Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

GA nomination

Do you think the article is a GA. Can we nominate the article at WP:GAN. Kensplanet^T_C 18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. I think the article is now a GA as it fulfills all the requirements for a GA.

• It is generally well written and complies with the MOS.
• It is factually accurate and verifiable, provides reliable references for almost all information that it contains, and has no original research.
• It is broad and acts as a good summary. Detailed information has been hived off into sub-articles.
• It largely adheres to a NPOV.
• It has attained stability.
• It is well-illustrated by relevant images that are tagged.

So I say, let's nominate! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What are we waiting for ;)--Cerejota (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that :-), so I'm being bold and putting in the GA Nomination. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominated! Thanks to everyone who has been working on this article. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's work on that. It's on my watch Kensplanet^T_C 08:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not complaining, but will someone please review the GA Nomination and give their approval or rejection, so this can finally go somewhere?Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of the users who participated in the GA review, because this article has finally achieved GA status! Please continue to improve the article as you see fit. Thanks! Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 14:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Motive?

It'd be nice if the article mentioned theories as to why the terrorists did this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have any verifiable information from reliable sources please feel free to share it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lashkar-e-Taiba#Objective makes it clear enough. 171.67.130.195 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

'Mumbai attacks'

The term 'Mumbai attacks' redirects here. That might be a problem given that Mumbai already has a history of such attacks. The Squicks (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

SIM Cards

A CNN report from Fareed Zakaria titled "Terror in Mumbai" states that some 20 SIM cards had been sold to LeT by Pakistai or Indian (I forget which they stated in the report) police/intelligence and that some of those had been activated the night of the attacks and that is how they were able to record their conversations to their controllers. In the Zakaria report, it has numerous recorded conversations between the attackers and their controllers that are played for the viewers.

I wanted to add this to the article; has anyone else heard anything about this? jlcoving (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"The attackers used at least three SIM cards purchased on the Indian side of the border with Bangladesh, pointing to some local collusion." This needs to be corrected.

Citation 1: "Earlier that year [indian] undercover agents had fed a batch of 35 sim cards to the pakistani terrorist group Lashker-e-toiba. Intelligence officers discovered that 3 of the sim cards had been activated that night." HBO documentary -- Terror in Mumbai by Fareed Zakaria @18min 37sec. I believe jlcoving is talking about the same documentary.

Citation 2: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Ne170109coverstory.asp

I think this is why mumbai police was ruling out the possibility of local collusion, they didn't want to compromise the identities of their operatives.

"Media reports on Thursday had the attackers carrying at least three SIM cards purchased on the Indian side of the border with Bangladesh, pointing to some local collusion, a possibility the police had tried to rule out when they first publicized Kasab's testimony." http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1864539,00.html Evox777 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Campbell

From the opening picture in the infobox: the Taj in smoke and flames, the remains of a bomb blast, dead bodies at VT, the terrorist with an assault rifle, and... um... Naomi Campbell at a fashion show. Hmm... one of these things is not like others. I think we should get a different picture to fill out the montage or just go back to the single picture from before. -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Naomi Campbell should only be confined to the aftermath section, not in the infobox. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai police overlooked standard drills during 26/11

See this link for information CLICK HERE

Use of term 'Islamic' terrorists

It is factually incorrect to refer to terrorists as 'Islamic'. Nowhere in Islamic law does it condone the killing of innocent people. To suggest that these terrorists are Islamic is making an inaccurate and politically charged statement that borders on offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.175.7 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is determined to point out that the terrorists were Muslim (which everyone can acknowledge) but does not seem to have any space to point that the vast majority of the Muslim community, especially in India rejected the terrorist calls for martyrdom by condemning the actions and refusing to bury them. Are they not also facts? Why are they called "whitewashing"? If this is the case, it is not presented from a NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.99 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If terrorists define themselves as islamic, then an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia should include this. Whether terrorism is justified by islam or not and what constitutes terrorism is disputed - terrorists and their sympathisers regard themselves as islamic, others do not - isn't something for Wikipedia to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---> The article for the Babri Masjid case was flagged NPOV because of the use of the term "Hindu Nationalists". The phrase Hindu nationalist has since been removed & rightfully so. What happened there was terrorism as well but it was not religious. No religion condones hate & killing. The Nazis identified themselves as protectors of Christianity but we know better. Their article does not call them Christians either. Just because someone wants to identify themselves as working for God does not mean it is responsible for an encyclopedia to provide them with that credibility. You can use the term terrorists who claim to be Muslim, or working for Islam but calling them Muslim is offensive & factually inaccurate. If you insist on calling them Islamic, Islamist or Muslim, then you should also place the other facts in the case under reactions by the Muslim community that disowned them. Those are facts as well. This preceding statement was made by an Indian & a Hindu --thank you PND, Aug 20, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.162.181 (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just terrorists not "Muslim Terrorist"

I don't think it is right to quote the attacker's of Mumbai 26/11 as Muslim or Hindu. People who take such path are not human at the first place then where the question of their religion comes. I think wikipedia and writers should avoid using "Muslim terrorists" as an adjective to such cowards.I am not a muslim and proud of the fact that many of us young indians don't have such feelings..27.04.10121.240.164.76 (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag added

There is a huge bias in the intro that suggests the terrorists were Muslims who came from Pakistan and suggests their confession or better forced confessions as references as "proof". This is by no means neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears this tag has been removed. The article still contains the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.162.181 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversies around Kelkare's assassination

They are real: more than 45 000 google search hits for "Kelkare controversies" with journal articles, book etc. Two IP of probably infdef banned used Hkelkar are edit-warring on this. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all clearly Islamist conspiratorial nonsense repeated in worthless third-world tabloids for sensationalism. See assessment by longtime contributor User:Jayjg here 117.194.198.217 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

[1] and [2] tabloids ? Do you want the list of the 45 000 other hits ? - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned}

There are 38,800 hits to "Jews did wtc" (an allegation similar to this one)[3]. Several of them are pro-Muslim publications (who have a vested interest in promoting the lie on account of that fact that Muslims committed 9/11). The prevalence of this in the Muslim world does not justify inclusion as fact on wikipedia, nor does the prevalence of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in the pro-Muslim Indian press justify inclusion of the anti-Jewish conspiracy theory here.117.194.198.217 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Weak comparison. You know that the controversy is really taking place in India, involving serious journal articles. Did the 2 refs are tabloids for you ? - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 15:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no controversy. None of the journals cited are serious. Both refs are worthless shitfarms (Zee news??? Have you seen Zee TV? It's all soap operas and cheap Bollywood music plagiarized from American movies).117.194.198.217 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah ? And how do you call a newspaper called TheHindu ? Not serious ? : [4]. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 15:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? "The Hindu" (more accurately titled "The al-Qaeda monthly") is a reliable source? none of these toilet paper news sources have any international credibility. They're pure junk. Find me a mainstream western news source that makes such allegations, even pro-Muslim ones like the BBC, then we'll talk.117.194.198.217 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So you should update asap this wikipedia article. Your blatant extremism and pov is now unveiled. Go back to Fox News and let the regular contributors edit the articles. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Humbug. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for wikipedia (read WP:RS carefully).You go back to reading al-Manar and stop pushing Muslim antisemitic bullshit on wp, m'kay?117.194.198.217 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

According to your "wikipedia article" (snicker), the Hindu is slightly worse than the "Times of India", which is such a stinking pile of goat-feces that it even got caught plagiarizing content from right here in wikipedia. These crap newspapers cannot be used as reliable sources in cases where western countries , together with India, were targeted by the Muslims. Better sources are needed.117.194.198.217 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article is about the notoriety of TheHindu, I don't use it for self-reference. And please stop your hateful prose, you've said enough for others to get acquainted with your pov here. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Samisdat Publishers and Alex Jones's Infowars are also "notorious" in the same way as "TheHindu" is "notorious". They are not Reliable Sources, and neither is "The al-qaeda monthly".117.194.198.217 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

and I find it pretty rich that a far-left troll polluting wikipedia with antisemitic conspiracy theories would accuse anyone of "hateful prose".117.194.198.217 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I protected the article because of this squabbling: stop it, both of you. Comment on content, not contributors. Consider raising this issue at WP:RSN it you two are unable to agree on what constitutes a reliable source. TFOWR 17:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Following the discussion of reliable sources here, TheHindu is a reliable source, mentions the controversy, so the controversy will be mentionned when the article get unblocked. For me that's all on this matter. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 08:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. Nobody supports the inclusion of this conspiratorial nonsense on that discussion.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the Anti-Defamation League has condemned this Conspiracy Theory by Muslims [5]59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The ADL ? You bet ! - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is a highly respected source, extensively used on wikipedia. This org is in a civilized western country, not some terrorist toilet. If you want to use Pakistani propaganda, then take it to "Pakipedia", not here.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And TheHindu even more respected, so go back to Mossadpedia. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. "TheHindu" is from a third world country, not a civilized country.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled across this page just now. You guys better review WP:CIVIL. I strongly suggest the conversation cool down real quick here - trust me on this. Jusdafax 10:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@59.160.210.68: your IP address is from India, just like TheHindu. You and other hindutva proponents seem to have a very low opinion of a country you're willing to defend. I don't think anything interesting can come from a "user" using such arguments. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 10:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia allowed consideration of fringe conspiracy theories as hard truths. Thanks TwoHorned for clearing that up for me.Pectore^talk 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that the title for this segment of the talkpage (posted the diff so that it remains for posterity) reads "Kelkare's assassination". Hkelkar was banned two or three years ago, and I'm sure he trolls Wikipedia, but Karkare is really not that hard to spell. Confusing the two in this fashion indicates TwoHorned's subconscious motive on this page is to tar those that disagree with him as "Hkelkar supporters".Pectore^talk 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN#The Hindu

The opinion of at least one regular at WP:RSN is that (a) The Hindu is a WP:RS, (b) it must be correctly represented, and that (c) this is a non-notable conspiracy theory "source[d] to a brief report in The Hindu of controversial statments made in 2008 by a politician that led to the politician's resignation. Those statements may not have even been related to the conspiracy theory". With that in mind I'm proposing that this addition should not be made. I'd add that if there is any resumption of the recent edit warring I will block all editors involved. TFOWR 11:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Its absolutely unfortunate that an anon does not have the civility or the sense to see a country's civilization. "The Hindu" is a source even its worst detractors admit to be credible (Don't ask a source for this). More unfortunate is that another user is trying to misuse this towards his/her sinister motives. Arjun^codename024 13:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the debates regarding the reliability of The Hindu as a source, I agree that this content should find no place, leave alone a separate section, in this article, which happens to be concerned with the subject of the larger series of attacks and not the death of any one individual therein. Details regarding this would be more appropriate in the Hemant Karkare article, and I suggest that further discussion regarding this be carried out on the talk page of that article – with a little less aggression and avoiding personal attacks, of course. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't know it; Hemant Karkare had a bigger dispute and the editor who brought these theories in here put these there first. The article had to be fully protected due to the dispute. 16:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. The controversy related to Karkare's death section does not have any place in *this* article. Btw, if The Hindu is not RS, then which source is? Shovon (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Adding to my comment above, I have no opinion either way - I'm going with the consensus at WP:RSN, supported by the comments above. I reiterate that I will block either party if they resume WP:EW - however the edit warring does seem to have stopped. Is it time to mark this as resolved? TFOWR 08:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

TWOFR, I think your analysis is spot on. The Hindu is reliable, these allegations aren't, since they are the musings of some raving politician.Pectore^talk 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Its good that this discussion has come to an end. And of course, The Hindu is a reliable source. It is one of the most reliable newspapers in India, and it is grossly unfair to call it unreliable just because it is from a third world country (I can point out lots of "unreliable" tabloids in the USA and UK). MikeLynch (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12