Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 6

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 4

→

TWITTER - SOCIAL MEDIA INFO

In relation to the last paragraph about twitter and the government asking the website to stop posting updates and information, CNN has reported thus http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/mumbai.twitter/index.html

However, as is the case with such widespread dissemination of information, a vast number of the posts on Twitter amounted to unsubstantiated rumors and wild inaccuracies.

For example, a rumor that the Indian government was asking tweeters to stop live updates to avoid compromising its security efforts was published and republished on the site.

This was seemingly given credence by at least one major news Web site, which posted the tweet on its live update.

It read simply: "Indian government asks for live Twitter updates from Mumbai to cease immediately. ALL LIVE UPDATES - PLEASE STOP TWEETING."

Then it was suggested via Twitter that terrorists were using the medium to gain information about what Indian security forces were doing, which led to numerous abusive postings urging the terrorists to "die, die, die, if you're reading this." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.160.96 (talk • contribs)

Suggestion

In the Entry into India table, there's no sense in repeating Ref72 again and again. Instead can we just mention it once like the one in the At the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel table. Please check.

Can we add a Chapter on the response of Pakistan or the lack therof

new info

condemnation and the legacy: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Market_News/FIIs_may_pull_out_more_moneyExperts_/articleshow/3780890.cms >> FIIs may pull out more money following terror attacks, Experts http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6365166&page=1 >> Mystery Surrounds Surviving Terrorist http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Clarion-Fund-Condemns-Terrorist-Attacks/story.aspx?guid=%7BC02821BD-AFDA-467A-92EA-08936409BE56%7D >> Clarion Fund Condemns Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai

can also add the delhi commonwealth, aussie squash and acb/ecb reactions.

There was also condemnation from (israel, australia, etc, etc). Stupid they may be and out of touch with the reality but it is still notable and unbiased, magar fair game to include.

conspiracy theory

need to have aconspiracy theory article.many events are suspicious. some links which can be used www.prisonplanet.com/as-predicted-india-links-mumbai-attacks-with-pakistan.html www.prisonplanet.com/hemant-karkare-false-flag-investigator-killed-in-mumbai-attack.html www.prisonplanet.com/pakistani-security-consultant-calls-mumbai-attacks-a-botched-false-flag.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.8.4 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So, someone has already come out with a theory even before the things have settled down a little bit in the affected places/people. I don't see any reason of starting such a section based on one website's speculation, which is not even slightly mentioned by any of the well known and reputed media anywhere in the world. Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The same person responsible for that website has also claimed that the Virginia Tech Massacre, the September 11 attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and every attack carried out by Al-Qaida are false-flag operations by the US Government. Sadly, this maniac has a lot of gullible followers who will buy into this line too. ----DanTD (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should rephrase, as you wrote it, this almost read as if the guy is saying Al Qaeda did the VTech thing... ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that, anymore than I would suggest that OKC was done by Al-Qaida. Be that as it may, Alex Jones thinks VTech, OKC, and all Al-Qaida attacks are false flag ops by the feds, as do many of his followers. ----DanTD (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not restore timeline tables without discussion

There is already a sub-article for them, and this article is way too big and needs to be cut shorter by moving content to sub-pages, and eleminating redundancies. The MoS for Wikipedia recommends that one use a narrative form rather than a table form for timelines, and at least we shouldn't have both in the same article. That is why you have things like 2006 Lebanon War and Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (which due to the length of the conflict, is itself divided!). Consensus can change, but the best way to do it is by discussing, not by reverting. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well those empty sections look terrible. How about if we replace the tables with {{prose}} tags? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am doing that (next time just be bold and do it!). I do think maybe they are empty because they are not needed, but one thing at a time. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done I've reorganised the text under the empty sections. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move for "List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks"

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks#Requested move so that List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks be renamed and moved to Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks to fit the new consensus structure. Please comment. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Could it be in the "Attacks" section as a "sub-section". I think this is important, but not as important as the attacks themselves. And try to keep it focused, there is already a "criticism" section for this; we should include facts about warnings, and leave criticisms of how those warnings were handled to the criticism section. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Confession of a captured terrorist

The article should be changed to reveal the new information regarding the actual name of this person. Just changing it won't do, we need to source it. I already changed the {{main}} name, but more work needs to be done. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, is there any reason to expand on this person here, since he already has a main article devoted to him? Can we just get rid of duplicate text?

bostonbrahmin 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

I agree, but I was waiting for the main article to stabilize. There is no time limit after all ;). Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Hey we might want to add some info to the timeline section, not just a hyperlink. Otherwise, just merge it in with another section. Dnkywin (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with merging into the "Attacks" section as a top level "see also". But if someone can come up with a non-redudant, non-OR intro, I have no problem with an intro. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

section shorten for subpages

Bostonbrahmin20, great work! I think the "Background" section and the first part of "Attribution" are looking good... we just got to do it for all the article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent change on attribution!!! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Security Meeting held in Gujarat" subsection

I think it is both irrelevant and a prime example of recenticism. In ten years, readers of wikipedia will not care about this, so why should we include it? September 11 attacks is a good example... the investigation and result sections have text made and sourced years later. We need to move from the position we where at when the attacks were happening, with us being a source of clarity for many people, to become an encyclopedia article for the ages. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove. I think the subsection adds nothing to the article. bostonbrahmin 03:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Article size again

The article is now 30% smaller than it was at its peak, but is still significantly large.

I think wee need to move more information to the "Timeline" article, and have the attacks section focus on the general information, rather than on specifics as it is now.

It would be a good idea to also create an "Aftermath" sub-page.

Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done I've created a new sub-article on Aftermath of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks and moved most of the section there, leaving a link on the main article. Timeline still needs a lot of cleanup. SBC-YPR (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

why the hell are you removing right to bear arms?

the news article said that right to bear arms too. here eve more articles http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122877201598989093.html http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40567 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/mumbais_harsh_lesson_on_gun_co.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece

this should be now added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.46.19 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I read your references. The cited articles are opinion articles written by columnists, not news reports. The businesses that are asking for permission to staff their security services with automatic weapons are not using the words "right to bear arms." (Even if they did, it wouldn't be accurate, anyway. Indians already have the right to bear arms, but the implementation of the law is done in the typical frustrating Indian way, so in practice it is hard to get permits and almost impossible to buy weapons). Using the words "right to bear arms" amounts to opinion. These words do not belong in this Wikipedia article. bostonbrahmin 04:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The IBNlive article is indeed a news item, but it doesn't mention any "right to bear arms", either. Why are you insisting on using this phrase? bostonbrahmin 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

here is your answer The government is unable to protect us, then amend the law. Let us bear arms, we'll protect ourselves to whatever extent we can”

right to bear arms is a fundamental right and currentlty it is only a privalege. add this back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.11 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Methodology

I think that sub-section at most goes into "Attacks" has nothing to do with attribution. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)