Jump to content

Talk:Manila hostage crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeManila hostage crisis was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 23, 2010.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 23, 2013, August 23, 2017, August 23, 2020, and August 23, 2022.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Manila hostage crisis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    (Discussion moved from header no. 3).
    The Chinese government refused to host a Philippine government delegation scheduled to visit Beijing and Hong Kong between August 26 and 27, citing that there was nothing to explain until the publication of a complete investigation report for the incident. This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, but I can't fix it as the source is in Chinese. If you read Chinese, is there any chance you could rephrase it to make it a little clearer? Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote that using more information from the source. Deryck C. 09:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My basic issue is with the word "explain", it seems rather odd in this context. Would "discuss" perhaps be a better word? Would that conform with the source? Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The official wording is indeed "explain" (see also [1]), however I think "discuss" is an acceptable heuristic if necessary. Deryck C. 16:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for that, I might give that sentence a tweak myself. Gatoclass (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "Reactions" section it says After the bodies of the victims were brought back to Hong Kong, the Coroner decided that an investigation into the death by the Police should be carried out, and autopsies performed on all eight of the dead.[50] In January 2011, the Hong Kong police launched a further stage of investigation, inviting witnesses from both Hong Kong and to Philippines to testify.[69] Are these the same investigations referred to in the "Investigations"section or different ones? And shouldn't this information be integrated into the "Investigations" section instead? Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's the same investigation. I think it's convenient to describe briefly how the immediate government reaction led to the investigation in the reactions section, but if you don't think so then feel free to move it. Deryck C. 09:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but there's a limit to the amount of time I am willing to spend on this article. I don't mind correcting grammatical errors, or finding and correcting other minor sourcing discrepancies and so on, but I really can't spare the time to be thoroughly familiarizing myself with the underlying sources so that I can construct an accurate narrative. That sort of thing is the job of the nominator, not the reviewer. However, I concede I could have been more specific in my above criticisms, I'll try to rectify that in a few minutes. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue I have with this paragraph is that it mentions autopsies, but there is no mention of autopsies in the associated "Investigations" section. That's what makes it look like a different investigation. I think perhaps if you moved the autopsy info to the investigations section, and then perhaps just left the rest of the paragraph more or less as is with an accompanying "see 'Investigations' section above", that might be sufficient. Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that. Sorry I haven't been reading your criticism properly. The initial autopsies are indeed a separate investigation which preceded the main "Hong Kong government investigation". By the time of the main investigation (Jan-Mar 2011) the victims had already been buried. Should we mention the autopsy and give the main investigation a passing mention in the Reactions section, and give a passing mention to the autopsy and the run-up to the main investigation in the Investigation section? Deryck C. 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly I think the autopsies should be mentioned in the investigations section. I don't think they need to be mentioned in the Reactions section, but I'll leave that to you. What I do think needs to be included in the Reactions section, as I said earlier, is a note (like "see above" or something) to indicate to the reader that these are the same investigations mentioned earlier. Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've convinced me. I split the last paragraph of Hong Kong government reactions: information about the bodies returning to Hong Kong is merged into an earlier paragraph; information about the autopsy is moved to the investigations section. Deryck C. 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Deryck, IMO that reads a lot better :)
    Since this GA has turned out to be a lot more challenging than I anticipated, I've decided to work through it section by section instead of criterion by criterion which is how I've done it in the past. That way we can get each section straightened out in every respect before moving onto the next. I think it will be the quickest way to get it finished. Since I'm assuming a similar number of issues in the rest of the text, I will start a new section at the end of this GA section to address any future issues, in order to keep this GA summary readable. I'm going to be a bit busy over the next day or two so if I don't start on the next section then, I will start on it over the weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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:
    Article has some broken links, see this page. Also, some of the individuals in the casualties list have no citations, and neither does the sentence He also maintained he tried to contact Tsang the next day.
    All fixed. Unfortunately the article was written from live news sources as the events unfolded, and so link rot is an ongoing problem. The sentence quoted above was attested by a reference somewhere up that section, and I've re-used that reference on the sentence. Deryck C. 17:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    It appears to cover all aspects reasonably well. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused:
    I have some issues with the organization of this article. Basically, I think the "Reactions" section should come before the "Investigations" sections, because otherwise the narrative is not chronological. After reading about the ongoing investigations, I suddenly find myself reading again about the immediate reactions in the aftermath of the killings, and that is quite confusing. IMO it would make much better sense the other way around. Some of the other headers may also need to be altered in order to accommodate this change.
    I think it was a (subconscious) collective editorial decision at the time that the article is, beyond the "Aftermath > Hostages" section, not meant to be chronological, because so many things were done by so many people in relation to the hostage crisis. The reactions were sorted by type of commentator, then by time, and every section spans the same time-span of about a week. An alternative structure has previous been proposed (which I then changed to the current layout) which was to have the investigations in a separate section after reactions, keeping everything else intact. Does that sound like a good idea? Deryck C. 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me to that previous discussion? I would like to read it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There wasn't a discussion. It was a natural evolution progress of the article. Initially, in the immediate aftermath (within 1 month) of the event, it made more sense for news about the ongoing investigation to go immediately after the section about the hostages' fate.[2] As the investigations rolled on, the Philippine government report came out and was given a section at the end of the article.[3] By then, the Hong Kong government investigation has begun, but was reported in the "investigation" section. So, when the Hong Kong investigation report was published, it made sense to move all the investigation reports to the "aftermath" section to preserve coherence.[4] It may not have been the best sequence of editorial decisions, and from what you've said we probably should've moved the narrative about the investigations to the bottom of the page to go with the report, rather than move the report up the page to go with the investigation. Deryck C. 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried moving the investigations to a new section at the bottom of the page but changed my mind about it, as the Reactions section is very long and the investigations section probably contains more important info. Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, okay then. Deryck C. 21:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm becoming more and more convinced that the investigations should be in a separate section after reactions... Deryck C. 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I might also add that I'm finding quite a few problems with prose, discrepancies between sources and the article, and so on. It's probably going to take a little time to iron these out.
    As I said, this is an article compiled from live news sources, so discrepancies are quite likely. Please point them out so that they can be dealt with. Also note that many Filipinos are known by multiple names. I've tried to unify the names so that each person is only referred to by one name throughout the article, but I may well have missed a few instances. Deryck C. 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're having a hard time on Filipino names/locations/etc. contact me. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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:
    This image lacks source information.
    I've nominated it for deletion. Hold this part of the review for now and get on with the rest. Deryck C. 17:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is deleted. Deryck C. 10:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Manila hostage crisis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. I made proofreading improvements as necessary. What I could not fix myself, I have listed in the #Manila hostage crisis prose problems section below.
Addressed, see below.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lede and infobox are quite good, and the "See also" is appropriate, but the "External links" section is a bit of a mess. This section is most useful for official sites about the subject, such as Toyota's official site in an article about Toyota, but that doesn't apply here. Most (or all) of these links should be either included as sources and footnoted directly, or should be removed. See Wikipedia:External links for more guidance here. Also, there are many youtube links to (presumably copyrighted) news reports which are not in English. These are not appropriate in the English Wikipedia.
Trimmed.

No problems.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There are areas for improvement. For one, sources in English should be used whenever possible, so that readers of the English Wikipedia can more easily check facts and get more information. (So if an English news source confirms a statement, that source should be used, rather than a source in Tagalog or Chinese.) Also, the article would be improved if there were separate sections for Notes and References, as is done in Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) or Augmentative and alternative communication. However, I don't think either of these should be barriers to passing GA status.
See response below.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Inline citations are used correctly.
2c. it contains no original research. Except for one possible problem listed in the #Manila hostage crisis prose problems section below, there is no original research detected.
Addressed, see below.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. All basic questions seem to be answered by the article.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The diversion into precisely which news stations carried live coverage, in the "negotiations" section, is unnecessary and detracts from the flow of the article.
See response below.

There are problems with the "List of hostages and other casualties" -- see my extended comment below.

The "reactions" section is longer than the description of the actual events, but is far less notable. Not every newspaper's response is a noteworthy addition to this article. I understand this often happens when an article is added to by enthusiasts on an ad hoc basis, but a Good Article will give appropriate weight to this section. Most of this content should be forked into a separate International reactions to the Manila hostage crisis, and what's left should be shortened dramatically to just the basics.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. All points of view are covered.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Not a problem at this time.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No problems here.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good images, but some captions need improvements. Dates should be in prose style, and "incident place" sounds clunky. Perhaps the two "mourning poster" images could be combined (using {{Multiple image}}) with a caption such as "Mourning posters in English (left) and Chinese (right) were hung where the incident occurred."
Suggestion adopted!

Good images, good captions.

7. Overall assessment. Currently the article does not qualify for GA status. However, if all concerns are met within a reasonable time frame, the GA nomination will pass.

Manila hostage crisis prose problems

[edit]
  • The parenthetical comment "...Gregorio Mendoza, ranked senior police officer-2 (SPO2, equivalent military rank: corporal), walked out..." needs to be made into prose.
    I defer this to HTD, as I have no idea how Philippine military ranks work. I adopted HTD's solution.
  • Paragraph 2 under "Assault" reports twice, in two different ways, that the bus driver escaped and told police that everyone died. These should be combined in a rewrite of that paragraph.
    Refactored the entire paragraph.
  • "During this round of shootings, Leung told of how her husband shielded her with his body and saved her from physical harm; Ken Leung died from the gunshot." Who told this? There were multiple Leungs. Since her husband is named, she should be too.
    Amy Leung. I rewrote that sentence.
  • In the "Philippine government investigation" section, there is the following. "It was reported on September 7 that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and her deputy Emilio Gonzales III rejected an invitation to attend a hearing; police officers earlier testified they overheard Mendoza accusing Gonzales of trying to extort money from him." These two sentences are joined by a semi-colon, which is normally used to indicate a close relation between them, but it isn't clear what the link is. If a reliable source suggests that Gonzales declined to attend a hearing because of this accusation, then you can state this clearly. If not, then the synthesis is original research, and the second sentence should be removed or moved to a more appropriate location.
    I turned the semi-colon into a full-stop, plus a few minor prose changes. That should make it align with the source in tone.
  • In the same section, there is a list of eight "failures". Some are complete sentences, while others are sentence fragments. These should be consistent.
    Changed all into complete sentences.
  • In the same section, I do not understand this sentence. "In turn, coroner Michael Chan Pik-kiu rejected an offer for four witnesses from Manila to testify through video, saying that their offer to turn up was not promising, as some other Filipino witnesses had already failed to testify as scheduled." Are we sure this is "in turn", as a response to Lim and Moreno's refusal? Why would he say their offer to "turn up" was not promising, when they offered to not "turn up", but instead testify through video? Can you reword this sentence for me?
    Changed "in turn" to "later on" to avoid giving a false implication. Also removed "to turn up" - this is the original wording (turn up in front of the camera, rather than in person), but if it's confusing then let's change it to something better. Deryck C. 08:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still confusing to me -- (Why should previous failures to show up in person lead the coroner to reject a video interview?) -- but the source gives no elucidation, and I can't blame the article for that. Great work on all these points, by the way! – Quadell (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because "turn up" means "to the camera" throughout the sentence. See also [5] (in Chinese; this is an archived copy in a forum, the original is no longer available online). Since you find it really confusing, I'll add "by video" onto the text as well... Deryck C. 15:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohhhh! That makes more sense. – Quadell (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above prose problems are all resolved. I'm just waiting to see what happens with the "reactions" section before I mark 1(a) as passing. – Quadell (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to deal with that yet; I'll tell you after I finish merging the casualty table into the text. Deryck C. 16:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the "List of hostages and other casualties"

[edit]

Articles should be written in summary style, and long lists should be avoided when not necessary. I know that the victims of the tragedy are certainly important to their families, but they are not otherwise notable, and naming each in a list detracts from the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial.

I examined many Featured and Good articles on similar topics, and these generally avoid long lists of victims in this way. For example, Jena Six, Moors murders, Pendle witches, Toa Payoh ritual murders, Kauhajoki school shooting, 1990 Strangeways Prison riot, etc., each could have included lengthy lists of victims or defendants, but opted for a prose format to match Wikipedia's style. September 11 attacks originally contained a list of victims, but this was moved to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and even that article merely summarizes information about the casualties, and does not attempt to list them all. (That article was nominated for deletion several times, and was only kept because it is currently a summary, and not a list of otherwise non-notable people.)

Those individuals who are notable in the article have already been mentioned in the prose section. The list should be removed. – Quadell (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in the process of merging selective information from the table into the main text. That means copying full names into at least one prose location where the person is mentioned, to make sure the article remains searchable and unambiguous after removing the table itself. Deryck C. 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: notes and references

[edit]

Efforts have been made to cite an English source for everything. However, bearing in mind that English is an official language but not an everyday language in both Hong Kong and the Philippines, some information of local interest (which Wikipedia should cover) will need to cite Chinese or Tagalog sources.

I don't think separating notes and references is a good idea for this article, as separation is only useful when you want to cite a work multiple times with different page numbers or accompanying footnotes. That isn't the case for this article.

That's fine. – Quadell (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: live television coverage

[edit]

I think the fact that there was worldwide non-stop TV coverage of the incident is important to the article, as the TV coverage played a crucial role in the incident (as explained in later sections). I removed the list of TV stations, but only because I can't find an RS which gives the list. The only source I found was this one, marginal in terms of RS, and from its date of publication and content it is likely to have drawn on this article as a source, so I'd rather not cite it. Deryck C. 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, this problem is resolved. – Quadell (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

[edit]

Due to the remaining concerns about article focus, I'm opting to not pass article at this time. If those issues are fixed, it should be renominated, and I expect it will pass easily. – Quadell (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten introduction

[edit]

Hi there. I have edited the introduction a bit, correcting some grammatical errors and changing the wording a bit to (hopefully) make it sound more encyclopedic. I have also re-ordered some of the sentences, so that the paragraphs follow a "Background-Events-Consequences" sequence. I hope I haven't spoiled any of the excellent work that has been done here so far. Elchori01 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Deryck C. 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Based on the arguments below, it appears that the crisis title is used in reliable sources and that the incident title is rarer. Insufficient reason to move. --regentspark (comment) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manila hostage crisis → Manila hostage-taking incident – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I doubt whether there is any source of using the title "Manila hostage crisis". Is the name a original research? I suppose it is more common to be named "Manila hostage-taking incident". --202.40.137.198 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - What's the problem, exactly, with the word "crisis"? I haven't really thought of that word as less-than-neutral before. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It imparts the impression that something bad has happened, which is fine, except that WP:NPOV implies that you shouldn't even say it's bad. An older version of NPOV (now at User:Knulclunk) said That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Deryck C. 15:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that the word "crisis" implies something bad. If I take hostages, then my goal is to cause a crisis. What is a crisis? Well, the first online dictionary says "1. A time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger. 2. A time when a difficult or important decision must be made." Is there someone on the planet who's going to argue that a hostage situation is not a dangerous one, in which difficult decisions must be made? What's the point in taking hostages if the decisions involved aren't difficult, and if you're not trying to introduce an element of danger?

        I still don't get what's wrong with the word. I would never say "Hitler was a bad man", especially not in an encyclopedia, but I wouldn't think twice about calling a hostage crisis a "hostage crisis". That's ordinary, neutral, descriptive language. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Doesn't calling World War II a "war" imply that something bad happened? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, we do have an article on the Iran hostage crisis. Perhaps the contributor would like to rename that one as Iran hostage-taking incident? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above comments. The word "crisis" seems perfectly neutral to me, and it is commonly used by media in reference to this event. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since the existing title is that which the event is better known for than the suggested one, changing it would make it less easy for wiki users to find it or even spidered on Google, even with a redirect. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google can cope as long as "Manila hostage crisis" still exists as a redirect to this article, although it does make things a bit uglier since the current statistics do suggest people do tend to search for "Manila hostage crisis" over all other possible names for this article. And for that reason I oppose the move too. Deryck C. 17:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- The Chinese have a penchant on calling significant events as "incidents" such as the June Fourth Incident, 228 Incident, etc. Is this the same thing here? In the Philippines, there is no clear-cut name for this event, but popular ones use the combinations of "Luneta" (old name for Rizal Park), Quirino Grandstand, or Manila, the word "bus", and either "hostage-taking" or "hostage tragedy". "Hostage crisis" is rarely used. If it counts, the Philippine government referred to this as "the Rizal Park Hostage-taking Incident." –HTD 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is because the Chinese phrase 危機 isn't equivalent to the English word crisis. 危機, literally danger-opportunity, usually refers to a looming disaster; a different phrase (usually 事件, which is largely equivalent to incident) is needed to describe the whole event. On the other hand, a crisis usually refers to the whole event, from looming danger to outbreak to aftermath. Deryck C. 03:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd prefer "Manila hostage-taking incident" than "Manila hostage crisis" but the current title is OK for me. I'd say it can be changed if there's a strong consensus in changing it. If it counts, both governments call it a "hostage-taking incident". –HTD 12:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Filipino

[edit]

There seemed to be a small edit war. What is the preferred adjective form of Philippines? Is it "Philippine" or "Filipino"? Deryck C. 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The term we call ourselves is "Filipino" as either gender-neutral or male, and "Filipina" for female. --Arsenal Pro 1975 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manila hostage crisis. 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:

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) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Manila hostage crisis. 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:

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) 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manila_hostage_crisis&oldid=1243409037"