Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reference!

Please make sure to cite your sources per WP:V. It is preferable that you use the WP:CIT format. If you see poor citations in the footnotes, consider reformatting them into this format. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are several cite errors with named references, as some original references are renamed and/or removed. I know there should some kind of order in this, but this may be due to [possibly] immature editors also being (or having been) on in the editing process. -Mardus (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please fix link for "Islamic terrorists"

The link in the 3rd paragraph for Islamic terrorists should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism instead of the general Islamism page it currently points to. Nbjansen (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done by someone else, currently to a redirect. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please make clear

One of the victims Mr. Andreas Liveras is of both British and Cypriot descent and therefore should fall under a separate British/Cypriot nationality as he is currently referenced at several times as two different people----Thelostlibertine (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he only of Cypriot descent but a British citizen not a citizen of Cyprus. So he should be listed under the Britishers. TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Live updates about Mumbai attacks from Twitter

Super fast and no need to refresh page. Check it out Breaking News from Twitter Xoai (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

If anyone reads the Hindustan Times they will notice that there is a timeline of the events at Taj, Trident, and Nariman in a column on the right of the front page. I'm not good at citing sources, so could someone else do it? ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

B-class in les than a day?

Wow, this article became B-class in less than a day. Congratulations to all of the editors. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 04:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronology is not proper we must have a time line as in newspaper. To add timeline we must hand this article to only one Editer so he can add a proper time line after that other editors will contribute to time line.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 04:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, how will I cite it? I could do it myself, if someone would just show me the citation. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just do it me or some one else cite for you--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See Also

Okay, so this article now has a clear link to the list of victims. The Squicks (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

...which might soon get deleted because it's "not notable" and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then they would also have to delete All pages with titles beginning with List of victims. Remember (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Metro movie theater

Is Metro Adlabs same as Metro movie theater mentioned in the artcile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Black Tornado

Its now ofically called as Operation Black Tornado--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Added redirect. Remember (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

After-effects

IMO, the after-effects of the blasts like the conclusion of the one-day India vs. England matches, postponement of the T20 series starting 3 Dec, should be noted. [1] Waiting for comments --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be added but it is not that important compare to number of people who have died--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"As a result of this incident, all schools, colleges and most offices, including the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange remained closed on 27 November 2008.[49] Shooting of Bollywood films and TV serials have also been halted in the city.[50] Many international airlines temporarily discontinued operations to Mumbai in the interest of passenger and crew safety." This section from Chronology should be also moved in the proposed "after-effects" section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

you can move it--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Can somebody add more of the locations on the map, like metro cinema, girgaum bench. Location of Girgaum[2], metro [3]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling/Grammar Fixes

The following sentence from the header, "In 28 November, a Hindu newspaper reported that some of the terrorists are members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group," might be worded better as follows: "On 28 November..." PinkWorld (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Pink

 Done by someone else as "In 28" no longer is findable on the article page. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

a Hindu newspaper??

I find several mentions in the page about 'a Hindu newspaper'? Does this mean an Indian newspaper or 'The Hindu' newspaper?? As far as I know, there are no 'hindu' or 'muslim' newspapers in India.. all of them are pretty secular! Shekure (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the sources it should be "the Hindu".Geni 05:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:November_2008_Mumbai_attacks#Responsibility the above sections before making a new one. It's unclear whether just one or more than one Indian based newspaper(s) said this. The Squicks (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I find your comment puzzling. India is one of the most religiously diverse and tolerant nations on earth. If America has news sources with specific religious backgrounds, why wouldn't India? The Squicks (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think you can categorize media as 'hindu' or 'christian'. A newspaper can be a mouthpiece of a specific Hindu organization, but then it should be clearly mentioned. And most mainstream media in India are secular, including 'The Hindu'. When it's said that 'a hindu newspaper claimed', it results in a different interpretation.Shekure (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded it to "On 28 November, Reuters reported that an Indian newspaper has claimed that some of the terrorists are members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group." Unfortunately, we cannot attribute this story to the paper The Hindu-- since all we have are secondhand, hearsay reports. The Squicks (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/28/stories/2008112862080100.htm. I don't have the time. So, someone else pls do the needful. Shovon (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hindu is not a mouthpiece of Hindu religion. It is one of the most reliable newspapers in India similar to Timesofindia. Docku: What up? 08:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though it is called "The Hindu" it is actually one of the most left-wing newspapers in the country and has often been accused of an anti-Hindu bias by the Hindu hardliner politicos. TheBlueKnight (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak terrorists

With all respect to those who have lost loved ones, I can imagine that there must be some really unhappy terrorist masterminds right now, wondering how after all that they only got two deaths per soldier. That sure can't be good for recruitment. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the terrorists have more guts than the Indian government! There have been so many bombings and attacks, what has the government done about it? The Indian government is to busy pleasing minority groups and trading partners.Since the birth of modern India, the leaders have been very weak.They partition the country because less than 10% demand it.Over half a million people died and for what? There are still 100 million muslims in india.After 3 wars with Pakistan they lose 45% of Kashmir.They cannot protect their territory or people.The Hindus in India need to wake up!!! Jhansi Ki Rani (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Guts is a relative term. Where else have we seen a widespread incursion limited to so few casualties per soldier? I think Mumbai is doing fantastic, even at several times these casualty levels. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional references for international condemnation

Respectfully, I'd to propose additional references for "The Mumbai attacks has elicited a strong response from leaders around the world, largely expressing condemnation for the acts of terrorism and condolences for the relatives of those killed". I imagine the list would be long.

Canada: Harper condemns Mumbai terrorist attacks | http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/544441

Germany: Germany expresses condolence to India over Mumbai attacks | http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/28/content_10423273.htm

Poland: Poland condemns Mumbai terrorist attacks | http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6542252.html

Others...?

Edrowland (talk)

Reactions_to_the_November_2008_Mumbai_attacks#Countries GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

VT(CST) shootings

a terrorist that escaped opened fire at CST. He escaped by wearing a police uniform. Please someone add this to the appropriate section. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a rumor. It has been withdrawn. TheBlueKnight (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Splinter Cell Voice Actor Shot By Terrorists

Popular video game Splinter Cell voice actor Michael Rudder was shot. Thankfully he is alive. Source [4].--SkyWalker (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified Terrorist Group trained by the Pakistan Army?

Please note that the picture I'm going to reveal is not photo shopped nor edited. This is a print screen a friend of mine got from watching a live stream from CNN IBN.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/905/pakarmybv0.jpg

You need to zoom in.

Not seeing it. Who knows? The Pakistanis want the nutcases behind bars, too. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

India will retaliate on Pakistan if they are responsible

According to this article here.

http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/1444198.196.56.45 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani officials are cooperating in the investigation. They want the nutcases behind bars as much as anyone. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

commandoes weapons suggestion

i think the commandoes should be provided with infrared binoculars, so they can see in dark. After that switch off the lights and do the operation, if they do this there will be less lives lost and the operation will be quicker

• Support infrared scanners. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There were plans to get Night Vision glasses from Israel source.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned.

On September 15, 2008 this people have warned this would happen and yet no one took it very seriously. Here is the source : [5]. Hopefully i hope people would be more cautious. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Official statistics out

Official statistics of foreigners dead & injured from the Governemnt is out. Please check it after a few minutes. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 11:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Double counting of victims?

Among the dead are 81 Indian civilians, 14 policemen and six foreigners, including four Australians, one Japanese, one Briton, one Italian, one German, one Cypriot and one Canadian. - I think the Briton and the Cypriot both refer to Andreas Liveras, who was born in Cyprus and emigrated to Britain in 1963. Checking through the references, I have not been able to find reference to another Cypriot victim, so I will remove that one from the sentence.

Also, the claimed Australian victim listed on this talk page, Studdar Daphne, I would guess her name has been reversed somehow, as Daphne Studdar sounds a much more likely name for an English-speaking person. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 13:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies article

I've redirected for the moment an article at 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks Controversies here. Feel free to evaluate for possibly mergeable content or possibilities to re-expand.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

issue

The author overused the phrase "at least", please wikify this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.122.140 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Death toll rise

According to CNN the offical death toll is 151, are editors going to hold off on the numbers though until all is said and done here? (Knowledgekid87) 10:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference fixes

Spotted some references that are not either standardized or are in error. Ominae (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of the references that seem to be in error may have actually been correct when added as the websites of many main-stream media seem to change the article or story about the attacks located at a given URI. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 18:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is actually deeper, as I've encountered a pattern, whereby in references with only URLs and maybe a citation template, someone (or a bot) inserts <!--INSERT TITLE--> into the template and someone else (or a bot) then inserts the the URL of the reference as the title, often inserting a different news item URL as the title and not the actual reference. Smells very iffy. In that process, the sentence (or sentences or a bunch of text) containing such bits get duplicated and I've had to remove such duplicate occurrences from the article twice already (there may be more occurrences of this). -Mardus (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties table formatting

Some of the country links link to the country's page (Canada, US) while others link to the page of the country's people (French people, Chinese people). This needs to be standardized. 72.64.41.167 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole Casualties section needs attention for formatting. Much of the text seems to have disappeared behind the table. I don't dare to mess around with it myself!- Ipigott (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Dead and Injured victims

Place this on main page

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p_esnE-3Z3p-HehX1YOZIaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.207 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

United States F.B.I are ordered to investigate in Mumbai

They're sent to investigate.

