Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1227738722.36
  • In Ignasi Guardans on 2011-04-24 14:49:45, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 Mumbai attacks on 2011-06-16 13:46:36, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_A_major_terror_target_/articleshow/3654886.cms
  • In History of Bombay in Independent India on 2011-03-29 09:22:55, 404 Not Found
  • In History of Mumbai on 2011-03-29 15:13:32, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 Mumbai attacks on 2011-06-16 13:47:56, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

2008 Mumbai attacks → 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks – I'm proposing the inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the title for obvious reasons. The renaming will make it clear that although the attackers were Pakistani citizens (and backed by the Pakistani state according to some accounts), this attack has not been considered to be an attack by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Republic of India. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the move. Also like to mention that There are-link Wikipedia articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• 'Support. See below. 'Question: What are the general standards for this sort of article? I notice that the september 11 attacks are at September 11 attacks and don't use the word 'terrorist'. The title of this article appears to be in line with that one and I'm wondering if there was some sort of discussion on including/excluding the word terrorist from the title. --rgpk (comment) 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been a discussion with 5 participants on this in the archives. Of the five, two seem to support the inclusion of 'terrorist', two oppose and one gave the answer as "26/11" as the new name. Discussion. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Except for conciseness and consistency (with the 911 page) I don't see why terrorist should not be included in the title. Definitely more natural, recognizable, accurate and precise. --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requesting Move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. The previous move request had very little input, and although there was opposition to moving the article back, the stronger, policy-based arguments were made for not using the label "terrorist". This is a word we try to avoid, and therefore we should only use it when we have very strong reasons, as indicated by a strong consensus. - GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

---

2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks → 2008 Mumbai attacks – The article reached GA quality with that title, after a wide discussion of concensus, and while WP:CCC, it is unseemingly and unwarranted that the title, which was one of the sources of contention in this discussion, be change after a seven day period in which only 3 editors presented !v, editors which didnt actively participate in the GA process (unlike, well, myself). This article was also featured in the Annual Report of the Wikimedia Foundation using the "2008 Mumbai attacks" title. It is clear that this was done without any serious attempt, as is customary, to involve a wider discussion in particular of involved editors. --Cerejota (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Relisted, GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I might add, WP:WTA--Cerejota (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose : There are-link Wikipedia articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks. Terrorist attacks is more clear as per me. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks were much more worse than the Mumbai attacks, yet we call them September 11 attacks. We are writing an NPOV encyclopedia, in an encyclopedic tone, not a soapbox for your point of view, or an emotional, sensationalistic, account of the events. I think "attacks" is something anyone can understand, and when they read the article, they get a full understanding of the events and can make their own mind. IF this renaming stands, this article most likely loses GA standing, and it will be thank to people putting their emotions and beliefs before the goals of the project.--Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

How am I soapboxing here? Compare yourself by your own standards. Besides I have given an example and presented my views. That I can have my own views on '"attacks" is something anyone can understand, and when they read the article, they get a full understanding of the events and can make their own mind' should not be also ignored. As it is, I am not sure how the article will lose its GA standards because of more accurate title. By the way I have not passed value judgements on your views, please note. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:WTA does not apply since the word terrorist is no longer contentious in regard to these attacks. It might have been contentious a decade back but events over the last decade or more clearly identify certain philosophies emanating from certain specific geographic regions as the ones adapted by terrorists. I feel this is an accurate title. I don't see any emotions involved here - it is just a dispassionate but an accurate title. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the points you make in the original move proposition at the top have any substance that supports your move proposition. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose To be honest, I don't see how adding "terrorist" to the title is anything but helpful in clarifying the subject of the article, and is therefore a worthwhile change. I have to disagree with Cerejota when they say "attacks" is sufficient for anyone's understanding. "Attacks" can indeed have other implications besides that of being the result of terrorism - other than "September 11 attacks" which are so well-known worldwide as terrorist attacks (much more so than the Mumbai attacks, I believe) that nothing further is needed. Also, I hardly think adding "terrorist" to the title will effect GA status at all, nor will it effect the article's NPOV, as it was proved to be the result of terrorism! Shirtwaist ☎ 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Current title is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and is unnecessary for disambiguation. Wikipedia does not use value-laden labels like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" in its own voice: not in its articles (as demonstrated by September 11 attacks and al-Qaeda), certainly not in its titles. Quigley (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support on Quigley's grounds of neutrality. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I've relisted this discussion to allow it to run for another seven days, because this discussion is still potentially active, and it would be nice to see more input on this contentious and high-profile question. I have notified WikiProjects India, Mumbai and Terrorism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Quigley. "Terrorist" is a value-laden term. It is not needed for disambiguation and as of today both in Google and Google books there is a 10 to 1 preference for "2008 Mumbai attacks" over "2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks." That means: people understand the "2008 Mumbai attacks" mean the attacks by the dozen gunmen on 26 November that killed some 160 people, and not the petty mugging that was reported on page 6 of local paper. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Quigley's argument. warrior4321 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the phrase "terrorist attacks" is not a contentious label for this attack. -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Terrorist attacks" is a very contentious label in all cases. Bruce Hoffman quoted in definitions of terrorism writes: "[T]errorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism." In the body of the article we can and do quote government officials that call the attacks "terrorist", but Wikipedia itself should not take a stance against the ideology of the attackers. Quigley (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia has to be the kind of view of "one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism"? It is not WP:NEUTRAL according to me, as those affected by terrorism would not appreciate it. Does Bruce Hoffman, the author himself, adhere to neutral policies of Wikipedia at all and why should it have any reflection on title itself?

