Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

How many militants were Captured

is Azam Amir Kasav the only militant captured or were there other as well or were all the others killed or escaped?

According to all reliable and verifiable sources I have seen and that are in the article, only one terrorist was captured. Anyone has any other info? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism

How is WikiProject Judaism related to the article? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Nariman House I think, however I think that article has a good overview on the attack as it relates to it, so probably we could remove this page from the project. Of course we should keep all mentions of this attack here. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Again, please do not remove cleanup/article tags unless you explain why and perform edits that warrant the removal. They exist for a reason. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli casualtise

Some of you have difficulty believing mass media that more than two Israelis were killed in the attacks. So listen up. Nine people were confirmed killed in the jewish center: two have on the main list of victims been identified as a Mexican, American, two Israelis, two American-Israelis or Israeli-Americans whatever, so that leaves another three unidentified victims. The IDF and a bunch of other sources have said the rest are Israeli, on the hospital roll list of dead victims there is a dead unidentified Isreli woman listed check the list, so there is no reason for now to put five Israelis killed, if new data comes we will change it but for now sources say more than your two claimed Israelis killed. Tx.89.216.236.45 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Provide the link to your source. The current references are for only 6 bodies. The Israeli Embassy in Delhi also claimed 9 Israelis died in the Chabat house -- which is not even close to correct. Given the unreliability of the sources, I think it is best to stick with the named individuals we know. And are two terrorists included in the "killed in Chabat house" number? I think that is also part of the confusion. Briansanders5 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a source, it says Nine Israelis killed, so they made a mistake and included the American, the Mexican and the two dual-Israeli Americans, and how are the sources unreliable? AFP is a respected source. Read both references not just the one89.216.236.45 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the quoted source, http://www.zimbio.com/AFP+News/articles/5369/Nine+Israelis+killed+Mumbai+attacks+ministry there are three dual nationals. Which is again confusing -- because most of the other sources (included the other one cited) indicate only two dual nationals. And is the Mexican part of the 9? Nine is the wrong number according to this Israeli site: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1042319.html . Given all the confusion -- including the fact that only 6 appear to have died in Chabat house -- we should stick with the named victims when tabulating casualties. 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a South African news channel published 2008-12-01 noting only six victims were Jewish. http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4739787 Briansanders5 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And the San Francisco Chronicle from 2008-11-30 also noting the six hostages killed at the Chabat house. No mention of 8 or 9. I think the confusion was over bodies (which would include the terrorists themselves) and the victims. In any case, without names, we cannot say with any certainty how victims died there. I believe it was six, and the current reporting seems to support that. Briansanders5 (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok then here you go, three sources including HARETZ and Foxnews that claim nine killed, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1041834.html http://iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/29/news/ML-Israel-India.php http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov29/0,4670,MLIsraelIndia,00.html

Look at the dates on those three articles -- they are all 2008-11-29 or earlier. At one point they thought 9 bodies were recovered. That was wrong. As per articles on 2008-11-30 and later, only 6 bodies were recovered. Just because someone once said something, doesn't make it true. If you think more died, then provide some names or a current news article. Briansanders5 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This reference is more clearly dated on December 1, 2008. http://news.smashits.com/323463/Not-all-Chabad-hostages-killed-by-terrorists-Jerusalem-Post.htm And this one quotes the Israeli Air Force as flying back six Jewish bodies, which should be the two Israelis, two Israeli-Americans, the one American, and the one Mexican. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1445879.php/Six_bodies_of_Mumbai_attacks_victims_to_be_flown_to_Israel_ Briansanders5 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

• It appears to contradict itself.

This is somewhat inevitable, in particular when dealing with multiple sources and the fog of war that is slowly lifting. However this is also a key problem right now, in particular as we are cited as a source of reliable information in the media.

The most obvious contradictions are roughly:

1. Group Responsible - An editor has done great work with the Responsibility for the November 2008 Mumbai attacks page, but we must continue to update and expand it. Right now the article and the info box contain contradictory info. In fact in the timeline we adjudicate the attack to one group, and then in the infobox we say suspected groups. Perhaps a way to fix this is to minimize the mention of responsibility to the info box and a short intro section that points to main article. I know this is moving the weight around, but this set us in the right direction to make this article higher quality.
2. Number of attackers - This is really bad, and we need to fix this ASAP. We cannot have the infobox somewhere, the timeline over there, and the responsibility over by the corner. We need to provide one voice. If the sources disagree, we do not pick and choose, we say that the sources disagree. Even if we know that one source is the true one.
3. Narrative voice - sometimes we have an encyclopedic voice, and then we switch to a journalistic voice, and then we dwelve into OR. We need to speak with one voice to serve our readers.

• It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources.

This is a lesser issue, but there are some instance of material not steeming from sources seeping in to the narrative. Remember: even if its true, or you think its true, what matters is that it is verified by reliable sources. Truth not verifiability.

However, we must also be careful to go the other extreme and not do context at all. If multiple sources contradict each other, we must say so, for example. Publishing an item because just one source said it, as if it were fact, without providing commentary that other sources contradict the information, goes afgainst the goal of providing an encyclopedic narrative.

• It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

This a lesser one. And perhaps I might be over-reacting, but I think it is very hard to read the article right now. A reorganization is in order, as is eliminating out-dated sources and information, removing spurious information, and moving long items into other sub-pages (for example, a timeline article).

Remember, this is not the first attack that has been covered by Wikipedia, so there is a lot we could learn from other articles without having to re-invent the wheel, or outright copying.

• It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Related to the above. I am particularly concerned with outdated sources and information. Just because it was published in a reliable source, it means that it is true now. For example, the "Deccan Mujaheddin" are generally accepted by all reliable sources to either be a smokescreen or a total hoax. As time passes, our goal should be to streamline the narrative to fit a historical perspective of the event. This probably also means switching from a voice that is the same as the sources, to an encyclopedic voice that reflects the sources.

• Its introduction may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines.

TL;DR. The introduction needs to be reworked ASAP. It is too long, doesn't invite the reader to read further, and it provides too much detail on some items and too little on others. This has been raised from the start, and I ask that editors take a deep breath and consider what the goal of an intro is vis-a-vis what the actual content is.

The intro is not meant to cover the main points of the article and the most vital information in it. After all, they can read the article if they need the details.

It is meant to explain to the reader why the article is notable, what the article is about, and what is the minimal amount of information they need to know about the article if they don't read it. Anything else is spurious.

I just wanted to explain the tags, and invite everyone to systematize and improve the article, and I will be doing edits as time permits. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the dates on your articles -- they are all 2008-11-29 or earlier. At one point they thought 9 bodies were recovered. That was wrong. As per articles on 2008-11-30 and later, only 6 bodies were recovered. Just because someone once said something, doesn't make it true. If you think more died, then provide some names or a current news article. Briansanders5 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Email originated from Pakistan?

I've found several links that claim the email's IP address was traced to be from Russia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zeU4sEqHE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/26/deccan-mujahideen-mumbai_n_146761.html

Others can be found by googling. I suggest this claim be removed until an official account is published by indian security officials.

I agree that there are sources out there saying this (BTW, YouTube is not a reliable source, and HuffPost is borderline), but so are others saying Pakistan. So what needs to happen is to mention the contradiction, not to wait on anything. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you check that link,its actually a video from an indian news channel which said the IP address was traced to be from Russia. But you're right,I'll change it to mention the contradiction

A Spanish die?

Who make the changes in the table of Death/injured people?, no spanish are dead, how i say to you? This reference is full of errors and mistakes, this other reference] is correct.

• Los dos españoles heridos en los atentados de Bombay (Spanish)
• The two injured spanishes in the Mumbai attacks (English).

Without intention of offending, but if you don't know Spanish, you can translate this news Belonging to an important spanish media with the Google translator. --Ravave (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Exists a difference between "Muerto" and "Herido" (In English are "Dead" and "Injured")

This message from an Spanish user say "I'm right"

:: 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)

This is a good cautionary tale as to sources expiring, even within a single media outlet. For example [1] is an update saying that the health of one of the couple got worse and they are staying in London for this reason. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that news is a breaking news of today, this men are seriously but him still alive, let's wait to other new news. --Ravave (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanna say this, i have enough, No spanish die yet, I know because i'm from Spain and i live there, if one of the couple would be deceased, would be in the news. OK. Please, stop now to reverting my editions. --Ravave (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) If you don't believe to me, here are a news from El país.es, you look the photo [2]

Entry into India

Looking at the chart titled "Entry into India" I'm a little concerned that every item in that chart is supported by exactly one news source... and they are all the same source. I don't know if that's good, bad or normal, but it makes me question just how solid those statments are. Jbarta (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The gist is we look for verifiability, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.". So we do not even have to actually footnote anything if we know it to be a verifiable fact in reliable sources. However, it is a good practice to provide at least one footnote to give readers somewhere to verify our information. When you do this, you also want to keep in mind that "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof" - so you might want the coverage of different sources. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Should Operation Black Tornado be merged into this article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be the discussion might be more stable at Talk:Operation Black Tornado. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

actually wikipedia merge process requires that the thread be in the "merge to" article WP:MERGE. "Ignore all rules" doesn't apply here. But Brewcrewer please do this right and use the templates... Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't IAR apply? It would be most ironic if you respond with a rule. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Anyone will have a hard time convincing my ass that that WP:MERGE somehow keeps anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia; so OBEY THE MERGE. Irony is sweeeet!!! ;) Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ricky's initial point was that he thinks the discussion will be more stable - thus making WP easier to "improve and maintain" - at the other article's talk page. A very valid point, IMO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this silly motive to create an article for Operation Black Tornado that Brewcrewer is trying to do here? How do we justify an article that has only one line? Redirect until there's enough material for having an article. You're just making wikipedia look silly and not to mention, redundant. Why dont we do a vote here (or whatever its called). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Merge: There's not enough material on Operation Black Tornado. Redirect until this can have enough content to justify its own article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. I actually agree with a merge. The formatting and other stuff was just because, I'm that way. I just note that this talk page (at least at the time) was insanely rapid, especially in comparison to the other one. Either way, while it's possibly to create a separate article on the operation, I don't think it itself would be notable. There's too little known and I suspect will be known or cared about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. For what it's worth (I don't anticipate any opposition to this proposal), I support merging. It's always possible to branch off the details of the operation later once we get sufficient information to build a stand-alone article. Kaushik twin (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Fairly obvious and uncontroversial merge, I think, given the size of the article. Otebig (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Don't merge. This is about a specific operation carried out ONLY by the NSG and not the other forces involved in this entire drama (e.g. police, army, MARCOS..etc.). This article (Nov 08 Mumbai attacks) is about the entire happening (i.e. background, suspects, timeline etc.), while Operation Black Tornado is specifically about NSG's operation in that place. It's clearly DIFFERENT and distinct. Regarding lack of information, it will be released later. It's only 2 days since the siege ended so give some time. You don't think Indian investogators / media do magic, do you? It is along the same lines as how thee are seperate articles for Operation Ashwamedh and Operation Black Thunder. Seperate! Don't merge! 118.100.11.150 (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Merge indeed, for the reasons stated above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nghtyvbz (talk • contribs)

The article has been redirected now until there's additional information on the topic. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or more properly keep redirected since there's nothing to merge; see my edit summary.  Sandstein  14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge. There should be a separate article on the distinct and notable commando operation in response to the attacks. The military response is notable from a military aspect. There's a huge Category (Category:Operations involving special forces) of articles that deal exclusively with these commando operations. If November 2008 Mumbai attacks were not a large article I might be persuaded to merge the articles. But now the attack article is bursting at its seams it would be most prudent to have a separate article on the military response. Agreed that the article in its current state is nothing to write home about, but I ask for patience. Please wait for someone with military and/or India expertise to get to work on the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok so let me ask you: What information do we have on the "Operation Black Tornado" that you think should be moved to the new article? A single line doesnt qualify. When the article was there, you had the chance to expand that article but you didnt do it because you knew nothing about the operation other than its name. Answer this question: What do you know about the operation itself? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and suggest close this discussion. Perhaps, sometime in the future, operation black tornado may require an article of its own but not now. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - We are crystal balling across the board. Lets merge and redirect, and if relevant, detailed info from verifiable. reliable sources comes around, then we can fork it again. Preemptive forking is not good for an encyclopedia, but a redirect will help google searchers find this article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and close this. Eusebeus (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• NO Merge - Op. Tornado is not same like the attacks. it was only a op. by black cats. so it deserves a seprate article. -Shereen Shah. Monday, December 01, 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.71.181 (talk • contribs)

• Merge per above. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. I hate following links to find that it would have been easier to include the info on the page i just left. With so little info, is no point to have seperate article. Can be spun off if it shows independant otability later.Yobmod (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per others --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

weapons used

The weapons used by the attackers were apparently H & K MP5 and not AK-47s 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Koxinga CDF (talk)

I only saw guns of the AK family, any source for the use of MP5's? Also i heard that one or two light machine guns were used, anyone seen a source for that? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much every source says AK-47. Highly original research on my part says they were AK-74s, probably PRC or Pakistani clones. None of the pictures show MP-5s, not even on the government side. But if reliable sources verify this info, it should go in. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed to be AK series weapons by the best source - the NSG commandoes http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/28/content_10426971.htm

Sorry for the lack of info, was in a rush just now. Photos of the MP5 recovered was first found in Singapore's StraitsTimes and the source is apparently from AP .

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00666/SNN0113A-280_666394a.jpg http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1989788.ece http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1210367

A couple of possibilities:

• they were equipped with both types
• they captured the weapons from the security forces
• there is a mis identification

Koxinga CDF (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Both were used,the MP5 was captured from the NSG commandos who were killed.The AK series rifles were brought by them.Source is either Indian Express or DNA,I don't remember quite correctly.EaswarH (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

people demanding right to bear arms after attack

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/give-us-guns-india-inc-demands-from-govt/79448-7.html the head of infosys and many other business leaders want the right to bear arms.plz add this

I see that i t was added but failed to mention for people's right to bear arms.I have added it. 122.163.192.126 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The number of injured

Which source is more reliable about the nunber of the injured? AP said "239" in [3] yesterday.--miya (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualty numbers in the first paragraph now match casualty numbers in the section labeled "Casualties" (they didn't previously). It would be good to keep an eye on this.Jbarta (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Casualty" is a military euphemism. I've changed it to "victims". GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

I think we should split the Chronology section into Timeline of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, comments? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we use this map

Can we use http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/mumbaiterrorstrike/map.aspx which as been modified from Image:Mumbai area locator map.svg. It has been releases under CC licenses. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 07:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Structure

I'd like to start a discussion regarding a possible structure for the article (given the fact that there's a rewrite of the intro taking place above, forming some consensus on headings/organisational structure is a good idea).

We currently have the following structure: Intro -> Locations -> Terrorists Involved -> Chronology of Events -> Responsibility -> Casualties -> Aftermath -> Recovery -> Reactions -> Criticism of Anti-Terrorist Operation -> Media Coverage -> International Support for Investigations --> See Also --> References --> External Links

• I'd posit that the details of the attacks (Chronology renamed?) should follow the intro.
• The locations section should be made a sub-heading of the details section.
• Ditto Terrorists Involved.
• Casualties would be the logical successor to details of the attack.
• Either Responsibility or Aftermath could follow Casualties.
• Reactions could be placed after the two above.
• The International Support for Investigations isn't really viable right now as a section, it should be collapsed into the Reactions section.
• Meda Coverage (rename as Coverage with subheadings?) could follow Reactions.
• The section on Criticism doesn't really stand alone; it should be incorporated into either the Reactions section or the Coverage section.

Thoughts? Alternative arrangments? Kaushik twin (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. The intro should probably be replaced soon as there appears to be consensus on the proposed intro above. Kaushik twin (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

intro rewrite proposal

I am ignoring the sources for now, and tried to include all wikilinks possible.

In general, I eliminated detailed geographical descriptors -as the wikilinks provide them if the readers require them - simplified the sentences, eliminated adjectives and journalistic descriptors and reworked the way the information was organized. I also reworded somethings to make the intro one for a historic, not current, event, as these attacks are in the past and we can afford perspective (for example, there is no need to dwell on the confusion in the 28th in the intro, although we should mention it in the article).

In all, I tried to advance the encyclopedic voice and advance the goals of an intro, and in particular make it shorter.

Since the intro has given some grief, I am not directly editing to try and get some consensus.

BTW, if Operation Black Tornado is merged and redirected, as seems to be the emerging consensus, we would leave its mention on the intro as a bold reference, as per MoS for redirects.

Please comment in the appropriate section. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(ps Please remember, if you edit the intro in the actual article, to first check if the source you are deleting is not used anywhere else, if you don't you will break the other references. need to change the intro, first move the markup to the appropriate place, and then delete from the intro)

Proposed Intro

The November 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks that began across Mumbai, India's financial capital and largest city. The attacks began on 26 November 2008 and ended on 29 November 2008 when Indian security forces, in Operation Black Tornado, regained control of all attack sites. At least 172 people, including at least 34 foreign nationals, have been confirmed dead and at least 293 have been injured.

Eight of the attacks took place at sites in South Mumbai proper: the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the Oberoi Trident, the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower, Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, the Orthodox Jewish-owned Nariman House, the Metro Adlabs, and the Mumbai Police headquarters. There was also an explosion at the Mazagaon docks in Mumbai's port area. A possible tenth incident involved a taxi blast at Vile Parle near the airport, but it is uncertain whether this was connected to the other nine attacks.

By the early morning of 28 November, all sites except for the Taj Mahal Palace had been secured by police and security forces. Action by India's National Security Guards on 29 November resulted in the conclusion of the Taj Mahal Palace encounter, ending all fighting in the attacks.

Initially, a previously unknown organization called the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility. Later, Azam Amir Kasav, the single terrorist who was captured alive, disclosed that the attackers were members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group. However, no official attribution of responsibility has been made by the Indian Government.

The attacks drew widespread condemnation across the world.

Comments on proposed intro

Please post comments here, so the intro remains static. ---

Comments from Kensplanet

• Among the dead is Hemant Karkare chief of the Anti Terrorist Squad of Maharashtra. --- need not be mentioned as many other TOP Cops had also died. Kensplanet^Talk

_{Contributions} 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ok. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Easwarno1

• "the Metro Adlabs, and the Mumbai Police Headquarters. There was also an explosion at Mazagaon docks in Mumbai's port area"

Citations needed.AFAIK,none of those places were affected.Police were supposing that the terrorists went towards Police HQ,but they only took an back lane to Cama and Albless hospital.Please fix.EaswarH (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Citations are the same as in the current intro, assume they are there.

1. So, this means that the citations that describe attacks on the Cinema and HQ are wrong? If so this isn't just a problem with the intro, but a problem with the article itself. However all sources I have seen do name both places as part of the attacks, in particular related to the stolen police suv.

So do help us in the main article, the scope of this thread is the intro, which would be modified to reflect the article itself. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll find out more on that.What about the explosions at the docks?Are they in the citations too?EaswarH (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Kaushik_twin

• There appear to be a few grammar/prose issues: `finally' in your first sentence is superfluous; discussion of the length of the operation is probably best placed later in the article. `named by them' them is slightly superfluous, I differ to consensus on that. `took place at sites'. `the Leopold Cafe' has a superfluous `the', ditto Cama Hospital. As mentioned Mumbai Adlabs and Mumbai Police need to be cited (at least in discussion). Mazagaon has a wiki article, so that can be linked. The Karkare mention is best added in the main part of the article

Grammar in the third para is awkward. Rewrite possibly as follows: By the early morning of 28 November, all sites except for the Taj Mahal Palace had been secured by police and security forces. National Security Guards action on 29 November resulted in the conclusion of the Taj Mahal Palace encounter.

The fourth paragraph could probably be made more succinct. The mode of communication through which the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility isn't really necessary. Rewrite last sentence to read: However, no official attribution of responsibility has been made by the Indian Government.

Add a new paragraph/mention of other terrorist attacks in India in 2008. Kaushik twin (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Except additional content, I want to hear form others on this regards. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Matt57

Whats the problem with the current intro? I dont see any. --Matt57^{(talk•contribs)} 13:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Too long and detailed. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok yea, it does look long. Good luck. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by IP 72.75.11.5

Several problems with the proposed new intro. First the "nine, possibly ten" is not needed. It was a "a series of attacks." the code name of the Indian security response is not needed so high. Up in the first graph, the glaring omission is the word "Pakistan." At the very least the increase in tension between Indian and Pakistan as a result of the attacks is the first or second most important piece of information about the attacks.72.75.11.5 (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done on the "possibly ten". Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that "Black Tornado" is given undue prominence: it is the name the security forces gave to their response, a central and key part of this topic. Of course, if consensus moves in this direction, I can live with moving it for the sake of a better intro.

• On the issue of Pakistan, there are no verifiable official statements on this regards. While the current emerging picture is that indeed there is some kind of Pakistan connection (and this is mentioned in the intro and elaborated in the article), we would give undue weight to a political view, rather than the factual representation of the events.

The generalities of the India-Pakistan conflict, in particular Kashmir, are well covered in other wikipedia articles, and perhaps linking in the See Also is in order, but there aren't simply enough reliable, verifiable sources right now (besides opinion articles, which are inherently unreliable) to warrant, in my opinion, any reference in the intro. This might change in the future, but I think we should wait until then. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Cerejota

Added: "The attacks drew widespread condemnation across the world."--Cerejota (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by wadester16

I'm glad you took the initiative to do this. The list of attack spots has made me cringe from the beginning and I tried to make it more readable, but it was difficult. I found a number of minor grammar and prose issues (you like your long sentences, eh?), but all in all, I like it. Because most of my edits are minor, I'm just going to copy+paste the original with my edits bolded so you can see more easily what I mean (as opposed to "second line, fourth word" etc):

---

Note: THIS IS AN OLD DRAFT.

The November 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks [removed comma] that began across Mumbai, India's [wikified] financial capital and largest city. The attacks began on 26 November 2008 and ended on 29 November 2008 when Indian security forces, in [removed an operation named by them as] Operation Black Tornado, regained control of all attack sites. At least 172 people, including at least 34 foreign nationals, have been confirmed deaddied and at least 293 have beenwere injured in the attacks.

Eight of the attacks took place at sites in South Mumbai proper: the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the Oberoi Trident, the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower, Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, the Orthodox Jewish-owned Nariman House, the Metro Adlabs, and the Mumbai Police headquarters. There was also an explosion at [insert a the here?] Mazagaon docks in Mumbai's port area. A possible tenth incident involved a taxi blast at Vile Parle near the airport, [added comma] but it is uncertain whether this was connected to the other nine attacks.

By the early morning of 28 November, all sites except for the Taj Mahal Palace had been secured by police and security forces. Action by India's National Security Guards on 29 November resulted in the conclusion of the Taj Mahal Palace encounter, ending all fighting in the attacks.

Initially, [added comma] a previously unknown organization called the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility. Later Azam Amir Kasav, the single terrorist who was captured alive, disclosed that the attackers were members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group. However, no official attribution of responsibility has been made by the Indian Government. [wikified]

The attacks drew widespread condemnation across the world.

---

Here is the final version I would propose. It needs to go up soon since there's been some massive editing to the intro as of late. I'm going to add references in the next couple hours:

The November 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks across Mumbai, India's financial capital and largest city. The attacks began on 26 November 2008 and ended on 29 November 2008 when Indian security forces, in Operation Black Tornado, regained control of all attack sites. At least 188 people, including at least 30 foreign nationals, were killed and at least 293 were injured in the attacks.

