Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2008 Mumbai attacks. 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 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Oberoi Trident hotel

Is the Oberoi Trident hotel the same as the Oberoi Mumbai? I can't tell. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The hotel was originally called the Oberoi hotel. It was changed to the Hilton Towers in 2004 and was again changed to the Trident Towers in 2007. They are all the same hotel, however it is KNOWN as and called the Oberoi (even though its an old name) because the Oberoi chain is one of the biggest in India.

Battle?

Maybe a battle infobox would fit better--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It might come to that. Other then Police, the Indians deployed their special forces into the area. It really depends on the scale of the attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.32.185 (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ridiculous: attack, policedeployment doesn't make every football match a battle. Obsession with warterminology, try to at least be realist if not de-escalate stuf. terming it battle diagnoses you with accute encyclopedian war on terror psychosis, don't do that to us pls. pay attention to the indian side of the story. there are indications several party's agree some political action for demands that are also the attackers must be taken. Allthough it is hard to find anyone to agree with the methods as the story stands, rather differently here then in other media that speak about 100 attackers.80.57.67.243 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaction Section

Although not unexpected (and honestly on the extreme short-term basis what else could legitimately be done?) it just seems a bit futile for political leaders to 'condemn' the attacks. Well.... duh. As opposed to being apathetic or supportive? </rant> In all seriousness though, does anyone have further info on government reactions that deal with how this affects policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.52.13 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

International government reactions like them condemning the attacks are always added to terrorist attacks. Plus, the attacks are still going on, more people are going to condem the attacks, and the government hasn't said anything of what the government is going to change in policy. Deavenger (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I too am skeptical of the value of such sections to the readership. If Iceland doesn't condemn the attacks, does that imply they support them? Of course not. It would be notable if some nation came out in support of the attacks, which will not happen. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be consistency with other articles on attacks. The reaction section is important, because it shows the attack from international perspectives. Whaatt (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I propose that this section be rearranged in some coherent order? Perhaps IND, UN, then the rest alphabetically? Or all alphabetically? It's a little odd to me that four other countries have their reactions listed before India itself. - chicgeek ^talk 01:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good move on the rearrange. But country names as subsections would make more sense. The flags are "pretty", but not needed. I think each has substantial enough content to warrant headers of their own on that level. - chicgeek ^talk 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the order rearranged again? The United States (alphabetically pretty much towards the end) are now mentioned as second, behind the United Nations (in fact also towards the end). TRBlom 10:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I added Italy reaction but after it disappeared? Why? --PaoVac (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does the NATO flag voilate copyright laws?

Every time any incident of importance occurs we get whole reams of information that "X country condemns the attacks", or "X country feels sorrow for the victims" These do not add anything of value to the article. Only the reaction of India and any nations also involved in the situation should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.151.32 (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

CNN Live

I suggest getting new information on CNN - http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream2 --Novis-M (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mumbai 26 November attack terrorist.jpeg...

...needs a Fair use rationale, or it could be deleted soon. Spencer^T♦^C 21:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not allow news images of current events to be claimed under fair use.Geni 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Erika Mann?

The German Socialist MEP, in the link provided, died in 1969. Godwynn (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by someone else. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Injuries?

Okay, everywhere I'm reading, the injury rate is about 200 to 300 injuries reported. However, on the wiki page, I'm seeing 900. Shouldn't we say that it's guessed at about 200 to 300 injuries. Deavenger (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Times of India says 900, FWIW. Shimgray | talk | 23:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. But Times of India is the only news organization I've seen that have reported 900 injured. Even IBN is saying less then 200. Deavenger (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Times is attributing the 900 number to hospitals, and it does seem more congruent with the number of deaths reported consistently in a shooting/bombing rampage. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to a bit more than 100 at the moment, but we don't know what's going on in those hotels, and who got killed in them. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How tragic..

