Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 10

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 5

←

Archive 8

Arrests

Having read the wp article on house arrest I doubt very much if that is what Ajmal Amir is being held under. --Payo (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done I agree. He isn't being held under house arrest, and the wording in the section has been modified accordingly. SBC-YPR (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability and deletion

The AFD of Gajendra Singh can be reversed now that Gajendra Singh has received India's highest honour. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz told me to go for a WP:DRV but I recreated it anyway - Havaldar Gajender Singh. –Capricorn42 (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the history. (GFDL contributions must be recognised.) Qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Wikipedia:Notability_(people) The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. No question about ambiguity just in case a future AFD crops up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Equipment

I am deleting this sub-section because of the following reasons:

The content of this sub-section is largely irrelevant to the content of the article.
The only reference cited is a grainy TV grab, which needs to be cross-substantiated by other sources.

Further discussion may be carried out here. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai Police going to USA

Has some one added its details in articel?--Suyog ^{talk to me!} 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Locations

The GA reviewer has suggested that the Location section is not really required. (Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/GA2#Reactions and Aftermath. Should we remove it? Kensplanet^T _C 08:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think if anything, it shouldn't get it's own separate section. Maybe it could be added in under attacks? Anybody else agree? Deavenger (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Islam

Why isn't the word Islam used in the intro? That's ultimately what these attacks were about, and simply calling the attackers 'militants' or 'terrorists' doesn't give due weight to this situation.--MartinUK (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Black Tornado

Searching for Operation Black Tornado currently re-directs to this page. Since Black Tornado was the name of the operation executed by the NSG in three seperate locations,I feel a page dedicated to the operation should be written. Any comments ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, because basically very few reliable sources stress this, and the actual events are well-described, in here or in the sub-articles. If anything novel, different, or unusual had been part of it (such as use of new tactics or weapons) this would have probably been covered in RS, and the story would be different. But it was run-of-the-mill counter-terror ops, nothing particularly notable. And am into this MILHIST stuff, so I am not at all opposed in spirit. --Cerejota (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead people link

where it should be added.[1]User:Yousaf465

The word terrorist

To some extent the article becomes less clear than it should due to an insistence on using the word "terrorist". There is no doubt whatsoever that it is appropriate and should be used in some places in the article; but it is often not as precise as it could be. At the time of writing the first sentence begins "The 2008 Mumbai attacks were ten coordinated terrorist attacks...". There is no doubt that this is correct; but terrorism is a broad subject, and the article would be clearer if we say "The 2008 Mumbai attacks were ten coordinated shooting and bomb-throwing attacks...". The first sentence should tell a reader ignorant of the subject as much as possible about it.

"Shooting and bomb-throwing" describe the attacks; "terrorist" states their purpose, but does not describe the attacks. If it is considered important to stress the terrorist intent in the first sentence perhaps the best start is "The 2008 Mumbai attacks were ten coordinated shooting and bomb-throwing terrorist attacks...", although personally I don't think we need "terrorist" here. "Bomb-throwing" may not be the best expression, but simply "bombing" includes hiding timed bombs and suicide bombing.

Similarly, elsewhere in the article the perpetrators are described as "terrorists". Again, that was unquestionably their purpose, but "attackers", "gunmen", "bomb-throwers" might be more descriptive. In particular, I suggest that "terrorists" is too sweeping a term to specify the attackers; it includes not only the attackers but the planners and facilitators.

I did make a couple of changes with this intention a while ago, but they were reverted, perhaps by people thinking that it was necessary to stress the terrorist purpose of the attacks and not noticing the loss of precise description. Pol098 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with WP:WTA/WP:TERRORIST/WP:GFCATERRORIST on this (you can see my contributions to the debate there), but the RS are very overwhelming. I believe a good faith effort should be made to correct egregious POV issues around this, and if you get reverted, you should point it out here. For example, I am adamant that organizations described as terrorists be attributed as such using List of designated terrorist organizations, including the countries. Naked claims are a violation of WP:NPOV.--Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

After recent changes in line with my comments, I find that there is hardly any mention of terrorism. I think that it should be stated that the intent of the attacks was clearly "terrorist" or "to create terror", but as a reasoned comment, not just use the T word as an adjective without comment. I don't have time to draft anything at the moment. Pol098 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead clearly states this. We don't need to WP:MORALIZE--Cerejota (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

This article seems to have too many blue links. This overshadows the importance of topics really adding value to the article and other tangential topics. Ajmal Amir is linked repeatedly, in contradiction to WP:OVERLINK. Also what is the point of linking words like bollywood, aamir khan, economy of India etc in violation of WP:CONTEXT?--Shahab (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rehman Malik

Rehman Malik is the adviser to PM on interior affairs not Pakistan's Interior Minister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.3.70 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The existing wiki-article states him to be the "effective" Interior Minister. So, is there that much of a difference? SBC-YPR (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)