[6]98.196.56.45 (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

British police have been interviewing people as they return home from mumbai, i'll check for a source on the BBC news site. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No luck finding a source for that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dawood Ibrahim

Is it possible to include data on the above, also I would add to the above that the UK Metropolitan Police are going to assist in the terrorist attacks. Bhindranwale (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Satellite phone vital clue to solve mystery

The satellite phone and global positioning system (GPS) map recovered from a trawler abandoned in the high seas is now among the most crucial pieces of evidence connected to the terror attacks on Mumbai. The vessel, Kuber, was found drifting 5-6 nautical miles off the Mumbai shore; the entire crew is missing except for the group leader, Amar Narayan, 38, whose body was found on board with limbs tied, blindfolded and neck slit open. Kuber is believed to be the mother boat used to launch the inflatable dinghies which carried the terrorists to the seafront at Colaba. Intelligence agencies are scanning the satellite phone's records to track the places from where calls were made to the vessel. The boat has been now handed over to the Mumbai police. The trawler had last set out from Porbandar, 310 nautical miles from Mumbai, on November 13. Owned by a man named Vinod Masani, it had a five-member crew. Sources believe it was most likely hijacked near the maritime boundary, where incursions by vessels on both sides are frequent. The terrorists are believed to have used the trawler for cover to make the journey to Mumbai without being detected by the Coast Guard. A nondescript, 25-metre-long fishing vessel bearing the name ‘Kuber’ in the Gujarati script and a Gujarat registration number would have barely raised an eyebrow in a region dotted with numerous such boats. To complete the appearance, it carried nearly 50 kg of marinated fish, rice and lentils. "Most of the time, we act on specific information. We rarely check such fishing trawlers with Indian flags, admitted a Coast Guard officer. Four fishermen who were on the boat, Balwant Prabhu, 45, Mukesh Rathod, 20, and Natu Nanu, 20, of Navsari and Ramesh Nagji, 37, of Junagadh are still missing. The owner of Kuber - Vinod Masani and his brother - Hiralal have also been detained by the Gujarat police. Kuldeep Singh Sheroan, commanding officer of Coast Guard ship Sankalp said the crew leader Amar Narayan was killed in a brutal manner by the terrorists. They tied his limbs and put a band around his eyes and then knifed his neck, he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hklpo (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism box

Is the anti-Semitism box completely necessary on this page? I can't argue that it has something to do with it, but it appears that it isn't a central aspect of the attacks. Wouldn't inline reference to anti-Semitism be good enough? Hopefully we can remove that as it seems out of place. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely out of place. Regardless of whether it was an anti-semitic act, I haven't seen a single WP:RS say so. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one. Thanks for removing it. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Isn't the name "November 2008 Mumbai attacks" too general. I would suggest "November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks". Wapondaponda (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed eariler, the answer is no..."attacks" describes it very precisely. Like how it's September 11 attacks rather than adding "terrorism" to it. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ongoing warfare" banner unwarranted

I don't know who added the "Current war" banner to the article but that's one of the most blatant cases of WP:NPOV violation I've seen in awhile. Unless a war is declared the box is totally unnecessary. This is a terrorist act and unless there happens to be an "ongoing terrorist act" banner (which would be appropriate), the Current event banner is all that is needed. 23skidoo (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope they find the people or groups repsonsible and take them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldranton (talk • contribs) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Helpline / Contact information

I'm not sure what wiki policy is regarding the creation of a short section with information about helplines and so on (temporarily of course, it's unlikely such a section would be relevant to the article weeks from today). I noticed a new user attempt to start such a section with links to a couple of blogsites that are aggregating information (the edit was reverted by a bot as the addition contained a blogspot domain). Thoughts? Kaushik twin (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone use Wikipedia to get helpine no?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If required, the hotlines are these: (copied from wikinews)

---

People who are concerned about the well being of friends or family may call these hotlines:

