Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Old/redundant/corrected info

There are some initial information in the article which are later confirmed/corrected by many other sources. Those newer info have been already inserted in many parts of the article. That is making the initial info redundant. Can we think about cleaning up those- unless they seem to be of any specific importance in the context? A small example is in "Attribution" para: "Initially, some media reports had attributed these terrorist attacks to Lashkar-e-Taiba...". This was the immediate media report, which has later been reported by many other government/intelligence/media sources and already included in the article. This sentence is perhaps of no sigficance any more as it is already reported by the Indian gov., US intelligence and in many more references... This could be considered in the next clean-ups... Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

British Deaths?

"Andreas Liveras, a British yachting tycoon (of dual Greek Cypriot and British citizenship), was among those confirmed killed." Why are there no British deaths in the fatalities table? I would add it myself but I get the feeling it is so for a reason.--SaintDaveUK (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. Andreas Liveras though had dual citizenship, was British. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes

1) Please do not restore in this article the tables at Timeline of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. They where moved because the article is too big.

2) While I agree to describe the attackers as terrorists, because their actions were terrorism, in general I defend WP:TERRORIST when speaking about groups. However, I do not object noting that States consider them terrorists, if sourced.

3) Please read WP:HEAD for an explanation of the header style. In a heading called "Attacks" a sub-heading called "Nariman House" implies the "At the", so it is not necessary. Its all about context.

4) As explained, if a heading is empty, we should expand with narrative and link to a subpage or related article.

5) I agree with removing the subheadings in "Casualties", they proved redundant.

Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Azam Amir Kasav AfD

Azam Amir Kasav has been nominated for deletion. Please participate. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Benefit Concert

This benefit concert was held to raise money for the victims of the attack:A Billion Hands Concert. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Too long - move some material out

I am getting warnings that this page, at 124 KB, is too large. Some of the material seems like too much detail and could be moved out:

Terrorists and Confessions of a Captured Terrorists - much of this material could be moved into the Azam Amir Kasav page. Comments?
Detail about the political fallout in the "Criticism of politicians and resignations" section is already summarized in the table. No need to keep the rest of the text. Comments?

--bostonbrahmin 17:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

"Confessions of a Captured Terrorists" is a very important and integral part of the topic and should NOT be moved away. I am sure a bit more structuring of the texts (which I can see is already underway) will make the article compact and clear.
In "Criticism of politicians and resignations" section, facts repeated from the table may be deleted. The news about Kerala CM using derogatoty terms against the martyr's family should NOT be deleted. I don't understand where the humanity has gone now-a-days! (regarding the politician's comment). Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Confessions of a Captured Terrorist clearly belongs in the Azam Amit Kasav article. You can leave a summary of any info u feel is necessary in the main article.
Srimanta, I can understand your sentiments about the Kerala CM info, but frankly it should be on the Sandeep Unnikrishnan page, rather than here. It is not an integral part of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. We need to be objective rather than emotional.

--vvarkey (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to move material into the Azam Amit Kasav article, but somebody reverted my changes.
Is this article still "being restructured"? It's been marked this way for several days now. Can we get rid of the template that says so?

bostonbrahmin 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Revert the change back then... I will do so shortly if it still hasn't been restored.
By doing the changes, you are part of the re-structuring, as I said already, the tag is not a call to slow editing, it is a call to comment and talk about your edits. Thanks!

Taxi blast

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/394689/1/.html this article says

Two men, who opened fire at the city's main railway station, set off a timer to blow up the taxi which took them there in order to create confusion and cover their tracks.

is this the unexplained taxi blast at Vile Parle? The ref for the blast being unexplained is way old (Nov 26).

Vile Parle is a long way north from VT south bombay, but what about this one, which talks of 2 more attackers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3628614/Mumbai-attacks-police-admit-there-were-more-than-ten-attackers.html it says

Bhujangrao Shinde, deputy commissioner of Mumbai police, said that the two suspects were taken by taxi across Mumbai, just as the first attacks were launched on Nov 26. The taxi dropped the men at a bus stop in the north of the city.

--vvarkey (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

FBI's warnings before the attacks

Where should we put the info about the warnings that the FBI gave to the Taj Hotel Company about terrorists attacks that did take place? 202.92.43.51 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

a new section i'd say. there's quite a bit to be written about all the warnings. --vvarkey (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

reaction

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1961

can be add —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.252.87 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