This is so tragic. What were the security forces doing? How can gunmen with AK-47s enter the Taj Hotel? There should be a note in this article on the audacity of this attack. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We can report the events. What would you have us add that isn't apparent from them? --Kiz o r 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe after investigations conclude and final reports are made but right now you can't question the strength of the security forces without answering them in an article. People can read, they can see that this was a major attack. I agree with Kiz, people can read and see it was a major attack, no need to spell it out in big bold letters. It was no 9/11 though.--Tyler (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Locations

Vile Parle suburb is rather broad and do we have any confirmation on the Cama Hospital claim?Geni 23:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Map currently includes JW Marriot, Juhu. Not sure if it should at the moment.Geni 23:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey can confirm it didn't happen removed from map.Geni 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is "South Mumbai Police Headquarters" can find Mumbai Police Headquarters a little to the north of Cama Hospital.Geni 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh.... Some of the sources were calling it that, but it's just the main headquarters building, right? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey I've put the police station in the suburbe is still too vauge Napean Sea Road looks like a repeate of a report we know turned out to be false and still waiting for a slightly less bleading edge report on Nariman House.Geni 03:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nariman House now included but the suburbe is still vague and the lack of followup on Napean Sea Road suggests flase.Geni 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MEPs

We have five MEPs from "a delegation" named in the article, and an inference there were others. Do we have any idea which other MEPs were present? I can't find any list online of the members of this delegation - I can find one of the full committee, but they're probably not all going. Shimgray | talk | 23:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish MEP, Jan Masiel, who was in Taj Mahal Hotel during an attack is SAFE AND SOUND. He is coresponding live, via a phone, to a national TV station about situation around the hotel. He left Taj Mahal unharmed and unoposed around 0:30 CET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.67.151.131 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian MEP Bela Glattfelder talked to nol.hu a Hungarian news portal earlier today. He said both him and his assistant are unharmed. Earlier reports told his Assistant Levente Csaszi got shot. Actually he only went to seek refuge in a hospital, that's why he was thought to be injured. Later he contacted Glattfelder and the Hungarian Embassy in Delhi. They are at the French consulate. [1]

Title (Date)

What is up with the date in the title, it makes it seem as if there were 26 induvidual attacks and there were not, it should be November 26th (or just 26) 2008.--Tyler (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

US dates vs everyone else. India may use the british system.Geni 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

General rule is to use whatever system is standard in the country in question. As India has longtime ties to the UK, it is likely DD MO YYYY as the UK uses. If it turns out India uses the US format of MO DD YYYY then the article can be moved accordingly. 23skidoo (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

India does use the DD/MO/YYYY system, so the format of the article is consistent. Kaushik twin (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I wondered about the date too. Surely "November 2008 Mumbai Hotel attacks" would be a title free of potential confusion? doktorb _words^deeds 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well first we would have to be sure there isn't another one. But people don't say September attacks on the world trade centre they include the day of the month.Geni 01:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We are making up the name of the event. We should be mindful of what the attacks will be called in the near future as various news sources start using common terminology. Once this happens, we shouldn't manufacture a name ourselves.Marlinette (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marlinette, I don't think any news source will cite it as the "26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks"--65.78.167.201 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching CNN right now, and it's being cited as the "Mumbai Massacre". I too was confused by the article's title. Were there any other major attacks in Mumbai this year that got this much notoriety? Forget just November, naming the article "2008 Mumbai attacks" may be sufficient, especially since the attacks are almost assuredly going to continue into December.--十八 10:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The title probably needs a change at this point, if only because it's no longer an attack that has solely taken place on the 26th. President David Palmer (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Any suggestions? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 10:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

26/11? That would confuse everyone nicely, and it has a nice ring to it. Condolences... 62.72.110.13 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Do we report on that too in wiki? So far, I've got some news.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/392538/1/.html Ominae (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, casualties *will* be a major part of the article, although the page you link to isn't loading for me.--65.78.167.201 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Involvement in Mumbai attacks

Hi
The sentence needs to be changed before putting in the article.

Mumbai has suffered a wave of bomb attacks in recent years. Most of the terror attacks have been blamed on Islamist militants, although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists thought to be behind some of the attacks.^[1]

As per the reference, India has suffered a wave of bomb attacks in recent years. Most have been blamed on Islamist militants, although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists thought to be behind some of the attacks.

It does not mention Mumbai in specific.
If this sentence needs to be put in the article, please mention it as it is.
Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement was originally puted into the article as was the reference mentions it, but some user apparently changed the wording later on.--Sevilledade (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up a little, we have articles on seven bomb attacks in Mumbai since 2002. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I was the on who did that. Hope no hard feelings. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 10:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

?

Politicians and police have to be invloved in scuh cases. Amazing that the day hasn't even come to an end and the event is already in the encyclopedia. Evrenosogullari (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairly common these days.Geni 00:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In the internet age you can literally have an encyclopedia article on the subject in less that 5 minutes of the event taking place. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And odds are, someone'll put it up for deletion before the day is out claiming that its just news and it belongs in wikinews. Thats usually how these things work.Umbralcorax (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And dozens of editors at that AfD will go "Wikinews, is that still going?" doktorb _words^deeds 02:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We do need an article on this. However the fact remains, this is wikipedia not wikinews and so this should be treated as an encylopaedic article not a news article. If people are looking for or looking to work on a breaking news article, they should go to wikinews Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

DailyKos

DailyKos is recommending this article for its detail as of today, see [2]. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Kudos to you all. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links Relevant?

I just put in a link to the Google News search of "Mumbai Attacks" and it looks alot better that having 5 or more random, non-labelled news links. Should they stay?

Devil.of.firewalls (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they were useful 5 hours ago when we had many fewer cited refs. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Devil.of.firewalls (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

These may still be useful, so I'm moving them here:

GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Media sources are now creating full coverage links, so I added some from India, Pakistan, US and UK. I also grouped the photo and video links. Flatterworld (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Map

General Discussion on Map can go here I guess. Uh, the description on the map says "Help Al Jazeera English track the attack points." Does this mean that Al Jazeera created it? Devil.of.firewalls (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The google map is nothing to do with us. Wikipedia's map is based off open streetmaps and news reports.Geni 02:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to Thanksgiving?

Does anyone else here think there is an obvious link to these bombings and Thanksgiving in the US? Should it be mentioned in the article? Devil.of.firewalls (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on if a reliable secondary source brought forth non-coincidental evidence. Switzpaw (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. 9/11 occured on the 60th birthday of the construction of the Pentagon. Something similar could be going on here. Starfox Roy|guestbook| 00:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this the "October Surprise" ? And is this connected with the influx pirates off of Somolia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.32.185 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New Updates

BBC are reporting that a tower block has fallen to hostages. Also now the BBC are reporting news from reuters suggesting that one group of hostages are an Israeli family, furthermore the Police Chief and his deputy were killed on a visit to a hospital in Mumbai--Thelostlibertine (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I updated the casualties according to the latest on Reuters from the local Police, but can't find any direct article updates yet. I imagine existing news pages will be updated in due course. - Estel ^(talk) 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any justification for calling them Islamic attacks? Other than the unverified claim of responsibility, are there any reports which allow WP to make this claim? - Estel ^(talk) 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. It's india so your options are islamic, hindu, sikh or marxist (yes they have some marxist rebels/bandits around somewhere). I think we can rule out the Zoroastrians. Not really their style.Geni 03:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone update the factbox at the top - I have no clue how to do it - The terrorists in the Oberoi hotel have announced they want the Mujahaden political prisoners held in India to be released they have also released their number (7 in that hotel) and that prisoners will not be released until these prisoners are released. They also wish that Muslim's in India aren't harmed. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4AQ15M20081127?virtualBrandChannel=10112) --Thelostlibertine (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There are attacks in Kabul all the time. I doubt there is any connection.Geni 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reported car bomb at US Embassy in Kabul

AP reporting a suicide car bomb 300 yards from the US Embassy in Kabul. This could be just rumor resulting from chaos but provided it turns out to be true should it be put in a separate article or kept in this one and moving the article to a title more appropriate to the scope of the attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.217.213 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Would recommend mentioning it only in the context of a developed timeline of the days events. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A short note to wikipedians

I just wanted to say, the alacrity, clarity and concision with which information is being presented on this wiki page has been quite remarkable. You seem to have frequently surpassed the capabilities of the mainstream (cable news) media in gathering, confirming (citing), and presenting details of the situation as they become available. This incident (and the history logs here) should be flagged and studied by someone, because between this and Twitter, it may prove to be a milestone event for crowd-sourced media.

Now, back to work. Unfortunately, day two has yet to finish unfolding. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The news people produceing original reporting which we are then working from. The twitter feeds are containing an unreasonable amount of false rumor.Geni 04:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, so is CNN. My impression is that you've been doing it faster. Worth reviewing, anyways, for someone's master's thesis or something. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians are grateful for compliments, but we have to go farther. Really far. I'm trying to push this to A-class in one more day, and GA status in 2 weeks. FA is a stretch right now, but 6 mos. maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaatt (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Action Force ?

The article says "Both hotels are on fire and have been surrounded and stormed by Rapid Action Forces commandos." Only heritage building of Taj is on fire - not Oberoi. According to the CNN India, Oberoi Hotel is now on fire, worse then Hotel Taj.--[WiKiPeDiA RuLeZ] (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Rapid Action Force (RAF) is a riot control arm of CRPF, not a counter terrorism commando unit. They do not take part in these operations any more than providing crowd control etc. What I've been watching on TV indicates, the actual storming operations are being carried out by Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) officers of Mumbai Police, and commandos of Indian Army, NSG, and MARCOS (Naval Commandos). See the links below. RAF is simply NOT trained to carry out anti-terrorist operations - it sounds ridiculous. 117.195.195.168 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[3]

[4]

Should we change it? Ominae (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

~~Hey I see it fixed now... thanks.~~ 117.195.199.252 (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was too early. The sentence is still incorrect and not been fixed, just moved from introduction to details section. Can some one fix it please? 117.195.199.252 (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Silly "Reaction" section

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

I removed the section. It takes up a huge and disproportionate part of the article and tells us nothing. All the responses are the same templated responses that press spokespeople give in reaction to all terrorist attacks. If a country supports the attacks then of course add it to the article, but until then stop insulting Wikipedia readers with these lame press releases. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a rather short memory. The universal level of condemnation is a fairly recent development.Geni 06:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I left in the Pakistani "reaction". The historic animosity between the two makes their response somewhat noteworthy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you do not have authority to dictate what reactions are relevant or not. Please put them all back. I've attempted to fix it partially but you managed to mess it up quite successfully. Daniel Musto (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deciding that the reactions are "the same templates" is your opinion and not fact. For almost every international disaster, there has been Reactions section. I suggest that the editors here return that section to the article doktorb _words^deeds 08:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether I do or don't have the authority, whether it's my opinion or a fact, or whether it's in other terrorism attacks articles. Does it make sense or not? Is it informative of not? Does it take up a disproportionate amount of space or not? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, why do we have to template article structure? It will creativity on here...the reactions section is disproportionately long and really adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the situation. It's tedious and indiscriminate. It should be shortened to a paragraph, and any particularly interesting or relevant quotes picked out. I can't believe the cricket information was bullet-pointed aswell, it's just shoddy structuring. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is stupid. Who gives a fuck what the Cyprus foreign minister has to say about this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.73.246 (talk • contribs)

Don't use language like that one the talk page. Deavenger (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job that for the most part the only nations included are international bodies and neighbours then? doktorb _words^deeds 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What is becoming clear is that if the whole section is not to be removed it should be trimmed to include only the notable reactions. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the reaction section is ridiculous. And what's with the flags? Gimme a break. The section is undue weight and can be summarized in one or two paragraphs. Switzpaw (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed it again per the apparent consensus here. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of readding this section until a greater consensus is reached. You should all know that an international reaction section is standard practice in numerous articles (International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, International reaction to the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency, etc), which is moved into a separate article if it becomes too unwieldy. Removing it is removing encyclopedic information. Joshdboz (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC

The other "reactions" are separate articles that nobody ever visits and nobody ever edits. I don't have a problem making this reaction section into a separate article as well. The fact that the only reason given for this section is that other article have it is representative of its lack of logic.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's become too unwieldy: move it to a seperate page. Switzpaw (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, but don't go around deleting it. Joshdboz (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Anyway, we should work towards a well-written summary paragraph. Switzpaw (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I split the section into Reactions to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:11, 27 November 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.

