Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 9

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 7

dodgy photo

the photo of Ajmal Amir Kasab looks doctored to me- look at the white edges around the head? Should it be taken off? Rmcubed (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Its because of the lighting. There are other pictures form other angles and a video (in fact I think this might me a video cap). The photo is legit.--Cerejota (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

dudes

Don't I deserver like a Flying Pig Barnstar or something? :P

Seriously, it has been an incredible pleasure to work on this article with you guys, we are well on the way. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Thank you to you too, Cerejota, for everything. Wish all of you a great new year! - Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Got caught up but thanks man!--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

Updated Attribution paragraph to conform to the Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks page. Please review for any objections.

bostonbrahmin 03:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

I am making some changes to fix grammar, MoS stuff, and some slight WP:WTA/NPOV stuff. Otherwise, great edit and formulation. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we move the "Attribution" section below the "Attacks" section, since it probably makes more sense to read them in that order? Thanks, - Max ^{- You were saying?} 08:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care either way, although I think attribution gives useful context before the attacks. Do you feel me? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I see what you're saying. Status quo it is, then. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Abu Ismail Dera Ismail Khan

Does Abu Ismail Dera Ismail Khan deserve to exist as a single article? I mean, Ajmal Amir is 100% guaranteed to continue being news, but this guy was killed, and while the alleged group leader, shouldn't it be merged with Ajmal Amir or with Attribution? I do not forsee any additional information arising that is not redundant with other articles, so I ask. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Vote to get rid of Abu Ismail Dera Ismail Khan as a separate article.

--bostonbrahmin 04:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Categories rename

I have done CfD for renaming the categories due to the rename of the articles: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_12#Category:Buildings_attacked_in_the_November_2008_Mumbai_attacks and the other two are below. Please give your opinion. --Cerejota (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this really notable here instead of Wiki News?

I was recently reviewing the notability guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability, and it talks about "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it." And later goes on to say, "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." So, while this is a great article, why isn't it just in Wikinews instead of here. As horrific as this was, and newsworthy, is it really an encyclopedia article? I'm confused now about notability guidelines. (Unless just extreme impact and popularity actually trumps policy.) 67.83.204.60 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not a "short burst of news". This is a historically significant event, just like the Parliament attacks. Attacks leading to international attention and military stress can't be disregarded as non-notable. –Capricorn42 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously! It's not called the 26/11 (in imitation of 9/11) for nothing. This was the first one where Indian people went after the Govt. of India like dogs, instead of against Pakistan or sitting around and just talking about it. There were rallies, protests, petitions even cases filed against the govt. of India. This one scarcely qualifies as just news. This is landmark. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The notability guidelines clearly state: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This event has had hundreds of independent reports in newspapers all over the world. It's the very definition of a notable topic. In fact, all of the "main articles" within it also have significant coverage of this kind, so they are themselves notable topics.

--bostonbrahmin 05:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Books section edits need to be undone

A publisher has created a Books section and added a reference to a book. I think this is legitimate, but they have also added advertising copy and a link to their web site. I'm pretty sure this latter text needs to be removed, but what are the guidelines for removing such material in Wikipedia?

bostonbrahmin 04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Background

Hello, I haven't been involved at all in the development of this page, but I noticed in the Background section of this page there is a section that says "No group claimed responsibility for the attack, but it had been hinted that the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba was behind the attacks." This is a false statement - Emails from a Group called the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsiblity. This can be seen in the "Erroneous Reporting" page, which, in the Deccan Mujahideen section, mentions the fact that responsibility was taken by the Deccan Mujahideen. The group may not exist, but it is worth mentioning in the main article, as this fact leaves many questions open. The group appears to be mentioned in the "Erroneous Reporting" page because of the facts surrounding the group not being clear or reported correctly, not because the claims of responsibility did not happen. Thank you for your consideration. Afb987

Thanks for your message Afb987. The part about no group claiming responsibility refers to the 25 August 2003 bomb blasts in South Mumbai, and not to the main attacks that are the subject of this article. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 16:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)