There is no doubt that the attacks were terrorist in nature in the first place, and it is undue to reduce correctness by quoting those who do not adhere to policies of Wikipedia. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The absence of "terrorist" in the title does not mean Wikipedia is judging the attack not to be a terrorist attack. The title leaves out many potential descriptors: "2008 Mumbai Islamist attacks", "2008 Mumbai Pakistani attacks", etc. Quigley (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Because "The title leaves out many potential descriptors: "2008 Mumbai Islamist attacks", "2008 Mumbai Pakistani attacks", etc. ", it does not mean that the current title is not neutral in this case. There is no need to consider terrorist word as non-neutral on this topic. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)'

Lets me ask you something, how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The term "terrorism" is biased in that it is selectively used by the respective authorities to designate what acts do, and do not constitute terrorism. For instance, terrorism implies the use of terror. As such common sense dictates that if it has to be used, then it should be so in all instances in which people are terrorized, as in spree killings, counter-insurgency campaigns, communal riots, etc. However, as we all know, this is not the case. As per WP:WTA, it is best that it's usage be avoided unless and until there is general consensus for it. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support WP:NPOV Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, reversing the previous move which was premature. Yes, consensus can change but in this case there was insufficient evidence that it had. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - User talk:Thisthat2011 has been topic banned form all india related articles for three weeks for contentious editing. Since he commented on this RM, and on the previous one that was wrongly closed as move (lacking consensus), closing admin should take into consideration the context in which these positions are presented. --Cerejota (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"More than 10"?

Why does the lead sentence say "The 2008 Mumbai attacks (often referred to as November 26 or 26/11) were more than 10 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across Mumbai", when the section near the bottom of the article titled "Locations" lists 11? Shouldn't the sentence simply say "11 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks"? Is there some confusion about the actual number of attacks? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeha I agree this article ha sbene turne dinto a mess by lack of vigilance, from the Good Article it was. Lesson learned - as this point was indeed fixed once in the past.--Cerejota (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mastermind of Mumbai Attack

The book `Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taleban -- beyond bin Laden and 9/11' claims the Mumbai plan was one pushed through by Ilyas Kashmiri, a key al-Qaida ally with links with the Pakistan defenceRedhanker (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ISI-scripted-Mumbai-attack-Qaida-cleared-it-Shahzad-book/articleshow/8686112.cms?intenttarget=no ISI scripted Mumbai attack, Qaida cleared it: Shahzad book TNN | Jun 2, 2011, 01.03AM IST] Book excerpt: The 26/11 terror attacks that killed 166 people and brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war was scripted by ISI officers and approved before its execution by al-Qaida commanders, according to a book just written by slain Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad. The 40-year-old reporter "With Ilyas Kashmiri's immense expertise on Indian operations, he stunned the al-Qaeda leaders with the suggestion that expanding the war theatre was the only way to overcome the present impasse. He presented the suggestion of conducting such a massive operation in India as would bring India and Pakistan to war and with that all proposed operations against Al-Qaeda would be brought to a grinding halt. Al-Qaeda excitedly approved the attack-India proposal," "Ilyas Kashmiri then handed over the plan to a very able former army major Haroon Ashik, who was also a former LeT commander who was still very close with the LeT chiefs Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and Abu Hamza," the book says. "Haroon knew about a plan by Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months with the official policy to drop it as it was to have been a low-profile routine proxy operation in India through LeT. "The former army major, with the help of Ilyas Kashmiri`s men in India, hijacked the ISI plan and turned it into the devastating attacks that shook Mumbai on November 26, 2008 and brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a war."

