Jump to content

Talk:Jnaneswari Express train derailment

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

POV Pushing

[edit]

User: Lihaas has repeatedly and without explanation been reverting the edit where he marks PCPA as the belligrent, as opposed to a suspected belligrent. This is clear case of POV Pushing. PCPA has not been established as the belligrent.

  1. The rail minister and raiway officials dispute the Bengal police claim it was PCPA, they are hinting at CPM
  2. PCPA has denied they were involved - they too have blamed CPM.
  3. There is sufficient demonstration of the fact that the responsibility is atleast very very debatable at this moment, and cannot be taken as established with two posters being recovered. Especially as WB police and PCPA are combating each other.

Wikipedia must not become a ground for propaganda - either for the state or against it - it must just state facts. The fact is PCPA is a suspected belligrent.
Further, the tone of the article is propagandist in the government's favor, and not objective. For example: "After the West Bengal police said that the Gyaneshwari Express accident "appears to be the work of Maoists,"[9] the PCPA claimed reponsibility[3]". Fact is that PCPA has not claimed responsibility - they have denied responsibility. Its just that the police chief of west bengal thinks that a couple of posters being found (which PCPA claims are planted) mean that PCPA has claimed responsibility. When this fact is put into the article it is reverted again and again. If this continues, this article would no longer represent the facts, but a biased point of view, and an NPOV banner would be required. 115.184.24.194 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

{{Infobox civilian attack}} is being used in this article. Shouldn't {{Infobox rail accident}} be used instead? Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Mjroots Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because it is still an attack of sabotage, which even if it is not a bombing is still external and purposefully done, ie- not an accident.Lihaas (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lihaas, this isn't an accident but an attack. Thor erik (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that this being a terrorist bombing can be covered in the infobox rail accident via the cause= parameter - |cause=terrorist bombing of track . Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever it is. be WP:Bold if that is the case. Although it would be necessary to clarify its not and accident.(Lihaas (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User: Lihaas has repeatedly and without explanation been reverting the edit where he marks PCPA as the belligrent, as opposed to a suspected belligrent. This is clear case of POV Pushing. PCPA has not been established as the belligrent.
  1. The rail minister and raiway officials dispute the Bengal police claim it was PCPA, they are hinting at CPM's involvement.
  2. PCPA has denied they were involved - they too have blamed CPM.
  3. There is sufficient demonstration of the fact that the responsibility is atleast very very debatable at this moment, and cannot be taken as established with two posters being recovered. Especially as WB police and PCPA are combating each other.

Wikipedia must not become a ground for propaganda - either for the state or against it - it must just state facts. The fact is PCPA is a suspected belligrent. 115.184.24.194 (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010

[edit]

Do we really need a year in the title? Is it necessary to disambiguate this article from a different Gyaneshwari Express derailment? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per wikipedia convention. What if there is another next year, or even this year?Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd disambiguate it. There's no need to disambiguate it now, is there? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see wikipedia conventions for thsi sort of thing.Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's conventional to disambiguate when there's a need to do so, not beforehand. And now it's on the mainpage, please consider that this is now highly visible. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
where is this "convention"? See the page for ANY attack and you will see the year is prevalent. The user who moved did it unilaterally and on a whim. Lihaas (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm tired of arguing about it, have it your way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unilaterally? Says the person who reverted the page name twice? I don't do things on "a whim" anymore than anyone else does. Just because every other article does it, doesn't mean it's right. And one point that makes this article stand out compared to others is the fact that it is the name of the train rather than the location of the event, which is what all the others are titled. Again, point to the convention which says the year is required, especially when the title is as particular as this one is, just because we have to account for the possibility of another derailment of this exact same train next year. Heck, we might have another derailment of this train tomorrow, so why don't we name it to May 28, 2010, Gyaneshwari Express train derailment? Or there might be one in a couple hours, so shall we move the article to May 28, 2010, 1:30am, Gyaneshwari Express train derailment? -- tariqabjotu 09:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it wasn't unilateral since I happened to be in agreement with the move. And now you've reinserted the word "train" (why? it's obvious from derailment....) we have a Wikipedia full of double redirects. Please ensure you fix them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you certainly didnt come to talk for it (tariq), as the reason you gave was already a reason that i had explained. (as per the very first move, where my edit summary explicitly states the reason ([1])). Of course even RamblingMan's move was as explained without problems, and he too puts the date ([2])
Per the reinsertion of the word, so my bad, sorry. well take that out. but the move back wouldn't happen becasue the page existed already. Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, fix the double redirects as you are asked to do so when you move the page. This has already caused far too much disruption for an article linked to on the main page. And my "move" was to rename it from a "bombing" to a "derailment". I was fully in agreement with the move (my suggestion here) to remove the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i acknowledged that already, as per the above cite for you 1st move.Lihaas (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, "per wikipedia norms" is not a reason when you can't point to a relevant guideline. I saw what Rambling Man had said here before I performed the move and, likewise, I saw what you had said before the move. I ignored it because "What if it happens next year?" is one of the most illogical, useless arguments available. -- tariqabjotu 10:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, you can't ignore it because you don't like it or feel it is "illogicial, useless" in your opinion, the point of talk is to give your opinion for it so we can come to agreement. How am I suppose to you used the talk facility?
At any rate, how do we move back to 2010 Gyaneshwari Express derailmentLihaas (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring it because I don't feel like it. Over-precision is expressly discouraged in our naming guidelines:

Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Queen (London, England rock band)" over Queen (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred.

