| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2005 Bali bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Good job everyone; editing seems very harmonious. Keep up the good work. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hopefully it remains so! :) - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
sources?
Where is the source for 19 dead? Add the source please. --Vsion 15:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- [1] (Associated Press) - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I saw that already, Thanks. --Vsion 15:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest that, any update in the casualty figure must be accompanied by sources, otherwise, it shall be reverted as considered non-verified. This will reduce confusion in other contributors. --Vsion 15:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Lets just hope the figure cease to rise. Slivester 15:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, given that the numbers may be confusing at this time. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- bad news, Xinhuanet, reports 30 dead [2] --Vsion 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- The blast in Kuta is quite very near to the hotel I lived in while I was there for my Art field trip in June. Quite disgusted to find that beautiful island attacked again. Slivester 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- later Xinhuanet report reverts back to 25 [3] --Vsion 03:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- The blast in Kuta is quite very near to the hotel I lived in while I was there for my Art field trip in June. Quite disgusted to find that beautiful island attacked again. Slivester 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
link
"Jemaah Islamiah, an organation linked to Al-Qaeda"
Should we say exactly what that link is? Ojw 16:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea, sure. Mention also that they're a terrorist organization, which intends to establish a theocracy in Indonesia.
- Is/was Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, a major part of the link? Andjam 23:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Ummm.... "People from this region deserve death"
Just at the bottom of the page. . . in the "Suspects" section.... there is a line which reads "People from this region deserve death, so it doesn't matter"....
Which is just a TAD disturbing!
Can someone fix this?
EDIT: Someone just did. Thanks :D
Can someone find out which JI member said the above sentence? Sounds like JI propaganda to me, should help alot in affirming the motives of the terrorist group in this action.Thankies.
- Keep an eye on User:24.174.101.3, s/he's vandalised a couple of pages today. Cnwb 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Marriott Hotel bombing article
Is there currently a wikipedia article on the 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing in Jakarta? Andjam 03:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Nope. Feel free to make one. PBP 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's odd. There should have been one, it was a fairly important event. Battle Ape 04:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Photos of suspects
I think the inclusion of photos of suspects is innappropriate. I think the photos should be withheld until someone claims responsibility. Cnwb 06:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- No-one has claimed responsibility for any of the terrorist attacks in Indonesia over the last four years, and it is unlikely they will for this incident. JI still claims to be a legitimate organisation and is not recognised as a terrorist organisation in Indonesia as of yet (but is in Australia and the United States). Neither have resolute connexions been established between those convicted in events past and JI. Thus, it appears speculation is all we have. However, I see no problem with including the image if it pertains to persons suspected by legitimate authorities of involvment.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed with Cyberjunkie. Those guys are suspects wanted by authorities and the photos are presented as such. We, as editors, do not make any judgement or speculation ourselves. If there is still objection to the inclusion, please state the reason clearly. --Vsion 07:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry; my words sounded more demanding than intended. I haven't got a serious objection to the inclusion of the photos, and certainly don't intend on pushing the point. I was just trying to say that something about it didn't 'sit right' with me. I should have chosen my words more wisely, or even refrained from mentioning it. Cnwb 08:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed with Cyberjunkie. Those guys are suspects wanted by authorities and the photos are presented as such. We, as editors, do not make any judgement or speculation ourselves. If there is still objection to the inclusion, please state the reason clearly. --Vsion 07:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, from the news events covered in the South East Asia region, it seems like the Indonesian government is pointing fingers at JI again.Gammadion 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
If there are any administrator editors to this article, could they replace the gorilla image on WP:ITN with one related to the bombings, since it is the lead story. Suggested replacements are either Image:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot.jpg or Image:Bali blast 2005.jpg, or even Image:Indonesia flag large.png. My requests on ITN-related pages have gone un-noticed thus far.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
"international terrorism is a global threat"
Masaka!?
Timing of attack
When I read "The bombings occurred the same day that Indonesia cut its fuel subsidies resulting in gas prices rising by 125%", I thought "Man, they take fuel prices even more seriously than us Aussies do!". But the person who added this had in edit comments "(fuel prices -- one, two punch)", presumably suggesting that the terrorists were hoping that the economic damage of the attack would co-incide with the hardship caused by fuel price rise. Just noting this in case anyone else is wondering over the phrase. Andjam 03:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I read it as meaning the Indonesians had a particularly unfortunate Saturday: first, a fuel price hike; second, a brutal terrorist attack. I didn't think it meant the terrorists blew themselves up to correspond with the hike; that was an economically unfortunate coincidence.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm the user who added the bit about the fuel price increase. Andjam's reading of the meaning of my edit summary is what I intended. The fuel price subsidy cut has been expected for some time with considerable apprehension among the Balinese (and, presumably, other Indonesians), and it was known that the exact cut in the subsidy would be announced that day — so those behind the bombs knew when the "first punch" was landing. I did not added any of this to the article... thoughts? Also, This was the 40th aniversary (off by about 18 hours, actually early morning hours of Oct 1, 1965) of "The Night of the Generals" — see: History of Indonesia#Civil War. — Davenbelle 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The price hike is a major issue in Indonesia, with considerable discontent. There were initial speculations that the bombings were linked to opposition of these price hikes. Now that the bombings are tied to other previous bombings by JI in Bali and Jakarta; apparently the JI scheduled it on the day of the price hike for significance. Remember the modus operandi: the London metro bombings happened the same day as the G8 summit. --Vsion 07:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Please Remove
