Talk:Yakub Memon

message: I've reverted 's addition of the name of Memon's spouse (and I'm avoiding typing her name here for BLP concerns). This would be clearly covered by the second sentence at WP:BLPCRIME as she is not well-known and is notable only for this event primarily through her association with Yakub Memon (so might be covered by WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPNAME as well). Given there are BLP concerns can we please reach consensus to include her name and any details about here before they are added to the article. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memon's spouse 

message: WP:TERRORIST says that we can use term "terrorist" for people if it is widely used and recognized, read these sources TIME magazine calling him terrorist in head line of article, also ndtv, deccan herald etc. There numerous other reliable sources in many local language state level news papers of India. So word "terrorist" should be in lead. Obviously he was not saint or social worker.  Still, defenders of Yakub Memon should know policy of Wikipedia and should not remove that word from lead without getting consensus, moreover, I have not wrote that word, I'm talking as neutral editor. --Human3015 knock knock • 09:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to "words to avoid" on WP:LABEL. If there is such usage in sourced, it would be better if you cite those references in the article instead. Adding a loaded term like "terrorist" violates not only WP:LABEL but also WP:BLP. Also, it is not necessary for the WP:LEAD to mention that term as the opening sentence apparently clarifies he was convicted for terrorism, so it is redundant and overused. See another article, Osama bin Laden.  Mar4d (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:TERRORIST carefully, it says "one can use term terrorist if widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", so we are just following that policy. As far as BLP is concerned, according to WP:BLP we can use such words if it is widely used in published reliable sources. Just because someone is alive so it doesn't mean that we should hide his profession, or his work. Moreover, I should not say this because as a editor no one has higher status, still that word is added by one admin, so he must have knowing WP:TERRORIST and WP:BLP better. --Human3015 knock knock • 11:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

text: And don't give example of Mr.Osama bin Laden, read WP:OSE. --Human3015 knock knock • 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Perhaps in hindsight (I think I was the first to put it there) it would have been better to avoid "terrorist" (and admins still make mistakes) however I think it's use is fine according to policy as WP:TERRORIST/WP:LABEL does make the exception for when it's widely used. However it does require that in-text attribution is used, so I've added Time Magazine and NDTV for now at least. I'm not against reworking the paragraph to remove the word if that's what others think is best. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , In next 10 days this article will get record number of views. So editing of the article should be sensible, and we should keep away all POV pushers from this article and only admins should edit this article. For example yesterday this article got record 17,000 views . In next few days views will increase and after a week on hanging day it is possible that article will get 50,000 views. Thats why I already requested semi-protection for this article, but seeing issues of content dispute by confirmed users I will request admins to full protect it to avoid possible conflicts and edit wars. Admins are now aware of this issue and article is already improved very much from its earlier version, if any improvement needed, admins can do it. --Human3015 knock knock • 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request full protection if you wish but it is very unlikely that it'll be granted as pages are not protected preemptively and semi protection will stop most of the disruption you're referring to. Full protection will also (usually) mean that we have to make a request for an uninvolved admin to make changes which are supported by a consensus on this page. It's probably better just to keep an eye on the article and revert if necessary, remembering that it might be better to reword or bring it to the talk page, or thank them for their edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

text: How curative petition relates to his status as "terrorist"? Such curative petitions or mercy petitions to President are just to seek mercy to reduce capital punishment into life imprisonment, it doesn't mean that he is "innocent", all charges on him are proved and he is referred as "terrorist" by mainstream media. You have to prove that he has not done any terrorist attack, you have to prove that use of word "terrorist" by mainstream media is UNDUE. --Human3015 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Human3015, I clearly see here consensus in favor of removing word Terrorist.Main stream Media of India has been proved wrong time and again while calling Minorities as terrorist in past also.Several who were called terrorist by this so called main stream Media have been acquitted by the court and I have provided todays updated view of SC Judge who says perhaps due procedure was not followed.You seems to be only editor here who is insisting adding this word.So In favor of Consensus here I am editing it again untill more views come in removing it.Alensmith (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Time magazine is not an Indian magazine. At least read sources. Please stop your POV pushing. If you think that Indian and American media is biased then its your problem. If you think that any nation's media is "not biased" then you should provide reliable source from that country calling him "innocent person" or "he is not terrorist" etc. --Human3015 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete discussion here established consensus in favor of removing word Terrorist and you are doing edit warring at the same time breaking consensus to just ad your personal opinion.Untill more views support your arguments just keep patience.See Wikipedia:Edit warring.Source is reliable.Alensmith (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2015
* Here is an editor with a attitude of dictator is removing well sourced and relevant word which had consensus. His rationale behind removing this word is that "media is biased and media work for defaming particular community". This rationale is not valid according to Wikipedia policy, rather it is a POV pushing. We were keeping word "terrorist" according to Wikipedia policy of WP:TERRORIST. That's why I was requesting full protection of the page. Can you protect it? --Human3015 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

