Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

WikiProject Terrorism tag logo outdated

The WikiProject Terrorism tag logo is obsolete.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)
Better put something neutral then, like a bomb exploding. - Xufanc (talk) 10:01, 30 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)
This definition is close but not completely correct I think. The word 'terror' means fear so I think this one is better: "spreading fear by perpetrating violence against non-combatants, to achieve military or political objectives". The idea of terror is to create fear. Of course, others may have a better definition. :) 87.59.79.235 (talk) 17:36, 30 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 [1] --Ravave (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ravave is right. No spaniards are accounted as dead. Just a married couple stays in the hospital. Rafael Beaus (according www.elmundo.es) or Rafael Deaux (According www.elpais.es) and his wife María Rosa Romero or Rosa María Romero. www.ndtv.com cited a Maria Trosssa as dead. It seems to be María Rosa mispelled. --Mcovas (talk) 20:51, 30 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) according to chinese official report ,there are no chinese dead in attacks.129.13.186.3 (talk) 17:14, 30 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)

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)

Regarding whether to include the article on A.A. Kasav into the main article Nov 2008 Mum Attack - I think that would be a good idea. There is a lot of good and very interesting information under the first-mentioned article, which is not available in the main-, and which is obviously very relevant to the main article. He is also the ONLY survivor, therefore of central interest - and will continue to be so, as investigations get along - thus, it will become more and more natural to include him, and other details of the investigation, into the main article. (I don't know how to do this myself, however; or I can't for lack of privileges.)

Terrorist Kasav is the one nabbed.Source 1 Source 2 Nghtyvbz (talk) 18:27, 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)

Do not remove tags

Please do not remove merge tags from the article page. These tags should remain in place until a discussion takes place in the correct thread. Removing them is extremely bad form and a form of vandalism. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mexican woman killed in the attack

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/559325.html

Confirmed by Mexican Ministry of Foreign Relations. Please add to relevant section as article is locked.

 Done. May I request a person who understands Spanish to confirm the News. KensplanetTalkContributions 06:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


A brief run through google translate confirms the source. I'd imagine someone familiar with Spanish will also review it at some point. Kaushik twin (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 Done Confirmed. Native speaker here. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath.

Home Ministe for center Mr. Shiveraj Patil has regined his post.--Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 07:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PM has accepted resignation. This need to be moved to aftermath in the main page. Source IBNLIVE--59.95.234.5 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

NDTV & IBNLIVE are having confirmed report that Maharastra CM and Home Miniter are to be removed within 24 hours. Source NDTV [1] --59.95.220.145 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Important Announcement.

I know Wikipedia is not a place for general Discussion. But I want give one info that:- "Times news group has decided that all people should try to wear black ribbon on aem on 1st Dec as a sign of Protest and condolance. I would request all Indians to tie black ribbon on their arm Thank you.--Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 07:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion but from where I should get this black ribbon.

Use any thing black even a black paper pice or even a Black thread or a black duck tape will do. Brother its not compulsary to ware. Emotions are more important than show off. --Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist Image

Hey we can uplode images of terrorist. Images capture on CCTV were give to press by government. According to our law. Pictures given to press can be used on websites if properly cited. Please comment.--Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 08:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. Images of Govt. are public domain images and can be use as far as Law is concern. --59.95.201.51 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IP address 59.183.164.226

IP adress 59.183.164.226 Mind your Toung and if you have so much itch in you then creat your own User account and then do edits. Or we will have to ban you.--Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 09:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • There is a lot of vandalism going on what happened to the semi protection status. Indoresearch (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We need "accurate" causality numbers

We keep switching to the death being 174 to 195 then back down. It says 174 deaths in the infobox but in the first paragraph it says 195. Many people are looking at this article for info and are probably getting confused with the deaths and injuries. DubaiTerminator (talk)

According to Police's website 125 died in attack http://www.mumbaipolice.org/daily%20crime%20report.htm download Press Release file and you will come to know.--Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (You will get Detail stats)

Possible Motives sub section

The possible motives sub section is pure speculation, there is no citation. I suggest it be deleted Dhruv 1884 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

removed --vvarkey (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jews, Israelis and Americans in Death Count

We need to find a better way to count the dead from Chabad house. Looking at the news articles, there seem to be five named victims. They include two dead with American and Israeli passports (Mr. Holtberg and Chroman), two Israeli-only passport holders (Mrs. Holtzberg and Orpaz), and one American-only passport holder of Jewish faith who lived in Jerusalem (Teitlebaum). Additionally there is an unnamed resident of Mexico for six total. I propose we list them by passport and not residence prior to coming to India (otherwise Mr. Holtzberg would be counted only as an American.)

In any case, I don't see five individuals with only Israeli passports having died -- despite the Israeli officials who seem to claim anyone who is Jewish as an Israeli. 72.255.49.7 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss the point, the terrorist obviously picked the Chabad house because it was Jewish. Reargun (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. I'm only trying to provide an accurate account of the nationality of the victims. Passports seems the easiest way to do that. However, the news reports keeping talking about 8 or 9 Israelis dying at Chabat house. That is wrong. 8-9 Jews were murdered there, and they had varying nationalities -- including Israeli, American, both, and others. Briansanders5 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The other question is whether we double-count, listing Israeli's at 4 and Americans at 6, or continue splitting them 4 Americans, 2 Israelis, and 2 Israeli-Americans. Briansanders5 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I'm making a timeline based on the info given in the chronology section. Nearly finished. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 15:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Map Location - Taj Mahal Hotel

The current location marked as Taj Mahal Hotel is incorrect. That location is actually the Maharashtra State Police Headquarters. The correct location of the Taj Mahal Hotel would be just above the capital "L" in Leopold Cafe on the map. Location verifiable at "maps.live.com" , "wikimapia.com" , "maps.google.com/maps". 3gatorbreath (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which FBI forensic material was prohibited?

NDTV reports that a "seven-member team of the FBI ... was detained due to miscommunication between Delhi and Mumbai airport officials. According to official sources, the US investigation agency team had come with special forensic equipment that is prohibited.... Five of the FBI officers have already come out of the Mumbai airport while the remaining two will be procuring their equipment back before coming out." (Emphasis added.)

What equipment was prohibited? Mass spectrometers? Polygraphs? Waterboards?

(Note: The FBI, unlike some government agencies known for their lesser accuracy, does not use waterboards.) GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

various anayltical standards would be one option. But little point in speculateing.Geni 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

do not vandilize talk page

Some one removed content from the talk page that I put. Do not do this... Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who?

There seem to be too many pro Indians here. All my contributions that even have a hint of something against India are being deleted. You must let information quoted from verifiable media sources to get through. What if it goes against India, people in the press have the right to give their points of view, which must be available at Wikipedia. I have my exams coming up. Wish I had time to follow all edits and discuss with users. I am giving up. Hoping someone neutral will come up, and stop this India-Only approach.Sabre centaur (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot blame anyone at the moment. Investigations into such incidents take time. Our judgments should not be based on "email by some one", or "suspicions by some one". Let us all be reasonable and not jump to conclusionsSabre centaur (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

@ Sabre centaur: 1. Who- with the latest development of the confession of the arrested terrorist and the prime minister of India officially blaming Pakistani elements (not necessarily the ruling Pakistani Government), things are pretty much clear who is behind these attacks. 2. Sources of info: We must be reasonable in what we write in Wikipedia. However, looking at your edits, it is clear that you are putting only those news from the Pakistani media that are trying to shift the focus on Indian capability by putting the blame on Indian security rather than on the terrorists. We must understand that failure of security agencies doesn't justify what the terrorists did. When we talk of 'reliable sources', it is for sure that the sources in Pakistan are definitely not getting more accurate information than the government sources, security agencies and media in Mumbai/India, at the receiving end and are conducting investigation at ground zero. 3. Please refer to Wiki::minor edit. Creating a new subsection is not a minor edit. 4. One should also refrain from inserting new text between an existing sentence and it's reference giving the misleading impression as if the reference is for this newly inserted text. Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's ridiculous that some users are inserting news from a Pakistani media doubting safety of India's Nuclear arsenal in the wake of terrorist attack in hotels :-D. Can anyone compare the security arrangement in a hotel to that in a Nuclear weapon site?!! Let us not reduce the standard of Wiki articles by putting irrelevant pieces of news items just because it appeared in some website. Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
@Srimanta.Bhuyan 1. I do not think you are the right person to doubt the accuracy of media sources of Pakistan. I think you are only focusing on media sources that are trying to shift the blame to Pakistan. I agree that the terrorists may be from Pakistan, but there are many facades and perspectives of this issue. Let us not make Wikipedia a place where only one point of view is shown. If somebody in the media has commented that Indian Security has flaws, it is an absolutely valid comment. Please let it come on Wikipedia. You can put references that comment against this, but you should not totally delete it. After all it is the point of view of some one, and if that some one is not from India, this does not make it an in valid point. We cannot say the Indian media has more access to the right information. Many journalists, representing a number of news agencies are there. Who has the right information, cannot be judged on the basis that he belongs to Indian media.
2. One should refrain from totally DELETING text entered by some one, when the text is based on reliable verifiable sources. It does not matter if it conflicts with YOUR point of view, or goes against India. Let people comment freely. Please do not just delete information written by some one. Give references, if you want, stating that the point of view may not be right. Wikipedia is not the place for taking sides. It is a place to gather information from all sources.Sabre centaur (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. My effort is to present the article in a neutral manner without including personal POV. Everyone has his own views. But we can't express that in an encyclopaedia. Please refer to the Wikipedia Note: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." That applies to all. So the editors should not take it personally. Thanks. Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


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.[2] -- 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. KensplanetTalkContributions 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. KensplanetTalkContributions 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
A few locations in South Bombay!=whole city.EaswarH (talk) 06:53, 1 December 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. KensplanetTalkContributions 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)
Because al-Qaeda follows Wahabbi Islam which is a strict subset of Islam,and their stated aim is to make the world a Caliphate(as [User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams] said) and kill the idol worshippers(Hindus and people following other religions which believe in idol worship) and establish the supremacy of Islam(their version of it anyway) in the world.EaswarH (talk) 06:53, 1 December 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. KensplanetTalkContributions 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,

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. KensplanetTalkContributions 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? KensplanetTalkContributions 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]]TalkContributions 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)
Why can people not face the truth? The extremists were Pakistan based. Lets face it! The terrorist caught is an Islamic from Pakistan Source. The interrogation unfolds the truth. He has agreed all the terrorist were Pakistan(now onwards mentioned as Pak) based and trained by LeT. Now, I don't say this claims Pakistan's involvement. Though I could not agree more to the fact that mostly all of the extremists groups(for e.g. LeT, HuM, JeM, etc.) are Pak based Source. Now should the Pak authorities/officials condemn their acts, why don't they try to break them? Why don't they finish off these groups that are breeding in Pak's own vicinity? Nghtyvbz (talk) 18:24, 30 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)
Actually,Urdu is a hybrid language derived from Hindi and Persian.EaswarH (talk) 06:56, 1 December 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
In actual non-academic usage, Urdu and Hindi are completely intelligble. However, in academics there is a high degree of diglossia (or tri-glossaia if you will). Please read articles on Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani for your information. 75.111.198.59 (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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.[2]

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.

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

I pity on people who don't even have a slight idea about the subject(Hindu religion-people wearing red thread, 'first of all its a thread no bracelet'. 'The thread Kalava/Mauli is wrapped around the wrist.') and start assuming. God bless them with brains. They should note that the terrorist/extremist who is caught in the pictures is caught-alive literally by the Indian Police and belongs to the religion Islam. Source. The man in the images is the extremist whose article on Wiki is requested to be merged. Secondly I request to people whoever reads the following, 'Please don't follow stereotypes/biased conclusions. Learn about the subject before pointing fingers at information that is likely to be false in nature.' As the image is not clear, I reckon it is a normal bracelet for example. Nghtyvbz (talk) 18:25, 30 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. KensplanetTalkContributions 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.

Reluctant Support. Responsible news organisations may be given as much importance as the government. But, I can see that there will be a lot of argument on what source is credible and what is not. 75.111.198.59 (talk) 09:29, 30 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


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.

Move request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)
I'm very much opposed to Battle of Mumbai. A battle is part of a war, and there is no war. This is just a terrorist attack. I would also not support anything like Mumbai Massacre of 2008 unless it becomes apparent that this is how it's known by locals and the media. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:19, 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. KensplanetTalkContributions 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)
This is not a perplexing statement. If the government gives it a reasonable nickname (and Black November attacks sounds convincing), I would be for a name change to that. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If they do I would also agree to a name change. But they didn't. See above, if pigs flew..............--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was completely rude and totally unnecessary. Considering Kensplanet created this article, lives in Mumbai, and has been constructive to this article, I'd expect some respect and maybe even some trust! I think it's about time the two of you (and I don't mean Kensplanet!) have some sit-down time with WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, WP:NPA, and especially WP:DBAD since you obviously could use the help. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I care not about who Kensplanet is, but what he says and does as a fellow editor. He has done some great things, no doubt. But he also said something entirely in the territory of "if". In wikipedia we tend to deal with verifiable, reliably sourced material from the past -even the immediate past- not in speculation about the future. What is so hard to understand about this?
Let me break it down: If pigs flew, we would need umbrellas. It is unlikely pigs will fly, but if they do, we will need umbrellas for all the shit. If the Indian government or the media in general called the attacks "Black September attacks", the we would have to name the page that. But they haven't, and they are unlikely to do this. In fact, the sources are overwhelmingly calling it the "Mumbai attacks".
The actions to be taken in both cases can be predicted, but the assumption made in both are at best highly speculative.
A good example of this is the article of one of the attackers that someone wanted merged, and I voted against the merge. Why? Because we can with no reservation state that this person will be in the news for a long time, and has now become a person of encyclopedic interest. What content will go in there, we cannot predict.
WP:CRYSTAL exist precisely to try and define what is a "good" prediction, one on which we can operate, and what is a "bad" prediction, that constitutes original research.
As to assuming good faith, I suggest you re-read the WP:AGF article: nothing there says we have to agree or that we cannot ridicule arguments that make no sense to us. Ridiculing an argument is not ridiculing the person who made it. It only says that we should assume all actions are in good faith. Including posting flying pigs, and ridiculing people, BTW. See Brewcrewer about the other things, because he said it right: "all the aforementioned wikilinks are violated when an editor falsely accuses another editor". In particular, WP:AGF in that case. Perhaps, in the future, approach me before you delete my content, or do some other action that demonstrates your good faith and good intentions, rather than assuming I have a negative opinion about someone. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So am I to understand that while I know you may have violated WP:NPA, I am to ignore it and always AGF? Might as well throw an IAR in there as well to cover all our bases, just in case. I'll refer you to this line in NPA: As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. All I ask for is polite and effective discourse, and you made it personal when labeling the quotation like it was a plaque to foolishness. Posting a picture of a flying pig and a labeled quote beneath it is not polite and it's certainly not constructive. I'm obviously not the only one bothered because the situation ended up as a Wikiquette alert.
I'd also prefer not to repeat myself, so I will direct you to the comment I made below under Switzpaw's last comment under Brewcrewer's original support bullet point. I think Switzpaw's assessment of WP:CRYSTAL is more correct, and I tried to emphasize that refusal to predict the future constitutes a better adherence (IMO, of course) to WP:CRYSTAL than what your argument seems to be getting at. Can we wait until 1 Jan 2009 to change the name? I have no problem with that and once we get there, without incident, there will be no question that these are the 2008 Mumbai attacks. It's just the timing right now. Hoping we can all be more civil, Wadester16 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I didn't delete any of your content; that was all done by others. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You gotta chillax. Because he lives in Mumbai and created the article doesn't mean his opinion on the article name is given more credence then another editor (see WP:OWN). Debunking someone's comment by way of analogy does not violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If anything, all the aforementioned wikilinks are violated when an editor falsely accuses another editor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anything I said warrants a WP:OWN reference. I just ask that a user be respected for 1) being a constructive user and 2) being a constructive user with expertise in the subject at hand. I said nothing about him being given more credence (is a re-read in order?), only that he be respected, period. While I'm aware that the image posted above is not your doing, you do reference it (and its preceding text) openly. There were also no accusations (especially false ones..?), only the suggestion that you read up on some basic WP guidelines since most of your comments on this page (oh, so many...) reek of superciliousness and sarcasm. Can't wait to finally "chillax"... ~ Wadester16 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you quit with your paternalistic hypocritical screeds. In the same damm paragraph where you ask me to respect another editor you tell me I "reek of superciliousness and sarcasm". Stop handing out irrelevant reading material and contribute constructively to this discussion. You can begin by explaining the rationale of arguing that "November 2008 Mumbai attacks" should be the name of the article because the Indian government might call it the "Black November attacks". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 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)
I had actually thought about the location(s) with respect to this argument when I wrote mine above, but didn't mention it. I felt that if the location were important enough it would be September 11 attacks on the United States so the location could still be included; but it's not because it's just so well-known. I think the date (mm-yy) and location are still important enough to be included in the title here. I'm still leaning towards an oppose though it might be considered a weak one. Either way, this argument had crossed my mind already when I originally voted. With respect to it not going into December, if you re-read my comment, I said a name change would be needed if it had gone into December. Since it has not, I would still oppose the page move based on that logic. And in their comment above, Cerejota is right: for some reason I thought I read exactly the link I posted above as the title on the page itself - guess not. Either way though, they didn't help their argument because the name you want to move this page to is already a redirect anyway (as is the one I mistakenly referenced above). I've also noticed that Wikipedia has an inherent Western bias, which makes sense since so many users are from North America and Europe, which I believe is the explanation that September 11 attacks is the simple and concise title of its respective article when others have more specific titles, especially when occurring outside of NA/Europe. Now you've got me rambling... ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:19, 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)
Look, this is kind of embarassing that I have to explain this to you, but a specific name, such as "26-29 November 2008 Mumbai attacks" is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation, because that time period has elapsed. "2008 Mumbai attacks" includes a duration of time that is IN THE FUTURE and hence may be a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I suppose you could look at it as a glass empty, glass full type of situation, but the fact you think "the current name is a greater wp:crystal violation" is kind of disturbing. That being said, I'll agree with you that 2008 Mumbai attacks is a more popular name. Switzpaw (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
^^^This is a great explanation of WP:CRYSTAL. While I see brewcrewer's points below, we're not predicting the future by keeping the name as it is, we are refusing to predict the future by keeping the name as it is. The fact that the situation occurred at the end of the month helps the case more because there is even less crystalling (if there were any to begin with). You're not appreciating that there is a refusal to predict (i.e. crystal) the future by using the name given. Therefore it is not a violation of crystal and introducing 2008 Mumbai attacks, or the like, would be an implicit crystal violation because 2008 is not yet over. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If the name of the article is the most natural and used term you would be right. However, the current name of the article is not the term used for the attacks. You can only claim that you're "refusing" to predict the future if the name is the most commonly used name. Any change of its natural term is an ipso facto prediction.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
By your logic of "most natural and used term," September 11 attacks would simply be listed on wikipedia as 9/11 (redirects excluded). Can't we just wait until 1 Jan 2009 to rename this? I think you're twisting the meaning of WP:CRYSTAL and using it in ways that are exactly opposite of those intended. Are you doing this just to get your way or do you need to have some one-on-one time with WP:CRYSTAL to get reacquainted? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about "embarassing" [sic] me. I'm that not sensitive. While an exact date is not an explicit crystal violation, it is an implicit crystal violation. The only reason for an exact date is that there might more terrorist attacks in the same city later in the month and/or later in the year. Indeed, the most prevalent reason given for the current name is that "there might be more terrorist attacks in Mumbai this year". This argument is as crystal as it can get. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There were attacks earlier in the year, in "2008." Epson291 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Reconsidered, per what the Western media is calling it and per 1993 Bombay bombings. Epson291 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's only "2008" then readers might think the attacks went on for a whole year but if it's "November 2008" people won't think the attacks went on for a whole month. The logic? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is one of the major terrorist attack in Mumbai after 1993. As 1993 attack was called, "1993 Mumbai Blast" same way we should have "Mumbai Attack 2008" or like that. --59.95.201.51 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
— 59.95.201.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Matt57, Since this is not a vote, but a discussion, care to elaborate?. It is pretty difficult to discuss if you don't say anything. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason is obvious as stated above. You're assuming that there will be no attacks in the rest of the year. For now this is accurate. If you use 2008 right now, it also gives an impression its about some attacks that could have happened before November. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Name one attack that happened before November? Straw man again. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You forgot to sign in. Give me proof that there wont be any more attacks in 2008 and I'll give you the names of other attacks in 2008. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. Fixed, ooops.
  2. The inverse is not the same as the reverse.
    1. We know for certain that no attacks have happened before this one in 2008 in Mumbai.
    2. We do not (and cannot) know for certain if additional attacks will happen.
There is a difference between making a decision based on what you know, and a decision made based on what you feel might happen. I like to deal in facts, not speculation. That is why I say, lets change the article name, and then if there is another attack, we can change it back. We act upon what we know, not what we speculate might happen.
I also agree on suspending this discussion until January 1st if other editors, including most of those who discussed here, agree to do so. Otherwise, this discussion is still open. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree as I had proposed twice already. The easiest solution imaginable... ~ Wadester16 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Consensus above indicates most people oppose the move. Please respect consensus and yes, wait till the end of the year before restarting this discussion. I also removed the image again which you had reinserted even though somoene already removed it because its just plain rude. Do you want me to start using images too to make my point? No, so dont do it yourself too. Keep it out. I cant believe the small issues that some people focus on endlessly instead of using their time to do something more useful. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:32, 1 December 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)
Please read WP:DBAD, WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, and WP:NPA before making harsh remarks about other users or when frustration sets in when dealing with other users you disagree with. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I disgree my comment violates any of those, however, you are entitled to an opinion, and if you feel strongly you should attempt to raise it via the appropriate channels. However, if you (or anyone) removes my contributions (or anyones) to a talk page for any reason other than archiving, I will raise a procedure in the notice board for vandalism. We do not censor, PERIOD. You might disagree with a comment, even strongly disagree, but you have no right to remove it from view. That is disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So I don't have to repeat myself all over again: [3]. Interestingly, WP:CENSOR only references articles. Not once do the terms Discussion page or talk page appear. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest postponing the discussion for a few days. Let's see what name emerges as the dominant way of referring to the attacks and then decide what to call the article per WP:NAME (So far, from what I've seen, the most predominant name is Mumbai attacks or Mumbai terror attacks). Perhaps it is better not yank the article around as the nature and ramifications of the event crystallizes. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Specially to wait for verifiability to increase, as the sources are all over the place, and a lot of the verifiability is lost in contradictions. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Azam Amir Kasav

