Talk:2009 Jakarta bombings

Just FYI, the JW and the Ritz-Carlton are located right opposite each other in Mega Kuningan -- a single bomb placed outside could easily damage both. Jpatokal (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just gotta say, the world goes to hell, and Twitter-fans get to brag "You heard it first on Twitter! Yeah, Twitter rules!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.31.226 (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

As with Mumbai, much of the news is breaking on Twitter.[1][2] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --candle•wicke 04:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved the article because the third explosion at Muara Angke did not occur at a hotel location. Arsonal (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kompas is reporting that the Muara Angke explosion is not a bomb. Arsonal (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Attacks might be best then to cover all possibilities. --candle•wicke 04:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not up on Jakarta geography, but what do the coordinates posted in the article indicate? I imagine these hotels are in two distinct locations. Joshdboz (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dunno but did you see the message at the top by Jpatokal? Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll have to say that naming Jamaah Islamiyah in the "suspected perpetrators" is inappropriately premature. Here's reminding that:
1. According to the article, the suspicion is only based on the words of "analysts" who purely base themselves on theories put together behind desks.
2. In fact, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has issued an official statement citing "intelligence sources" which essentially says that the bombings are done by groups motivated by the 2009 election results (citation later).
3. It's too early to point fingers anyway.
4. Anyone can generate their own version of suspicion. It is a biased concept and thus jeopardizes the article's neutrality.
5. With the fact above, this information is therefore redundant to be put in an encyclopedia.
Therefore I'm requesting the consent of whoever may be of concern to edit to delete the article's "suspected perpetrators" entry entirely. Remingtonspaz (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

In principle, I agree. I removed the highlighting of "suspected perpetrators" from the info box.

However, this is a current event and WP typically includes media speculation about current events, with the banner on top warning readers that info can change rapidly.

My opinion is that item 2 should be included and is not. The text only refers to "some" people linking the bombings to the recent election. The fact that the president himself is raising the issue (with strong rebuttal by his opponents) is significant, especially because the election results are not official yet. FYI, Indonesian TV news showed him holding up one out of perhaps 1,000,000 campaign posters that showed an alleged bullet hole in the cheek of his image. Martindo (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Umm, actually the investigating POLICE have said the attacks bears the hallmarks of JI...thats why its only SUSPECTED yet and not confirmed. Wikipedia does have the option to put suspects when not confirmed.

At the time I created this section, over 80% of the references cited are from outside Indonesia. That is not POV in itself, but care should be taken to avoid phrases like "fatalities include x foreigners among others." Indonesian citizens, who generally comprise the majority of casualties when blasts occur on their own territory, deserve a more fitting label than "others". Martindo (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, agree "others" is inappropriate . . . but keep in mind that foreigners were specifically targeted, the venues are frequented primarily by foreigners, and that the death toll and injury count among foreigners was vastly disproportionate in a country where the percentage of foreigners is minuscule.

On the references, keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, so it is appropriate to provide reliable sources in the English language where relevant. The number of RS published in English in Indonesia is small, and the foreign English language news bureaus in Jakarta have provided much more coverage and analysis than the local ones (or at least more accessible, which is another valid selection criterion). Bongomatic 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

indeed, it's a good example of a fix to one pov often ends up creating the reverse pov. --Merbabu (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I said, 80% foreign references "is not POV in itself". WP editors trained in NPOV should be able to remove some of the bias, which IMO is inevitable given that foreign sources are geared to their own markets (viewers/readers). I think some effort of restraint could be made to avoid proliferating foreign sources, which tend to overlap if not echo each other. In other words, yes, jump in and post them, but avoid piling them on before local sources can be quoted or translated. The language issue has many facets -- one not mentioned is that WP in one language often quotes another as a source. Yet another reason for careful attention to NPOV. Martindo (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

So has it been confirmed that there were two suicide bombers, they both died, and they're included in the "Indonesian" counts? If yes, this should be clarified. Jpatokal (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reactions of anger / sympathy etc. from international leaders are of no information value whatsoever. Please don't add more laundry lists of platitudes. Bongomatic 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That may be your idea of non-notable, however wikipedia pages on terror attacks have, more many months/years included this. you can check it on smaller attacks and you can check it on sep11, 26/11, islamabad marriott, etc, etc.

