Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks

Who?

I think its a bit ridiculous to list al-Qaeda as a reasonable suspect. With how many terror organizations that exist in that area of the world, it's a bit silly to jump to basically the only group most American's have heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enouhin (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell did that? Was it al-Qaeda? Its ridicilous, I'm just watching on TV :( --Novis-M (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE - an unknown outfit called the Deccan Mujahideen was apparently first to email news organizations with claims of responsibility.[1] -- they do seem to be the Indian Mujahideen or a faction thereof, judging by their choice of name. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Politicians and police are well aware of these before hand.it cannot happen without thier support Just because a group claims responsibility doesn't mean they did it. Remember the Palestine Liberation Organization claimed responsibility for 9/11 after just an hour.But they later found out that it was`nt realy them. 24.25.217.213 (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know My freind. But the attacks just happened outside User:Nichalp's house. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 20:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God, hope he will be ok. --Novis-M (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How can the terrorists attack the five star Taj Mahal Palace & Tower hotel. Z security. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand who! Who could do attack like this? They attacked whole city! Is it some part of al-Qaeda or something? Anybody knows? --Novis-M (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not be Al-Qaeda. Most probably Islamic groups from India or Pakistan. Al-Qaeda ma be possible because most of the people who come to stay in the Taj are foreigners. May be some Afghanistan connection. They had already warned. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NDTV is attributing the attacks to the al Qaeda-linked Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami, but this is as yet unconfirmed unlikely (see update above.) GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Its weird though. Why would al-Qaeda attack in India? India doesn't help US with war in Afghanistan or Iraq, so why would they do that? --Novis-M (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

to attack foreigners--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The attacks were intended at foreigners. Or else the terrorists would have blown up buses, trains using bombs. Why would they attack 5 Star hotels. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 20:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

HuJaI wants an Indian Caliphate. Good luck with that now. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats probably true. I just heard on CNN that they have some american hostages. --Novis-M (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the TOI, the hostage takers (at the Taj) tried to identify Americans and Brits amongst the foreigners. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So many blasts,

• 6 December 2002 Mumbai bus bombing
• 27 January 2003 Mumbai Bombing
• 13 March 2003 Mumbai train bombing
• 28 July 2003 Mumbai bus bombing
• 25 August 2003 Mumbai bombings
• 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings

and now 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks

How much can the city take. I feel so scared to travel in my own city's buses and trains. Who knows the next moment you don't even exist. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I fear the terrsts will execute all their hostages.. they have no reason to hold them and make demands :( Hope the spec ops forces do their job before that.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3 TOP Encounter specialists from Bombay are dead. Who'll do it now? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What? --Novis-M (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking only of Mumbai. Our NSG tried to finish them all [ [User:Kensplanet|Kensplanet]]^Talk_{Contributions} 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a Terrorism in Mumbai page. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice how so few news reports are calling the attackers Muslim, Islamic, or even Islamist. We can't get away from the nature of the people responsible for this (and 95% of terrorist attacks in the past decade).--MartinUK (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Mujahideen sent a threat about Mumbai attacks two months ago

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&issueid=71&task=view&id=15328&sectionid=4&Itemid=1 213.216.248.212 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

interesting, I was wondering what Deccan could mean, Deccan Plateau came out.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: mentions Indian Mujahideen, not Deccan Mujahideen. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deccan is the southern part of India. Deccan Mujahideen works with the southern part of India apparently, could even be a splinter group of the Indian Mujahideen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.76.85 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is has come out in the media that it is a foreign group. One Pakistani terrorist was captured alive.Indoresearch (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for the attacks

At the same time, The Independent has reported that "the attackers were young South Asian men speaking Hindi or Urdu, suggesting they are probably members of an Indian militant group rather than foreigners".

The Independent is so ignorant. Urdu is spoken in Pakistan. So this does'nt show that it's an Indian militant group.

Please, can we stop with this linguistic bulls***t! The majority of Urdu speakers are in India, where Urdu is an official language on the same ground as other Indian languages (just have a look at any Indian bank note: the language written in Arabic letters is Urdu). Moreover, Urdu and Hindi (the major language of India) are just different literary versions of the same spoken language, called Hindustani. Please don't believe what I am saying: rather go and check it out on any decent encyclopedia (including Wikipedia). 81.120.65.55 (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The OP did not claim that Urdu is spoken exclusively in Pakistan. He/she only pointed out that it is a language spoken there, which is true; in fact it is the official language. Thus the Independent's deduction that the fact the militants spoke Hindi or Urdu suggested they were an Indian group is unfounded. Dforest (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

STOP DISTORTING NEWS ARTICLES on th "Responsibility" Section

Please correct the following: Sky News has reported that the terrorist "was speaking in Urdu in what was described as a Kashmiri accent" and NOT PAKISTANI. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mumbai-Jewish-Centre-Under-Siege-In-India-Terror-Attacks-With-Link-To-Kashmir-Emerging/Article/200811415163321?f=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleonARS (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indians bent on blaming Pakistan for their own problems

I request that the editors of this article remove mentions of Pakistani involvement until the authorities have definite proof. "Pakistan's Defence Minister, Ahmed Mukhtar, says his country played no role in the attacks. Responding to a suggestion by an India's general that the gunmen were from Pakistan, he tells the AFP news agency: "In previous cases they have acted like this, but later it all proved wrong. We are very much positive that Pakistan is not involved in this." (BBC News article) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752003.stm

I think this is a pretty good point. I'm not seeing any solid sources with Pakistani connections here, and the organization claiming responsibility looks and acted a lot like al Qaeda. 69.228.215.27 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So long as India claims Pakistani involvement, the correct and accurate reporting of these claims should be in the article (but shouldn't be worded in such a way as to assume that it is factual). 81.5.64.43 (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lashkar-e-Toiba denied any role in the attacks

Indian PM vows action on attacks - Latest news (BBC News Website) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752237.stm

Terrorist were of South Asian appearance

Indian PM vows action on attacks - Analysis (BBC News Website) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7752173.stm

May I suggest not inferring too much from such details? Terrorists in America on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and spoke English well enough to take commercial flying lessons. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the commonly spoken forms of Hindi and Urdu are indistinguishable. See Hindustani language. And Pakistan is in South Asia, so a person of "South Asian appearance" can also indicate origin in Pakistan. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Urdu is highly differentiable from Hindi because of the immense amount loan words from Arabic and Persian. - NapoleonARS

The "immense amount loan words from Arabic and Persian" in Urdu, as well as the equally immense amount of Sanskrit-derived words in Hindi, is mostly made of learned terms having to do with religion, philosophy, sciences, law, etc. But I guess that terrorists being involved in a shooting attack do not usually have time for discussing philosophy or juridical matters... And witnesses who heard them speaking were probably too buisy running for their lives to notice about the etimology of an occasional learned term slipped in the terrorist's utterance. 81.120.65.55 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not "highly differentiable". I hear both hindi and urdu on a regular basis and they are more similar than different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.36.242 (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's sad to see people equating their inferiority on to others. Urdu is mostly related to Persian in the written form as well. - NapoleonARS

As both are subcontinental languages, Urdu [spoken] is almost Hindi. I mean, I can understand Urdu without any formal training if I know Hindi. 125.99.99.53 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Red sacred HINDU bracelet on the right hand of the Terrorist

As the article is locked and I am not registered, could someone please add the following paragraph somewhere? I guess it could fit in the introduction, where the possible political/religious affiliation of the terrorists is discussed.

