Talk:Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks

spreadsheet
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_esnE-3Z3p-HehX1YOZIaw hope this is useful! --Thelostlibertine (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, but where did the names come from? Remember (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Citizens
Is this page just for the well known people or for anyone? I suggest a new section is made for the common citizens. Manish EarthTalk • Stalk 03:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is for everyone. It should be a complete listing of all of the direct victims of the attacks. Remember (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Should I also include the name of the the Filipino national injured if name is revealed? Also, we oughta do something on the references once the situation's over in Mumbai. Ominae (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the families of those killed might consider this information management somewhat disrespectful. I met personally the mexican victim and the news don't seem to be treating the topic in a respectful enough manner. They haven't even got the age of the victim right.

Sources fix
Can somebody please fix those sources? They need to include title, publisher, date, etc. Cyanidethistles (talk) {Tim C} 07:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask but I cannot find a source to verify the death of Elizabeth Russel of Canada, could some one double check on that?

This article seems like a bad idea...
I'm not going to do anything about it now, as it would seem extremely callous to nominate this article for deletion while the story is still unfolding; but in cases of previous massacres and disasters, 'lists of victims' articles have been discouraged. The policy for this is WP:NOT, which dates back to the problems with such articles created after the 9/11 attacks. Once it seems like no more victims are likely to be reported, we should consider whether this is appropriate as an article in its own right, or whether it should be merged back into the main article. No offence is intended to the people who have been working on it. Terraxos (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe ... but some more are here as well:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/At_least_8_foreigners_dead_in_Mumbai_attacks/articleshow/3770297.cms?TOI_latestnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.229.153 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to memorial articles about individuals, not events. iow, Wikipedia is not the place for obituary notices. Eventually I expect there will be an official list, likely by the Indian government, which we can refer to in the main article. Until then, this article is of some value IF the names are cited to reputable sources. Flatterworld (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are we listing safe people... That just seems like it will cause the list to become cluttered. We might aswell just add all the names of living people in Mumbai then. --156.34.80.231 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename and revamp
Currently, the name and nature of the article is to be a list of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. This is by and large a bad idea, as the sheer number of dead, let alone injured, would result in an extremely long list of mostly non-notable people and details, absolutely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Let us be reminded that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a memorial. While this may presently be a very difficult time for many Indians, let the proper physical and virtual memorials take care of the lists of names.

In accordance to the precedents set by articles like Casualties of the September 11 attacks and Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings, I propose we rename this article to Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. The list of names should be removed, although the table of casualty nationalities should remain. Notable information on the victims can be added to this article, including distribution amongst the locations, demographics, and the such. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur on Revamp
I agree that once there is an official and comprehensive source listing the casualties, that source can be referenced in the main article and this page can be deleted. For now, when most names are unknown, keeping a list of names helps maintain the nationality statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briansanders5 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you made this point - I'm going to repeat what I said on the talk page of the main article (forgot to sign off, "Singaporean/Chinese death" was me). I haven't found a source that can name the dead Chinese citizen (if there indeed was a Chinese death). CNN says one Chinese casualty, but that's the only place I've seen that claim, and there's no reference to a Singaporean casualty. The dead Singaporean is a Chinese Singaporean, and if CNN is basing its tally on ground reports instead of official tallies from the authorities, then they may have misreported the Singaporean as a Chinese citizen. We don't know yet, but can we please KIV this and edit when official reports come out. P (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Holtzbergs
The Holtzbergs (at least the husband) have dual-nationality. ie he had both an American and an Israeli passport. Born in Israeli, had had lived in the US since pre-teen years and moved from the US to India. I recommend he be listed with both flags and be counted as both an Israeli and American casualty. i believe his wife fits the same criteria, although perhaps she only had a green card and no US passport -- but she did live for a long time in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briansanders5 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My solution was to create an Israeli-American section. Otherwise, I think we should count the dual citizens as Americans, since they all were coming from the US to India and had lived a long time in the US prior to going to India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briansanders5 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not Delete the article
for future references please do not delete the article's section. --Special:Contributions/Srkhan2 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the title
I'm not sure how to change the title of the article, but "casualties of the nov 2008 mumbai attacks" seems like a good change as per the precedents listed above. Briansanders5 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed list
For those who were looking for the now removed list of victims, which was removed due to an afd, I am putting a copy of it below.