Excerpts from the book Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11

“With Ilyas Kashmiri’s immense expertise on Indian operations, he stunned the Al-Qaeda leaders with the suggestion that expanding the war theatre was the only way to overcome the present impasse. He presented the suggestion of conducting such a massive operation in India as would bring India and Pakistan to war and with that all proposed operations against Al-Qaeda would be brought to a grinding halt. Al-Qaeda excitedly approved the attack-India proposal.” “Ilyas Kashmiri then handed over the plan to a very able former army major Haroon Ashik, who was also a former LeT commander who was still very close with the LeT chiefs Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and Abu Hamza. Haroon knew about a plan by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months with the official policy to drop it as it was to have been a low-profile routine proxy operation in India through LeT.” “The former army major, with the help of Ilyas Kashmiri’s men in India, hijacked the ISI plan and turned it into the devastating attacks that shook Mumbai onNovember 26, 2008 and brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a war (a detailed account of this is presented in the next chapters). “

New Update

There is new update of the article, A group of hackers with a 26/11 connection was arrested by the Filipino Police and the FBI. The group was allegedly behind the attacks on the US telecommunication firm AT&T. Please update this if this is familar. Regards --Katarighe (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reactions from Indian bloggers to be added

I think this collection of blog posts reacting to the Mumbai terror attacks should be added under external links: http://www.indiblogger.in/topic.php?topic=1

Jilpaan (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki mentions?

Is their any reason in particular that the reliably sourced content is constantly being removed?[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It has been stated repeatedly in the edit summaries which you are ignoring. Mewulwe (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which edit summaries would that be? The ones were you actually say nothing [2][3] Or the ones you call me a stalker?[4] Now when people write books and mention this fact then we ought mention it as it is notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't. Wikipedia being mentioned in some news article for doing what it always does is irrelevant. Wikipedia by its very policy is not doing original reporting, unlike the other media that are relevant to mention here because they did provide original reporting. Mewulwe (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said news articles, I said books. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph is not a book. Mewulwe (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Self references should be avoided unless they are important. This doesn't seem particularly important so I'd suggest not including it. --regentspark (comment) 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said the Telegraph was a book either. I said as it has been written about in books, then it is in itself notable enough to be mentioned in this article.[5][6][7] I trust this is now clear enough for you? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Still meaningless. It's a random example of Wikipedia providing coverage of a current event, as good as any other. It's absurd to mention it back in the article that the article has been mentioned somewhere. Mewulwe (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

An editor recently has removed from the article the fact that this attack was constantly updated during the attack. I realize of course this is quite normal for wiki, however the editing on this particular article appears to be quite notable, as such I feel it warrants a mention. We have at least three books mention it. [8][9][10] Along with some news outlets such as the Telegraph.

• Support as nom Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support mention - Although I generally oppose self-references within articles that are not directly related to the Wikimedia Foundation, we ought, I think, to defer to the sources. The cited Telegraph article (here) devotes approximately equal space to the real-time coverage of the attacks by Wikipedia, Flickr and Indian bloggers. Wikipedia's coverage of the attacks is, furthermore, mentioned as an example in Peace Journalism, War and Conflict Resolution, in a chapter titled "Social networks and the reporting of conflict".
  While I do appreciate the desire to avoid unnecessary self-references, Wikipedia is no less significant a website (in terms of visibility) than Twitter or Flickr, and we should not avoid self-references when they are appropriate and originate in reliable sources. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Also mention it here. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)