If you have other ideas, gain a consensus and change wikipedia conventiosn before imposing such ideas on simply this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

I have to agree with Bongomatic here — the laundry list is pointless, both here and on other articles. However, I've raised this on WP:DISASTER to get some other views, please do not restore it until that discussion is complete. Jpatokal (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Consensus for inclusion is what is needed, not consensus for removal. A laundary lust of platitudes (and the because-we-can cutesy flags) do not add value. Wikipedia does nor run by WP:PRECEDENCE or whatevers been done before. consider items on their merits on an-article by article basis. And get consensus for inclusion. --Merbabu (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I consensus is not for removal then you can't remove what is was states. These are your OWN words. As for your personal opinion that consensus is for needed and not removal cite this b/c the wikipedia consensus page makes no such ascertations...once again this removal was taken on the whim without a consensus. If you want to remove what is there you need a consensus because the addition came before this counter-point...that is the point of debate. Why the addition came first and needs consensus is because of WP:Bold -- Be bold in editing, now if someone wants to CHALLENGE an addition then the onus is on the one who wants to question it. Wikipedia is not for the whims of a few...discuss and get a consensus. THEN change.

Hang on - yes you can be bold, but your addition of the list was new (2 days prior!) and clearly there was no consensus for it, so it got removed. --Merbabu (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's incorrect to say this attack killed more Indonesians than foreigners. It killed four foreigners, three Indonesians and the two suicide bombers (who are assumed to be Indonesians but are not victims.) This sets it apart from the 2003 Marriott bombing, the 2004 Australian embassy attack and the 2005 Bali II bombings, where more Indonesians died. This attack was more narrowly focused on killing Westerners and not hitting maximum number of people, as in the 2003 Marriott attack. That's why they hit a specific meeting of Western businessmen, and not the main restaurant. Only the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings also hit more foreigners than locals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.120.100 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's correct to say that "it killed more Indonesians than foreigners" (five is greater than four), but the point made in a recent edit summary that it is not conventional to refer to suicide bombers as "victims" (hard to simultaneously be a victim and a perpetrator) is right, so it is correct to say that "there were more foreign than Indonesian victims". Bongomatic 08:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just removed mention of "majority of victims". Let the numbers speak for themselves. X New Zealanders, Y Indonesians, and Z Australians. There is no need to embellish it further. One actual issue, is how actual express the difference between the victim and the perpetrators - it killed 9 but their were 7 victims. --Merbabu (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

September 11 attacks and 7 July 2005 London bombings should provide some guidance. It appears to me from those and other articles that the infobox should include the general death toll with (including X perpertrators in brackets). In the article it seem to vary. Referring to victims or the number of people killed by the bombers is done sometimes, sometimes the general death toll. It obviously should always be clear from the wording whether or not the number includes the perpertrators. Incidentally, 2002 Bali bombings is a bit of a mess, it's not clear if the death toll includes the perpertrator. 2005 Bali bombings is a bit better, after I corrected the claim in the infobox the deathtoll of 20 included the bombers [3] when it's 20+3, I couldn't find a clear source but that's what the article says and the inaccurate info was introduced when an anon Special:Contributions/124.121.217.112 modified the infobox from "plus 3 bombers" to "including 3 bombers" without changing the deathtoll. [4] This anon seems to have done a similar thing in at least one other article Nil Einne (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If unsigned would scroll up to the section I started on POV, he/she would see that I said local CASUALTIES are greater than foreign casualties. I did refer to fatalities, but not in the context of claiming that locals outnumber foreigners in that respect. Having seen the list of casualties on a white board via TV news coverage, I am quite certain that the majority had Indonesian names.

I'm going to clarify "victims who were killed" in the lead, because casualties are victims, too. Martindo (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's offensive to include the suicide bomber's death in the total..in the same count as their victims which they targeted. The bombers don't deserve that; to be included with the unfortunate dead. I changed it, and i believe it should stay that way.

Reverted. If they were killed in the incident, they're casualties, even if if they did it themselves. Jpatokal (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jpatokal is correct. It may be offensive to consider them "victims", but not "casualties" or "fatalities", which they certainly were. ^Bongo_matic 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

agree with both of the above reasons. They are casualties/fatalities if not victims. Further, wikipedia shouldn't be taking moral positions - it's role is to be factual only. See WP:NPOV--Merbabu (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Jakarta bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090720141047/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25795233-661,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25795233-661,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 Jakarta 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C25795233-661%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726062945/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/07/20/1st-funeral-held-jakarta-bomb-victims.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/07/20/1st-funeral-held-jakarta-bomb-victims.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfr.org/publication/9361/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply