Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Type of Bomb

The type of explosives used is crucial evidence and needs to be expanded on. A TV presenter quoting a government official is hearsay. I think the article's description of RDX Torpex is pure speculation and need to be referenced. Did Pakistani military investigators use a Geiger Counter? (photo here ) U2r2h (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

American bias in article?

"One American was reported killed in the blast, while several other foreigners were wounded, according to a hospital and security officials."

Erm, don't you think this is a bit biased? OMG, one American was killed! And yes, other "foreigners" were killed, as well. Darkshark0159 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If we get details on the other persons it should be added, but I don't see how that precludes keeping already gathered info. Joshdboz (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As we get information on all the victims we should summarize it in the article. It is not surprising that an American citizen among the dead is the first such piece of information to become publicized. __meco (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation showing that other foreigners (foreign meaning non-Pakistani) were killed? Superm401 - Talk 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes 4 British nationals were killed. LOTRrules (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Read above. Do you have a citation? Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Too early for this type of image licensing? Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08.JPG

Why can't Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08b.JPG be used in the mean time???

..because it doesn't give any information.

Sure, but it is a good piece to hold the page over until better imagery become available. A lack of pictures, whether great or rubbish, drive some casual viewers away from such lacking articles. Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We need an image of a map of the region in which this situation took place, or an image of the destruction with proper licenses.  AcroX  22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the one[[1]] from WikiNews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkshark0159 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at some of the other terrorist incident articles and see how they have done it. __meco (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have. Virtually all similar bombings use the licensing used in this image I prepared earlier: Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08.JPG Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason a free photo can't be taken at the scene. Recovery and rebuilding will probably take a very long time. Superm401 - Talk 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Satellite image

The satellite image you posted is non-free too. Please, if you're not sure you have a free image, don't upload it. Superm401 - Talk 23:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't restore the satellite image without explaining how it is free and adding this info to the image description page. Superm401 - Talk 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it is an image from Wikimapia. That good for you? Restoring now. Darkshark0159 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to add details, including a URL, to the image page. It is also necessary to explain where Wikimapia got the image, because they don't own any satellites either as far as I know. It appears Wikimapia is simply a mash-up. It combines Google Maps, a non-free map service, and Wikipedia, which they illegally use without mentioning the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 23:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Can you identify any content on Wikimapia that is illegal and uses Wikipedia? Wikimapia itself does not do mass uploads from Wikipedia or any other sources; all illegal content there is uploaded piecemeal by users. If so, it can be removed by any editor in the same fashion - but beware their dispute resolution practice is stone age. 2. Maps on Wikimapia are clearly marked and watermarked as a Google service. Hardly a mashup. NVO (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay Superm401, you are officially a WikiJerk. Darkshark0159 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, WTF. Who the hell cares of part of an image is grey-area. Just sod off and let this article be the best it can be. Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not improving the article by adding non-free images, nor are you improving this discussion by using personal attacks. Superm401 - Talk 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. It is only logical that a half-decent picture is better than none at all. Wake up. People like pictures! Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way, virtually all of the other terrorist attacks are represented by non-free media. Why should this article be any different? Stop holding Wikipedia back. Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:MariottIslamabad20-9-08.JPG Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Other parts of the wikiempire are using non-free for this event. Wikipedia should as well.

An attitude of, We got away with non-free media before. Let's add as much as possible this time is not going to help us create a free encyclopedia. I don't think you can point to a single case where there was consensus to use a non-free satellite images. Some articles use non-free news images, and many of those are actually inappropriate. In this case, the attack's just happened, and it's way premature to add non-free images.

If this is really Pakistan's 9/11, then we should consider that there are hundreds of free 9/11 images. If other projects are using non-free images, they should probably be removed there too. Superm401 - Talk 00:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:INN sort of fits in here. That latest image of yours came directly from CNN (or one of the news sites, I forget which I saw it on), that's against the rules. Now that map of the region was perfect for the article, minus the satellite image? Why can't we use that? Why must we use non-free images?  AcroX  00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a simple free locator image for consideration. Superm401 - Talk 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

open street maps has reasonable coverage of Islamabad so we might be able to get a reasonable map from that.Geni 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion?

