Talk:2006 Malegaon bombings

message: One guy did not bother with a edit summary, the next figures the Times of India is linkspam and the views of the Minister of Home Affairs is undue weight to a non legal opinion, since when has that been policy? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the non-qualified opinion of a United Progressive Alliance politician should be included on the page? Its very interesting that no investigation has been concluded as to the culprits behind this attack. Nobody has been convicted. This is purely a political statement and not an announcement, as is quite obvious from the source. Hence it gives undue weight to Shinde's views. It is linkspam because the same user pasted the same article across a swath of pages in the lead section, when these pages are generally limited to the announcements of investigators (the actual people qualified to comment on whether training camps exist or on who planted the bombs). Wikipedia has policies against undue weight and spamming, and on reliable sourcing, which the user I reverted violated. Obviously this sort of nuance doesn't fit in an edit summary.Pectoretalk 23:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no. Pages like this also have statements from politicians and other commentators, show me the policy which says articles cannot have such. The opinion of the minister for home affairs is relevant to the article and can stay. It is not link spam nor undue weight. If you disagree feel free to seek a third opinion or call an RFC. 23:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has a "reactions" and an "investigations" section. Which of these does a comment made six years after the fact by a partisan political hack belong to? Furthermore, the part about "terrorist training camps" has no other cachet in reliable sources outside Shinde's statement, hence a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. The literal part of the policy that concerns this is the line "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Shinde's statement in this case is not even impartial. It definitely is being used, however, as a spot to throw allegations about BJP/RSS terror camps in the mainspace (these terror camps are not verifiable in any reliable source, and as such are "allegations").Pectoretalk 23:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is attributed, it is reliably sourced. There is no policy for not including it. Get a WP:3O and I'll abide by that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I also see a great many sources discussing this so undue weight is not an issue at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2006 Malegaon 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205080739/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/news/181_1790439,000900040001.htm to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1790439,000900040001.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090900763.html
*Added  tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060910/wl_asia_afp/indiaattacksblast
*Added  tag to http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3791281a12,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928195049/http://www.bubbley.net/collectives/malegaon08092006/malegaonblastpics.htm to http://www.bubbley.net/collectives/malegaon08092006/malegaonblastpics.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013151208/http://voanews.com/english/2006-09-08-voa23.cfm to http://voanews.com/english/2006-09-08-voa23.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215052404/http://www.expressindia.com:80/latest-news/ATS-files-chargesheet-in-Malegaon-blast-case/413034/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/ATS-files-chargesheet-in-Malegaon-blast-case/413034/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Malegaon 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605042341/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4C33FB54-5D63-465A-8E33-4C877EAE44D4.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4C33FB54-5D63-465A-8E33-4C877EAE44D4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article don't have prevailing narrative that in early investigation Maharashtra ATS spot SIMI hand behind Malegaon bomb blast< Malegaon blast SIMI activist held 'Times Of India, October 30 2006'< Police crack malegaon serial blast spot SIMI hand 'Economics Time, November 28 2006'
But, When NIA took the over the case then a new chargesheet filed in 2013 charged Abhinav Bharat as "Perpetrators"The state Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) initially blamed the bombings on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), but a chargesheet filed in 2013 blame on the Abhinav Bharat -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.43.107.232 (talk • contribs) 
: The prime suspect has been elected to the Parliament. So you can go take a nap. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative