Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks

User:User:MiszaBot/configUser:User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

Bibliography

• Jamal, Arif (2009), Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir, Melville House, ISBN 978-1-933633-59-6
• Riedel, Bruce O. (2013), Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back, Brookings Institution Press, ISBN 0-8157-2409-8

Featured image change

the featured image should be changed to something more iconic than a map, like the Taj on fire GoatLord234 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

islamic terrorism?

isn't that quite a racist motive to say i know the nature of the attacks is truly unforgivable and inhumane but if you are going to blame a religion for the terrorist attack, that is a new low. 2406:3003:2002:2D79:D93A:C16E:D2E1:4F6 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

look at the 2006 mumbai attacks it is also done by extremists but the motive is just terrorism, meanwhile the 2008 mumbai attacks is classified as islamic terrorism. quite islamophobic it's disgraceful to disrespect a religion 218.212.64.8 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The attacks were of course conducted by a militant group who were denounced and criticized by all religions alike. Since the attacks were not supported by the religion in any way, such comments are truly unnecessary. Edits have been made to remove the religious involvements in the attack. If you still feel that any of the lines in the article disturbs the religious sentiments, please reply. Milan Zacria (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Mujahideen Hyderabad Deccan false claim"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Amid speculation regarding the identity of the terrorists, an unknown group calling itself Mujahideen Hyderabad Deccan claimed responsibility for the attacks in an e-mail; however, the e-mail was later traced to a computer in Pakistan, and it became obvious that no such group existed.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Mumbai-terrorist-attacks-of-2008

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008 {{!}} Events, Death Toll, & Facts {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Mumbai-terrorist-attacks-of-2008 |website=www.britannica.com |date=2024-09-11 |access-date=2024-10-03 |language=en |quote=Amid speculation regarding the identity of the terrorists, an unknown group calling itself Mujahideen Hyderabad Deccan claimed responsibility for the attacks in an e-mail; however, the e-mail was later traced to a computer in Pakistan, and it became obvious that no such group existed.}} 

Additional comments from user: This should be added too right

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Milan Zacria (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

2008??

Am I the only one noticing this error? 2603:8000:1200:368:9F89:C6F4:3FBB:D50F (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. May you clarify more? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2026

On 9 April 2015, the foremost duspected ringleader of the attacks, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, was released on bail in Pakistan and disappeared. change 'duspected' to suspected Altruistic Contributor (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done in Special:Diff/1346864261. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Spelling errors.

Beginning introduction has a spelling error. “sentenced” is misspelled as “senrence” AunSheraz (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Fact check

The current version of this article has a 'citation needed' template for the following text, "...Knowing that they were outgunned against the heavily armed terrorists, the police officers at the station, instead of confronting the terrorists, decided to switch off the lights and secure the gates." Tracing the first mention of this line leads to uncited edits on 1 January 2010. Relevant edits - Edit 1 and edit 2.

So while there are now references to back this up such as this one from Jerusalem Post and this one from The Wire, they date to years after the introduction of these lines in the Wikipedia article. On this basis I am removing the line. EldenMacdonald (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@EldenMacdonald why? Both The Wire and The Jerusalem Post are reliable sources (the community has also found this to be case as can be seen at WP:RSP), and there is zero reason to believe they both have pulled information from Wikipedia in this instance. The most likely instance is that they, and the original editor, were pulling from a source you did not find (perhaps foreign language?).

Also, I'm concerned about another of your edits here, Special:Diff/1356752167 removed sourced information with a highly misleading edit summary of ce, why? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, thank you for the reply. Your answer is the reason I started this section while attempting to edit the content in question. That is that this may be a case where initially uncited content is entered in Wikipedia, after which an external reference is created by a reliable enough publisher based on the uncited text, and then that reference is used to cite the original text in Wikipedia. I will restore the uncited content and use the two references mentioned, that is the JP source and the one from The Wire. I will continue to look for other older sources.

With respect to the second part of your reply related to removing the following line from the intro, "Furthermore, Headley was also accused of traveling to Denmark to scout the offices Jyllands-Posten, which had published cartoons of Muhammad, and a nearby synagogue." Yes the edit summary should have been better. However the content I removed doesn't need to be in the intro. It has no direct relation to the attacks in Mumbai. Further the content is not backed up by content in the body of the article. I don't think this even needs to be in the body of the article. EldenMacdonald (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

doesn't need to be in the intro ... not backed up by content in the body, this would normally be a reason to move content into the body. no direct relation, sure, no contest then. Thank you for discussing things. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Change name to 26/11

I think that, per WP:COMMONNAME, we should change the name to "26/11". Rc2barrington (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

26/11 already redirects here so that's not an issue. As a title, however, it wouldn't work. Just as 9/11 and 7/7 are also redirects to a more descriptive title. RegentsPark (comment) 19:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)