The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that one of the terrorists who took part in the attack was apparently wearing an armlet of a kind typically worn by Hindu extremists.

Thanx. 81.120.65.55 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: now also on La Repubblica, the second biggest Italian newspaper, talks about the presumed "Hindu sacred armlet". Here are both links, feel free to use whatever seems better as reference.

• http://www.corriere.it/esteri/08_novembre_27/terroristi_indu_islamici_braccialetto_d92b702e-bc7a-11dd-88c4-00144f02aabc.shtml
• http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/terroristi-mumbai/1.html

81.120.65.55 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Outlook India - http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081127&fname=terror&sid=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.1.155 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Any other acks to this assumption? Any explanations? --88.130.213.169 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking it may not be appropriate to try to read into any of these details until the authorities and investigative reporters have had a chance to analyze the available evidence in its entirety. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Any explanations": Terrorists trying to mislead the investigators by blaming it all on "Hindu terrorists". What else. Let's wait for the final investigation reports before adding anything. The terrorist who was caught alive has been reported to be of Faridkoti origin. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it...Why would Muslims terrorists pretending to be Hindus Nationalits claim the attack for the Oppressed Muslims of India ? - NapoleonARS —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleonARS (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

IT IS NOT A HINDU BRACELET. Go look at http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/terroristi-mumbai/5.html . It looks like some copper coloured bangle with thick rims. I have never seen this worn in any Hindu religious ceremonies. It looks more like a fashion object like the Versace T-Shirt he is wearing. And the article mentions that the Terrorists were trying to pretend to be students before they attacked, so that "look" goes with being a typical modern student. I do not want to blame Islam for this slaughter, but putting blame on the victim religions is apathy of the worst kind. It is like the 911 conspiracy theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewSentience (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NewSentience, you are probably right saying that this bracelet might mean just nothing (and that it might become the starting spark for some silly 911-like conspiration theories). As far as I can see, it might well be a watch with the dial facing the other side, or a wrist-wrap as those used in sports such as tennis or cricket (after all, the guy is carrying and operating a heavy machine-gun). And even if it actually turns out to be a piece of Hindu handicraft, it could well be that the terrorist just wore it as an ornament, without even knowing about its religious meaning. Nevertheless, several newspapers are talking about this bracelet and the doubts it possibly rises about the Islamic nature of the attack.

Although I am skeptical myself about the actual significance of this detail, I insist that these rumors from the press should be mentioned (although of course not necessarily endorsed) in this Wikipedia article. Consider that the attack is still on-going, the investigation has barely started, so we cannot know, at this moment, which details are important and which ones are not. 81.120.65.55 (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkish couple let off by terrorists for being Muslims. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a silly rubber wrist band worn by teenagers these days. Anything orange does not become Hindu automatically. Indoresearch (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility

Reuters says that 'a' Indian newspaper claim that Lashkar-e-Taiba did this. MarketWatch says that "reports" and "newspapers" claim this, which would indicate more than one source collaborates this claim. Right now, this is all unclear. The Squicks (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, The Globe and Mail has gone so far to say that:

• "India has accused groups from neighbouring Pakistan of orchestrating the Mumbai terrorist attack, a charge that could lead to a military confrontation between the two countries"
• "the Indian army general leading the counterterror effort said the terrorists came from “across the border.”"

But they note that this is a matter of allegations/claims and not of fact. The Squicks (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there is a nonzero chance that they are al Qaeda-sponsored, homegrown, or Kashmiri-sponsored, but those are not mutually exclusive possibilities, and the chance that all three represent partial sponsorship of the group is the most likely situation. We must not jump to conclusions until the police have been able to debrief those in custody. Let us hope that they choose to use the most accurate methods of interrogation (no rough stuff; that can wait.) GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_india_shooting_intelligence GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda behind the attacks

Al Qaeda are behind the attacks. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 08:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And SIMI. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? I think people are speculating too much here. The only link that has come out till now in media is LET. Lashkar and Jaish-e-Mohammad are the most active Pakistani terror groups that have targeted Indian cities in past. SIMI is not known to have this capability. We are paying the price of coming under pressure and releasing Jaish chief(Masood Azhar) in Dec'99 during Kandahar plane hijack episode. The terrorists are emboldened now. Indoresearch (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey for major edit in Responsibility section

The currently responsibility section has become more of a speculation of responsibility section and is attracting POV. How about keeping the official Indian government's and investigators' statements at the beginning of this section and moving media speculations below? Indoresearch (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on rewriting the responsibility section proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Helpline / Contact information

I'm not sure what wiki policy is regarding the creation of a short section with information about helplines and so on (temporarily of course, it's unlikely such a section would be relevant to the article weeks from today). I noticed a new user attempt to start such a section with links to a couple of blogsites that are aggregating information (the edit was reverted by a bot as the addition contained a blogspot domain). Thoughts? Kaushik twin (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone use Wikipedia to get helpine no?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If required, the hotlines are these: (copied from wikinews)

---

People who are concerned about the well being of friends or family may call these hotlines:

• United States Department of State: 1-888-407-4747
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office: +44 (0)20 7008 0000
• Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: 1800 002 214
• Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: 1-800-267-6788 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishearth (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why they are embassies. Mumbai has plenty of those. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Why on earth wouldn't people use Wiki to find numbers? And why limit people's options to official mini-list above? There are dozens of numbers on the link I just appended, ranging from the Polish consul's mobile number to locally important contact numbers (yes, other countries among the 200 odd in the world exist, and yes, if you've ever tried the big Embassies, you'll know how frustrating it can be: they're probably overwhelmed). Spreading useful, meaningful information that can improve people's lives over a short period of time is, in many ways, the principle virtue of these quick hit pages. There's also the idea of spreading useful memes - here's how to search for xxx. A cursory glance of the Twitter feed on #mumbai will show you how many people want to know how to do things which you yourself may find very easy (a well known psychological trope) and therefore assume others should do too. They don't. Policy be damned, sometimes (as I believe is the spirit of one of the great original wiki rules) - people are dead, dying, injured, missing, frantic. We should do what we can to help, not fussily bother about minor issues at the margins. Sorry about that, but I feel very strongly. (Incidentally, Twitter is driving a chunk of traffic to this page as people rate it, quite rightly.) Unknown Supremo (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

One further point: given the worldwide attention on this incident in terms of the "sudden" importance of social media like Flickr and Twitter (you can expect future theses to refer to it ad nauseam), is it not important that Wiki play it's part fully i.e. intelligently, responsively, quickly, authoritatively? Unknown Supremo (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Every information in Wikipedia that is entered should be take has grain of salt and not to be taken seriously. In time of crisis such has terrorist attacks, natural disaster and various incidents should be taken cautions. People are advised to look for important information elsewhere such has news sites, TV, Radio for example Times of India has given important numbers to contact. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes and no, Skywalker. The truth is that all 'truth' is fluid, in many ways, and subject to revision. Nevertheless, as Wiki has demonstrated, the power of the crowd can profoundly outwit the power of 'official' 'agreed' 'governmental' types of information. Having worked inside those systems, I can tell you, don't reify them: they are human, prone to error, just like anyone else. Consequently, not that much more powerful or correct or reliable than the rest of us, just better at presenting this reified perception of 'authority'. (Think Chaucer, and 'auctorite v experience'). Wiki has been better, more accurate, than the BBC on Mumbai. Trust the process!

Unknown Supremo (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I believe wiki is a source of information and some of the data on it might be relevant a few weeks later. At a times of crisis it can serve as a conduit of information. I had added contact information for both embassies and blood donation. That was deleted. Ofcourse there are other sources of information for such data, but wiki can be another source. At the back of of head I keep thinking what would have i done if I was a hostage and had access to internet. Wiki would be surely one of the pages I would have used. All the chatter in media or twitter can sometimes cause information to get lost. The wiki community would help is people getting a more reliable source of information. Khivi (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Picture of the Indian Terrorist

Someone please post this picture on the article. They clearly look like South Asian in origin as opposed Middle Eastern Pakistani men. http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081127&fname=terror&sid=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.94.174 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to avoid fair-use images here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"as opposed Middle Eastern Pakistani men". Pakistan is in South Asia, not in the Middle East. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan is included in the region of the Middle East. They also physically much different than the Indians. Pakistanis are mostly light skinned and of tall stature. - NapoleonARS —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleonARS (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan is a former territory of India partitioned in 1947. There is no ethnic difference between North Indians and Pakistanis. Pakistan do not "look Middle Eastern." Pakistan is not part of the Middle East. However, the article on the Middle East has a new category called the Greater Middle East into which Pakistan is lumped. Apparently this is a new political term created by the Bush administration by the article. To say Pakistanis are "physically much different than the Indians" is a profoundly ignorant comment. Puck42 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have both Pakistani and Indian friends here in Toronto, they is a difference of NIGHT and DAY. All the Indians in our company are dark skinned and of short stature. The Pakistanis are always the opposite in physcial looks.-NapoleonARS —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleonARS (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NapoleonARS, stop trolling and don't use Wikipedia as a forum. Pakistanis are wannabe Arabs, but Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia prove that they are South Asians, not Middle-Easterners. And we've seen how "tall and fair" Pakistanis are -- just see the photos of Pakistani politicians. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

NapoleonARS is only talking some crap and only considering friends in Toronto. North Indian and Pakistanis belong to Indo-Aryan race which most of them are tall and fair.but south Indians are Dravidian which most of Dravidian have darker skin and short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadsharieff (talk • contribs) 05:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Tall and fair", "darker skin and short". Idiot. Do some research on South Asian Genetic studies. Here are a few links to start with: [2][3]. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

New death toll numbers

The death toll from the Mumbai terrorist attacks has risen to at least 131 with 330+ injured. This is per Asher Heimermann and Twitter.com reports. Does anyone know if CNN or anyone else is reporting this as well? 216.136.126.106

Now I see the Google docs list of victims, based on hospital lists released. Note that there are three dead Australians on the hospital lists, including Michael Stert (Australian), Bred Gilbert Taylor (Australian), and Studdar Daphne (Australian). Those numbers should be reflect on the main page.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_esnE-3Z3p-HehX1YOZIaw

Also the main page at mumbai help.

http://mumbaihelp.blogspot.com/2008/11/can-we-help.html

Request inclusion in external references.

Synchronicty Foundation victims in Mumbai

Coverage of Synchronicity Foundation members from Nelson County, Virginia in Mumbai began Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at NelsonCountyLife.com. Original permalink: http://www.nelsoncountylife.com/2008/11/26/synchronicty-members-in-mumbai-india-site-of-recent-terror-attack/

Recent coverage here: http://www.nelsoncountylife.com/2008/11/26/synchronicty-members-in-mumbai-india-site-of-recent-terror-attack/

Yvette Stafford, Publisher Nelson County Life Magazine

WikiProject Terrorism tag logo outdated

The WikiProject Terrorism tag logo is obsolete. Nowadays most terrorism in the world is Islamic in essence. Few know the RAF as "[Rote Armee Fraction]". To most Wikireaders the Royal Air Force will come to mind now. Please update the logo on that tag or put something neutral. - Xufanc (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Red army faction was chosen because it was a famous but now ex-terrorist organisation (all dead or in jail). If we picked a current terrorist organisation its fanboys would be complaining that it was POV to single them out a terrorists. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

I spotted a dubious edit, could anyone look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.112 (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a problem to me. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fix time references

