Jump to content

Talk:Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC Reporting of 2008 attacks in 2011

[edit]

The latest news article by BBC on the 2011 bombings uses the phrase "were blamed on the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group" about the 2008 attack. But my understanding is this has been confirmed by India, Pakistan, etc.. I would like to document this special language used by BBC while referring to attacks in India. Please let me know all possible reasons why i should not document it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.56.30 (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i dont see any objection to this.. i will add a section about the BBC reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.198.86 (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this group actually exist?

[edit]

Right now, we haven't seen any evidence that this group even exists, much less that the claim of responsibility was genuine. This claim of responsibility, sent in an e-mail to news organizations according to Reuters, is the first time anyone has ever heard of this group. I've edited the article to make more clear that the existence of the group is not certain. Alereon (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Nevertheless it hasn't been disproven that this group is a branch of another already present organization and will be treated as a seperate oraganization until so. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say for now it should be treated as "a thing that was emailed", which may be anything from an organization to a random person who made up a name and emailed it with a false claim, as our sources explicitly mention. --Delirium (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, maybe those kind of articles should be automatically nominated for deletion after 30 days if nothing changes and no new information comes available? This "group" looks as fake as it can get. Unless of course somebody comes out with some real information. It should be noted that "Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed "external forces."" according to Associated Press. Magabund (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep an eye on it, and if it turns out just to be a front for another organisation, then merge this article into that one, leaving a redirect here. -Kieran (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this group turns out to be hoax/cover, this article would be a good place to deal with the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the perpetrators, as I doubt any of them will be individually notable. It's a useful article name to file this information under, regardless of whether they were ever an organized group outside of this attack. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page as well as the actual attack page are getting vandalized. They should probably be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.119.51 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, literally mujaheddin does not mean they are trying to impose Sharia law. Instead it means simply muslims involved in a war with non-muslims.PedroDaGr8 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflict" is probably better than "war", as it implies the latter but it broader in scope: literally, "mujahid" is "one who takes part in a jihad ("jihad" -> "-jahid"), and a "jihad" can take any shape necessary to achieve its purpose. Also, it means that at least the party titling itself so is Muslim (it can be both sides). If you are a Sunni and hand out leaflets denouncing Shi'a Islam, that would under many circumstances qualify as jihad already. From the perspective of non-Muslims, things usually look different however.
Also note that Islamist groups have well understood the media circus, making up names for specific purposes "on the fly".
As regards the main question, among the first to claim responsibility for 9/11 were a Palestinian refugee's splinter group and the Japanese Red Army. So we just have to wait and see. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they Indian as they claim?

[edit]

Yes, I think at least some of them.--ISKapoor (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)--ISKapoor[reply]

I take that back. Based on the audio recordings of the calls made by the two militants, it is obvious that at least these two are not from Hyderabad Deccan, or from India (or mohazirs in Pakistan).
They are obviously from Pakistan. Their Urdu pronounciation is strongly Punjabi-like, with deviation from Urdu grammar suggesting that they are from Peshawar or Kashmir region.
http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo-Terrorist-calling-himself-Sahadullah-spe-id-519886.php
http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo-2nd-Terrorist-speaks-from-Nariman-house-id-519881.php
--ISKapoor (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am from Peshawar. The first audio (Sahadullah) is definitely not from Peshawar or from the Frontier region of Pakistan. Quoting from him, he says "julm", no one from Pakistan would pronounce that word as "julm", all would use "zulm". Similarly the 2nd audio (Imran) also says "julm" and "jiadtee", again, Pakistanis would say "zulm" and "ziadtee". Now, if they are deliberately speaking in a non-Pakistani accent to disguise their origins, I'm onboard with that. But claiming that these guys' accents as heard on the audio is somehow a "Peshawari" accent is incorrect. I won't be editing the page because (a) there is a legitimate reference (erroneously) stating that it is a Peshawari accent and (b) I don't have a counter-reference which states that it is not a Peshawari accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.105 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the anonymous comment above me. I'm from the Lahore area of Pakistan and I know what peshawris sound like, these guys definitely don't have a peshawri or pushto accent. Also they used quite a lot of Hindi words which they wouldn't if they were Pakis, but again they could be trying to disguise their origins. Btw, does anyone have links to the full calls? Please share :) --Digitwoman (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree though, their accent is definitely Punjabi. Its difficult to say if its Indian punjabi or paki. punjabi.--Digitwoman (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the call of the 1st terrorist that might be of interest: http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-terrorist-calling-himself-sahadullah-speaks-to-india-tv-2135745.html --Digitwoman (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They had tried to use several Hindi words deliberately such as Pariwar, however in most cases the words used were unnecessary or redundant, they are not used in that manner in India. In one case word Hindi "sena" was used meaning army, but was pronounced incorrectly as "seena", suggesting they had used Urdu script for learning these words. The use of j for z was also apparently deliberate. --ISKapoor (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities

[edit]

The email issued from the islamic militant group Deccan Mujahideen claiming responsibility for November 25, 2008 attacks in Mumbai actually mentions the group ‘Indian Mujahideen’ (and not Deccan Mujahideen). Maybe they are the same or a splinter group. The contents of this email are mysteriously similar to an email threat issued by the Indian Mujahideen group against Mumbai back in September 14, 2008 and published in a reputable Indian news daily - India Today. The real question is how seriously were these threats taken by the Indian authorities.

Here are the links to both of these emails-

Deccan Mujahideen’s claim: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24718115-5012747,00.html

There is a mistake here. The text is from an earlier Indian Mujahideen eail.--ISKapoor (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Mujahideen’s threat: http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&issueid=71&task=view&id=15328&sectionid=4&Itemid=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.41.194 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Entry Shouldn't be here

[edit]

Wiki is not a breaking news channel. It is meant to be fact but at this stage nothing is know about this group which warrents an entry, that combinned with the fact that many poor news reporters looking for info are going to get it from here and further spread rubbish when we need really information. Delete this Wiki Entry. Expat Justin (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re: all the speculation. If you feel the article is speculative (which I think it is), be bold and edit. If you think it should be deleted, there are channels you can take to try to have that done. Contact an administrator. ask123 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The article itself says "The existence of the Deccan Mujahideen has not been verified" hence it does not meet the threshold for inclusion. McWomble (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Someone deleted the link to anti-Semitism, writing that it wasn't appropriate. Hmmmm... I wonder. The attack on the Jewish Center, while not part of an agenda against Jews, is a part of a wider anti-Semitic sentiment among fringe Muslim factions, even those without specifically anti-Jewish agendas. It wasn't an accident that they chose to attack a Jewish site. I'll wait a couple of days before undoing that change, but I bet we hear more about the anti-Semitism factor as the days go on. ask123 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could have attacked because it gets good press coverage... that's what alot of analysts have said about singling out Americans and Britons. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion this is all STILL the damge of India and the goal of press coverage is actually to damage India's image internationally. This has been the modus operandi for example of other east asian groups attacking Westerner targets to damage the tourist industry (for example the group in Indonesia, can't remember their name). It is very intelligent. THey are able to make India appear unsafe to foreigners and kill India's tourist industry (which is already happening as many foreign nations are issuing travel warning to mumbai). It is all intricately thought out and interlinked. They knew they could not only damage India as long as they are living but also long after.PedroDaGr8 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no debate over the "goal" of the terrorist attacks -- and the goal appeared not to be anti-Jewish but, rather, anti-Indian or anti-Hindi. But, as I said, it's not about intentions. Even groups that do not have the mission or goal of being anti-Semitic can be anti-Semitic. It's no secret that there's swelling Anti-Semitic sentiment among fundamentalist Muslim (terrorist) organizations, even those whose missions do not include anti-Jewish operations. From reading press reports and messages disseminated by these groups, one can see that it's become popular sentiment. And that is reflected in the media coverage. ask123 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the swelling Anti-Semitism you will find no disagreement from me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's a slippery slope of expanding definitions. Eventually the word would have no meaning if any action prejudicial towards any Jew becomes "anti-Semitism". Personally I would take intent into the equation. If it's an anti-non-Muslim action, it's not specifically anti-Semite, and thus should not be categorized as such. Similarly if it is anti-outsider, or anti-Western. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over-citing

[edit]

The article is over-cited. Someone should go through all of the citations and check for repetition. Four citations for one piece of information? I could be wrong, but that seems excessive. I don't have time to go through all of the footnotes now -- hopefully later. If anyone has a chance to do so sooner, please do. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far better to have too many than too few. Greenshed (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is not a paper encyclopedia... Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certain contentious issues can use "over-citation", especially when people are claiming "OR" left-and-right. If there are 3-5 independent media sources cited all saying the same thing -- their own independent "OR" work from different perspectives -- then Wikipedia is less-likely to be accused of producing OR. I had the same sort of thing happen when documenting the Somali war 2006-2007. It is better to cite too much than have people try to claim "OR" and strike entire articles or sections. At first, people said this was a "baseless" article. Well, after ~30 media citations, maybe there is a basis, mm? --21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch for OR!!!

[edit]

The entire section on the accents as identifying the provenance of the terrorists is all original research... I mean, the "source" cited is actually a primary source of lingustics of Urdu with no connection to this event. While the analysis might be true, we extremely frown upon O, in particular around current events and developing information. I am deleting this section until a reliable secondary source does this analysis. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in fact I think this whole article is OR

[edit]

While indeed many sources speak of a group calling itself "Deccan Mujahideen" attributing itself the attacks in Mumbai, there are no sources previous to this attack that speak of this group, and its existence has been questioned by reliable sources and the authorities. As such, I am not sure this even warrants an article, what few information is here that is not OR, belongs in the main article for the attacks. I am AfDing soon... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Until such a group is proven to exist, the whole article is speculation. McWomble (talk)
While that may be true, it is not OR because it is being cited by the press around the world. Even if the term is fictional, it is the term being used to ascribe the attackers. We can later redirect towards other organizations, such as LeT, IM, et alia, if and when conclusive proof is given. In fact, even then it can remain as an article describing a "false flag" operation. Yet this is the actual term used OUTSIDE of Wikipedia, and thus, does not constitute OR. --Petercorless (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it shd exist of not, it a matter to be decided by Indian Wikipedians

[edit]

I am from India, especially from Deccan region (South-Central region) of it. I dont understand why this article is decided to delete. Whether it is speculation or not, it has some information which is being conveyed. It is indirectly related to a mild-agitations for seperate state for Hyderabad. I think it is better to keep this article. More than that I think, it should be Indian Wikipedians to decide, whether it should be deleted or not. Please get confirmation from any Indian Administrators before taking any action. I convey my utmost condolences to all victims and martyrs.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view but Wikipedia as a whole and individual articles in particular do not belong to one particular group. Everybody gets to decide. McWomble (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems india administrators got away with this aberration of an article anyways. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source currently claims this group exists

[edit]

There are no sources that claim this group exists. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All reports about the group trace back to a single email sent to one media outlet. The email has been confirmed to have originated in Russia. This points to a hoax or at least a deliberate red herring. McWomble (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an alleged conversation with two of the attackers who claimed to be from the Deccan Mujahideen. If the attackers themselves made this claim, or whether it is being ascribed to them falsely, there is at least two different alleged claims of this identity: the email from Russia, and the news media conversation with the attackers. --Petercorless (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further reviewing the article, the content of the article goes to great length to note that the existence of a "Deccan Mujahideen" may be spurious. I have further expanded the section on it being a possible false-flag or a front for other organizations such as LeT or IM. --Petercorless (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

portmanteau?

[edit]

The name is not a portmanteau. It is not a blend. It is a simple geographical adjective to the noun "mujahideen". This article's quality and OR wants to make me barf. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

with the article somewhat fixed in scope

[edit]

We need to work on its quality, we have plenty of reliable, verifiable sources, and I believe we can come up with a coherent narrative now that the atatcks are over and the fog of war in settling. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll put some time in today. --Petercorless (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There! Whew. I hope all my work from yesterday and today has served good value to the world community. Please keep feedback factual, progressive, and hopefully non-polemic. Thank you. --Petercorless (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, Petercorless, you rule! There is still a lot of work to be done, but this is got this article from nearly unreadable, to an encyclopedia article! I was login in to actually work on it, but all my plans were crushed... and for good reason... ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome! More details are coming out, so I will need help over coming days to keep up with the vast amount of new information. The world is watching us! --Petercorless (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International entanglements: Pakistani ISI, Saudi Connection, etc.

[edit]

Thanks for the balancing view on the Pakistani ISI connection. Good catch to make the article more even-handed. I'd also be open to other viewpoints of Saudi connections, etc. --Petercorless (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

[edit]

Why is so much coverage being given to the well-known publicity-hungry troll Alex Jones? He is clearly considered a shameless conspiracy theorist (see the refs in article on him) who comes up with weird theories to gain attention. Let's not feed the troll, please.

And wtf is "Pakistan Daily" (daily.pk)? Please do not confuse it with www.dailytimes.com.pk note that this is not a reliable source. It's a fucking portal where anyone can submit an article, as long as the article is pro-Pakistani apologist crap. This is not a recognized newspaper where the articles are written by the journalists. Please stop posting sensationalist apologist bullshit on Wikipedia.

Same with nwotruth.com. It's a moderated blog, for fuck's sake, where you can submit an article too: <http://www.nwotruth.com/submit-story/>. Where are the Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources and WP:FRINGE?

220.227.179.4 (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I'm the one who previously changed this from "Pakistani sources have claimed.." to "A newspaper in Pakistan claimed..", because it was portrayed to look like a newspaper. I'll remove that sentence for now.
I believe it is important to show how the responsibility for the incident is being shaped by many widely-divergent actors and media outlets, some paid professionals with vested interests, and other populist views. There are many people using this incident to raise their own worldview, no matter how patently false their claims may be. If this section gets too large, we can split it out, similar to the 9/11 article: q.v. 9/11 conspiracy theories. For now, I put in a large and explicit caution. --Petercorless (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, my big "caveat" box got blown away. So much for that. Meanwhile, I put in more links about the Israeli Mossad false flag allegations. I would appreciate it if people did not blow this section away. Even if the claims of any of these false flags turn out to be utterly misguided, it is vital we note how the world is reacting to the situation -- casting blame based on various levels of "proof" and offering different levels of logical or illogical motives. I will do my best to not cite patently ludicrous or banal accusations. I understand there is an entire cottage industry in propaganda. That's part of what I am documenting this for: clarity and historical note. --Petercorless (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that you are documenting it for clarity and historical note. But before that, please see what constitutes reliable source. Blog and such web publications miss the mark by quite a few miles. Also, the caveat box, that you had put up does not go with the Wiki articles. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

The expected vandalism has been hitting the page. I'll keep an eye on it. If there's too much I'll ask for the page to be protected. --Petercorless (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main line of inquiry

[edit]

More investigation has been reported today on possible Indian collaborators. Also, it appears that there is now a "main line of inquiry" and "other theories", so I separated the two. Please take a look and comment or flame my changes.bostonbrahmin 11:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Identities of Attackers

[edit]

Excellent work, Petercorless! This article seems to be improving by leaps and bounds. There are also a lot of developments in Pakistan, related to these attacks. I wonder if they belong in this article, hmm... bostonbrahmin 18:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Thanks greatly. I felt this article was a vital public service deserving very complete, rapid and clear answers because of the political import to the world. It was saved from AfD. Hopefully instead it will approach the highest levels of Wikipedia quality. --Petercorless (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERRORIST

[edit]

Please be careful to watch for people inserting the term "terrorist" throughout the article, "the one terrorist who was captured", etc. There are a few places it is appropriate (in exact quotes, for example, as well as categorisation), but we are here to chronicle the event, not take sides. "Militant" or "Attackers" work just as well. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful of simply removing the term because you find it offensive, when the sourced reference material uses the term. SJSA 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STOP reverting my edits without further discussion WP:TERRORIST clearly states "If a reliable source describes a person, group or action using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." Each instance in the article is accompanied by a citation using such terms. 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJSA (talk • contribs)
If the New York Times describes Barack Obama as a "hero", should the Wikipedia article state "Barack Obama is a hero....then the hero gave a speech"? Of course not, and WP:TERRORIST is quite clear that the word "terrorist" is similar. You can use it in context of proper quotes - but there is absolutely no reason for you to insist that every mention of a person involved says "the terrorist then entered the hotel" instead of "the attacker then entered the hotel". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the word the source uses, it can be used in the article, plain and simple. SJSA 23:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to read over Wikipedia policies, you are factually incorrect. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I invite you to find out the difference between a style guideline and a policy. SJSA 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "terrorist" can be appropriately used so long as we do not hammer people over the head with it, thus losing NPOV. It is also a value judgment, loaded with potential for argumentation. One person's "freedom fighter" is another's "terrorist." However, for all caveats, it is clear in this case the targets were civilians, the objective of the attack was to cause property damage and sow domestic terror, and therefore the mode of combat they chose was a terroristic attack on a civilian population. While "terrorist" is appropriate, so is "attacker." Be judicious in utility. For instance, the word "terrorist" would be appropriate when talking about the goals of their attacks. Yet generally, and more generically, apart from their political mode and motivation, they are simply "attackers." There is no need to knee-jerk all descriptions of them to describe them as "terrorists" and there is no need to copy-and-paste out all references to "terrorists." Just be balanced and objective. --Petercorless (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Needed

[edit]

There's a bit of bad organization that's crept into the page. Redundant information. The long Sequence of discoveries section is a bit out-of-control. Anyone want to take a crack at fixing it? --Petercorless (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sequence of discoveries section is full of dubious sources mixed in with good, reliable information. How does one get rid of the bad ones? Can I just delete them?
-- bostonbrahmin 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)
I created a whole different page for reports and theories that don't agree with the facts that are now established. I moved a lot of this material there. Please review. Thanks!
bostonbrahmin 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discounted reporting on the 2008 Mumbai attacks

[edit]

Excellent effort! However it does need some cleanup etc. I will be working on it. Please join ;)--Cerejota (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Erroneous reporting on the 2008 Mumbai attacks - "Discounted" in common usage usually means priced-down ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

[edit]

I've unprotected the article. Once again, this is not the place to discuss fringe theories. If there are controversies about Mr. Karkare's death, please get consensus on the Hemant Karkare talk page, not here. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attribution_of_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks&oldid=1252587794"