text: , I have requested protection since hours, but no one replying to it, they have replied to all requests, except mine. Anyway, I was just reverting POV pushing by new user, we can see his arguments. I'm already on 3rr so I can't revert him even if he removes word "terrorist" against our described policy. So I was just requesting protection. --Human3015 (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Moreover, now there is no WP:BLP issue. --Human3015Send WikiLove  01:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[WP:TERRORIST]]''' 

message: Could editors updating this page please add more details to the sources? There were, and are, many references that only have a URL, title, and maybe date without author, access dates, publisher etc. I just updated 6 and it's rather tiresome, as all the details were there on the source pages ready to be added. It's a lot easier if it's done at the time the page is updated. And it makes the page easier to WP:Verify. 220 of Borg 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done two using User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill, very useful tool! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I use that too. I must remember not to do it manually, or with the wp:Cite tool on the toolbar. (personally I liked the other 'older' reflinks more). I think maybe the documentation needs updating to encourage (if not require) editors to provide more than a title, though that's very important. I have managed to relocate, or find alternative websites/links to sources, just from an accurate title. 220 of Borg 13:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formatting 

message: prashant bhushan and Anand grover team took yakub memon PLEA they failed to get from supreme court on 30 July 2015 midnight this is history in supreme court to give judgement in night and it upholds his decision rejecting PLEA,at 7 AM on 30 july 2015 yakub memom hanged
106.206.145.119 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @IP, some news channels have reported that Yakub has already been hanged on 5:20am IST. Though other news channels saying he will be hanged on 7am.  We have to update about his death once it confirmed. Now these court judgements doesn't matters. We will write about it in detail later. Its time to update his death. --Human3015Send WikiLove  00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015 

message: He was hanged  at 6:43 IST. CheJiso (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  death time 

message: "Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (30 July 1962-30 July 2015) was an Indian terrorist and chartered accountant"... We're really gonna go with that first sentence? Ogress smash! 02:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , you read above discussion in section name of WP:TERRORIST.--Human3015Send WikiLove  04:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't disparage the terrorist, it just sounds hilarious to describe him as an accountant and a terrorist. An accountant and a terrorist. I mean, not to Godwin's law or anything but it's like stating, "Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party and a not very good painter." Like... we really need to mention the registered accountancy? Weird decision, especially since he hasn't practiced his avocation as an accountant since 1993 at least. Ogress smash! 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with , it seems an odd juxtaposition. My !vote is to drop the "accountant".  Philg88 ♦talk 05:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason to keep it there I can think of is that being an accountant was related to his role in the terrorist act and it was a part of his life for a long time. But I agree we can probably just get rid of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm agree with Ogress, "Indian terrorist and CA" sounds very odd. We can write about CA in lead but may not in introductory line. --Human3015Send WikiLove  11:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Different news agencies are giving different death times, various death times are 5 am, 5:20 am, 6:35 am, 7 am. Currently article is having two death times, infobox is having 6:30 am and lead is having 5 am. Please quikly make some decision which time we are going to keep. --Human3015Send WikiLove  04:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We're probably going to need to give it a day or two for the media to settle down and make corrections as they need to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed the specific time as a temporary measure. Once the dust settles and the real time becomes clear it could be added. But even then, having the exact time in the infobox and lead seems a bit like WP:RECENTISM. Simply take a look at the articles of other executed people; they don't mention time of death in the lead or infobox. The body might be okay, though. Stickee (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Time 

message: Hi:
I would like to edit the page as several sections mentioned by the author are biased and have no evidence or credible information available as a proof. Indian authorities without having credible evidence accuse neighboring countries and same has been done in this article.  
Xceldenim (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Hi Xceldenim, the page is currently protected due to vandalism and unsourced changes. If you give us the reliable sources you want to add someone will do it for you. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015 

message: Please change "hanging on 30 July 2015 at 0500 IST" to "hanging on 30 July 2015 at 0700 IST"Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/live-yakub-memon-hanged-in-nagpur-jail_1638751.html
116.50.79.180 (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 116.50.79.180, there are various reports stating different times of death, see #Death Time above.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015 

message: The article does not make clear why Memon, and Indian, was accused & convicted of assisting in the bombing of Mumbai, an Indian city. What was his religion? Was he Muslim? etc. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive? 

message: Add in Execution - He became 24th person to be hanged at Nagpur central jail and the 59th in the state. 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Yakub-Memon-wrote-another-undelivered-mercy-plea-on-the-eve-of-his-hanging/articleshow/48288669.cms 
Jame0360 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning to create article on Nagpur central jail, maybe this info can be added in that article. This could be the unnecessary trivia to add in this article. Still if someone is willing to add it then there should not be any problem. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

text: --Human3015Send WikiLove  05:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015 

message: Article got more than 225,000 views on hanging day , more than expectation. --Human3015Send WikiLove  04:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia