This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
how the 2 related? its not simply b/c the 2 are ambushes on state security personnel? there are countless more there. perhaps more understandable would be another naxal or (international) maoist attack (peru?)
How come the battle box is not being used here? Im sure the indian forces fought back, this simply was not some mere terrorist attack rather more like a military action.XavierGreen (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all probability it is because we need more information before we can switch the boxes out. My advice is to give the article a little time to build content, as more information on the incident becomes available we should be able to switch out the infoboxes. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. this is was a singled out attack, not an ongoing battle that went on and on. Heck, even the 26/11 attacks (havent seen anyone call that a battle) were attacks and they lasted longer. Mind you, indian forces fought back there (And successfully if you must), to use that logic. nevertheless, "Im sure the indian forces fought back" doesnt constitute a referenced ascertation that they did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)
The norm has been to use military conflict infobox for Maoist/Naxalite attacks [1], [2], [3]. A possible justification for using military conflict is that these attacks took place in an active hostile zone, where major military operations (Salwa Judum etc.) have been going on. I would use terrorist attack for an attack in a non-combat zone or on non-combatants. Any case, we should go by the consensus here, I will wait to hear a few more opinions. SPattalk06:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The action was fought between two armed groups. Although i do not approve of the actions of the Naxilites, it should be recognized that an action of this size could fit the definition of a battle rather than a terrorist attack. For example most actions similar to this fought in the Afghan war use battle boxes, only attacks against non-armed targets and attacks using unconventional means use the incident box. I also think the battles involving india category should be readded.XavierGreen (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i can agree with your ascertation. although Pakistani attacks are also in military conflict -- granted the specific attack (as in this) was not the same, but the wider conflcit in both cases, for example, during conflict.
But as for the ascertation that this is civil war i havent any comments calling this so outside wikipedia (bar politicised works like the maoists themselves). Pakistan is certainyl in the throes of a civil war as is iraq and afghanistan where the attacks in the former are regularly listed with terror infoboxes rather than military conflict, even when the attack is on a military/political target like the Interior Ministry building or military recruits and whathaveyou. i understand a market bombing being listed so, but the other military/political targets certainly fall under the scope of a military conflict. Lihaas (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In merging the two attacks (April and May), and considering the civil war ascertion not at consensus, the "terror" box fits better for the 2 attacks. If another articel were made it would just be questioned for merger somewhere anyways.Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article title to massacre since a source exists for that title and 1. its better than listing the alternative title when one is sourced, 2. wikipedia cant fabricate news/neologismsLihaas (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not an appropriate page move. The term massacre is contentious and I would assert that it should generally be reserved for attacks on unarmed civilians. Although I believe there is precedence for this I have no such previous discussions to show to. Others may be able to help. __meco (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second incident now has its own article. I moved this article to reflect this discussion and also added the month to distinguish the two more still. __meco (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per talk on my page one cannot apparently move/merge articles. He says "please wait next time." so why was this split off without a discussion? It can certainly be merged as one.Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would inquire with the MILHIST WikiProject about combining two separate incidents, albeit clearly related, into one article. They may have something to say about that. Then, if this botched merge is going to be salvaged, there's an admin page for this sort of thing: Wikipedia:Requested moves. __meco (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. Edit histories were deleted. Please use proper procedures for merges or redirects that include discussions.--DAI (Δ) 12:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done re-added infobox SPat talk 02:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