In Sec 2.1 (Events at the Taj) there is a table with time references. The last two times are 14:53 PM and 14:53PM-15:59. I don't know enough about these events to assume the times meant, but I do know there is no such thing as 14:53 PM and based on the timeline, going from 11PM to 2:53PM (=14:53) would be a huge jump. Can someone knowledgeable on this subject check this out? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not I. I added that table, but only until 11PM, from what I gleaned from HT ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please add the timezone to the chronology of events. - NN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.130.136 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Some user is continually deleting the sentence in the media section that "Wikipedia was also noted for its more detailed reports and more rapid updates compared with many traditional media outlets." Considering Wikipedia has been mentioned in dozens of articles with regard to the Mumbai events, it seems appropriate to include in our "Media coverage" section. Joshdboz (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we often note negative coverage of wikipedia, its good to put possitive coverage in especially when the Editors who have worked so hard on this article deserve it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please. Is there a single article where the Wikipedia article is the main focus? Those articles exist because of Twitter and Flickr, which actually provide some kind of "original reporting" which is actually newsworthy. Wikipedia and other "Web 2.0" sites are then thrown in to round up those articles; usually Wikipedia doesn't get more than one line, and it is essentially saying that Wikipedia also has a detailed and up-to-date article about the event - which of course has been just as much the case for any other similar recent event. There is no news and no notability at all here. Are we now going to add, in every article about a current event, in which case inevitably some news reports will refer back to Wikipedia, some self-referential nonsense that Wikipedia was noted about reporting the event - in other words, basically saying, "the very article you're reading right now has been mentioned in the press!"? And as to "Editors who have worked so hard"...all I see is people with enough time on their hands scouring Google News and copying information from there (i.e. from the people who do all the actual reporting) to here. How that is hard work is beyond me. To merely aggregate others' work and then to suggest that you are somehow better than the others takes quite some nerve. Margana (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph (UK) article is about user generated content and how it is rivaling the classic media. That article calls us "citizen editors"! which we are. "the very article you're reading right now has been mentioned in the press!" yes but you missed the bit where reporters from different news organisations say how good this article is, thats the important bit. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's mentioned in the MSM, it should be here in this article. "original reporting" has no place in Wikipedia. "To merely aggregate others' work " - that is exactly what Wikipedia is for --vvarkey (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"If it's mentioned in the MSM, it should be here in this article." = absurd. Margana (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that its mentioned in the Telegraph, sydney morning herald and France24 = notability and so it should be in. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any triviality might be mentioned in three sources. If we used that standard throughout, our article might have to be 100 times as long. Margana (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple international RS's has been the standard for inclusion for as long as i can remember, all the sources agree and none have been found to disagree. I really do not see what your problem is other than one with wikipedia in general? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You most certainly remember wrong. There are all sorts of silly "man bites dog"-type stories appearing in multiple international RS's all the time, and that doesn't make them notable. It only confers verifiability, notability is an entirely separate issue. Margana (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate to include wikipedia in the article as yet. If this becomes a defining moment of sorts for wikipedia, then we can add it in, but, self-referencing is not generally a good idea.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the references barely mention the page. All three are about citizen journalism (which wikipedia is not). The second reference (which I deleted) only says that wikipedia set up a page for the event. The other two each have exactly one mention of wikipedia. I should point out that if we're ahead of traditional news media, then we're not doing something right. Material on our page should first appear on some reliable source, which, in a news event like this one, would be the traditional news media. We, I think, did an excellent job of citing work and consolidating what was out there (thanks in part to the numerous 'behind the scenes' editors who checked references and corrected or deleted unsourced information) but more rapid updates than traditional media, I should hope not. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the points you are missing RP is that this article is sourced from lots of different media sources all over the globe. Not every news group has access to the same information, so by us agrigating all these different groups we get more info than any single media organisation, that is what makes us supperior, that and the fact we have more people working on this 24hrs a day than most media groups. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a "defining moment" to qualify for entry. It's not a defining moment for Twitter or Flickr, yet no one is disputing their inclusion. This isn't even self-referencing in the sense that it's meant - see point number five at Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, so invoking that is wrong. And yes, we're free to carry on mentioning Wikipedia, should it be the case that it continues to appear multiple times in media analyses of the incidents. I'm going to add two more sources. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a defining moment for Twitter or Flickr, they shouldn't be mentioned either, but I'm not aware of another event where they have been mentioned that prominently. For Wikipedia, however, such mentions can be found at every such event, at least since the 2004 tsunami. Including them in our articles is pathetic navel-gazing. Margana (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

if the media says wikipedia is ahead of traditonal media, then that's what the page should say, even if it does not make sense to us. We should never do original research. --vvarkey (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just a passing reference in articles focusing on twitter and flickr. Hardly notable. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The role of sources of information outside of the traditional media have been discussed numerous times, and Wikipedia has been included in most of these. To omit this information because we're being too vigilant about self-referencing or "pathetic navel-gazing" is to omit details for the wrong reasons (the media certainly felt it necessary to mention). My reasons for wanting to keep it are perhaps the same as your reasons for wanting rid - for objectivity's sake. It would hold back that section's development too. You're right that Wikipedia is mentioned only briefly, but it is mentioned consistently. We should perhaps increase the information about Twitter/Flickr and keep the line on Wikipedia as it is. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not mentioned consistently. Hardly more than 3 serious sources. Remember that Google News includes all kinds of blogs and other non-reliable sources. Many more serious sources mention Twitter. Margana (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that compared to the coverage Twitter has received, the coverage of Wikipedia is much smaller. But this is still a work-in-progress, and that does not make the info about Wikipedia invalid on this article. Just increase the amount of information on Twitter etc., to fix the problem. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that mentioning Twitter is easily justified, since there are enough articles which are primarily or exclusively about that. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is just mentioned in passing in 3 serious articles. (You have additionally cited Wired, which is too specialized to be relevant here, and a blog which merely quotes 5 words from that same Wired source - not even an entire sentence!) Margana (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are very rarely used but Wired is a perfectly useable RS for its area of speciallised knowledge ie the internet. That now makes four different sources from four different news organisations on three different continents, give it a rest already. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wired is usable in principle, but not in this context. The whole idea at issue is "alternative media becoming mainstream", so you have to use mainstream sources to certify this. Wired can only be expected to mention Wikipedia all the time. And what you keep missing is that all these references are passing one-liners. Twitter gets entire articles - that's notable. Mere mentions of Wikipedia aren't. Margana (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If a lot of them mention it in one line, why can't we? It provides greater context and information -- it's useful for this, I wouldn't enter a line about Wikipedia on its own. And notability is not part of the criteria for adding or removing information from an article, only on whether a topic is worthy of an article. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First, it's not a lot. Second, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The standards are different. The self-reference in this article including the refs was longer than any of the actual mentions in the sources! Margana (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

I object to the characterization of people in this article as terrorists, per WP:TERRORIST. After all, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Right? Right? Please change this protected article accordingly! 198.169.65.1 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. Lot of articles linked in the article have attributed the gunmen as terrorists supposedly from Deccan Mujaheddin, which may not be a real group. Go argue with anti-terrorist experts, the victims and Indian security forces if you disagree. Ominae (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think it fits in this case. See the first para of Terrorist. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

People who commit acts of terrorism are, by definition, terrorists. The large-scale murder of non-combatants with no government allegiances short of a passport constitutes terrorism. It's both inappropriate and incorrect for you to say otherwise, at least in the article. You can spout whatever stupidity you'd like; just don't do it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.207.137 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Any labelling as such must be cited as did not happen in the opening, and NPOV does demand strict neutrality in our reporting. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes squeakbox, no source i've seen says these people are not terrorist while most do discribe this as a terrorist attack carried out by terrorist. So NPOV and RS rules say we call them terrorists. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is, by definition, a subjective term. It cannot be neutral. If "reliable" sources are claiming that they are terrorists, then these sources are simply biased. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is, by definition, and, actually, quite objectively, "Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives." This was clearly the case here. 65.2.242.199 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of dead and injured - why u removed that link?

Names of dead and injured - why u removed that link?

Can "u" spell the word "you"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.39.177 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

can u place this link on the main page

Hi, This list is at mumbai help blog.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_esnE-3Z3p-HehX1YOZIaw

Also the main page at mumbai help.

Terrorist were British borned Pakistanis according to the Indian government

Also, they're tying the 7/7 London bombings with this terrorist group.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popular/2008/11/28/seven-mumbai-gunmen-are-from-leeds-and-hartlepool-115875-20932675/

I'm not convinced that the Tabloid mirror is a good enough source for this article, i'd like to see a more reputable source say this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But "borned"? Its "born"... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With fairness, several newspapers in the UK have implied British connections, including those with right-wing political positions. A recent BBC article however claims: "Maharashtra State Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh says there is no evidence British citizens were involved in the attacks, despite earlier reports". Perhaps it's a worth a mention when more reputable information comes clear. I'll agree it's too early now - most of the newspapers seem to have just made up stories from nowhere. Ginger Warrior (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Ginger Warrior

Very unusual kind of serial terrorist attack

This is the first time that I hear that a terrorist attack lasts more than a full day, indeed it is lasting more than three days. The Main Page's "In the news" headline should specify this, otherwise people would not get the right feeling of what is going on in Mumbai. I frankly have to admit that it didn't catch my attention right away. At first I thought "What? Another multiple car bombing far away from home?", but much later a workplace pal told me "But CNN is crazy about it!". Aldo L (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AMAZING PICTURES OF THE EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN MUMBAI

Warning, some pictures are gored. Click the black pictures at your own risk.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/mumbai_under_attack.html

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.7.122 (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1 singaporean hurt

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_308265.html At least one had been hurt: He wanted to be known only as Mr See, and when asked about his limp and heavily-bandaged right foot as he emerged from Changi airport's Terminal 2 with only a laptop in hand, he said he had been cut by glass while fleeing the Oberoi hotel.

Please update main page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.214 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ITS OVER

It's finally over!!!!!!!!!! Rejoice!!!!!!!!!!! ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. Everyone thought it was over the first night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.56.45 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks to Marcos, NSG, Mumbai Police and also Mumbai Fire brigade.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 06:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pics

GUYS I HAVE FOUND SOME MORE PICS OF ATTACKS ON WWW.DNAINDIA.COM WEBSITE please add those pics. --Srkhan2 (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

JUST GO TO [www.dnaindia.com] AND U WILL FIND ALL THE IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Its mumbai's Worst Newspaper--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 06:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for images

I think images from few news sites can be used through fair use rationale. for ex see Osama's image. Can others check this, this article badly needs photos. Bluptr (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. At least the photo of the attacker should be uploaded. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not use fair use image for articles covering current events since we tend to dirrectly compete with the people selling them.Geni 18:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article name

It is custumary in wikipedia to put the year when using dates on the title, and only add month if there are other events. Should we rename this article to 2008 Mumbai attacks, or have there been other significant attack in Mumbai? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that we have a toothless psuedosecular Congress government at the center and in Mumbai, there is a good chance that another attack might happen. And then we'll have an article called December 2008 Mumbai attacks. So, let's wait and watch. If no attack happens till the end of 2008, we can move the article. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith disturbing... but seriously, shouldn't it be the other way around? After all, we don't have crystal balls... So, I am not convinced the current title is good. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? WP:CRYSTAL would suggest that we shouldn't assume this event is the most significant attack in Mumbai that occurred during 2008, and that we should wait until 2009 to rename it to 2008 Mumbai attacks. Switzpaw (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that it's customary. The article 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings is named for the date in which the event occurred. Switzpaw (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The 11 July title is very important. The blasts were popularly referred as 7/11. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 08:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what about 13 September 2008 Delhi bombings? Switzpaw (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't want it confused with the 27 September 2008 Delhi blast, do you? Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And before September 27th was it renamed to 2008 Delhi bombings? Switzpaw (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This was born in order to help with alphabetical listings, such as categories. For example, if you got to Category:Conflicts in 2007 you would see:

• 2007 Bagram Air Base bombing
• 2007 Bersih rally
• 2007 HINDRAF rally
• 2007 Helmand province incident
• 2007 Lebanon conflict
• 2007 Zimbabwean political crisis

Same if you pick other years. Or if you pick categories of events other than conflicts, such as natural disasters.

While adherence changes when dates themselves are part of the generally recognized name (ie as September 11 attacks) or due to consensus, most articles on events and conflicts follow this standard. I think we should unless a compelling argument is made. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A compelling argument is that 2008 isn't over yet and you don't know what's going to happen next month. So the standardization that you suggest is a band-aid to help with alphabetization? Sounds like a bad precedent. Switzpaw (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So you have a crystal ball? That said, this format and precedent is not invented by me, many articles in the {{Campaignbox India terrorism}} has a number of articles that follow this format, and some have done so for years: 2001 Indian Parliament attack,2008 Agartala bombings. So if the precedent is bad, take it up with whoever invented it, and try to change all those other articles. I just happen to agree that the precedent is a good one. Are you the only one opposing this? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No Spanish died yet

I see in the column what in Spanish is write 1 death and 1 injured, this is an error because are 2 spanishes persons injured and they're still alive. In the case what one Spanish had died would promise to be in the news like a breaking news. --Ravave (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2 persons injured are an Spanish marriage [4] --Ravave (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Singaporean/Chinese death

CNN says one Chinese death and doesn't refer to any Singaporean casualties. I haven't found any other source that says one dead Chinese, OR that says one dead Chinese AND one dead Singaporean. The Singaporean hostage who was killed was a Chinese Singaporean. Please KIV this because I think if CNN is basing its tally on ground reports rather than from official figures from the authorities, they may have reported the dead Singaporean as Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantompong (talk • contribs) 08:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nr of Terrorists

Do we have a final list of nr of terrorists? Mumbai times reports 10 terrorists. Other news reports 60+ terrorists. Wikipedia adding together seems to make 15+ terrorists? How many were there really? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.120.56 (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A reminder to never use wikipedia as a sole source.

Wikipedia attempts to be a collection of verifiable information from reliable sources.

We do not engage in original research. The idea in an article such as this, is that by collecting sources in a systematic manner, a clearer picture emerges, but wikipedia - and I says this as a long time editor and supporter - is very unreliable for up-to-date information (In fact, [[wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source by wikipedia). For up-to-date info try the media links provided at the end of this article. Of course, as time progresses, and reliable sources have a clearer picture, wikipedia will emerge as *the* place in the web to get this information. Now, we try to provide what seems to be the consensus of the reliable sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

@Cerejota - thanks for the comment. Just not sure how this is an answer to my question. Let me rephrase perhaps - should we have a section where different accounts of the number of attackers are listed? Not sure where you're based but trust me - if you're living in Mumbai at the moment an accurate number of attackers is quite interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.120.56 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not answering your question. I like your idea. What we have done in other conflicts is put a range in some info box with sources, and in some extreme cases (ie huge differences among sources) we have also put multiple figures. I am seeing this info box lacks a box for quantity of attackers... I will try to fix this... thanks for the suggestion.

Try to think about this: if the fog of war is so thick even in the place of the action numbers are unreliable, imagine what is to a wikipedia editor a world away! All we have to go is sources, and if the sources can't agree, neither can we. I do invite you to join with an account (as this page is semi-protected), and search the web for sources, and help maintain the numbers updated from reliable and verifiable sources. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

@Cerejota - thanks again for your quick response and your consensus approach. Represents the best of wikipedia philosophy as I see it. I understand what you mean about 'fog of war'. Here in Mumbai things are just slowly getting back to normal. As a foreigner in Mumbai we've been frantically scrabbling for any information we can get and Wikipedia is always a great source. I've use wikipedia for last 5 years on daily basis (my company's rolling out a knowledge management system based on media-wiki based on me and a few other's recommendations). However I don't feel comfortable editing on pages - just on comments pages. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.120.56 (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I worked on the template and made some changes (including a suggestion from someone else form before), so I am putting it up. Keep these figures coming! I am adding some basic ones without sources, and try to source them as we go. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the ref saying 50-60: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1041684.html GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

November 2008 Mumbai attacks → 2008 Mumbai attacks — It is customary in wikipedia in general, and on the {{Campaignbox India terrorism}} campaingbox, to name attacks such as this with the year, unless we have multiple attacks in the same year. Right now 2008 Mumbai attacks is a redirect. — Cerejota (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - because there were series of attacks earlier, and there can be series of attacks again within 2008.. you never know when the terrorists will strike. So I feel having the month is necessary Bluptr (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What earlier attacks? If there where earlier attacks this year which have their own page in wikipedia, this is a moot debate then and the title remains - but if there weren't any, then your argument is a Straw man, and you need a new argument. As to the possibility of future attacks, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (deja vu!), we do not name articles based on the future, but on the past; if a new attack happens, we can rename the article, nothing lost. However, the current name is not in keeping with long-standing community practice (I don't want to WP:BITE, but please respect the fact that this community has existed for many years): we should try to bring it to standard sooner rather than later. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per cerejota. But I would prefer Battle of Mumbai --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  There seems to be some confusion here. Cerjota supports the move. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This has been called as "Mumbai attacks" by the Western media, although when I glimpse at Indian media it's either called "War in Mumbai" or "Battle of Mumbai". Presently, that's how it is called so it has to be moved to either of the three (my preference is to call it as the locals call it in English). If another attack happens before the year ends then we should consider adding "November 2008" or any attack after that we should consider adding "2008." –Howard the Duck 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: What if the Government declares the attacks as Black November attacks. Then the November may be very important for the article. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If pigs flew, we would all need umbrellas. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Equally perplexed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: We do not want more attacks in 2008 but the month is important here. Since it extended of multiple days we are not using date here. Indoresearch (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per the fact that September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks includes the entire date (although interestingly it doesn't include the location). The month is necessary here unless something happens there such that the situation continues into December (since it is the 29th already!). ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that's a redirect. Right now 2008 Mumbai attacks is a redirect. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks could not go with the geographic area of the attack because the attack took place in three different places. If they only attacked Pentagon, trust me, it would not be known as the "September 2001 Washington attacks", but the "Pentagon Attacks". In any case, it is now clear that these attacks are not continuing into December. So should we assume that you changed your mind and now support the page move? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. Oppose. The name should be precise to identify the date in which the attacks occurred. There is no reason we can't wait until 2009 to make the change: another event may occur in December or a popular name for the attacks may develop. I believe that WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENT should be interpreted to mean that we should be prudent. Changing the name to 2008 Mumbai attacks presupposes that this event is the most significant attack in Mumbai in 2008, and that's impossible to know until 2008 is over. The only compelling argument to change the name is that it will aid in alphabetization. That idea is in itself flawed considering that several articles about similar events specify a precises date for their title, for different reasons, resulting in a convention that cannot be uniformly applied to solve that problem. Switzpaw (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Another dimension to consider is the question of popular opinion. To a large degree there will be an association of these attacks with the month that they took place. I'd be in favour of keeping the title as it is for the short-term, seeing what trends emerge in how the attacks are referred to, and modifying the title if there is consensus support in 2009. Kaushik twin (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm unsure if the propose rename is ideal but it's better then the current name. "November" has not generally been part of the name given to the attacks. Sometimes think just catch on and sometimes they don't. For the attacks on the World Trade Center for some reason the exact date, as September 11 atacks, caught on. In this case, for some reason the month never really caught on. The arguments opposing are silly. There might be another terrorist attack this year, but there might be another one this month. November is not over yet. We have to go with the current name given to the attacks. If the name changes due to another attack, then we can change it. Any analysis based on potential future events is violative of WP:CRYSTAL. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Being concise with respect to the naming of the article is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. On the contrary, the proposed new name is speculative and the type of practice that WP:CRYSTAL discourages. Waiting until 2009 is an appropriate way to keep a historical perspective. Switzpaw (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Its most ironic that your arguments work against you. The proposed rename is the more concise name. In addition, the current name is more violative of wp:crystal than the new proposal. There are two possibilities: either there will be another terrorist attack this year in Mumbai or there won't be another terrorist attack this year in Mumbai. If there will be another terrorist attack this year (in December but not in November) the current name will be the correct name. If there won't be another terrorist attack this year the proposed name will be the correct name. So either way some "crystalling" is required. The name that requires less crystalling is ideal. So let me ask you, what is more likely, that there will be another terrorist attack in December of 2008 or there won't be?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No clue if there will be another attack. You could 1) Change the name now and risk having to change it to something else if another event occurs in Mumbai in 2008 or 2) Wait until 2009 when you have a better historical perspective. You'll be guaranteed to only have to change the name once. Option 2 seems far less ridiculous to me, but what do I know. Switzpaw (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