• United States Department of State: 1-888-407-4747
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office: +44 (0)20 7008 0000
• Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: 1800 002 214
• Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: 1-800-267-6788 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishearth (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why they are embassies. Mumbai has plenty of those. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Why on earth wouldn't people use Wiki to find numbers? And why limit people's options to official mini-list above? There are dozens of numbers on the link I just appended, ranging from the Polish consul's mobile number to locally important contact numbers (yes, other countries among the 200 odd in the world exist, and yes, if you've ever tried the big Embassies, you'll know how frustrating it can be: they're probably overwhelmed). Spreading useful, meaningful information that can improve people's lives over a short period of time is, in many ways, the principle virtue of these quick hit pages. There's also the idea of spreading useful memes - here's how to search for xxx. A cursory glance of the Twitter feed on #mumbai will show you how many people want to know how to do things which you yourself may find very easy (a well known psychological trope) and therefore assume others should do too. They don't. Policy be damned, sometimes (as I believe is the spirit of one of the great original wiki rules) - people are dead, dying, injured, missing, frantic. We should do what we can to help, not fussily bother about minor issues at the margins. Sorry about that, but I feel very strongly. (Incidentally, Twitter is driving a chunk of traffic to this page as people rate it, quite rightly.) Unknown Supremo (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One further point: given the worldwide attention on this incident in terms of the "sudden" importance of social media like Flickr and Twitter (you can expect future theses to refer to it ad nauseam), is it not important that Wiki play it's part fully i.e. intelligently, responsively, quickly, authoritatively? Unknown Supremo (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Every information in Wikipedia that is entered should be take has grain of salt and not to be taken seriously. In time of crisis such has terrorist attacks, natural disaster and various incidents should be taken cautions. People are advised to look for important information elsewhere such has news sites, TV, Radio for example Times of India has given important numbers to contact. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no, Skywalker. The truth is that all 'truth' is fluid, in many ways, and subject to revision. Nevertheless, as Wiki has demonstrated, the power of the crowd can profoundly outwit the power of 'official' 'agreed' 'governmental' types of information. Having worked inside those systems, I can tell you, don't reify them: they are human, prone to error, just like anyone else. Consequently, not that much more powerful or correct or reliable than the rest of us, just better at presenting this reified perception of 'authority'. (Think Chaucer, and 'auctorite v experience'). Wiki has been better, more accurate, than the BBC on Mumbai. Trust the process! Unknown Supremo (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe wiki is a source of information and some of the data on it might be relevant a few weeks later. At a times of crisis it can serve as a conduit of information. I had added contact information for both embassies and blood donation. That was deleted.

Ofcourse there are other sources of information for such data, but wiki can be another source. At the back of of head I keep thinking what would have i done if I was a hostage and had access to internet. Wiki would be surely one of the pages I would have used. All the chatter in media or twitter can sometimes cause information to get lost. The wiki community would help is people getting a more reliable source of information. Khivi (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

I spotted a dubious edit, could anyone look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.112 (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a problem to me. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fix time references