Removed list 2
The result of the AFD nomination was no consensus. So you decided on your own initiative to remove the list over which the fighting was about. Again, the result was no consensus, however, 21 users were for KEEP while 17 were for DELETE, not counting those whose votes were MERGE, in any case, a majority was not for the deletion of the list, over which, again, the fight was about. They way you conducted yourself would seem as the DELETE votes won, even though they were a minority. The name of this article is List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, how can it be a list if you delete the list?89.216.236.45 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who closed the AFD, read it closer, most of the keeps were because of invalid reasoning, there was consensus to remove the list of names, just not the article. Secret account 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you came up with consensus to remove the names. My point was that the data has been of various dubious accuracy.  Rarely, has the number of deaths on the main page agreed with the number of deaths in the article agreed with the number of deaths in the casuality article agreed with the number of deaths in the casuality tables.  For example, all of wikipedia's tables indicate that 4 Americans were killed, but I have never in Wikipedia or any other source heard who the 4th American was.  This list of names of people who have died is the only thing that tells us this information is suspect. Aepryus (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, in addition to the phantom 4th American there is a Jordanian listed as being killed, without any sourcing. A cursory search of google news did not seem to indicate any references to a Jordanian being killed.  The first source listed for the 4 Americans doesn't seem to state anything about 4 American's dying.  The second source which comes from a Turkish newspaper references a very early statement by a state department official saying he believes 6 Americans were killed (including the 2 Israeli-Americans); I suspect the "6th" he may have been referring to would be the rabbi's wife who was a permanent American resident.  In any case, I have not seen anywhere any stories concerning who the 4th American would be.  Unless, someone can find some sources, I would recommend removing 1 American death and the Jordanian death and setting the foreign death count to 28 (which would agree with the list above). Aepryus (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks → Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks — To reflect the consensus reorganization of the main article, I suggest we move this article and the talk page to Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Moving keeps the history (including the creator), and the old name will remain as a redirect. This move is also separate from the issue around WP:NOTMEMORIAL with the victim's list, which is an ongoing discussion. It simply reflects that the article should be focused as a sub-page from the main article around all casualty information. Thanks! — Cerejota (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Question The term 'casualties' includes people injured in the attacks. Is it the intention to include these people in the list as well?--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (From the online OED):  c. Used of an individual killed, wounded, or injured.  --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My proposal is that this article reflect its current content, which goes beyond a list of victims. "Casualties" is a more correct term, because while civilians are definitely victims, security forces deaths, while tragic, are combat deaths and not victimization. I do understand what the term Casualties is. By removing the term "list" from the title, we open the article to non-list content (which seems to be the consensus) so a list of wounded or injured is a separate issue from renaming, and certainly not a requirement (although a possibility if so is the consensus) if the name changes. I hope I addressed your question. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean that the article is open to content about non-fatality casualties as well? If yes, then the name change is fine. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article already has this, I just think we should match the name to the content. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am moving, while there has been no discussion here, some votes in the AfD proposed this. I think there is consensus this more encyclopedic. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better (and certainly more encyclopedic) article now. Well done! --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 16:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"The main targets of the attack appeared to be Americans, Britons, Australians and Jews"
According to self-centered Western media at least... suburbs? movie theater? And weren't most of the people killed at the train station? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.166.238 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Restore list of names
Reading this years after the event, and the debates, I cannot agree that there was a "consensus" at the AFD to remove that list of names. I would support seeing it restored, and the sourcing improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)