Talk:2010 Ahmadiyya mosques massacre

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

Title[edit]

The title should be something more representative than "May 2010 Lahore attacks." Currently, it sounds like a suicide attack when it's actually a group of armed men storming a place of worship. Something like "2010 Lahore Ahmadi mosque attacks" is suggestive. Mar4d (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be some element of "religiosity" added. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN conversation suggested not to have mosque for whatever reason. But how does it imply suicide? maybe we can change that. Or put "Ahmadi" in there? (as in, i believe, the biggest attack in Iraq)Lihaas (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
taking into account the related title Persecution of Ahmadiyya, i would propose to rename to May 2010 Lahore attacks on Ahmadiyya. very best, oscar (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be titled "May 2010 Lahore attacks on Ahmadiyya Mosques. Khadim98 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would supprt change of title as proposed by Khadim98--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support change, but "mosques" is cotnroversial, per Oscar above, perhaps May 2010 Lahore attacks on the Ahmadiyya community? or take out Lahore?Lihaas (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Mosques' is the word used by overwhelming majority of RS's to describe the locations attacked and one of the fundamental reason for notability of these attacks.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support change I don't believe "mosques" is controversial. We are simply using the name that the Ahmadis chose for themselves.
First choice - "May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques"
Second choice - "May 2010 attacks on Lahore Ahmadiyya community"
But almost anything will be better than what's up there now. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see consensus here and on whether to use the term "mosques", so here we go.... How's that? Good enough for now?  ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? This came barely 24 hours after the above recommendation. I would still go for the second choice above (As per something i suggested further above)(Lihaas (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice creates ambiguity because it seems as if it refers to the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, which is not the case here. The mosques belong to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the larger of the two. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics like that fit better in the lede than the title, which is already long enough and specific enough to fit the purpose. We don't have to tell the whole story in the title as long as the title is clearly about the story and couldn't be mistaken for some other event. Since no further attacks have occurred in the same month this title should be good enough for now and we can concentrate on getting the rest of the article in order. If more information comes up that really must be in the title by all means be bold and make the necessary change, keeping in mind what has been agreed to already. Otherwise, make sure the lede encapsulates the central facts in a concise summary and then follow up with details in the article body. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque or 'Place of worship'[edit]

As Ahmadiyya Worship places are not considered mosques so the word "mosque" has to be changed to "Worship place(s)" Pakistanfanforeva (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it may not be considered mosque by pakistan, but it is considered mosque by the worldwide community, and wiki doesn't follow pakistan. Peaceworld111 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistanfanforeva (talk) beware of breaching the expectation that editors have a Neutral point of View. Nb. I have added a section title, "Mosque or 'Place of worship'". --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't follow what the Pakistani law or what its people say. If the sect claims that it is a mosque, then it will be that way according to wikipedia policies. Wikipedia gives full right to the owners of the buildings to call it whatever, mosque or not. Since Ahmadis identify it as mosque, let be that way. Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would like to add to this is that in the whole world each TV Channel or news channel apart from Pakistani ones, call it a mosque and not a place of worship. I just mention this so that this point may be considered if any user would want to change the name from 'mosque' to 'place of worship'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.176.165 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last 2 comments are reason enough to keep as it.Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also take this into note Peaceworld111's Contributions, he seems to have history of calling Ahmadiyya Worship places Mosque. I not sure but he might be a member of this community, thus he does have a Conflict of interest. yousaf465' 05:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I talk, I do it with neutrality. ThankYou.Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yousaf you have a history of calling Ahmedi mosques 'places of worship' though overwhelming majority of RSs call them mosques. seems you have wahhabi sunni POV issues as well. better start calling them mosques at least on WP or you may get blocked.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikireader41 you again going overboard. I haven't done a single edit to this article in question. Although I myself was affected by this incident. Peaceworld111 are you confirming that you belong to the group in question ? ALso please don't feel offended. cheers.--yousaf465' 05:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, i'm not offended, but whether im an Ahmadi or not shouldn't matter with respect to this discussion.Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's tone down the rhetoric guys. Wikireader, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks Mar4d (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is in no way a personal attack. calling Mosque a place of worship is inherently non NPOV (since majority of RS including Al Jazeera refer to the locations attacked as mosques)and that was what I was pointing out. Mar4d please read WP:NPA--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your tagging of a user with his/her religious affiliations which is a "personal" attack. It would have been much more civil had you simply commented on the issue needless of that. Please also point out where I have made a WP:NPA - Mar4d (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
where did I say you made a personal attack. I merely pointed out that you needed to read up what constitutes a personal attack too just as you had suggested for me and what I said was to help yousaf understand the POV issues involved in calling these mosques 'places of worship' in spite of vast majority of RS calling them mosques. Yousaf was also trying to attribute a religious affiliation to peaceworld111 too. how come that was not a personal attack and what I said was a personal attack.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Please update to meet current developments. --yousaf465' 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliations of 5 July arrestees?[edit]

AJ says the accused were members of Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami. We have no article by that exact title, but do have Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami. Are these just two alternate transliterations for the same group, or two different groups of about the same name? I assume the former, but didn't want to create a redirect unless the two could be safely presumed to be the same. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are the same groups ( HuJI). the alternate speeling is used by this source[1]--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Ahmadiyya mosques massacre. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Ahmadiyya_mosques_massacre&oldid=1218556890"