When naming an article the fundamental question is what is the correct name at the time. At this time, the events are not generally referred to as the "November Mumbai attacks", just the "Mumbai attacks". So although we are "risking" a rename if there is another terrorist attack in Mumbai in December, this "risk" is preferable to current incorrect name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You've just brought something new to the table, that "2008 Mumbai attacks" is the popular name, and I could buy into that. That point wasn't raised by the editor bringing forth the proposal. All in all, this is a petty debate, but it's really irksome that WP:CRYSTAL is being spun in the wrong way here. Switzpaw (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Petty debates are what we do around here :-) And I agree about the wp:crystal spinning. Editors are claiming that wp:crystal is violated if we assume that there won't be another a terrorist attack in Mumbai in December, while ignoring the fact that current name is a greater wp:crystal violation because it assumes that there will be another terrorist attack in Mumbai in December. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: There were attacks earlier in the year, in "2008." Epson291 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• In Mumbai?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Please read WP:NAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the straw man arguments. There where no notable attacks earlier in 2008 in Mumbai. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Startling Questions - Editors, please note and correct if necessary

Number of arrests

1. How many terrorists were arrested? When I say terrorists I mean people who were the shooters / bombers and not suspects. The article says 4 (2 in Girgaum Chowpatty, 2 in Tardeo). But there is no firm word on that number (4). The only confirmed arrest is that of Azam Amir Kasav while he was on his way to Girgaum Chowpatty in a stolen car.

2. Please refer to citation 35 that is supposed to substantiate the arrest of 2 terrorists in Girgaum Chowpatty. It does not say anything like that. It clearly says 2 terrorists were killed in Girgaum Chowpatty, and 2 arrested in Tardeo.

3. More recent news confirmed that one terrorist was arrested on the way to Girgaum Chowpatty, while his teammate was killed. Initial reports (like citation 35) said that 2 people were killed in / on their way to Girgaum Chowpatty because both were initially believed to have been killed by police. Only later it was discovered that one was still alive and he was treated and taken into custody. (latest news Source)

4. OK so Girgaum Chowpatty case is settled - Confirmed one killed, one arrested (The name of the arrested is Azam Amir Kasav).

5. Now lets move on to Tardeo, where there are 2 citations showing that 2 people were arrested (see citation 35 & 36). I'm certain this is not true because those citations are from 26th Nov, at a time when information was still vague. There has been no newer reports mentioning about arrests allegdly made in Tardeo. If there are, kindly furnish an article (recent) with some information on them (eg. name, nationality, confessions, how and where he was arrested). Such information is already available for Azam Amir Kasav.

6. All in all, from what I understand to this point, only 1 arrest has been made. Remember, I'm not talking about suspects but the actual terrorists involved.

EDIT: Now confirmed, only ONE terrorist was arrested. Confirmed by Mumbai police cheif. source.

Arrested terrorist

1. Referring to this article, his name is spelled as Ajmal Amir Kasab, not Azam Amir Kasav - Now which is correct?

2. This article was taken from the Azam Amir Kasav page (citation 2). It says he's a native of Basthi (or Kasthi) village in Bangladesh, and not Faridkot, Pakistan. Apart from that, it says he is 18 years old, as opposed to this article that says he's 21. I personally feel the Bangalore Mirror source should be removed because it lacks credibility. Just observe: Paragraph 2, line 4 says "His exact name is yet to be ascertained". All this time, Azam is referred to as "He". Later in Paragraph 4, line 2 (all of a sudden, out of nowhere) they start referring to him as "Azam" (when they intially said his name is yet to be ascertained). It clearly shows it's an amateur article and it's not a suitable citation. Note that all these articles were published today, i.e. 29th Nov.

I hope the guys at Wikipedia can look into these on my behalf, since this article cannot be edited at the time being to protect its integrity from possible vandals since it's a hot topic.

All in all, this article has the content (it's very long and looks good), but lacks very basic facts eg. exactly how many people were involved, how many arrested, how many killed etc. in easy form (ie. table). Those details may be somewhere in the sea of words this article is full of, but what's needed is for a reader to be able to establish these basic facts at one glimpse, with no need to scan through the whole article.

Regards. 60.50.68.224 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Azam Amir Kasav" gets way more hits in google news, so I think that's the main spelling. BTW, since there is already a wikipedia article on "Azam Amir Kasav" I am creating a redirect for Ajmal Amir Kasab and putting the spelling in the article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's some news: Confirmation by Mumbai's police cheif that only 1 terrorist was arrested, 9 killed. source. Please update the article. 60.50.68.224 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Trimming the Introduction

The 3 intro paras have too much detail and need to be trimmed down to brief summaries.

any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Which senetences do you think need to be removed? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm thinking (I will move any deletions to appropriate sections (may need clean-up after):

The November 2008 Mumbai attacks are a series of ten coordinated attacks committed by Islamic militants, which began across Mumbai, India's financial capital and largest city, on 26 November 2008 and still had not been overcome by 29 November.[10] The attacks have been dubbed by media as "India's 9/11", an apparent reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.[11][12] At least 195 people[4], including at least twenty-two foreign nationals, have been confirmed dead and at least 327 have been injured.[5][13][14]

Ten terrorist were involved in the operation. There is controvery on who is responsible. A previously unknown organization identifying itself as the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility by email sent to news organizations.[3] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said the attacks probably had “external linkages,” believing that the attack could not have occurred without help.[16] On 28 November, police stated that three terrorists who had attacked the Taj Hotel confessed to being members of the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group,[17][18]

After two days of gunfire and explosions, the attack was incorrectly reported ceased as of the early morning of 28 November in Mumbai.[27][28] It was not until about 3 am on Nov 29 that Indian commandos stated that the Taj Hotel was under control.