Your definition of norms, however, is "other articles have done it". And, yes, "what if it happens again next year?" is completely illogical for the same reasons I mentioned above (what if it happens again tomorrow? what if it happens again in ten minutes?). You even shoot yourself in the foot by saying "What if there is another ... even this year?" Yes, what if this is another one this year? This title would not be sufficient, right? So, why didn't you decide to move the article to May 2010 Gyaneshwari Express train derailment? Oh, right, because that would be over-precision, and we're not here to protect against things that might, as unlikely as they are, come up again in some number of months or years.
I am not agreeing to moving the article back to 2010 Gyaneshwari Express derailment (and certainly won't do that for you). If we're going to be in the business of being over-precise, we might as well clarify that it was a train that derailed. -- tariqabjotu 10:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCE does not require a year when there is no possibility of confusion, and 'what if there is one next year' is not how we do disambiguation. MickMacNee (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infact, the convention is: year (if needed), where, what. And as there is no logical where, the train name is the next best thing. It was explosion and not derailment because all initial reports were stating there was an explosion. It's understandable if that was initially wrong, as an express train hitting a missing section of rail is going to make one hell of a bang. MickMacNee (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an accurate description of Wikipedia's conventions. I'm reminded of 2006 Amish school shooting, which we moved to Amish school shooting (an unambiguous title unless another notable Amish school shooting occurs, in which case we can re-add "2006").
It is not our convention to append the year for stylistic reasons or in preparation for potential reoccurrence in future years. (And as noted above, Lihaas, your "...even this year" argument works against you.) —David Levy 14:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, yall are right then. But that was the move to the "Gyaneshwari Express derailment" that was per consensus not "Gyaneshwari Express train derailment " The original editor above also added that "train derailment" was redundant. there are no monorail in India to derail (albeit you may use trams, but as per above it would WP:Crystal Ball to speculate)Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time

[edit]

Adding the "am" to 1:30 seems silly because generally on these things a 24-hour time cycle is used.Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1.30 is ambiguous. 0130 wouldn't be. 1.30am isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, although the first 0's are often missed.Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, not if you wish to be encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
01:30?Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per MoS, 01:30 is correct for a 24hr-clock time. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey vs Carriage

[edit]

I've reverted a change to keep the names consistent internally. Even India Rail call these carriages. And linking bogey takes you to a dab page, so that's less than helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, we'ree use the specific link then?Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's use carriage, like India Rail, the BBC, The LA Times, The Guardian etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okayLihaas (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List_of_rail_accidents_(2010–2019)Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage vs. Bombing

[edit]

The article is unclear on whether the derailment was caused by the tracks being removed or by a bomb blast. There is information supporting both sides. Does anyone have confirmation of the cause? Pianoman320 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exact location

[edit]

Does anybody know what are the coordinates on the map ? - SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction

[edit]

Does anybody know if there where statements from foreign governments? If so the addition of them to the article would be useful. --Dead3y3 Talk page 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link was added by an IP and I moved it to external links where it belongs. The question is is it proper to link to dead people? I couldn't find any policy about such. Any Wikipedia place to ask this from? --Kslotte (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you started a thread at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Dead people. There is a lengthy and rather restrictive guideline at WP:EL, which does not prohibit such links. It actually encourages external links when Wikipedia wouldn't contain all the content. Because the content in this case includes a large number of photographs of people we're not writing articles about, that is such a case.
Though India often is viewed as greatly restrictive of speech by Western standards (for example, where so much as a kiss in a Bollywood movie is concerned), obviously we have here a situation in which they have taken an eminently practical approach to identifying the dead, which would be viewed as inappropriate in many Western countries. However, inappropriate does not mean illegal, and the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED guides us to seek a less parochial perspective. And if the Indian government chooses to put such photographs online, I don't think we would do them any favor by interfering with their propagation. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gyaneshwari vis-a-vis Jnaneshwari

[edit]

Hi All,

Please stop referring to the train number 2102 as GYANESHWARI express. The correct name is JNANESHWARI express. The official Indian Railways Government Site http://www.indianrail.gov.in (Click on train schedule option and give the train number as 2102 in the text box once it is visible) refers to 2101/2102 trains as JNANESHWARI and not GYANESHWARI. Accordingly, I had made the required changes but Lihaas or someone removed my edits. Can folks please do a background check before removing edits without a second thought?

Thanks, Kaushik Kdg81 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another arrest?

[edit]

BBC are reporting that Bapi Mahato has been arrested Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jnaneswari Express train derailment. 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) 00:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jnaneswari_Express_train_derailment&oldid=1252378988"