In Sec 2.1 (Events at the Taj) there is a table with time references. The last two times are 14:53 PM and 14:53PM-15:59. I don't know enough about these events to assume the times meant, but I do know there is no such thing as 14:53 PM and based on the timeline, going from 11PM to 2:53PM (=14:53) would be a huge jump. Can someone knowledgeable on this subject check this out? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not I. I added that table, but only until 11PM, from what I gleaned from HT ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please add the timezone to the chronology of events. - NN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.130.136 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Some user is continually deleting the sentence in the media section that "Wikipedia was also noted for its more detailed reports and more rapid updates compared with many traditional media outlets." Considering Wikipedia has been mentioned in dozens of articles with regard to the Mumbai events, it seems appropriate to include in our "Media coverage" section. Joshdboz (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we often note negative coverage of wikipedia, its good to put possitive coverage in especially when the Editors who have worked so hard on this article deserve it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please. Is there a single article where the Wikipedia article is the main focus? Those articles exist because of Twitter and Flickr, which actually provide some kind of "original reporting" which is actually newsworthy. Wikipedia and other "Web 2.0" sites are then thrown in to round up those articles; usually Wikipedia doesn't get more than one line, and it is essentially saying that Wikipedia also has a detailed and up-to-date article about the event - which of course has been just as much the case for any other similar recent event. There is no news and no notability at all here. Are we now going to add, in every article about a current event, in which case inevitably some news reports will refer back to Wikipedia, some self-referential nonsense that Wikipedia was noted about reporting the event - in other words, basically saying, "the very article you're reading right now has been mentioned in the press!"? And as to "Editors who have worked so hard"...all I see is people with enough time on their hands scouring Google News and copying information from there (i.e. from the people who do all the actual reporting) to here. How that is hard work is beyond me. To merely aggregate others' work and then to suggest that you are somehow better than the others takes quite some nerve. Margana (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph (UK) article is about user generated content and how it is rivaling the classic media. That article calls us "citizen editors"! which we are. "the very article you're reading right now has been mentioned in the press!" yes but you missed the bit where reporters from different news organisations say how good this article is, thats the important bit. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's mentioned in the MSM, it should be here in this article. "original reporting" has no place in Wikipedia. "To merely aggregate others' work " - that is exactly what Wikipedia is for --vvarkey (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"If it's mentioned in the MSM, it should be here in this article." = absurd. Margana (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that its mentioned in the Telegraph, sydney morning herald and France24 = notability and so it should be in. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any triviality might be mentioned in three sources. If we used that standard throughout, our article might have to be 100 times as long. Margana (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple international RS's has been the standard for inclusion for as long as i can remember, all the sources agree and none have been found to disagree. I really do not see what your problem is other than one with wikipedia in general? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You most certainly remember wrong. There are all sorts of silly "man bites dog"-type stories appearing in multiple international RS's all the time, and that doesn't make them notable. It only confers verifiability, notability is an entirely separate issue. Margana (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate to include wikipedia in the article as yet. If this becomes a defining moment of sorts for wikipedia, then we can add it in, but, self-referencing is not generally a good idea.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the references barely mention the page. All three are about citizen journalism (which wikipedia is not). The second reference (which I deleted) only says that wikipedia set up a page for the event. The other two each have exactly one mention of wikipedia. I should point out that if we're ahead of traditional news media, then we're not doing something right. Material on our page should first appear on some reliable source, which, in a news event like this one, would be the traditional news media. We, I think, did an excellent job of citing work and consolidating what was out there (thanks in part to the numerous 'behind the scenes' editors who checked references and corrected or deleted unsourced information) but more rapid updates than traditional media, I should hope not. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the points you are missing RP is that this article is sourced from lots of different media sources all over the globe. Not every news group has access to the same information, so by us agrigating all these different groups we get more info than any single media organisation, that is what makes us supperior, that and the fact we have more people working on this 24hrs a day than most media groups. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a "defining moment" to qualify for entry. It's not a defining moment for Twitter or Flickr, yet no one is disputing their inclusion. This isn't even self-referencing in the sense that it's meant - see point number five at Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, so invoking that is wrong. And yes, we're free to carry on mentioning Wikipedia, should it be the case that it continues to appear multiple times in media analyses of the incidents. I'm going to add two more sources. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a defining moment for Twitter or Flickr, they shouldn't be mentioned either, but I'm not aware of another event where they have been mentioned that prominently. For Wikipedia, however, such mentions can be found at every such event, at least since the 2004 tsunami. Including them in our articles is pathetic navel-gazing. Margana (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

if the media says wikipedia is ahead of traditonal media, then that's what the page should say, even if it does not make sense to us. We should never do original research. --vvarkey (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just a passing reference in articles focusing on twitter and flickr. Hardly notable. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The role of sources of information outside of the traditional media have been discussed numerous times, and Wikipedia has been included in most of these. To omit this information because we're being too vigilant about self-referencing or "pathetic navel-gazing" is to omit details for the wrong reasons (the media certainly felt it necessary to mention). My reasons for wanting to keep it are perhaps the same as your reasons for wanting rid - for objectivity's sake. It would hold back that section's development too. You're right that Wikipedia is mentioned only briefly, but it is mentioned consistently. We should perhaps increase the information about Twitter/Flickr and keep the line on Wikipedia as it is. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not mentioned consistently. Hardly more than 3 serious sources. Remember that Google News includes all kinds of blogs and other non-reliable sources. Many more serious sources mention Twitter. Margana (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that compared to the coverage Twitter has received, the coverage of Wikipedia is much smaller. But this is still a work-in-progress, and that does not make the info about Wikipedia invalid on this article. Just increase the amount of information on Twitter etc., to fix the problem. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that mentioning Twitter is easily justified, since there are enough articles which are primarily or exclusively about that. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is just mentioned in passing in 3 serious articles. (You have additionally cited Wired, which is too specialized to be relevant here, and a blog which merely quotes 5 words from that same Wired source - not even an entire sentence!) Margana (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are very rarely used but Wired is a perfectly useable RS for its area of speciallised knowledge ie the internet. That now makes four different sources from four different news organisations on three different continents, give it a rest already. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wired is usable in principle, but not in this context. The whole idea at issue is "alternative media becoming mainstream", so you have to use mainstream sources to certify this. Wired can only be expected to mention Wikipedia all the time. And what you keep missing is that all these references are passing one-liners. Twitter gets entire articles - that's notable. Mere mentions of Wikipedia aren't. Margana (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If a lot of them mention it in one line, why can't we? It provides greater context and information -- it's useful for this, I wouldn't enter a line about Wikipedia on its own. And notability is not part of the criteria for adding or removing information from an article, only on whether a topic is worthy of an article. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First, it's not a lot. Second, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The standards are different. The self-reference in this article including the refs was longer than any of the actual mentions in the sources! Margana (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of dead and injured - why u removed that link?