There's no merger discussion on either page, why didn't you guys follow the process correctly?  AcroX  20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There should definitely be a merger, but I think we should wait until after the article "cools off" before anyone takes such a large step. This is the official Wikipedia article for this event as it is featured on the front page. And blame Superm401 for not putting up a merge discussion... Darkshark0159 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge into the geographically specific title. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we wait for the article to cool off before merging? That would mean that while the most people are working on the article, duplicate work would be done. This should not have been a controversial merge. Clearly, having two articles was inappropriate. If you think something from 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel attack is missing, feel free to add it here (all content is still in that page's history). If you would like to rename to 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel attack, that's also an option, though I hardly see why it matters (is there another 2008 attack on a Marriott hotel?). Superm401 - Talk

I have merged the other article into this one. This was the more developed version (I left out unreferenced text from the other article) and was also started before the other one. This does not preclude a change of title of this article, if need be into what the title of the other article was. __meco (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the redirect should be the other way. 2008 Marriott Hotel bombing should be redirected to 2008 Islamabad...

It's the first impression and the inter-wiki links that are important here. Lihaas (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pakistan's 9/11"

Many locals are in fact calling this the 9/11 of Pakistan, but at this point, the only sources I can think of would be the blogs cuurently available on various sites. Does anyone else know of a proper source? ~~`~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkshark0159 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that Najam Sethi came up with the name. Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You may have found it, but you haven't given a citation. Nor do I think this is a notable nickname. Superm401 - Talk 22:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper article has not yet been published online, so I cannot quote it. It is your opinion that it is not a notable name, but I know many feel differently. Darkshark0159 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even given the name of one newspaper, nor the title of the article, nor the city of publication. Do you expect me to take your assertions without any evidence? Superm401 - Talk 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor footnotes practice

Presently the first paragraph has information about:

1. Date and location of bombing
2. How the attack took place
3. Number of dead and injured
   • including foreign nationals
4. Description of damage to locale

Now, all of this is referenced, collectively, by six sources. This is not very good. __meco (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead space issue

On my 1280x800 monitor there's a giant area of dead space caused by the campaign box, and I have a feeling other resolutions may have this issue. How shall we fix this?  AcroX  22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here Darkshark0159 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears solved now. Jdkoenig 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

wikiproject

How is this wikiproject military history? this is the first terror attack on wikipedia im seeing with a military history wikiproject tag on.

Likewise IR and disaster management, although i can see some connection to, albeit quite a stretch. Lihaas (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on the other two, but as a WP:DM member it is relevant. Wether deleberate or accidental, a catastrophe occured and management wwas/is required. The techniques used are what the project is interested in. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Need edits on Pakistanis killed

The article lists how many American and Danes were killed. There is no mention of Pakistani. Since 60 or more people were murdered and only a few nationalities given, many of them might be Pakistani. Omission may imply bias. At first, it can be excused but as more information is released, the article should be corrected. 903M (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to address this through a reference that stated ~15 of the casualties were foreigners. That means the vast majority were Pakistanis. Superm401 - Talk 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

title

In Wikipedia, we have to give an article a name. However, this name is simply one coined by a Wikipedia editor. When there is a name accepted universally, then we bolden the title name. An example is the article on "Pakistan". The manual of style doesn't require bolding of the exact article name in cases like this. By not doing so, we avoid the comical stilted language of an article that sounds like a television episode name. 903M (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

source

an edit just added this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islamabad_Marriott_Hotel_bombing&diff=239951319&oldid=239949718) it has a potentially good source, maybe someone can incorporate it: http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17401 Lihaas (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a single story from a middle of the road source. That makes it a fringe theory. Unless this goes into the mainstream, it's not worth including. Superm401 - Talk 07:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

American Presence?

The sources for the article do not say that US Marines were the target of the attack, nor do they say that the fire started on the 4th floor. The only semi-relevant bits I pick up from cited sources. are that 1. There were US Marines present, and 2. They may have had steel cases, probably personal footlockers, with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.89.75 (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did the "footlockers" have to bypass security? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.179.208 (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, not that I plan on finding sources because it will never make it into the article, but going through personal property usually doesn't happen. It happens a lot when somebody may have contraband that would offend a country that doesn't work for both sides. Also, Mariott security probably trusted that 30 US Marines were not planning on bombing the hotel or taking over Pakistan. Of course, you could also assume massive Pakistani conspiracies when the government is not extremely friendly towards the US, and also base parts of this Wikipedia article off unfounded speculation, and claim the fire started on the 4th floor when no source says so. The key issue here is relevance and credibility. Read the sourced articles and then judge how much relevant information there is opposed to unsourced speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.89.75 (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's clearly not a significant POV, and has no place in the article. If people still want to include it, more sources are needed, as well as correct grammar and formatting. Do this work on talk before trying to add it to the article. Superm401 - Talk 08:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PM says he can't jump to conclusions

He was live just one minute ago and said that he can't jump to conclusions, and can't blame anybody.User talk:Yousaf465

It's been changed on the main page; it now says it's only suspected to be so. Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

International relations section

Foreign responses that are simply statements of condolences and anti-terrorist rhetoric should be removed. These are formalities and nothing more. Leave the actions, not the routine talk. NVO (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

US strikes infobox

Instead of reverting one can discuss here the utility of having this infobox. Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

all such infoboxes go only into articles that are mentioned IN the infobox--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

{{U.S. strikes in Bajour/Waziristan}}

Sorry I just saw this discussion. In general you should be allowed to add, whatever you think is important that others should See. Even the most non-detached observer of the situation, reckons that the U.S. strikes, that have escalated in September, has something to do with this bombing. In other words - had the U.S. not escalated its attacks - taken advantage of the power-vacuum in Pakistan, following the stepping down of Pervez Musharraf on 18 August, we would in all probability not have seen this attack yesterday. Everyone with just a scant affiliation with Pakistani affairs, are aware how angered many Pakistanis are about the U.S attacks, and that explains the Pakistan-U.S standoff 15 September 2008, as the Pakistani leadership is very much aware about possible consequences of U.S forces entering Pakistani territory.

Therefore I shall in the strongest terms object to my template being deleted again and again, when indeed it serves as a valuable tool of information for people, struggling to find an explanation, as to why this has happened. Some people, do not want this truth to be spelled out, preferring instead to wage war without understanding why it happened, and without asking questions. But many people are increasingly aware, that terrorist strikes doesn't come out of the blue, but have a political motivation, ie. in this case protest about U.S interference in Pakistani affairs. All I ask is letting this information be included in the See also section. When it is constantly deleted, I can only interpret it, as if some people wish a mind-control and to restrict the free flow of information -- a flow, which should be at the heart of what it means to be a wikipedian, ie. a developer of the people's own encyclopedia, which includes topics based on commo9n sense, as they are discussed man-to-man. Old printed Encycklopedias had editors who could restrict the free flow of information, but the peoples own encyclopeida, made for and by the people, should aim higher.Nick Finnsbury Nick Finnsbury (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

if you create an article named List of United States raids in Pakistan, fine. But still I do not see any sources linking the attack to the raids. IMO the attack came as a "greetings" for Zardari. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts

According to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islamabad_Marriott_Hotel_bombing&diff=239980828&oldid=239979427

The conflict here is between saying the "...Marines, scheduled to go to Afghanistan, were staying at the hotel" and between them being "in Pakistan in connection with the visit by US..." It is NOT between "and they were believed to be the targets of the bombing" and then being here with the admiral, as previously supposed.

Now if there are with the delegation's visit then they would not be a tour of duty to the conflict zone. There's a disconnect here. Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor grammar that can easily be misunderstood, and ends up cluttering the whole thing

The section in its present form says:>An unnamed senior security official stated that about 30 U.S. Marines, scheduled to go to Afghanistan, were staying at the hotel, and they were believed to be the targets of the bombing. This conflicted with information given by another unnamed official who stated that the marines were in Pakistan in connection with the visit by US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen who met the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and other government officials on Friday< YEAH Allright,- it conflicts with the information that they were on the Route to Aghanistan but it doesn't CONFLICT with the notion, that they were attacked BECAUSE they were in the hotel Is that clear? It ought to be.

