postdate the articles claiming to establish Abhinav Bharat's responsibility. I'm expecting a rational and reasoned response against the removal. (The Hindu 11/25/2008) notes that it could have been the handiwork of Abhinav Bharat, but an Intelligence Bureau quote from February 17, 2009 states that the LeT conducted the attacks. The US Treasury report, cited in this piece by Outlook in July 2009 also names Qasmani and the LeT responsible.Pectoretalk 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, suspicions were raised in October of 2009 on TheIndian news here. Then, in May of 2010, it was reported confirmed on Outlook India here. And then this goes into much further detail. From the looks of it, it's possible that multiple groups were involved in different bombings, the link between them being Purohit. He organized all of it, it seems. But, either way, the Abhinav Bharat were definitely involved. SilverserenC 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To start off, your first source merely says the CBI is "investigating" their role. The Outlook article does not even mention Samjhauta! Lastly, your Eurasia Review article claims that the bombing is considered "unresolved" and ends its discussion on the Samjhauta bombings with "In 2009, however, the United States Treasury Department attributed the attack to top Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) operative Arif Kasmani who, it said, was funded by Karachi-based ganglord Dawood Ibrahim Kaksar." So we are left with the Intelligence Bureau and the US Reports stating the Samjhauta bombings were the work of LeT, and claims that the CBI is "investigating" the issue. The current version of the page states that the Hindu angle was investigated, and that the IB and the Treasury state that it was the LeT, with no qualifiers or modifiers, reflecting what is actually in the text.Pectoretalk 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently investigations going on that started around May of this year, after the US investigation. See here and here. SilverserenC 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which still does not justify your addition of only the "Hindu terrorism" category to the page when the completed investigations have pointed fingers at the LeT.Pectoretalk 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, good point. Fixed. SilverserenC 22:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted material

[edit]

Was there a good reason why this sourced material was deleted in February? --JN466 12:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing not. I've been idly watching this for the last year and I'm afraid the quality may have degraded since it became an FA. The nominator hasn't been active here at all. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmph. There are actually recent updates on the investigation: [1][2]. Apparently, Indian officials have now stated that Abhinav Bharat was responsible. --JN466 16:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

Number of Pakistani Passengers killed in attack

[edit]

Do we have stats of how many killed and injured were Pakistanis. According to article total number of people killed were 68.Spasage (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed dead link Naveed (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

No investigation has been concluded, hence neither "Islamic terror" nor "Hindu terrorism" should be added to the page. Any readditions are violations under WP:WTA and will be sumamrily reverted.Pectoretalk 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Treasury information

[edit]

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg192.aspx

Arif Qasmani is the chief coordinator for Lashkar-e Tayyiba's (LET) dealings with outside organizations and has provided significant support for LET terrorist operations. Qasmani has worked with LET to facilitate terrorist attacks, including the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai, India, and the February 2007 Samjota Express bombing in Panipat, India. Qasmani conducted fundraising activities on behalf of LET in 2005 and utilized money that he received from Dawood Ibrahim, an Indian crime figure and terrorist supporter, to facilitate the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai, India. Since 2001, Arif Qasmani has also provided financial and other support and services to al Qaida, including facilitating the movement of al Qaida leaders and personnel in and out of Afghanistan, the return of foreign fighters to their respective countries, and the provision of supplies and weapons. In return for Qasmani's support, al Qaida provided Qasmani with operatives to support the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai, India, and the February 2007 Samjota Express bombing in Panipat, India. In 2005, Qasmani provided Taliban leaders with a safe haven and a means to smuggle personnel, equipment, and weapons into Afghanistan.

this is a reference link for Samjauta Express blast and few people connected.111.91.95.232 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2007 Samjhauta Express 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) 04:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP's removal

[edit]

@59.182.179.208, could you please stop removing sourced information from the article without a valid reason? As explained, WP:NPOV and WP:RS requires us to adhere to the cited information. If something is backed by reliable sources, it qualifies for inclusion. The organisation in question has been accused of involvement, eg. Maharashtra government moves to ban Abhinav Bharat. Whether it has been convicted or not is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for governments and courts. The information is there based on the coverage. If you have countering information backed by reliable sources, feel free to add it to the article. But please refrain from removing sourced content. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Samjhauta Express 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) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2007 Samjhauta Express 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) 22:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How officials connived to ensure prime accused Pakistani national was let off despite evidence to nail him

[edit]

I request the editors to rewrite the page after reading following report by Rajat Sharma who is a journalist from India TV.

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-samjhauta-express-blast-how-officials-connived-to-ensure-prime-accused-pakistani-national-was-let-off-despite-evidence-387479

Times group report:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/samjhauta-express-blasts-upa-cover-up-questioned/articleshow/59261489.cms

S Gurumurthy also Exposed Pak’s Hand Behind Samjhauta Blast in 2013 with Crucial Rebuttals

http://rightactions.in/2017/06/21/see-how-s-gurumurthy-exposed-paks-hand-behind-samjhauta-blast-in-2013-with-crucial-rebuttals/

There is also Times Now News Hour Debate over this issue.

Did UPA 'Discharge' Pakistan's Terrorist? | The Newshour Debate (20th June)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_8OzYcEgI

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swami16 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. We can't exonerate or accuse anyone merely based on some reports and claims but will add it as their report in a neutral manner. 103.40.199.110 (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Samjhauta Express 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) 08:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It amazes me that Lashkar-e-Taiba is listed in the accused, yet the entire article talks about Hindu radicals as being the culprits. Can we please change this clear attempt to whitewash Hindu radicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Samjhauta_Express_bombings&oldid=1252297996"