Names of dead and injured - why u removed that link?

Can "u" spell the word "you"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.39.177 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist were British borned Pakistanis according to the Indian government

Also, they're tying the 7/7 London bombings with this terrorist group.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popular/2008/11/28/seven-mumbai-gunmen-are-from-leeds-and-hartlepool-115875-20932675/

I'm not convinced that the Tabloid mirror is a good enough source for this article, i'd like to see a more reputable source say this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But "borned"? Its "born"... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With fairness, several newspapers in the UK have implied British connections, including those with right-wing political positions. A recent BBC article however claims: "Maharashtra State Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh says there is no evidence British citizens were involved in the attacks, despite earlier reports". Perhaps it's a worth a mention when more reputable information comes clear. I'll agree it's too early now - most of the newspapers seem to have just made up stories from nowhere. Ginger Warrior (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Ginger Warrior

Very unusual kind of serial terrorist attack

This is the first time that I hear that a terrorist attack lasts more than a full day, indeed it is lasting more than three days. The Main Page's "In the news" headline should specify this, otherwise people would not get the right feeling of what is going on in Mumbai. I frankly have to admit that it didn't catch my attention right away. At first I thought "What? Another multiple car bombing far away from home?", but much later a workplace pal told me "But CNN is crazy about it!". Aldo L (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AMAZING PICTURES OF THE EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN MUMBAI

Warning, some pictures are gored. Click the black pictures at your own risk.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/mumbai_under_attack.html

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.7.122 (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1 singaporean hurt

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_308265.html At least one had been hurt: He wanted to be known only as Mr See, and when asked about his limp and heavily-bandaged right foot as he emerged from Changi airport's Terminal 2 with only a laptop in hand, he said he had been cut by glass while fleeing the Oberoi hotel.

Please update main page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.214 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ITS OVER

It's finally over!!!!!!!!!! Rejoice!!!!!!!!!!! ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. Everyone thought it was over the first night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.56.45 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks to Marcos, NSG, Mumbai Police and also Mumbai Fire brigade.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 06:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pics

GUYS I HAVE FOUND SOME MORE PICS OF ATTACKS ON WWW.DNAINDIA.COM WEBSITE please add those pics. --Srkhan2 (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

JUST GO TO [www.dnaindia.com] AND U WILL FIND ALL THE IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Its mumbai's Worst Newspaper--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 06:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for images

I think images from few news sites can be used through fair use rationale. for ex see Osama's image. Can others check this, this article badly needs photos. Bluptr (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. At least the photo of the attacker should be uploaded. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not use fair use image for articles covering current events since we tend to dirrectly compete with the people selling them.Geni 18:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article name

It is custumary in wikipedia to put the year when using dates on the title, and only add month if there are other events. Should we rename this article to 2008 Mumbai attacks, or have there been other significant attack in Mumbai? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that we have a toothless psuedosecular Congress government at the center and in Mumbai, there is a good chance that another attack might happen. And then we'll have an article called December 2008 Mumbai attacks. So, let's wait and watch. If no attack happens till the end of 2008, we can move the article. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith disturbing... but seriously, shouldn't it be the other way around? After all, we don't have crystal balls... So, I am not convinced the current title is good. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? WP:CRYSTAL would suggest that we shouldn't assume this event is the most significant attack in Mumbai that occurred during 2008, and that we should wait until 2009 to rename it to 2008 Mumbai attacks. Switzpaw (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that it's customary. The article 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings is named for the date in which the event occurred. Switzpaw (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The 11 July title is very important. The blasts were popularly referred as 7/11. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 08:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what about 13 September 2008 Delhi bombings? Switzpaw (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't want it confused with the 27 September 2008 Delhi blast, do you? Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And before September 27th was it renamed to 2008 Delhi bombings? Switzpaw (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This was born in order to help with alphabetical listings, such as categories. For example, if you got to Category:Conflicts in 2007 you would see:

• 2007 Bagram Air Base bombing
• 2007 Bersih rally
• 2007 HINDRAF rally
• 2007 Helmand province incident
• 2007 Lebanon conflict
• 2007 Zimbabwean political crisis

Same if you pick other years. Or if you pick categories of events other than conflicts, such as natural disasters.

