Talk:Yakub Memon

Memon's spouse

I've reverted Juneymb'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)

WP:TERRORIST

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@Callanecc:, 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 [1]. 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)

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)

I totally oppose the idea of describing him as Terrorist.His curative petition is still in Supreme Court and there are loopholes in the police theory as Justice Joseph appeared to share the views of Memon's counsel when he said perhaps due procedure was not followed See Here.Alensmith (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alensmith: 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)

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)