Reaction order

I was surprised to see that the order of the reactions had been changed. I added the Canadian reaction at the top, as it was alphabetically first in descending order, and now I see it was pushed down. I suggest (as an order of neutrality) we list them by order of country name. NorthernThunder (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Canadians were not held hostages by the terrorists. So no need of putting it at the top. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 10:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to type slower for you? I only put Canada at the top because it was (at the time) first in alphabetical order. International reactions have nothing to do with there being anyone being held hostage. NorthernThunder (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I take back my words. Canadians were held hostages. Your proposal is great, but I still think UN should be at the top. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 11:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricket Tour Affected

Cricket Tour of India by England as been affected.

Hindi Source for England cancelled the remaining two matches : http://josh18.in.com/showstory.php?id=353751 Source for Doubt on Champions League : http://cricketnext.in.com/news/english-team-to-stay-put-in-cuttack-cl-t20-in-doubt/36001-13.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.202.155 (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

BCCI Chief says not cancelled ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 16:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hostages

Sadly it is not just terrorist attacks but even hostage. Where should this be added?. [5], [6], [7], [8] --SkyWalker (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There were reports on the hostage situations yesterday; I'll be looking to update those now. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FLAG: ADMIN

Can an administrator please lock this article? At least against non- and newly-registered users? I find sections appear and disappear quite frequently and find a lock would be appropriate. Daniel Musto (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed especially when this user : Ravenx25 is adding unverifiable information --SkyWalker (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have requested this article for protection.see this [9]--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sucessfully Semi-protected for three days.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 08:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it's locked, can someone edit `were seen holding up inside the CST station' to `were seen holing up inside the CST station'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.163.49 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed for you, but you should make an account - it's very easy. Ariel. (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

against Israelis?

Maybe these attacks are against Israelis, out of other things. A Israeli residential building was attacked near Nariman house, and there are many Israelis in the Trident. Couldn't that be a cause?ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the terrorist have taken hostage of a Jewish Rabbi family and they were asking for people who has US and UK passports. So their intention was to harm them. It is different incident but happened the same time. I guess all this was planned. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

guess? doktorb _words^deeds 08:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. If your read the link i gave you on top you will know it is not a OR. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it was against jews (not just israelis) read: this. Against other people too of course. Looks like it was jews, americans and britons Ariel. (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Any foreigners. One of the confirmed dead is Japanese. McWomble (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i meant. There is that long enemity between Muslims and Jews. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 10:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Italian.--SkyWalker (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page archive

This talk page is terribly long. Anyone think it needs an archive, or is there a set number of comments that require this? Starfox Roy|guestbook| 00:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

86 kB is not so bad for the second day of a breaking current event. Iraq War just got hit with a Status of Forces Agreement and grew from 202 kB to 205 kB for the article. We should archive this talk page in a few days so that people don't think we're trying to squelch them. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II automatic archiving set for 3 days. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please archive

3 days is too. long. It should be 3 hours for the Bot. Will someone please archive the threads? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 08:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we compromise on one day? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot II is now set to 1 day and 15 threads. However, it may take more than one day to start working. Please feel free to archive old, stale, minor, or unsigned threads manually until the bot starts editing this page. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews

Shouldnt we combine the info on this page and on the wikinews page? ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, for breaking news events, Wikipedia articles always end up better than their Wikinews counterparts. I have a few suspicions why that is, but I'm not certain. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro merging

The intro is way too long, and at least half of what's used in the intro should be used in a section that explains the attacks. It should be only summarized in the intro. Cyanidethistles (talk) {Tim C} 08:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image License

Fair-use images removed from non-article namespace. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who has knowledge of image copyright and license add to this following image and ?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

both copyvios so no.Geni 14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Title

I think 26 November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks is a better name. Anyone agree? Without the 'terrorist', they could be any sort of attacks. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

not needed. Like in 2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist is a vague word which doesn't seem to add much precision nor is further precision necessary. However as stated above in #Title (Date) we do need to move the article from 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks to November 2008 Mumbai attacks since it is still ongoing today (27th).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 13:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

26/11... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.13 (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (86.129.165.247 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks → November 2008 Mumbai attacks — Inaccurate (and unnecessary) precision as attacks now cover more than one day — Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 14:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

NB: I will move this an hour from my proposal of the move (as it has already been suggested this morning by User:President David Palmer).

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.

Support as proposer—Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 14:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. While creating the article, I never felt this will take more than 1 day. But it may take 2 more days may be. All Hostages must be safe. That's it. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 14:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. Why not add a redirect page with the current name, so it doesn't really matter that the page has been moved. This might go on for another day (hope i'm wrong).ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 14:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. Its gone on two days. Hope nothing bad happens, but it makes sense to move it. Whaatt (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. While you guys are at it, why not change it to more specific November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
Support. If they've gone on through more than one calendar day, and there are hostage situations, they cannot use a single day. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Support' Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. Despite having lasted less than a full 24 hours as of now, it has already spanned two days nonetheless, so the move is already necessary. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. As aforementioned, it has spanned multiple days. Merge.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

attacks is too general and we need to indicate what kind of attacks. How about November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks? (Move it anyway if there is no significant discussion/opposition, the discussion of the exact title can be ongoing.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting is the best policy (apart from honesty). It now redirects to here. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, IMO, "terrorist is a vague word which doesn't seem to add much precision nor is further precision necessary". I haven't seen any arguments so far about why adding that word isn't unnecessary precision. However, I think the matter deserves its own move discussion. I really started this one to discuss whether something like "26/27 November 2008", just "2008" or even the existing name is preferable to my proposal. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It could provide disambiguation as to the intention and nature of the attacks. An unadorned 'Attacks' is even more vague. By describing them as terror attacks, one can ascertain that it involved armed militia emerging from within the city and taking control, as opposed to an all-out assault from the outer city. However, I believe that until it can be further confirmed that these are unequivocally terrorist attacks, we should withhold such a descriptor. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

redirectedWhaatt (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Keep updating injured/died

While adding unsubstantiated numbers to the table is unnecessary, there are a lot of links to statements from gov't officials confirming more injuries/deaths than are shown. Maybe a third column for "unaccounted for" -- which could include the 2nd Australian eyewitnesses say was shot in the head but that the foreign ministry is waiting for physical evidence to confirm. Ditto on the 2nd japanese who was injured at the same time the first one died.

Or perhaps start a by-name list of those confirmed killed and another list of those involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.215.4 (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And who swapped India and America on the list? Either list all nationalities alphabetically, my numbers injured, or something. Right now it just looks silly with it all alphabetical but India/America swapped. 76.191.215.4 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we also have the no of injured in the table?

[table moved in to article]

Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Done The table now includes the number of injured. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MV Alpha

This section needs clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved it out of the intro, since the Indian Navy discredited the speculation. I am seeing reports that a severed head was found aboard, however, and looking for confirmation from another source for that one. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No Canadians reported dead as of yet

The article states that a relative of Canadians has died... not an actual Canadian citizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.151.247 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro - Apparent Targeting?

The language that we use in the introduction uses the phrase "due to the apparent targeting of British and American citizens, ..." Are we comfortable making that assertion, given that there is no citation for the statement and that the number of Indian citizens injured/killed vastly outnumbers the number of British/American citizens. Further, a number of attack locations such as Vile Parle and CST do not appear to be necessarily locations where a large proportion of foreign citizens live, making the attack appear to target widespread mayhem and chaos. I'm adding a cite needed tag to the statement in the lead, and if no-one opposes this idea, I'll remove/rephrase. Kaushik twin (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I felt that too but BBC backs up the suggestion, although I'd tend to agree the numbers don't seem to suggest it was widespread or successful if it wasa goal to weed out foreign national. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7752768.stm --85.62.18.8 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So is there a valid distinction between the overall attacks being targeted at foreign nationals and the specific cases that the BBC report draws from that occurred within the Taj and the Trident where foreign nationals were preferentially selected as hostages? Kaushik twin (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If newspeople make the logical association that "some terrorists singeled out hostages" => "the attacks were targeted for an international auidence", than we should fairly represent their views. The Squicks (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Times in Details section need a time zone

The times in the details section need a time zone appended to them for clarity. Copysan (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the time zone in the infobox; presumably it should be sufficient. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Somali/Gulf of Aden Piracy

these new reports that the attackers came in by ship or boat is making me wonder more and more about Pirate involvement. The arabian sea has been the busiest naval combat zone in the world for several months now, and not only have they hijacked weapons shipments, but recently one pirate ship was captured by the Indian Navy. Plus the long-range ability they recently showed leaving Somalia by hundreds of km. So there are definitely some reasons to investigate pirate links. (taking hostages instead of a suicide attack for example?) But the US media is already fully on the "islamo-fascism" bandwagon, so I wondering if any others have encountered reporting on the pirate aspect of the attacks. 72.0.189.206 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

and I found it myself, at least one on google news from the times of india. I will login and add to the appropriate section. 72.0.189.206 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, that info is in the article right now. The Squicks (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Toned it down a bit. this is not being actively investigated. per ref, the official just did not rule it out when asked specifically. IMHO this is a wild shot in the dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job

As a Wikipedia editor congratulations. This article under extreme time pressure has done an excellent job of providing context. I have edited article where under little time pressure where every line is bitterly fought over so you achievements here astound me. Edkollin (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How many terrorists took part?

Haaretz says there was initally around 50-60 guys doing this. Are there other reports that disagree? The Squicks (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me, based on what I've read in other sources. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We need a separate section on the terrorists.

a table which collects how many of them was killed or caught alive.
how many are still moving around
how could some of them steal a police car

On the last point, well, they shot a lot of police. There is no way to tell how many are still moving around, sadly. Apprehension and casualty statistics should filter in over the next week. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Spell-check

Would someone be kind enough to run a spellcheck and fix the following: co-ordinated, occured, harbour, invovled, eariler. I find the article is locked for anons, otherwise would have done it myself. 216.143.142.68 (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Co-ordinated" and "harbour" are both British English. This may be the most common variant in India (I would think it is; this confirms it to some extent). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Victims list at mumbai help blog

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.

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

Request inclusion in external references.

Whynotinspace (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did the Mumbai Help Blog get this information? Switzpaw (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea. But based on its specificity, I believe it comes directly from the hospitals. I would like to match up hospital reports with news reports from victim's families to create a list of those victims and their status. Briansanders5 (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IST is UTC+5:30 (and not UTC+5:00)

Correction requested at the top left of main page -

| time = Shortly before 10pm local time^[2] | timezone = IST, UTC +5:3000 | type = Bombings, shootings, hostages^[3]

Done - it was correct yesterday. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fix the Victims numbers on the front page

They are all out of date. One Japanese man was injured, in addition to the one killed.

Done GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick scan of most recent Google News on hostages: things calming down

"Indian forces scour Mumbai hotels after carnage" (Associated Press): "After a day of gunfire and explosions at the hotels, things are now quiet, indicating the sieges there may be ending. The fires are out and soldiers have been leading small groups of hostages and holed-up guests to safety and bringing out bodies of people killed in the attacks. Militants are still believed to be holed up inside the headquarters of an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect in Mumbai. At least three blasts were heard there overnight, but it's not clear if any hostages are being held."

"Mumbai takes back control from terrorists" (TTKN Oxford): "As dawn breaks in Mumbai, control has been taken back from the terrorists. According to latest army reports, the Trident Hotel has been cleared, and the terrorists have been flushed out. Unconfirmed reports that 2 people have been killed in Colaba, Nariman House, 7 hostages have been freed. Snipers are taking position at Nariman House, as the army begins their final assault."

"Battle of Mumbai still rages" (Belfast Telegraph): "Confusion swirled as reports of the sieges being over were swiftly followed by reports of fresh gunfire and new explosions, and the Israeli and Italian authorities said their nationals were still being held hostage more than 24 hours after the ordeal began. But there were hopes the violent drama might be drawing to a close as police appeared to be gaining the upper hand."

