[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the plot thickens

[edit]

Isn't it the case these days when you peel back the layers of the "facts" they feed you that things get just a little murkier down below. Not the first time against a Muslim country though.

[1]

Effectively the Pakistani PM has gone on record to say that the President of Sri Lanka has informed him that Sri Lankan elements themselve may have had a part to play in the attacks, specifically funding. I believe this warrants at least a mention somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

start

[edit]

Add the picture of gunmen also

A TV grab shows unidentified gunmen fire on a vehicle carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore Sonny00 (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyright problems.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

ICC president speaking on BBC Radio 4

[edit]

I don't want to add directly to the page, but I thought this might prove useful:

ICC president David Morgan told Radio 4: "It's devastating news. It's terribly terribly sad. So many people said cricketers would never be targeted in Pakistan and quite clearly that has proved to be incorrect.

"It will be very difficult for international cricket to be hosted in Pakistan for quite some time to come.

"Could the World Cup games still take place there? It's too early to say.

"There could be a regime change in Pakistan, which would settle things down. I really don't know but the probability must be that a great deal will have to change in Pakistan before we could consider playing international cricket there."[1]

BBC Sport website Lahore Test scrapped after attack March 3, 2009 almost-instinct 12:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7920306.stm BBC Sport website Lahore Test scrapped after attack March 3, 2009]

Information on bus driver?

[edit]

The article could be improved by expansion of information on the bus driver who continued to drive the bus to relative safety. Words alone probably can't describe his actions and the results. Also, expansion of information on the Pakastani policmen who died in the line of protecting the bus would bring balance to the article. Certainly, the cricketeers survived, but some of those protecting them died.--TGC55 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from Imran Khan

[edit]

I don't know if this is useful:

In light of the attacks, questions have been raised regarding the security arrangements afforded to the Sri Lanka team, with former Pakistan captain Imran Khan particularly scathing.
He said: "I think this was one of the worst security failures in Pakistan.
"The Pakistani government guaranteed the Sri Lankan team that they would provide them with security.
"To see the type of security provided to the Sri Lankan team was completely shameful.
"Most ministers in Pakistan have better security than that provided to the Sri Lankan team."

Pakistan Cricket future in doubt BBC Sport website March 3rd, 2009 almost-instinct 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Manish Tewari's comment comparing Pakistan and Somalia are relevant or important enough to mention. Nshuks7 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename and assess

[edit]

The original name was very ugly an over specific (ie provided both place and victim) so I renamed to 2009 Sri Lankan cricket team attack, which is better as per WP:NAME. I also changed wikiproject assessments to "start" as is routine in current event articles. Once the news cycle settles, we can asses the article.--Cerejota (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although succint the current title is ambiguous. In happier times a cricket attack has a different and more peaceful meaning, a teams batsmen could be sent out to attack, and take risks buld up runs quickly, or out to defend the wicket and eat up time. Similarly the bowlers can bowl in such a way that may give away runs but induces the batsmen to take risks, or play it safe. So "2009 Sri Lankan cricket team attack" could have referred to the Sri Lankan team tactics.KTo288 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think someone is going to search google "Sri Lankan cricket team attack" when referring to a cricket tactic? I doubt they would. They would do "Sri Lankan cricket team tactics" or some such. In any case, a quick glance at the first sentence will rob the reader of any such illusions.--Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do see a point in what KTo288 is saying on the matter. People do tend to refer to "attacking tactics" as "attacks". The article could be called "2009 Sri Lankan cricket team terrorist attack", if you want to be specific about it. Only people this title could confuse is the Cricket fans though. General public would not notice. Lucifer (Talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware "terrorist" is a WP:WTA - in spite of the concerted campaign to change this. Nice one, but no thanks. Also, September 11th attacks or 2008 Mumbai attacks, or is it that there is a "September 11th tactic" or a "Mumbai tactic"? In any case, this should be 2009 Lahore attack, but the RS as mostly identifying the targets and not the place.--Cerejota (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Lucifer wasn't aware of that? Also, your point about "September 11th tactic" or a "Mumbai tactic", I don't think anyone is suggesting changing those articles. (Maybe there is a "Mumbai tactic" in cricket though? Sounds plausible, since it's a much played game there.) "Paramilitary" is a suggested neutral alternative for this sort of situation in WP:WTA, what about "2009 Lahore paramilitary attack on Sri Lankan cricket team"? (Although according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events) the year ... should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident. Has there been such an incident in the past this may be confused with?) Lessthanideal (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, I was not aware of it. Also, I was only pointing out that what KTo288 said was plausible. And thanks to lessthanideal for AGF :P Lucifer (Talk) 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this incident isn't a natural disaster, but the new name actually conforms to the Disaster WikiProject naming convention, so I support it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with KTo288. As someone who knows about cricket and coming from Sri Lanka, I can assure you that there is no such tactic that can be identified as "Sri Lankan cricket team attack". Attacking is not a tactic that is used by only one team's batsmen or bowlers, and is used whenever necessary (as is defence) according to the current situation in the game. No team plays a completely attacking or defensive game. The way it is done may change from team to team, since the skills of their players differ, but there is nothing that can be called as the attacking tactic of a specific team. What to do is decided on the field, then and there. Chamal talk 00:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest against using "paramilitary" in the name of the article as a "paramilitary attack" implies some form of government or quasi government setup behind the force. It is all too apparent that it was a terrorist attack; let's not get wrapped up in jargon or political correctness about it. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References to India