TODO list for the person/people doing the reconstruction

Maybe add a brief comment here as is required by the template you put on the page - maybe tell other wikipedians how long you expect to take (a few minutes, a few hours, a few days?), give a brief description of your reconstruction plan, etc. ? Boud (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Mohammad Ajmal Amir's correct name: in the section Confession of a captured terrorist i think someone reverted back to the incorrect names which include "Kasav/Kasab/etc.". To whoever posted the reconstruction notice, please see Mohammad Ajmal Amir and the talk page for the references and discussion. One reference says that it was a police mistranslation, the other says that it was police administrative enthusiasm to find a surname where no surname existed, but both agree that Kasav/Kasab/Qasab/Kamaal/etc. is not part of Ajmal Amir's real name. Boud (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
1. i just saw that a CNN reference is presently used whose title starts Kasab is the son of Mohammed Amir Kasab... - which is rather ridiculous, but i think that's the sort of low reliability we can expect from something like CNN anyway. So i'll help out and recite three rather more serious references closer to the source here: <ref name="thehindu_ajmal_amir_name">{{cite news | first=Praveen | last=Swami | pages= | language =| title= Terrorist's name lost in transliteration | date=2008-12-06 | publisher=[[The Hindu]] | url=http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/06/stories/2008120661211200.htm |accessdate=2008-12-06}}</ref><ref name="timesIndia_copsgavename">{{cite news | first= | last= | pages= | language =| title=Mumbai cops gave Ajmal his surname | date=2008-12-07 | publisher=[[Times of India]] | url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Mumbai_cops_gave_Ajmal_his_surname/articleshow/3803029.cms |accessdate=2008-12-07}}</ref><ref name="timesIndia_kasavbutcher">{{cite news | first= | last= | pages= | language =| title=Cops called him 'Kasav' as dad was a butcher | date=2008-12-07 | publisher=[[Times of India]] | url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Cops_called_him_Kasav_as_dad_was_a_butcher/articleshow/3803542.cms |accessdate=2008-12-07}}</ref> - Boud (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
WARNING: Nobody has done any edits to the page for the past 3 hours leading up to just before 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC). i'm unlikely to search for whoever put up the notice talking about a reconstruction effort, but it sounds like s/he wants to even reserve the page while s/he is sleeping, having lunch, taking the dog for a walk, watching a movie, or whatever! Sounds a bit exaggerated to me. Boud (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed the tag a few days ago... and there seems to be some confusion on your part. The currently placed tag is not one that locks the page in any way: it is meant as a notice for readers that this page is constantly being changed and not yet in a more or less stable form - which it is- and an encouragement to editors that there are active discussion and interest on the part of editors to achieve consensus by using the talk page - a common sense invitation to discuss any major content changes to develop consensus. Please see the Talk page archive for all the discussions that have led to the article as it is developing now, many of which I didn't participate actively, but read intently. If anything, I initiated some discussions that have led to major improvements on the page, and also implemented some of the discussed changes myself.

That said, nothing keeps you from changing anything in the article, and in fact dozens of editors change it all the time. None of us owns this series articles, and in fact editors are required to be bold when updating pages. Experience shows that in high traffic, high interest articles such as these, discussion is the best way to quickly develop a good article, and possibly a featured article which is the goal all editors should strive for.

Lulls in editing are nothing strange, and in fact it is about time that the article moves from the information collection phase and into the style editing and organization phase, which have different pacing in the way they are edited. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Structure #2

An archive bot archived the discussion before I could post so:

I don't like the current structure and headers. I think it is a bit convoluted (and the article itself is a mess IMHO, but we getting there). I know that there is a proposal already, but this is mine with comments afterward.

Background (New sourced section on previous attacks in India by Muslim extremism, Kashmir situation etc, should have {{main}} for Terrorism in Mumbai)

Attribution (short intro and link to Attribution sub-page)

Attacks (Narrative of the attacks)

Nariman House (short intro and link to article)

Oberoi Trident (short intro and link to article)

Taj Mahal Palace (short intro and link to article)

Confession of a captured terrorist

Timeline (short intro and link to new Timeline sub-page which would contain the tables etc)

Casualties

Civilian

Security Forces

Terrorists

Reactions

Criticism of politicians and resignations

Criticism of the anti-terrorist operation

Indian public

Indian Muslims

Demand for self-defense

Tribute to victims

International support

Media coverage

Aftermath

Recovery

Security agencies

Indo-Pakistani Relations

Requests for Pakistan's cooperation

Locations

See also

References

External links

---

I like succinct headers, the shorter the better. I made one exception for a flair of style that drew a smile: Confession of a captured terrorist. But I significantly cut the Reaction sections, they were too narrow - even if they only contain the original text, one can presume that additional sources will be found that fit the categories listed. I also changed the Demands for guns to self-defense, because "guns" is too specific, and while sources quote to guns, the point the people are making is to be allowed to self-defend, guns being one way but not the only one advocated (ie private security forces, detectors, bulletproof vests etc)

That said, I don't think the Location section should be so prominent, it is more of a reference than an encyclopedic narrative, and as such belongs at the end. I added a Background section, which gives context to our readers and begins setting the tone to abandon WP:RECENT issues. I also changed the Victims section to a Casualties section; while civilians are victims, the police and military were doing their jobs and are casualties of war, I think the "Terrorist" section should be split and part merged into Attacks and part to Casualties.

I guess this is it. Discuss! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll need to have sections for the three main sites (Taj, Oberoi, and Nariman House) with sub-articles for each. (Nariman house is pretty much already a sub-article for the attack part.) Where would they fit in? I guess as sub-sections under Attacks? Shouldn't the confessions go under Attribution? (I know, questions, questions, no answers!) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done On sites (I think we should follow the excellent example of Nariman House and expand the articles on the other sites.) I think confession belongs better in Attacks but not strongly, and I do see your point... its just that I feel the published confession details more the plan, and sources on the confession are contradictory on attribution. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done For the most part. We still need to split the attacks into the different places, and source some things. I created the subpage for the timeline. Also see my new comment. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Great work guys! the article has really been cleaned up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Still got a long way to go, but I think we are moving forward! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed "casualties" to "victims" because there is nothing casual about someone being killed. Please join me in rejecting military euphemisms. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, "casualties" is not a military euphemism, it a word used to neutrally describe a situation were there are dead and wounded:d:casualty. It stopped having a relationship with "casual" somewhere in the middle ages. In wikipedia, we have to be neutral in our presentation. Calling the dead and wounded "victims" breaks neutrality, in so far as there many military and security personnel among the casualties, and calling these people victims is a misuse of the word. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan link confirmed.

Can someone update same in the article.., that some elements in Pakistan soil is responsible for these attacks. http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/08/stories/2008120850210100.htm --Narendran (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole page for Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. bostonbrahmin 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)