Too. Short. Atleast the Hotels need to be mentioned. Can we wait for some more time. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

sure --vvarkey (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical ERROR

Guys, as pointed above in the "Startling Questions - Editors, please note and correct if necessary" section, THERE WAS ONLY ONE ARREST, NOT FOUR!!!

Please correct this critical error. I left the message hours back, seems there's inaction. If Wikipedia cannot handle this, then please open the page for commoners like me to edit.

Sources are provided above in case you think this is a fox's cry!! (anyway here's another: one)

60.50.68.224 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest creating an account. commoners - Who knows you may be the President of the United States? :) Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the table for now.--vvarkey (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Anyway I'm not any president or politician or billionaire or anyone of high profile if anyone wondered. I'm a commoner in Wikipedia, not a powerful moderator or administrator or bureaucrat. But I feel Wikipedia should listen to what commoners say for it to be a better place. Take care. Regards, 60.50.68.224 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dawood Ibrahim's and ISI's involvement?

Sources have stated that Dawood Ibrahim might have funded the attacks, or might have even planned the massacre... As well ISI (Pakistan's spy agency is also accused of funding and providing logistics for the attacks). Shouldn't both Dawood Ibrahim and the ISI be listed in the list of Suspected perpetrator(s).

1 of the sources - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3768907.cms 96.52.193.72 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Why don't you create an account and add it yourself? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I surely will, thanks man... 96.52.193.72 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Only Dawood. NOT ISI since it is the top military agency of Pak. May lead to disastorous consequences. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, dawood only unless the indian goverment blames the ISI 96.52.193.72 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image fonts

The fonts used in the image of the map of Mumbai need changing. On a small scale (such as when viewing on the page itself), the letters overcrowded themselves and look terrible. I think it may have to do with being a serif font. Unfortunately, I also think it has to do with the file being an svg. The old png looked much better, though the letters could have been a bit bigger. Can we get the svg font changed so they are more readable and less annoying? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

True. I replaced the svg with png. If someone fixes the prob then put it back. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the SVG may be that rsvg (that wikipedia uses to render the things) may not support the font in question so is falling back on the default.Geni 18:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Should Operation Black Tornado be merged into this article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be the discussion might be more stable at Talk:Operation Black Tornado. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

actually wikipedia merge process requires that the thread be in the "merge to" article WP:MERGE. "Ignore all rules" doesn't apply here. But Brewcrewer please do this right and use the templates... Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't IAR apply? It would be most ironic if you respond with a rule. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Anyone will have a hard time convincing my ass that that WP:MERGE somehow keeps anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia; so OBEY THE MERGE. Irony is sweeeet!!! ;) Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ricky's initial point was that he thinks the discussion will be more stable - thus making WP easier to "improve and maintain" - at the other article's talk page. A very valid point, IMO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this silly motive to create an article for Operation Black Tornado that Brewcrewer is trying to do here? How do we justify an article that has only one line? Redirect until there's enough material for having an article. You're just making wikipedia look silly and not to mention, redundant. Why dont we do a vote here (or whatever its called). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Merge: There's not enough material on Operation Black Tornado. Redirect until this can have enough content to justify its own article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

This quickly growing article, has now been nominated as a Good Article. Any person who has not significantly contributed to the article is welcome to review it. Therefore, I cannot review it, and I am calling out to all reviewers to pass or fail this article. Thanks, Whaatt (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC) ŋ

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:November 2008 Mumbai attacks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am quick-failing this article. There is still a cleanup tag in the "Events at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel" section that is still valid and the attacks only ended today, so this article has obviously not reached its potential. Take care of the cleanup banner and I would give it at least a couple weeks so that you can gain more news coverage on the aftermath. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, please wait a couple of weeks before repeating the GA nomination. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about the current event rule when nominating for GA. Thanks, and I'll be sure to nominate it again in a month or so after it has gotten better...Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading text

I live in the conflict zone, so I can easily point out several errors in the text as the AFP/Reuters reports are not accurate as far as the locations are concerned.

1. There was no shooting at the Police Headquarters. The headquarters is located several hundred metres north, and that is not the path the terrorists took. The terrorists took an eastern path, walking past the Times of India building, and past the rear portion Azad Maidan police station. This is the police station that the source actually refers to. Adjacent to the Azad Maidan police station, and a little more to the east is the Cama Hospital. There there entered, hid in the bushes, killed the police officers, and moved to the front side, (main road) towards Metro Adlabs, You can verify my statements on Google Earth.
2. Mazagon & Nepean Sea explosion needs a credible source
3. No consulates are in New Delhi, only embassies are. So please change it to the Israeli Embassy.
4. It's Metro Adlabs now, not Cinema or Theatre
5. Colaba has an eastern and western coastline. So this statement get to the coast at Colaba needs to be clarified (both coastlines were used as per a "Times Now" interview with a fisherman)
6. ZAKA needs to be mentioned
7. The initial gang war theory needs to be mentioned
8. St. George Hospital needs to be mention along with Bombay Hospital (mentioned)
9. The map is also not very precise.
10. MARCOS suffered casualties (per a press briefing given by them)
11. (CST) railway station; needs to be expanded that the maximum damage was at the long distance trains, not so much the local lines. By the time the terrorists had come to the local suburban platforms, people had escaped.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The map you can update yourself. Errors with the map data itself can be corrected at www.openstreetmap.org. Other issues you probably need sources for... EAi (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Further support for this point http://www.indianexpress.com/news/they-threw-salaskar-kamte-and-karkare.../392336/ Thelostlibertine (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Section on Operation?

Can't there be a small section of Operation Black Tornado and Cyclone? 96.52.193.72 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We've integrated that info into the rest of the article. I think it flows better this way. Feel free to point out here any new information that you think should be added. The Squicks (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How many bad guys

I changed the section to Unclear, sources say between 10 and 25. The Times of India has said that there was at least 20 of them, while other sources have said 10. Indian officials have said up to 25. Until we know for sure, we should keep it like this. The Squicks (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday we had a source saying 50-60.[5] This is why I don't like short talk page archive durations. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Date error under "Responsibility"

"However, Indian police stated on 19 November that they have no evidence to confirm this." ... this should read 29 November? 86.172.33.199 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The Squicks (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maharashtra NSG

No mention of deshmukh's proposal to create a NSG for the Maharashtra? A fairly notable reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.246.110 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

remove western media propganda:al quaida.

the Indian media is not mentioning this.the blame is on LET.the western media wants to sensationalize it

Oh, hai. Yes, erm, click here: WP:SOAPBOX. That said, sources are sources. If a reliable verifiable source says it was Santa Claus, then we have to say it. Verifiability, not truth. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)