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)