Therefore the word conflict should be averted. It is poor grammar. No great poet like Shakespeare (who is a good example of a master of language, and one we should all be happy in trailing) would use such a word. It is not precise. YEAH the statement by the unnamed "official" conflicts with some of the stuff mentioned in the previous sentence, but it doesn't conflict with the fact that they were targetted because they were 1) U.S marrines and 2) In that hotel at that time. Therefore the word conflict should not be used.Do I make myself clear - or how many times to you prefer to re-enter your poor grammar!!!!Nick Finnsbury (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may find that there is a way to say something. Perhaps WP:Civility may help.

At any rate, the conflict is mentioned and you agree there is a conflict so why should it not be there? you read it a conflict between two other things, maybe then it should be rephrased at most. you just acknowledged the conflict, but then you go on to state shakespeare would not do so. what is the meaning of conflict then? why is it not grammatically right?

how about: "...unnamed senior security official stated that about 30 U.S. Marines, who were believed to be the targets of the bombing, were also scheduled to go to Afghanistan. This conflicted with information given by another unnamed official who stated" Lihaas (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I havent the foggiest what you are on to. It is the word: conflict that is wrong to use in this context.It is not precise, as the officials statement only 'conflicts' with one of the points mentioned in the previous sentence, ie. that the marrines were en route to Aghanistan. It does not 'conflict' with the idea, that they were the reason the hotel was bombed. Allthough news had emerged that it could be the pakistani leadership that was the target, I am sure 30 marrines would be viewed by the instigaters of this attack as fair collateral damage. The possibility exists the the marrines and their steel boxes in some way were there to guard the pakistani leadership.

But you continue to re-insert the word: 'Conflict, even though i have offered a very fair compromise, namely that >This conflicted with information given by another unnamed official who stated< should be replaced with >Another unnamed official stated, that...< And everytime I insert this better-languaged substitute, you tell me that I am not allowed to do so, and that I should discuss it here.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See also

This section should also be included. In which Lebanon hotel bombing of 1995 (i think) and the American ohio boming should be included.Pl confirm these incidents.~``

Under what grounds? how is it related? Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Highly relevant remark from (unsigned). I agree with you. One ought to make a Template called: Truck bombs. And here is the incident in Lebanon, I gather you had in mind: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Yours sincerely Nick Finnsbury (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

I propose renaming this article to 2008 Marriott Hotel bombing in Islamabad. --HowardRob (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is generally not a good idea to start with a year, as it makes searches internally on wikipedia difficult. And one doesn't expect any more attacks on Islamabad Marriott Hotels(it will anyway take some time, as the current one is going to be demolished, and a new one then has to be erected). If we have one in -say 2010, we could consider naming this one "2008...". Nick Finnsbury (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia naming conventions (and this is the case for a variety of attacks) the year does come into play. So something like what you (Howard) said, or 2008 Islamabad Marriott hotel bombing should be good. Maybe there will be a minor bombing at another marriott in the same year or next. Needs the conventions. Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Summer time?

I believe Pakistan is currently on summer time. This should be clarified vis-à-vis the time reference in the infobox. __meco (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they are on summer time. "PDT" stands for Pakistan Daylight Time, and can be seen on the Pakistan Wikipedia page, so I think that should cover it. jdkoenig 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

peoples response

I have the youtube video for the people's reponse where to add it.User talk:Yousaf465

Either in external links or as a source. (i believe i added the al jazeera video to the external links) Lihaas (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pak condemnation

should we add a new section for all the reaction from pakistani leaders? or perhaps just add a pak flag to the reaction section. Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New section will be better.User talk:Yousaf465

got a collection of links here:

http://www.kmsnews.org/news/pro-freedom-leaders-condemn-islamabad-blast Kashmiri (probably Indian right now)

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=137164 Hyderabad (Pak) rally

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53527&Itemid=2 NA Spekaer

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\09\21\story_21-9-2008_pg11_5 Traders

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=137163 Prez/PM

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70056&sectionid=351020401 same

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53485&Itemid=2 Ministers

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53554&Itemid=2 Balochis

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53537&Itemid=2 Hurriyat

http://www.geo.tv/9-20-2008/25306.htm FM

http://thepost.com.pk/CorpNewsT.aspx?dtlid=184207&catid=8 chamber of commerce

http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/14/top16.htm prez/pm

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=133660 chief of army staff

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53470&Itemid=2 mqm

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=22_9_2008&ItemID=19&cat=21 jklf (India?)

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=133636 rehman malik (notable?)

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53499&Itemid=2 punjab cm

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=137310 youth parliament (notable?)

http://thepost.com.pk/ShortNewsT.aspx?shortid=6758&catid=2 senate

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53541&Itemid=2 imran khan

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7435/ cpp

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=135192 people

http://thepost.com.pk/NatNewsT.aspx?dtlid=181746&catid=2 or http://thepost.com.pk/CityNewsT.aspx?dtlid=184140&catid=3 lawyers?

http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=194501 norway ambassador's house

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53526&Itemid=2 general

ps- for all those in pak. did you interior min go home to change clothes thrice ;) Lihaas (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise the following passage should be added to a new section. doesn't make sense where ti is.

Both Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani condemned the attack and vowed their determination to deal with terrorism, with Law Minister Farooq Naek stating "this is Pakistan's nine-eleven". Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a separate section for Pakistani reactions. __meco (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I too support the creation of a separate section for Pakistani internal political reactions and other notable opinions. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't do tables, if someone could set one up i will add to it. ^{(Hypnosadist)}

It's not so difficult. If you look at the code for the existing tables, you could easily copy and modify so as to create a new table. Here is the basic code:

{| class="wikitable" align=center width=100%
! width=175px  | Source !! Response
|-
| column 1 content || column 2 content
|-
| column 1 content || column 2 content
|}

__meco (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This too needs to be added to this section:

"Many people are of the view that a foreign power is involved in the attacks in some way. <ref>{{cite news..." ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 11:04, September 26, 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edit botched up the page for more than three weeks so that anything below has been hidden until now. (I now commented out the damaging code). __meco (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

References

presence of explosive inside the buidling

It has just been announced that there were explosives present inside the building also which caused the damage to 4th and 5th floor.This was said the forensic experts.No written report has arrived as yet this was just stated on tv. So pl add this when a cite is ava.User talk:Yousaf465

Bangladeshi response

I added it along with a flag. 903M (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Change in plans reportedly saved Pakistani leaders

[2] Grey Fox (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Perps?

Two things: 1) Fadayan-e_Islam listed on the chart of perpetrators doesn't seem to be the same group claiming responsibility. It links to a defunct Iranian group. Dawn refers to the group as Fedayeen-i-Islam. 2) Since the Pakistani group has not been known until now and because many believe that the group is comprised of members of other already existing groups, should we not include al-Qaeda, HuJI, etc. on the short list of suspected groups? --RDavi404 (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of americans killed have been released

The U.S. military identified the two Americans killed in the Marriott bombing as Air Force Maj. Rodolfo I. Rodriguez, 34, of El Paso, Texas, and Navy Petty Officer Matthew O'Bryant, 22, of Theodore, Ala.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD93CN8T01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Finnsbury (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fadayan-e Islam

The Fadayan-e Islam group linked to in the infobox is not the same group claiming responsibility for the attack. That group is a pre-Revolution Iranian group that is no longer active. The Fedayeen Islam group claiming responsibility has never been heard of before now. The source cited confirms this fact (Seen here: Dawn). A new page needs to be created for the Pakistani group (although many investigators believe that the new group is composed of members of an already existing group such as al-Qaeda, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan). ----meco (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavi404 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported attribution – edit conflict

I'm having a dispute with Lihaas over the issue of attributing responsibility for the terror attack (as witnessed by this edit). In the infobox, there were two parties identified as suspected perpetrators, i.e. "Fadayan-e Islam" and the Taliban. In the case of the first one, there only exist records of one phone call from an unknown outfit. No reports that I am aware of have corroborated this. I don't think that justifies labeling this a suspect. In the case of the Taliban, the news report used to cite the perpetrator label does not support this at all. It merely speculates: "No one has claimed repsonsibility for the blast, but Taliban militants with their bases in country's tribal areas along Afghan border have carried out a series of suicide bombings across Pakistan over the last 18 months.". Notably, the Taliban has publicly stated it has not committed the bombing.

Lihaas adds in a recent edit investigation findings which also does not attribute the terror attack to any group or cause. It mentions that three men have been arrested suspected of complicity, however there is no mention of who these men are or their possible affiliations.

In the article's section "Possible perpetrators", a number of hypotheses are presented. There is nothing that suggests that the two groups which Lihaas wants to highlight are any more prominent candidates than the rest.

Consequently I have also removed Category:Islamic terrorism from this article. __meco (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and I am not prepared to pass the article for GA as it is. I have listed below some of the more serious of the many problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. The article will need further work once the issues below are dealt with, these are only the most serious problems. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The lead does not provide an adequate introduction to the article's topic. It must have at least two (but no more than four) clear and consice paragraphs explaining the event and its consequences. At the moment I am afraid that it is nothing more than a collection of often unrelated sentences.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

The first section in the main body of the article has to discuss the event, but this article does not do this, instead leaping into the secondary effects of the explosion.

The investigation section is far too short and cursory. A full explanation of the investigation and search for culprits needs to be made.

Many sections are out of order - there needs to be some sort of "intentions" section which incorporates the information about the Pakistani leadership, the American presence and any other motives for the attack. At the moment this information is scattered through the article. The information on the bombing: explosives, video etc. all have to be organised in a single section that clearly outlines the secquence of events.

The consequences section is poorly written and largely incomplete.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

It seems as if the points of view on this event have been cobbled together from bits found online. There needs to be a proper representation of information about potential culprits and international and domestic reaction.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

A week and no action or improvement. This nomination has failed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 18:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Since this is the second GA nomination, all the issues raised in the first GA nomination need to be addressed. They are listed at Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/GA1. I'll look at them and see if they have been properly taken care of. --Noleander (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• The footnotes section contains several dead external links. All the footnotes need to be tested and make sure they are still valid. If the link is dead, remove the URL link ... it is okay to keep the textual citation of the original newspaper article (or whatever it was), but not a blue link to a non-existent URL. --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• The lead contains no mention of who carried out the attack ... even if there was no conclusion, some suspects should be identified in the lead. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• The "reactions" tables at the bottom of the article are a bit overwhelming. If they are just quoting expressions of sympathy, that is really not encyclopedic. The tables should be trimmed down (or removed?) somehow. For example, see the article 2008 Mumbai attacks which has no such table. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