[edit]

Do we really need to include what some retired spy thinks without any credible evidence. The article from which the qoute is taken itself says this: "Most analysts won't look far beyond Pakistan's militant Islamist groups for likely suspects, though Pakistani hawks and nationalists are predisposed to blame India."

Can we at least hold off from including sensationalist statements until some official spokesperson for the Government says something about it? Again from the Reuters article referenced: "...the minister[Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol], who is not one of the government's official spokesmen..."

I am going to remove those lines until such time as more details are available. Lucifer (Talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its important because at this point all is speculation. And a government minister is certainly important enough. For a similar reference look back at all the speculation that was added in the Mumbai attacks article before any official word was out. It's being reported on BBC and Reuters and so it should count. And the other one is not just a retired spy but a retired head of their intel service. So it should be left in. --Sebastian-566 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Gul is not a credible source. he also thinks 9/11 was an 'inside' job and has close links with Lashkar-e-Taiba which is also one of the suspects in this attack. he was a member of banned terrorist organization Ummah Tameer-e-Nau --Wikireader41 (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia

[edit]

Is this indian rant really require i think not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.108 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


this is the statement of ruling congress party of pakistans arch enemy India. gives clear insight into thinking of Indians. extremely important to keep --Wikireader41 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Tour

[edit]

The citation refers to a decision by the ACB not to tour in 2002. The comment though presumably relates to their decision not to tour this year. 129.78.64.100 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Its Cricket Australia (CA) not the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) they renamed it back in 2003 i think Nath1991 (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RPG

[edit]

it wasn't rpg but was this M72 LAW.Will upload photo.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

The rocket launcher was an RPG-22.--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is know as Attack at liberty

[edit]

It is Know as Liberty attack in Pakistani Media.So it should be know as such.As far as foreign media is concerned we Pakistanis are concerned to it's coverage in this attack.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

that is not entirely true. check this item from a pakistani newspaper Attack on Sri Lankan cricketers condemned --Wikireader41 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this news from last 24 hours.It is well know that it took at Liberty chowk which I know as back of Hand.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

nobody is questioning your knowledge of liberty chowk or the fact that the venue of the attack was liberty chowk. wikipedia is read allover the world and we need an accurate title for the article describing what happened--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may read this article then [2].User:Yousaf465 (talk)

The majority of people would not know what liberty chowk is, but as soon as "Sri Lankan cricket team attack" is mentioned a lot more people will recognise this article without reading it. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 04:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every channel here is calling it liberty attack.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Similar Incident

[edit]

It bears resemblance to the attack on Pakistani high commissioner/ambassador in Colombo.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

That was a claymore attack. Several Sri Lankan commandos providing security for the commissioner died in that attack, but this seems to me to be entirely different from the Lahore attack. Everything from the defences to the way it was carried out are different. Do you have any sources comparing the two attacks? Chamal talk 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I myself have seen the claymores recovered by our staff.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Elite force is a subsection

[edit]

Elite force is a sub unit of Punjab police.It's has similar role as SWAT.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

No speculations ple

[edit]

This is not for speculation.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

you might want to read this item Strike had hallmarks of Mumbai massacre maybe Salman Taseer knows something. He is the governor of the state isnt he --Wikireader41 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His comments are needs to taken with a pinch of salt.He himself is fighting on two fronts.On one hand is his mortality and other his political post is under scurity.Except him nobody else has pointed that out.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Sorry for editing a paragraph which has been now dropped on arrest of Indian spies. As long as something is sourced from a publication, I did not feel the need to drop it altogether, however ludicrous it might be :) Nshuks7 (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His comment are already there,I haven't removed them.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Bus driver account needed to be added

[edit]

here is the link to it [3].

Someone should work the substantiated information into the article. This is one of the only good things which have come out of the incident, i.e. that a person with prescence of mind can save much of a disasterous situation.--TGC55 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Agree with the above discussion but am still slightly uncomfortable with the current name—the event is more to do with Lahore and/or Pakistan rather than Sri Lanka cricket team which the current name doesn't even mention. The location is at least as important as the target, and in this case the target is by no means a certainty. In its short life, this article has been called:

  1. 2009 attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, Pakistan
  2. 2009 Liberty attack
  3. 2009 Liberty chowk attack
  4. 2009 Sri Lankan cricket team attack (current)

Although its a bit of a mouthful, I'd prefer 2009 terrorist attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore. Category:Terrorist incidents in 2007 and Category:Terrorist incidents in 2008 is fodder for other suggestions. Djanga 05:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could be even better 2009 Attack on Sri Lankan Cricket team in Lahore or just 2009 Liberty chowk attack on Sri lankan team.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but the current article name isn't ideal seeing as the umpire's bus was also seriously fired on .... so it wasn't just the Sri Lankan team which was targeted. Jevansen (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on! It was clearly the team which was the target.--Cerejota (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i agree. it is obvious that Sri Lankan team was the target. if the team was not there then no attck would have happened that day at that place. policemen are present at liberty chowk everyday. they died an honorable death protecting the cricketers who were guests in the country--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket team was not meant for killing,Now it's emerging that they would have been kidnapped.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
the name of the article is 'attack' it does not imply that the motive of killing kidnapping beheading or homosexual raping. we will wait and see what the investigations find the true motive was. :-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction section

[edit]

Pakistani notable persons reaction needs to be added.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

I reformatted the Reaction section, as well as added a little bit from the Australian reaction, is this OK? Will keep adding and updating Nath1991 (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Go on added as the reaction comes in.Here is the link to Pakistani reaction [4]

I forgot the link here another one for Turk ambassador to sri lanka [5].

ATTENTION: What is the javascript I see in this section!? If I click "edit", I see the edit of "CID" section!? What's happening? Nshuks7 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: I just "edit"ed the whole page. Please do not insert javascript.Nshuks7 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, news just in, added West Indies cricket board's reaction, and France's very short statement. lol. Nath1991 (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript would have been added by mistake.I didn't added any.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

This need a mention here

[edit]

[6] and [7]

Cid report

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Still unclearUser:Yousaf465 (talk)

The report has been shown on tv and citation even Ex-Cm has said in media He knew about the report.See Kamran kahan's program.Confirmed by CCPO lahore.Both ex and current.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

But the sources are bogus. The Turkish link doesn't even carry one whole sentence!Nshuks7 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't say any of this. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting sources to enforce your own original research. —Dark talk 08:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source clearly mentions the report see here [8].User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Agreed, the CID is an official published report, reported and documented in many newspapers and internet websites. I do not understand the reason for removing it. Also there seems alot of links/sources to Indian newspapers. A bit biased dont you think?--Fast track (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only Indian sources are seen as credible by some editors.Even if these terrorist got captured and admit,that they are Indian then they will say they are just Indian raw agents not terrorist. User:Yousaf465 (talk)
A copy of report has been made public.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

This doesn't merit inclusion, as it will be an analysis of a primary source, which is unacceptable by WP:OR. Per WP:UNDUE, mainstream opinions are what are published on Wikipedia, especially those which have reliable sources backing them up. Daniel (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the source.User:Yousaf465 (talk)


Not all editors are from India (I'm not) and all references need to be from reliable sources. quoting a previous comment, "You're misinterpreting sources to enforce your own original research". Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am Indian but I believe I have been fair and impartial in all edits. Feel free to take a look at the history. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to follow Wp:civil.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
There is nothing really substantive, all it said was "Indian involvement in the terror attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team cannot be ruled out". Which is different to saying "they are to blame". Although there may be editors here with ill-will towards Pakistan - there is no evidence to support the idea India is to blame. Although if you want a reliable source you could try this. Pahari Sahib 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well said Pahari. just like being a Muslim and believing that non muslims are Dhimmis doesnt automatically make you a terrorist. the policemen who died saving the cricketers were true muslims not the attackers. :-) --Wikireader41 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-free images

[edit]

I am removing non-free images. Images form news sources are a copyright violation and cannot be used. News source images do not fall under fair use. WP:COPYVIO.--Cerejota (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please put File:Gadaffibuilding in Lahore.gif back in the infobox.—SpaceRocket (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but couldn't you have done it yourself? :-) Pahari Sahib 14:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only get the view source page. —SpaceRocket (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, new account - give it a couple of days. Pahari Sahib 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that, "News source images do not fall under fair use." is simply wrong. News source images are treated exactly as any other copyrighted content. One can use them in articles as long as one has a sufficient WP:FU justification, and writes an appropriate rationale on the image file page. See File:Mohammed_Ajmal_Kasab.jpg or File:Story.crash.sequence.jpg. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not subjective, but an objective criteria in most jurisdictions. En-Wiki is subjected to the laws of the United States of America. WP:FU explains quite correctly what these are. Specifically, my comment was directed at this part of WP:FU:
You are contradicting the very words of the policy you cite. Not to mention the principles of "fair use" as determined by the laws of the land in the USA and international copyright treaties.--Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the exact link and text! I read that example to refer to regular photos of non-historic events taken by press agencies and news media; but I may be wrong and obviously at least one of us is reading it incorrectly. So I have asked the question regarding such screenshots at MCQ and will await further input. Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move war

[edit]

This move war is creating a real mess of double redirects...I've now upped the move protection level. If anyone wants this article named anything besides what it is now, discuss it here and come to a consensus first. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current name of the article is very appropriate and needs to stay.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with the current name almost-instinct 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that. The article is currently linked from the main page. We don't want to leave double redirects everywhere now. I don't understand why the renaming of an article on such a controversial topic and a lot of views was not seriously discussed even once. Chamal talk 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]
Resolved
 – Already done with it altough location needs a gps fixUser:Yousaf465 (talk)

Can anybody edit it.

.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

I don't think so. --Sebastian-566 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already done.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Rpg and Rocket-propelled grenade

[edit]
Resolved
 – Fixed linksUser:Yousaf465 (talk)

Is there any difference between these two ?User:Yousaf465 (talk)

No, both are the same.... RPG is a short way of saying Rocket-Propelled Grenade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are two of them ?User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Removed duplication! Sorry my bad! --KnowledgeHegemony talk 07:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The path of the attack

[edit]
Resolved
 – Google earth! not possible on wikipedia google bewareUser:Yousaf465 (talk)

A Google earth image showing the 'Liberty Chowk' (right) and the Gaddafi stadium (left). There is a round turn ('Gol Chakkar' in Hindustani language) between the two. The coordinates are somehow slightly displaced in Google Chrome but IE or other browsers work fine.