Let's hope so. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Is it possible that BBC, CNN, Times of India release their images in the PD? Can we contact them Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 08:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

it's easier to try that on flickr--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't normally release their copyrights. you could try flickr, the Wikipedia upload page has a dedicated Flickr section so yes try there. Also photobucket? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the flickr link http://www.flickr.com/photos/vinu/sets/72157610144709049/ --SkyWalker (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are no good; they're all fully copyrighted. I've found one we can use with an appropriate license. Pretty gory though. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Turns out someone else had already uploaded it to Commons already. I put it in the article already. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Flickr claims are false that is not a free image. Best I can tell there just arn't any at the moment.Geni 14:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But can't we use the smoke and fire from the Taj Mahal hotel under the "irrepeatable historic event" exception? Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not in a current events article since we are then dirrectly competeing with the people the photo is being marketed to.01:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good point. So that means we can do it a few months from now? Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NDTV: death toll 280

A report posted on NDTV.com's website here is giving a death toll of more than 280 which is way higher than the 125 currently acknowledged by CNN, etc. NDTV is one of the major media outlets in India, so I've added it to the section on casualties. I have not - and do not suggest - that the death toll figures be raised in any of the charts until things are confirmed by multiple media/officials. But it's of interest to show how the numbers are fluctatating. 23skidoo (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are the hospitals' totals agreeing with this or the 125 figure? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of victims and suspects

Should we create another wiki page to list the names of the confirmed victims and the names of all of the perpetrators arrested or killed? I think this would be a good idea, but I wanted to get the feedback of others first. Remember (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes!!!! Briansanders5 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) And the numbers on the main page need to be edited to reflect 4 Canadians injured (See below.)

Once you make the new page, post the link.

Article has been created - List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Remember (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Victims	Injury Suffered	Source
Andi Varagona aka Rudrani Devi	shot in arm and leg, injured	http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/nov/27/tennessee-women-injured-india-terrorist-attacks/ and http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grtg7aIrEOyLZJActfKfm6QE4cxAD94NIP0O0
Alan Scherr	shot, currently unaccounted for	http://www.newsvirginian.com/wnv/news/local/article/2_nelson_residents_among_missing_in_india_attacks/32000/
Studdar Daphne, 50	died	http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24719590-5005521,00.html and http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_esnE-3Z3p-HehX1YOZIaw
Michael Stert, 73	died	http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24719590-5005521,00.html and http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_esnE-3Z3p-HehX1YOZIaw
Brett Gilbert Taylor, 49	arrived at hospital dead	http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24719590-5005521,00.html and http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_esnE-3Z3p-HehX1YOZIaw
Kate Anstee, 24	shot in leg at Leopold Cafe, femur fractured	http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/73250/British-tycoon-dead-in-Mumbai
Doug Markell, 71	died	http://www.allnewsweb.com/page922922.php and http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/fears-of-four-australians-dead-as-commandos-storm-luxury-hotels-inmumbai/2008/11/28/1227491767403.html
Andreas Liveras, 73	shot to death	http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2471334.0.British_tycoon_was_on_phone_to_BBC_just_minutes_before_death.php
Michael Murphy, 59	shot in the ribs, in intensive care	http://www.watoday.com.au/world/shipping-magnate-gunned-down-in-mumbai-20081128-6k9r.html
Diane Murphy, 58	shot in the foot	http://www.watoday.com.au/world/shipping-magnate-gunned-down-in-mumbai-20081128-6k9r.html
Michael Rudder	shot three times, stabilized at hospital	http://www.cjad.com/news/565/835099
Helen Connolly	grazed by bullet	http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081127/mumbai_canada_081127/20081127?hub=TopStories
de:Ralph Burkei, 51	fell from the Taj hotel while trying to escape, died en route to hospital	http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/28/stories/2008112854911900.htm and http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/27/asia/28mumbai.php
Hemant Karkare	died
Ashok Kamte	died
Vijay Salaskar	died
Sadanand Date	injured	http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pune/Police_officers_Date_Nangre-Patil_injured/articleshow/3766832.cms
Vishwas Nangre-Patil	injured	http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pune/Police_officers_Date_Nangre-Patil_injured/articleshow/3766832.cms
Antonio de Lorenzo	died
Hisashi Tsuda,38	shot in the back of the leg, stomach and chest at the Trident hotel, died at hospital	http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/28/stories/2008112861941200.htm
Tatsuya Kessoku, 44	injured	http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/28/stories/2008112861941200.htm