I don't think there is enough to substantiate an article in itself on that page as of right now. The information most likely needs to be weeded down and placed on this page. Thoughts? Comments? Yanksox (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be merged. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No way, maybe there can be a page detailing the 10 terrorist, instead of just 1 survior of the 10. Besides this November 2008 Mumbai attacks is too big. So we cant put all the info about Azam from Faridkot on this page. 202.92.43.51 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree it is too early to merge them as there will be many sources of information and it is too early to decide which is correct. Reargun (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - the article is too big & we need to move stuff out rather than in --vvarkey (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Disagree. This guy is the only identified attacker so far, and this is highly notable. These attacks are probably the most notable news in the world right now, and a key participant that while notable only for this event, will remain central to its continued developing story. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree- There will be more news about the arrested terrorist when he is prosecuted upon. (this is not wp:crystal as there will definitely be a court case against Azam Amir Kasav) Whatever happens in the court/what punishment he gets will be added to the article. Ofcourse, this will be notable and enough to merit a standalone article. Instead of moving the text back and forth I think we should let the article stay as it is. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree- This guy, Azam Amir Kasav, is of major importance. How much less would the world know had he been killed. His day will come and his contribution to our understanding is deserving of an article. Don't merge this guy into the main article - that makes him too obscure. What does it take to remove the "merge" banner? Can I just go and do it as it seems to have no support. -hydnjo talk 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree—This guy is the sole cowardly LeT terrorist to be captured alive, has provided vital clues, and of course the article is too big now. -- Bluptr (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Azam Amir Kasav for additional merger comments. -hydnjo talk 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/default.aspx
  2. ^ Mumbai, il giallo del braccialetto (= "Mumbai, the mystery of the armlet")
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Mumbai_attacks/Archive_3&oldid=1088270987"