The last external link refers to XXX page! (link to ogrish deleted by Andjam) Wic2020 04:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Is linking to XXX against wikipedia policy, or just a bad idea? Andjam 05:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The linked site is a deliberately ghoulish collection of extremely graphic material, the subject of debate about whether it should be shown or not. National and state laws vary around the world about whether such content may be shown. Personally I would rather not see any link to that site unless it is in context, because the public debate is about the merits of providing such content, so linking to it might be seen as taking a stance. If it is linked, I suggest it should follow the tentative guidelines for potentially shocking images. Tale 05:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- It seems that the above link is related to the 2002 bombing, not the current event. So there is no issue here for removing the link. As for the video clip, I would prefer it be linked to a news media website instead; will try to find one. --Vsion 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- If the problem were only that it was the wrong bombing, the solution would have been to move it to the 2002 Bali bombing page. Andjam 08:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- It seems that the above link is related to the 2002 bombing, not the current event. So there is no issue here for removing the link. As for the video clip, I would prefer it be linked to a news media website instead; will try to find one. --Vsion 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The linked site is a deliberately ghoulish collection of extremely graphic material, the subject of debate about whether it should be shown or not. National and state laws vary around the world about whether such content may be shown. Personally I would rather not see any link to that site unless it is in context, because the public debate is about the merits of providing such content, so linking to it might be seen as taking a stance. If it is linked, I suggest it should follow the tentative guidelines for potentially shocking images. Tale 05:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Question
Was the high proportion of Indonesian deaths relative to other groups most likely due mainly to the relatievly intuitive fact that the largest proportion of diners and other people in the area would most likely be locals, with tourists comprising a relatively small segment of the people in the area at the time? --Dpr 06:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. In the 2002 attacks, for example, more Australians were killed and injured than Indonesians. The areas targetted, particularly Jimbaran, are places where Westerners congregate, so there's always a chance they will be disproportionate to the local population. On this occassion, it appears they were not.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the tourists were affluent Jakartans. The fish-serving warungs are in all the guide books. — Davenbelle 06:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, all! (I originally had conspiracy theories dancing in my head.) --Dpr 07:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- It just turned out this way. In one of the blasts at a restaurant/cafe, the bomber walked right between two tables with large groups of diners before detonation. Those two groups happened to be Indonesians. The planner or bomber chose to inflict the maximum damage, regardless of nationalities. --Vsion 07:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The blast photo I added before was from a restaurant with a pretty varied group of diners. This Image:2005 Bali Terror-blast2.JPG shows more clearly. Those further from the blast were Westerners. It really was as Vsion indicated: an attack designed to kill. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
"Affluent Jakartans" are usually government people and the view here (Bali) is that radical Muslims have targeted Indonesia because it is steers a more moderate course. They want to bring down the government and cut-off the tourist money. The Balinese (Hindus) are caught in the middle. Also, in addition to Ramadan starting, the Balinese holiday of Galungan starts Wednesday Oct 5 and runs for ten days. — Davenbelle 07:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- With regards to the Balinese holiday, I've heard some people say that it has fueled conspiracy theories about some people knowing in advance. Andjam 08:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see the connection. The Balinese are busily preparing huge offerings and building tall penjars (currently redlinked, mebbe I'll take a photo in a few days). — Davenbelle 08:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well if Indonesians, i.e. here being Jakartans/government people, perhaps the target was not haphazard, but was equally or more so aimed at Indonesians than tourists. As far as the theory of "inflicting maximum damage," it seems sound, but do we really have any way of knowing for sure why the bombers detonated their explosives at the exact places that they did? Also, I'm confused too about Andjam's comment--what exactly do you mean? --Dpr 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jimbaran: These little restaurants have *no* security — they often don't even have doors or walls — you just walk right in. The upmarket hotels do have security and the warungs are full of those out for the evening.
- Kuta: Kuta is bigger and more alcohol and club oriented, and it's very big with the Australians. Half the people who visit Bali go no farther than Kuta.
- "Conspiracy theories": Ones getting a lot of talk here are the idea that this was a distraction from the fuel price increase (there were tyre-burning riots in Jakarta), and that opposition political forces (Megawati Sukarno) were in the know.
- Yeah, the Jakartans were just as "legitimate" targets. The Balinese killed were most likely wait-staff.
- — Davenbelle 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Names of the dead
Some people have been named as being killed by the bombings. Should they be listed somewhere (perhaps on a separate page)? Andjam 10:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- There is a list in the Bahasa Indonesia wikipedia page (currently of 15 people). I'm not sure about including it here, maybe a subpage instead if it is an officially verified list. --Vsion 10:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think it's inappropriate. What's the practice on Wikipedia: that is, what have we done with information on the victims of 9/11, the London bombings etc? We must remember that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Additionally, some may find it offensive (ie, loved one's).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Bad idea. — Davenbelle 06:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't intending it as a memorial, just a resource people could look up to confirm that someone they know isn't in the list. I also assumed that if certain names should not be mentioned (if relatives hadn't yet been informed), they wouldn't be mentioned by the mainstream media. Andjam 12:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Bad idea. — Davenbelle 06:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Shocking images
Since there has been some trouble with linking graphic images with this article, just as the controversy to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi edits concerning the dilemma of whether or not showing his deceased face would be a good idea, I placed a warning banner at the top of the section, before the faces of the dead are shown. -- Ottokarf 3:49, 10 june, 2006
Reaction
There are an awful lot of statements from various politicians around the world, and they really don't add much to the article. Wouldn't it be better to summarize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Or alternatively move it to a new page? Chovain 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)