While adherence changes when dates themselves are part of the generally recognized name (ie as September 11 attacks) or due to consensus, most articles on events and conflicts follow this standard. I think we should unless a compelling argument is made. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A compelling argument is that 2008 isn't over yet and you don't know what's going to happen next month. So the standardization that you suggest is a band-aid to help with alphabetization? Sounds like a bad precedent. Switzpaw (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So you have a crystal ball? That said, this format and precedent is not invented by me, many articles in the {{Campaignbox India terrorism}} has a number of articles that follow this format, and some have done so for years: 2001 Indian Parliament attack,2008 Agartala bombings. So if the precedent is bad, take it up with whoever invented it, and try to change all those other articles. I just happen to agree that the precedent is a good one. Are you the only one opposing this? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Trimming the Introduction

The 3 intro paras have too much detail and need to be trimmed down to brief summaries.

any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Which senetences do you think need to be removed? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm thinking (I will move any deletions to appropriate sections (may need clean-up after):

The November 2008 Mumbai attacks are a series of ten coordinated attacks committed by Islamic militants, which began across Mumbai, India's financial capital and largest city, on 26 November 2008 and still had not been overcome by 29 November.[10] The attacks have been dubbed by media as "India's 9/11", an apparent reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.[11][12] At least 195 people[4], including at least twenty-two foreign nationals, have been confirmed dead and at least 327 have been injured.[5][13][14]

Ten terrorist were involved in the operation. There is controvery on who is responsible. A previously unknown organization identifying itself as the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility by email sent to news organizations.[3] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said the attacks probably had “external linkages,” believing that the attack could not have occurred without help.[16] On 28 November, police stated that three terrorists who had attacked the Taj Hotel confessed to being members of the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group,[17][18]

After two days of gunfire and explosions, the attack was incorrectly reported ceased as of the early morning of 28 November in Mumbai.[27][28] It was not until about 3 am on Nov 29 that Indian commandos stated that the Taj Hotel was under control.

Too. Short. Atleast the Hotels need to be mentioned. Can we wait for some more time. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

sure --vvarkey (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical ERROR

Guys, as pointed above in the "Startling Questions - Editors, please note and correct if necessary" section, THERE WAS ONLY ONE ARREST, NOT FOUR!!!

Please correct this critical error. I left the message hours back, seems there's inaction. If Wikipedia cannot handle this, then please open the page for commoners like me to edit.

Sources are provided above in case you think this is a fox's cry!! (anyway here's another: one)

60.50.68.224 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest creating an account. commoners - Who knows you may be the President of the United States? :) Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the table for now.--vvarkey (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Anyway I'm not any president or politician or billionaire or anyone of high profile if anyone wondered. I'm a commoner in Wikipedia, not a powerful moderator or administrator or bureaucrat. But I feel Wikipedia should listen to what commoners say for it to be a better place. Take care. Regards, 60.50.68.224 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dawood Ibrahim's and ISI's involvement?

Sources have stated that Dawood Ibrahim might have funded the attacks, or might have even planned the massacre... As well ISI (Pakistan's spy agency is also accused of funding and providing logistics for the attacks). Shouldn't both Dawood Ibrahim and the ISI be listed in the list of Suspected perpetrator(s).

1 of the sources - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3768907.cms 96.52.193.72 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Why don't you create an account and add it yourself? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 16:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I surely will, thanks man... 96.52.193.72 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Only Dawood. NOT ISI since it is the top military agency of Pak. May lead to disastorous consequences. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 17:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, dawood only unless the indian goverment blames the ISI 96.52.193.72 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image fonts

The fonts used in the image of the map of Mumbai need changing. On a small scale (such as when viewing on the page itself), the letters overcrowded themselves and look terrible. I think it may have to do with being a serif font. Unfortunately, I also think it has to do with the file being an svg. The old png looked much better, though the letters could have been a bit bigger. Can we get the svg font changed so they are more readable and less annoying? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

True. I replaced the svg with png. If someone fixes the prob then put it back. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the SVG may be that rsvg (that wikipedia uses to render the things) may not support the font in question so is falling back on the default.Geni 18:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

This quickly growing article, has now been nominated as a Good Article. Any person who has not significantly contributed to the article is welcome to review it. Therefore, I cannot review it, and I am calling out to all reviewers to pass or fail this article. Thanks, Whaatt (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC) ŋ

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:November 2008 Mumbai attacks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am quick-failing this article. There is still a cleanup tag in the "Events at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel" section that is still valid and the attacks only ended today, so this article has obviously not reached its potential. Take care of the cleanup banner and I would give it at least a couple weeks so that you can gain more news coverage on the aftermath. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, please wait a couple of weeks before repeating the GA nomination. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about the current event rule when nominating for GA. Thanks, and I'll be sure to nominate it again in a month or so after it has gotten better...Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading text

I live in the conflict zone, so I can easily point out several errors in the text as the AFP/Reuters reports are not accurate as far as the locations are concerned.