Just thought a screen capture can work so I should get it here in case someone wants to use such an image.

JSR 0562 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
What's our policy on using Google Earth images? The reason why I posted here was that I was not sure of it myself. JSR 0562 05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google earth has a policy.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Here is the copy of Google policy [9].User:Yousaf465 (talk)

LTTE, Mujahideen and Tamil Nadu connection

[edit]

"European intelligence sources revealed that MOSSAD and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of USA suspect an Islamic militant group linked to Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka could be responsible for the attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore on Tuesday. According to reliable sources, the Indian intelligence experts on Tamil terrorist activities in South Indian state of Tamil Nadu have named an Al Qaida-linked militant group, Markat-u-Mujahideen, with close links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as a potential mastermind of the Lahore attack in which eight people died and several Sri lankan cricket players were injured. The LTTE maintained a very close links with Markat-u-Mujahideen since 1980s. The LTTE contact man with the Islamic militants was Kanakarathnam, who used a posed as a Muslim under the name Raheem." ref: http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/15896 Remember when Rajiv Gandhi was murdered, at first it was only the Tamil Nadu criminals. But the RAW and CID-SL found the link between LTTE and the suicide bomber. Later SIS and CIA confirmed that it was in fact LTTE because they are the only one at time had access to suicide vest. I think same goes here. Over the last two years the pro-LTTE people were harassing the SL cricket team where ever they go. In Canada they threw eggs at SL players, in South Africa they shouted names and even ran across the field while a game was in progress, etc, etc. I am not surprised that if this is a coordinated, well calculated attack. For two reasons; 1. Pakistan supply weapons to Sri Lanka. They also distribute US made weapons to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka get its jets from Israel, while most light weapons from Pakistan (Made in USA) and others from China and Russia. But the US made, Pakistani distributed weapons caused heavy causalities on the Tiger's side. 2. They have a very good diplomatic relationship; compare to India-Sri Lanka, Pakistan-Sri Lanka connections are much much stronger.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

I think the 'Investigation and Attribution' section can be updated now with this material [10] [11] —SpaceRocket (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction - please put into a sensible order

[edit]

It seems silly to have the "International Reaction" section in alphabetical order. The attack was in Pakistan and centred on the Sri Lankan cricket team. Surely the reactions of the Pakistani and Sri Lankan presidents should be presented most prominently (ie first). It seems silly to give greater emphasis on the words of the Indian Home Minister, and some unidentified person who happens to come from France. It seems equally perverse to offer the views of the West Indian Cricket Board (who have no direct connection with the incident) above those of the International Cricket Council (whose officials were attacked and which is responsible for the running of world cricket. By all means have the reactions from countries and Boards that are not directly affected in alphabetical order - but please put the reactions from those directly affected first Hibbertson (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have reorganized the sequence in the article to separate out the directly affected countries, other nations and the cricketing world. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's silier for some of the comments in those sections. Some editors removed my sourced comments from a retired head of Pakistan's security agency and another from one of their government Ministers because it was "speculative" even though it was sourced from Reuters and BBC. But somehow this random indian congressman's opinion is important? Many parts like these are kept in by wikireader41 whose comments show he has a personal POV against this country. Someone should remove this and a neutrality tag qualifies for this story if so many people have a bias for the subject. --Sebastian-566 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
I don't think so. All such comments in even Reuters and BBC are simply reports sourced from the same people who speculated that 9/11 is the handiwork of CIA and that the Mumbai attacks were an act of RAW (again). Quoting the source is as good as quoting Zaid Hamid on every terrorist event (he boils everything down to a US-Israel/Zionist-Hindu(???) conspiracy). Nshuks7 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think worming your way out of responsibility will work much longer nshuks7 you can make all the excuses you want and blame the ISI or whatever but the fact is that pakistan suspects India and it shall be mentioned Jailstorm (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are not some random indian congressman. they are the official statement of Indian National Congress which is the lawfully elected ruling party in the biggest Democracy in the world. I think these comments are perhaps the most important of comments on this attack by anyone. maybe people get confused because manish tewaris name is in there. these are not an individuals comments but that of one of the most important and successful political parties in history of mankind. maybe reading the article on Indian National Congress would help the sceptics.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to appreciate the difference between a government and a political party in power, which are quite different entities. The President of the USA is empowered to speak on behalf of the people of the nation, whereas the leader (or spokesman) of the Democratic Party only speaks on behalf of the party. The article makes it clear that Tewaris spoke on behalf of the Congress party, not on behalf of the government and people of India. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observation. I would respectfully diasagree. do you have any credible source to backup your view ?? or is it just original research.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about what this member of a party says... Same as any other member of a political party criticizing something that happened in another country. And no one cares what the party says either. Being a party the biggest democracy (and whatever other names you give it) doesn't give it any base for additional in to the article. No one cares what they say, especially not any credible news organisation. Not the place for you to add sensationalist rhetoric.--Sebastian-566 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I have raised that point above, long ago. No, it is not worth a mention. And similarly, who exactly said that India is involved? Sir Jailstorm would care to be slightly more civil and look at the fact that I in fact copy-edited an entry on India's involvement until another editor dropped it altogether, forcing me to look at the source and finding that no government mouthpiece ever actually accused India. Draw attention, by all means, but don't slander editors. I never even mentioned the words "ISI". Nshuks7 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again these are not an individuals comments. you may not care about what they say but it has been widely reported in the world press and is worth a mention in my humble opinion. if nobody cared why would Christian Science Monitor care to mention it. just google and see how many different media outlets carried these comments. Who cares about what some unknown person in France says ? get my point.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comments made by some congress member about somalia also needs to be removed its totally irrelevant purely rhetoric ranting and it seems some editor wants to push there POV what do you mean the world press is mentioning the somalia rant i only see indian the loner congress member dont confuse indian media with the world. Wikireader41 is a POV pusher just take a peep at his edit history and hes islamophobic so i have decided to revert all his edits in this article credible users ignore wikireader41 and look at his edit history for proof i shall remove the somalia rant soon once i have more info on comments by some Pakistani politicians and there comments thanks :) Jailstorm (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again these are not made by some congress member. these are the official comments of the party in power in India. dont blame me for these. I am just the messenger. and please dont make any islamophobic rants. how would you feel if I called you a terrorist ?? be civil. If pakistan is a Failed state certainly I hope you dont feel India or Indians had anything to do with it. Cheers:-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as I can see, Sir Jailstorm is a sock puppet created on March 5 :) Nshuks7 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the best you can come up with Nshuks7 whats next im a ISI operative anyways lol at the failed state comment its clear that the indian pov pusher wikireader41 has a mission and ideology of hate against pakistan the sooner his edits are removed the better anyways just because india is the poorest nation in Asia you cant blame pakistanis or pakistan over that :) Jailstorm (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a shame that Nshuks7 supports wikireader let me give you a example of vandal wikireader abuse

"this is the statement of ruling congress party of pakistans arch enemy India. gives clear insight into thinking of Indians. extremely important to keep" Yes the indian people probably do think that way. hmmmm funny isnt it its clear hes a pov pusher and if your so proud to be indian why are you living in america and not in your amazing slums thanks :) Jailstorm (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaistorm this is your final warning. If you have issues with any comments I made feel free to report them to the administrators. see WP:NPA. you are completely ignoring wikipedia policies yourself.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL i dont take orders from vandal pov pushing users do your worst wikivandalizer i mean reader maybe baghat singh should teach you a lesson on being less racist he was strongly against it :) Jailstorm (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for everybody's knowledge Jailstorm (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned user Nangparbat (talk · contribs) a frequent vandalizer on articles related to pakistan. this account is also blocked indefinitely now. please disregard his comments. cheers:-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody mentioned India unhappy with Sri lakna Tour