However, I see that the Mumbai attacks do have the reactions in another article: Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks ... so I suppose that is a good precedent to keep the "reactions" in this article. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Several of the issues from the first GA (GA1) still apply. For example, the Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, but it does not. Also, the narrative of the article should be more of a chronological flow: each section should follow (logically, somehow) from the prior section (if possible). --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If possible, please improve the article as you can. I did all the best efforts here. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am improving the article very well and removing dead links if the page does not exist or I will use an archive website and cite the refrences. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. As you fix the individual "Comments" listed above, put a "done" template under each one, like this {{done}}. That will display a green check mark  Done indicating that you fixed the issue in the Comment. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - The article has copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales. I have uploaded a non-free image here, but not in Commons. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We have one step left, I will try to reformat the paragraph as soon as possible. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Several items above still need work - Katarighe: above you wrote "If possible, please improve the article as you can. I did all the best efforts here". I'm a bit busy now, so I won't have any time to work on the article, beyond reviewing it. There are several items still to be done, for instance several of the bulleted items above still need work (for example, the 3rd bullet "The lead contains no mention of who carried out the attack " ). If you do not have time to work on the article any more, and if there are no other editors participating, then we may have to cancel the GA nomination process, and try again at a future date. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to do so. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it is getting better. Let me take another look and see if I can find any other tasks that have to be done. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Attack" section needs better start. The first section after the lead is "Attack". That should strart new/fresh, as if the reader has not read the lead. So the first few sentences of Attack need to give a good statement of what happened. For example: "On March 6, 1993, a truck containg explosives was driven into the entryway of the Isl Maririot hotel, and exploded, killing XX people". After that first sentence, then go on to give details of the attack. --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• The article looks good and cleared format. I think you can review it one more time before final submission. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you address the "Attack" issue mentioned immediately above? --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I will do so, and I will address it immediately. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I already addressed the "attack" issue on the first page. Everything seem to look fine. You can review it again Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Attack section still needs work. It should start from before the attack, because it must be written as if the Lead section did not exist. After the lead, the article must start at the beginning. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What sentence is it and what is the example? I will try to work on these. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is the beginning of the Attack section where it starts "The blast caused a natural gas leak that set the top floor of the five-story, 258-room hotel on fire, police said. The massive explosion was heard 15 kilometres away...". That assumes the reader already knows about the attack. That section must begin with the assumption that the reader knows nothing about the attack (as if the Lead section did not exist). So the Attack section must begin by explaining when and where the attack happened (like the lead), and AFTER that, it can talk about "the blast caused ...". --Noleander (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you said the instructions, I already did and explained about the attack on the beggining of the article. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The part of the article before "Attack" section is called the "Lead". When you write the rest of the article after the Lead, you must pretend that the Lead does not exist. So all the stuff AFTER the lead must be self-contained, that is, it must tell the whole story. Therefore, the Attack section must start over and explain all the facts about the attack, EVEN IF ALREADY IN THE LEAD. For example, the Attacks section must have information such as: " night of 20 September 2008, when a dump truck filled with explosives detonated in front of the Marriott Hotel in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, killing at least 54 people, injuring at least 266 and leaving a 60 ft (20 m) wide, 20 ft (6 m) deep crater outside the hotel..." and any other background information. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have improved the attack section. Is there anything else to be corrected? Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Attack section still does not meet the requirements I explain above (" the Attacks section must have information such as: " ...). --Noleander (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Footnotes need to be validated. Footnote #73 is no longer working. It is [3]. All the external links in the footnotes need to be verified that they are correct and working. If not working, they need to be replaced with a different source (or, if no source exists: eliminate the material the footnote is supporting). --Noleander (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Would newspapers and other resources work to verify in the footnotes? I'm trying to fix them Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, newspapers can be acceptable for footnotes. See WP:Reliable sources for a full explanation of what sources (books, newspapers, web sites, etc) can be used. See also WP:Citing sources for an explanation of how to create and format footnotes. If you cannot find a "reliable source" to replace the broken/missing footnotes, the material must be removed from the article. --Noleander (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I set the GA nomination status to "Failed". I think the article is very close, but there are still several outstanding issues, and the progress forward seems to be slow and sporadic. I recommend that editors continue to work on the article, particularly focusing on the open issues listed above. And after all those are fixed, submit it for GA again. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Image title needs rewording I think

Usama al-Kini, one of the suspects who were involved in the hotel attacks.

Shouldn't this be one of the suspects who has been accused of being involved, as this doesn't seem to be settled according to the main text of the article? --81.149.74.231 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

The bombing was dramatized in the 2012 film Zero Dark Thirty. That should be thrown in there at some point somewhere. --Matt723star (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923221039/http://www.dawn.com:80/2008/09/22/top11.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/22/top11.htm

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028210307/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD93GH45O1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD93GH45O1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923134848/http://www.paktribune.com:80/news/index.shtml?182629 to http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?182629
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213161204/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2008/09/25/europe/EU-Denmark-Pakistan.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/25/europe/EU-Denmark-Pakistan.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922002302/http://ca.news.yahoo.com:80/s/reuters/080921/n_world_reuters/international_pakistan_blast_dc to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080921/n_world_reuters/international_pakistan_blast_dc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080925003939/http://www.kansascity.com:80/451/story/807140.html to http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/807140.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926120420/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/SB122209790230863109.html?mod=fox_australian to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122209790230863109.html?mod=fox_australian
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923221015/http://www.dawn.com:80/2008/09/21/top1.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/21/top1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080925162142/http://www.dawn.com:80/2008/09/23/top6.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/23/top6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080921161137/http://www.liberal.ca:80/story_14763_e.aspx to http://www.liberal.ca/story_14763_e.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923153814/http://pakobserver.net:80/200809/22/news/topstories02.asp to http://pakobserver.net/200809/22/news/topstories02.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080930210824/http://www.thanhniennews.com:80/politics/?catid=1 to http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=42248