1. There was no shooting at the Police Headquarters. The headquarters is located several hundred metres north, and that is not the path the terrorists took. The terrorists took an eastern path, walking past the Times of India building, and past the rear portion Azad Maidan police station. This is the police station that the source actually refers to. Adjacent to the Azad Maidan police station, and a little more to the east is the Cama Hospital. There there entered, hid in the bushes, killed the police officers, and moved to the front side, (main road) towards Metro Adlabs, You can verify my statements on Google Earth.
2. Mazagon & Nepean Sea explosion needs a credible source
3. No consulates are in New Delhi, only embassies are. So please change it to the Israeli Embassy.
4. It's Metro Adlabs now, not Cinema or Theatre
5. Colaba has an eastern and western coastline. So this statement get to the coast at Colaba needs to be clarified (both coastlines were used as per a "Times Now" interview with a fisherman)
6. ZAKA needs to be mentioned
7. The initial gang war theory needs to be mentioned
8. St. George Hospital needs to be mention along with Bombay Hospital (mentioned)
9. The map is also not very precise.
10. MARCOS suffered casualties (per a press briefing given by them)
11. (CST) railway station; needs to be expanded that the maximum damage was at the long distance trains, not so much the local lines. By the time the terrorists had come to the local suburban platforms, people had escaped.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The map you can update yourself. Errors with the map data itself can be corrected at www.openstreetmap.org. Other issues you probably need sources for... EAi (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Further support for this point http://www.indianexpress.com/news/they-threw-salaskar-kamte-and-karkare.../392336/ Thelostlibertine (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Section on Operation?

Can't there be a small section of Operation Black Tornado and Cyclone? 96.52.193.72 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We've integrated that info into the rest of the article. I think it flows better this way. Feel free to point out here any new information that you think should be added. The Squicks (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Date error under "Responsibility"

"However, Indian police stated on 19 November that they have no evidence to confirm this." ... this should read 29 November? 86.172.33.199 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The Squicks (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the Indian Terrorist

Someone please post this picture on the article. They clearly look like South Asian in origin as opposed Middle Eastern Pakistani men. http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081127&fname=terror&sid=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.94.174 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to avoid fair-use images here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"as opposed Middle Eastern Pakistani men". Pakistan is in South Asia, not in the Middle East. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan is included in the region of the Middle East. They also physically much different than the Indians. Pakistanis are mostly light skinned and of tall stature. - NapoleonARS —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleonARS (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan is a former territory of India partitioned in 1947. There is no ethnic difference between North Indians and Pakistanis. Pakistan do not "look Middle Eastern." Pakistan is not part of the Middle East. However, the article on the Middle East has a new category called the Greater Middle East into which Pakistan is lumped. Apparently this is a new political term created by the Bush administration by the article. To say Pakistanis are "physically much different than the Indians" is a profoundly ignorant comment. Puck42 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have both Pakistani and Indian friends here in Toronto, they is a difference of NIGHT and DAY. All the Indians in our company are dark skinned and of short stature. The Pakistanis are always the opposite in physcial looks.-NapoleonARS —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleonARS (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NapoleonARS, stop trolling and don't use Wikipedia as a forum. Pakistanis are wannabe Arabs, but Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia prove that they are South Asians, not Middle-Easterners. And we've seen how "tall and fair" Pakistanis are -- just see the photos of Pakistani politicians. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

NapoleonARS is only talking some crap and only considering friends in Toronto. North Indian and Pakistanis belong to Indo-Aryan race which most of them are tall and fair.but south Indians are Dravidian which most of Dravidian have darker skin and short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadsharieff (talk • contribs) 05:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Tall and fair", "darker skin and short". Idiot. Do some research on South Asian Genetic studies. Here are a few links to start with: [7][8]. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to all but NapoleanARS. Although I could not agree more to the fact, the terrorist caught in the pictures is the one who is literally caught alive by Mumbai Police.Source 1 Source 2. Nghtyvbz (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So many generalizations. Most pakistanis and indians look alike. HOWEVER, almost half of pakistan is pathan or pashto and look like afghani people or sometimes those from central asia. These people tend to have whiter skin tones (although I don't know anything about height, etc).