Eight of the attacks took place at sites in South Mumbai proper: the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the Oberoi Trident, the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower, Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, the Orthodox Jewish-owned Nariman House, the Metro Adlabs, and the Mumbai Police headquarters. There was also an explosion at the Mazagaon docks in Mumbai's port area. A possible tenth incident involved a taxi blast at Vile Parle near the airport, but it is uncertain whether this was connected to the other nine attacks.

By the early morning of 28 November, all sites except for the Taj Mahal Palace had been secured by police and security forces. Action by India's National Security Guards on 29 November resulted in the conclusion of the Taj Mahal Palace encounter, ending all fighting in the attacks.

Initially, a previously unknown organization called the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility. Later, Azam Amir Kasav, the single terrorist who was captured alive, disclosed that the attackers were members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group. However, no official attribution of responsibility has been made by the Indian Government.

The attacks drew widespread condemnation across the world.

---

I like this. Concise but contains all relevant details. I say pop it in per WP:BOLD now. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments:

• I have a feeling some may not like my move from which to that in the first sentence. Hopefully this great example can persuade you.
• Also, I thought Operation Black Tornado had been merged into this article..?
• I'm ASG that the word proper is necessary in the first sentence of the second paragraph?
• Does the order of the attack sites have any prominence? Is it chronological?
• Eventually the have been confirmed dead and have been injured will have to be changed to were killed and were injured, respectively. As of right now, it's still close enough to the time of the incidents that the tense used is still appropriate.

Hopefully this helps! If anyone wants more help with the language of the (an) article, feel free to drop by here and somebody will help you out.

~ Wadester16 (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done (for the actual edits) Excellent edits, I think this is looking better with each wave of edits, but soon we will have to actually move it and source it. ;).

On "Operation Black Tornado" I said in my original post: "BTW, if Operation Black Tornado is merged and redirected, as seems to be the emerging consensus, we would leave its mention on the intro as a bold reference, as per MoS for redirects."

Keep on keepin' on! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I forgot a comma! One is needed before Azam Amir Kasav's name (third paragraph) after the word Later. Sorry for missing that before ~ Wadester16 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

NVM I did it myself. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Further comments by Kaushik_twin

I like the new edited version proposed by Wadester16. A couple of minor points.

• Are we sure that Operation Black Tornado refers to actions by the NSG/MARCOS at all sites? I've seen a few sources that state that Black Tornado refers to actions at Nariman House, while Operation Cyclone took place at the Taj. [4] I'll defer to others on this (some other sources on the web that refer to Black Tornado appear to draw from the wikipedia article in its early stages, so we'll probably have to look for some sort of official/comprehensive description of the various operations involved.
• I would agree that proper isn't necessary; the distinction between South Mumbai and South Mumbai proper isn't really something that I'm familiar with, so again, I'll defer to others if it does prove to be a notable distinction to make.
• I'd agree with the before Mazagaon
• A possible tenth attack instead of The? Since the earlier mention of a possible tenth attack has been removed, usage of the is not really necessary.
  • Agree and I have changed my version to reflect this suggestion. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaushik twin (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Wadester's version incorporated the changes. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by thelostlibertine

Similar point to that has previously raised - the attacks on the high profile police staff occurred near one of Mumbai's hospitals not at the Police HQ Thelostlibertine (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a mention above. Can you verify this with a source or (preferably) two? It definitely needs to be fixed if that's the case. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mr Karkare was shot at near Cama hospital and soon after the other two officers were also shot near the multiplex" hope that helps :) [5]

I remember hearing about an attack on the police HQ on the news. Maybe that's changed and it was a bad report. But is there something that says it was a bad report or that it didn't actually happen? I guess I'm asking for proof of a negative though... ~ Wadester16 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thelostlibertine (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am basing this on the current intro, which sources the news. A lot of the issues in the article are about dated sources. If we can find a couple of more recent sources (preferably a local source and a wire service source) that contradict the information we have, then by all means lets change. Remember, we do not need to know what happened: verifiability not truth. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One-paragraph intro not WP:LEAD#Length-compliant

It seems to me that reducing the intro to a paragraph and then adding three new sections at the top which just duplicate what the three-paragraph intro used to have in it makes things more difficult for the reader. WP:LEAD#Length recommends a three- or four-paragraph intro for an article of this size, and I'l like to see the article return to compliance with that. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It seems the intro has seen a multitude of edits just recently and has gone from something way too long-winded to something way too short. On the plus side, we seem to have come close to a consensus on a new intro which is (IMO) a perfect length and covers mostly everything that is important to the article. You can see this just here. Please feel free to comment on it. It is updated each time someone comments and will most likely become live soon, so this worry about the current intro can be ignored for the most part. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your link isn't working Wadester16. I'm in support of changing the intro to the version we've worked on as that appears to be quite comprehensive and good. If you have access to the final version of it, would you add it to the article? Kaushik twin (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New Intro posted

I've posted the new intro and included some old references, some new. There may be some broken references due to the new intro being pasted in. Please keep an eye out for this occurrence. I will do my best to fix any I find that are now broken and fix them based on the previous version of the intro. I did this hastily because the intro has been experiencing a lot of edits in the very recent past and I wanted to get our new intro, which seemed to have essentially gained consensus, into the article. Hopefully we can revert edits that do the same as those done earlier, which deleted the extremely long intro and replaced it with a one-paragraph one. The new intro comes from that version shown above under the "final version" section.~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some editors are insisting in an ultra-short version. I disagree with it, in particular because we have a good discussion going here, and the edits were done without any. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. You beat me in reverting tomtom's ultra-short edit (boo!). I think we can also easily cite Wikipedia:LEAD#Length as GetLinkPrimitiveParams mentioned just above. Will fight to the death on side of consensus. Join me? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism}}

Created {{Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism}}, and removed links from see also. Included this new template in all member pages. Please expand as appropriate as I only used the links that were in the See Also. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor nominated this template for deletion, but didn't place the appropriate message in the template. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Campaignbox_Mumbai_terrorism.

I opposed, for reasons stated there. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no one is adding information about the barbarity of the attack?

See these links:

1 2 3 4 Axxn (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, add it if you can. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST

While the WP:TERRORIST style guideline apparently says to "never" use the word "terrorist," I would note it is subordinate to the WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE policies, which require that we faithfully represent terms upon which there is essentially no disagreement in reliable sources. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST is basically a common-sense appeal to not feed the trolls (as all of WP:WTA is) - it is way more important to have a verifiable, reliably sourced, article of high quality than to have endless fights over terminology.

I say we wait it out, I have myself used the term "terrorist" in this and related articles, as this is pretty much a dictionary example (and I am very weary of the word, mind you), and so far no serious community objection has arisen. However, if said opposition to the term happens in the future, I think WP:TERRORISM should be followed - it exist for a reason.

WARNING; Wikilawyering ahead: Basically I am invoking WP:IAR, as I agree with the action, however, I disagree with your view that WP:TERRORIST is subordinate to a requirement from WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE that we follow sources. Quite the contrary, WP:TERRORIST is basically a community interpretation of said policies, that is, it is not subordinate, but actually a synthesis of those policies for a limited purpose. It is a much discussed and much controversial part of WP:WTA, so it is discussed eternally - I thinking am jumping in that fray now... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course its subordinate, its a MOS, no concensus can violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point, it is subordinate as words in a wiki, but not in spirit: it draws its strength from policy. Policy are a bunch of empty words until we turn them into action, and WTA is part of that. And of course, I believe consensus trumps all: I am all for continuing to call these guys terrorists, for now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Will we then be moving to articles such as this - a nearly identical situation - and replacing all instances of "militant" with "terrorist"? NoCal100 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do the sources say terrorist or militant? Given that the first is called Terrorist Suicide Operation Analysis that would be a yes! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I have $100 here that says such a change wouldn't last a day. NoCal100 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The consensus in that article seems to be to fully implement WP:TERRORIST. Again, I disagree, and this is general wikipedia policy, that when we speak in the encyclopedic voice we must say whatever the sources say. We do that when quoting, not when citing. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

why remove gun article

The war on Mumbai has left the India Inc. angry and vulnerable sectors want much more than a constable with a lathi. A meeting convened by the Karnataka government with industry heads led to strong suggestions from an industry with demand for automated guns for internal security and or people for right to bear arms. [210] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/give-us-guns-india-inc-demands-from-govt/79448-7.html

why rmeove it.its bias to remove pro gun articles.please add this 24.132.170.97 (talk)

Was this removed? It seems like a reasonable thing to include in the "reactions" section. Friday (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

India Inc. is jargon and a neologism which would need to be attributed to a reliable source. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Err.. what? You mean a source like http://ibnlive.in.com/news/give-us-guns-india-inc-demands-from-govt/79448-7.html ? The fact that we have a sourced article India Inc. seems to indicate that this term is widely used. Friday (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the section, reworded for grammar. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is one of those reactions that shows the corporate world is all out for disproportional reactions of teh violent kind. I would call it campaigning, obviously if the people get weapons more easily they will use them more, only the manager will be armed for years to come to have an arrogant excuse for shooting. Shows how the terrorist mind and ways of thinking are structurally similar to the corporate mindset.exclude.24.132.170.97 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

24.132.170.97 (talk)

Terrorists still out there, on the run?

Scary, but true and reported by reliable sources. See [6] and [7] 129.120.185.227 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that possible?. I heard that all of them were killed except one is in Jail.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Posible that while some of them holed up in the hotels others made a run for it. Not imposible.Geni 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, the indian authority's seem in no hurry to release disturbing facts. Every rumour from indian officials has been pointed out in international media, Not the nr of dead , or the nr of prisoners, or even the cause of death (abuse and liquidation?) apparently of the attackers has proven reliable. Remember how earlier the indian police 'leaked' they held 3 'pakistani' prisoners? Now even wiki suggests two prisoners taken, the nr 3 is not anymore mentioned thoug it incited hate (posts, indian nationalism) against pakistan already. I think the article should describe the misinformations that enwrap this story. a "second hospital attack" that disappeared suggest dehuminisation. The offical version of karkares dead (if it is the official) will be he was shot 'in pursuit', i suspect the attack on the police station will disappear from the annals.(altho i looked for it besides it was given as a certainty there is not a description outside karkares obituary that suggests he was just dressed for action and with more then 4 others around him (9 would make sense). The different story's told warrant to remain questionmarks. Karkare was (like bhutto) burried quickly, yesterday i think. i wonder if his body underwent research to even the bullets he was shot with?(..). 24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan Media `virtual war'

How comfortable are we making this assertion? I see only one source that refers to a virtual war, and the sentence in the article is essentially a copy paste job from the first few lines of the article. I'm removing the statement for now. Kaushik twin (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Virtual war? --SkyWalker (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy under "Criticism of the anti-terrorist operation"

They were ready at 1 am but had to wait for 3 hours, until 3:15 am for an aircraft to arrive from Chandigarh

This clearly can't be right. But the source of this paragraph is not clear so I can't check/fix it. --WayneMokane (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I found an alternative version of the timeline from another source. Added it underneath. bostonbrahmin 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Timeline image

I removed this timeline from the article because even when opened at full size, even my good eyes cannot read the text in the boxes. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope the creator will re-render in with higher contrast and larger fonts. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the link to the full-resolution image (Of course, depending on the browser, you may have to zoom in) ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Even after it is enlarged to full size, it is too small to read. I'm re-removing it. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gangster?

Maybe I'm silly but I don't understand why the word Ganster is used instead of some other adjective in the following sentence:

"According to the Indian External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, India in the demarches to Pakistan, asked for the arrest and handover of those 20 persons including gangster, Dawood Ibrahim, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammad"

I don't take any offense really- I just wonder if that is really the best word?

Maybe underworld something (like underworld don-- but that's not proper english) ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mh, 'berezinski's friend' would work for me, but is he? i suggest arms trader. Or is he a 'real' criminal? (on the run). he would still be an arms trader if he makes a difference as 'underworld don'.24.132.170.97 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

November 2008 Mumbai Attacks

There is no mention here, or on other sources of the number of Muslims that may have been killed or injured in the attacks. It seems unlikely that there are no such deaths or injuries among the several hundreds of casualties, based on the apparent indiscriminate actions against people in public places. While there is an emphasis on killing of "infidels" in the press in these matters, it seems that the indiscriminate killing of Muslims by the Muslim terrorists is frequently ignored. Can anyone find this information? 204dbw (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)javascript:insertTags('204dbw (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)',,)

I agree that this would be useful information, but so far the only Muslims known to have died were the attackers. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian fatalities

Some editor or editors keeps changing the number of Australian fatalities to four. This is not correct, and only two Australians were killed. Two Australians went missing during the fighting, but both survived. The editor(s) who change the Australian figures are referencing old stories from when the two missing Australians were feared dead, and more recent stories set the number at two. For instance: http://news.smh.com.au/national/injured-aussies-return-home-from-mumbai-20081202-6ows.html Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ISI's Invovlment

IBNLIVE reporting that there are enough proof against ISI for attacks in Mumbai 2008 which has been confirmed by US. IBNLIVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.239.17 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Perpetrators

There are new reports in the media coming in about US government asking Pakistan government to arrest Hafeez Mohammad Saeed. LeTs political wing was also mentioned. Jamat-ud-dawa and Hafeez Saeed operate quite openly. Hafeez was released from prison in 2006 and also writes articles in its website. Here's Jamat's take on who the perpetrators of the this terror attacks were Jamat. It is not difficult to see grudge this organization holds against India. While I don't want to touch the Perpetrators section as yet. It looks decent enough to me but I see a scope of expansion in this section as more facts emerge. Wikipedia has a stub about the organaization Jama'at-ud-Da'wah. Indoresearch (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article size

I realized, upon re-structuring, that there is a lot of redundancy in the text, with some events sourced differently, but repeated multiple times. I believe this to be serious enough that this part of the huge article size.

That said, some of it is just the sheer volume of the information, so I think that continuing to fork to sub-pages, and adding new information there is the way to go. This page should act as a sort of introduction and clearing house for the sub-pages. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blank headers

They are there on purpose. Please fill them out. The ones in the "Attack" header can be filled with text from the main part... I am not doing because I lack time. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Background

Could someone with more experience on the topic of Mumbai and Terrorism write a brief section and source it? Wanted to copy a few lines from Terrorism in Mumbai but it is basically a gatekeeper article, not much hard info... and I have pedestrian knowledge on Indian history. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can History of Mumbai#21st century be of any help. It has been written by me. Please check it. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 08:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)