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924231413/http://bihartimes.com/NewsAll/2008/Sep/NewsAll21Sep14.html to http://bihartimes.com/NewsAll/2008/Sep/NewsAll21Sep14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923201303/http://www.geo.tv/9-21-2008/25363.htm to http://www.geo.tv/9-21-2008/25363.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113005128/http://fuseviews.com/2014/11/06/book-review-truth-always-prevails/ to http://fuseviews.com/2014/11/06/book-review-truth-always-prevails/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922163336/http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17401 to http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17401
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924034807/http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17453 to http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17453
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923122003/http://www.sindhtoday.net/south-asia/22270.htm to http://www.sindhtoday.net/south-asia/22270.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141119150017/http://www.samaa.tv/News13697-HijratUllah_to_be_jailed_for_10_years.aspx to http://www.samaa.tv/News13697-HijratUllah_to_be_jailed_for_10_years.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029011919/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/metropolitan/19-ghq-siege-mastermind-captured-claim-police-hh-06 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/metropolitan/19-ghq-siege-mastermind-captured-claim-police-hh-06
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1300713&lang=EN
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/BC2F90E3221555A4652574CB0032B59E?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923225500/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70126&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70126&sectionid=351020101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922123518/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080922-162086/RP-sticks-it-out-with-anti-terror-allies to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080922-162086/RP-sticks-it-out-with-anti-terror-allies
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922141345/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080921-162055/RP-sticking-with-US-war-on-terror----Palace to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080921-162055/RP-sticking-with-US-war-on-terror----Palace
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522115132/http://www.mzv.sk/servlet/content?MT=%2FApp%2FWCM%2Fmain.nsf%2Fvw_ByID%2FID_B282288063522198C1256C7D003A13DF_SK&OpenDocument=Y&NCH=Y&menu=0&OB=0&LANG=EN to http://www.mzv.sk/servlet/content?MT=%2FApp%2FWCM%2Fmain.nsf%2Fvw_ByID%2FID_B282288063522198C1256C7D003A13DF_SK&OpenDocument=Y&NCH=Y&menu=0&OB=0&LANG=EN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923121958/http://www.sindhtoday.net/pakistan/22322.htm to http://www.sindhtoday.net/pakistan/22322.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922032515/http://arabia.ndtv.com/Story.aspx?pageheader=news&sub_category=&ID=NEWEN20080066126 to http://arabia.ndtv.com/Story.aspx?pageheader=news&sub_category=&ID=NEWEN20080066126
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221745576245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924001701/http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2264403 to http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2264403
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923001204/http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2264352 to http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2264352
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923001204/http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2264352 to http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2264352

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) 09:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921103147/http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409071/cs/1/ to http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409071/cs/1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080909093716/http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-08-voa15.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-08-voa15.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923162750/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/52928.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/52928.html

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) 01:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925092114/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008092217919 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008092217919
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924034724/http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17445 to http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17445
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925005546/http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers29/paper2853.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers29%5Cpaper2853.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928162503/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gp9TpfYpahpDG4suRb6ERZuqTl0A to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gp9TpfYpahpDG4suRb6ERZuqTl0A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212220502/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=Cricket&id=023c978d-96a9-49d9-a1b2-cd34c6e8f31d&&Headline=World+leaders+condemn+blast+in+Pak&strParent=strParentID to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=Cricket&id=023c978d-96a9-49d9-a1b2-cd34c6e8f31d&&Headline=World+leaders+condemn+blast+in+Pak&strParent=strParentID
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921155359/http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=62953&cid=2 to http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=62953&cid=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921063411/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article2665694.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article2665694.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923105752/http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/9/21/islamic-oganization-condemns-bomb-atattack-on-pakistan-hotel/ to http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/9/21/islamic-oganization-condemns-bomb-atattack-on-pakistan-hotel/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922120013/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=243111&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=243111&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210131853/http://www.tasr.sk/30.axd?k=20080921TBB00248 to http://www.tasr.sk/30.axd?k=20080921TBB00248

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) 08:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)