[edit]

here is the link to that story.Hopefully yellowmonkey knew about it.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Some quarters from India did question the Lankans on why they sent their players like "sacrificial lambs", as Arnab Goswami put it, to a troubled region when other countries refused to do so. Anand Sharma was making a similar statement on the rationale of the Lankans to send their team to such a region. All this happened after the incident at Lahore. 'Unhappy' I don't know from either Indian or western press circles. I'm sure they were anxious about other teams going to where they would send their players but 'Unhappy' needs verification.
Assuming that it was a TV report (there's no link here) What else does the report say? Was it a formal statement or an informal talk in the final moments before the break?
JSR 0562 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I forgot the link here it is [12].This was before the tour.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
I see. Thanks for the link :) JSR 0562 05:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gunmen sketches

[edit]

Hey, sources like Times of India, Dawn, Reuters, and Daily Times all have sketches of the gunmen. [13]. Also, the TOI source I just linked says that the Daily Times reported that Pakistan suspects Al Qaeda, and ruled out LTTE and India, however, Daily Times, I couldn't find it on the Daily Times. However, i added a source from the Daily Times where the pakistani police said they identified the attacker as Muhammad Adil, and his brother was one of the gunmen. Deavenger (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LeT Fatwa against Cricket

[edit]

interesting report on Lashkar-e-Taiba Fatwa against unislamic sport of Cricket. Islamists wage war against cricket, 'the other religion' Possible motive. anybody have more info on this and islamists views on Cricket. Is it Haraam or Halal ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is even played by madressh students even we had inter madressah tournament.So there is no need to waste time on this theory.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
If there's one thing I learned from Radicals or terrorists from each religion, they never do what the majority do. If say, and Islamist radical group did the attack, and this was the reason why, and It's coming from a reliable source without it being SYN or OR, then it should be added. However, it doesn't mention how this fits in to the attack on the Sri Lanka team.Deavenger (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yousaf465 are you suggesting that their was no Fatwa from Lashkar-e-Taiba and the report is false. we know cricket is insanely popular in Pakistan but is it acceptable to Islamists ?? Haraam or Halal. For my knowledge can anybody point me to an Islamic source saying that Cricket is permitted.
Here is the the link to that tournament[14] .User:Yousaf465 (talk)
I don't knowUser:Yousaf465 (talk)
thanx for the link. the article does say that the teachers at the madrassah considered cricket unislamic.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this article and discussion may be relevant at Lashkar-e-Taiba, why is it of concern here ? Even the linked article starts with, "While few believe Tuesday's terror strike on the Sri Lankan team was designed as a specific attack on the sport of cricket ...". Lets stick to the topic and not turn this into a forum. Abecedare (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well initially it looked like LeT may have been behind this attack and lots of commentators including Hillary Clinton , Salmaan Taseer etc thought the attacks were similiar to Mumbai. Now it looks like JeM & LeJ operatives are being rounded up by Pakistani Police. If their was a Fatwa against playing cricket in Pakistan surely it was not publicized to the peril of visiting cricketers. that is the relevance.

Other name

[edit]

We also need to added other names such as 1.3/3 attack 2.liberty attacks and other such names.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

I agree. these alternate names can be included in the intro of the article. Cheers--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree. Too many names, too much confusion. Refer: above discussion.Nshuks7 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories

[edit]

I am wondering that we should inlude some info about the conspiracy theories circulated by pakistani authorities about Indian involvement in the attack. This reference Lahore attack heralds spread of Taliban-trained groups to Pakistani heartlands says it all

'The United States and Britain remain alarmed by Pakistan's attempts to blame India for the Lahore attack. Shortly afterwards, Pakistani officials leaked a secret report which had predicted that India's intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) would attack the Sri Lankan cricket team to discredit Islamabad and isolate Pakistan from international cricket. Senior officials last week revealed that Pakistan's advisor to the interior ministry, Rehman Malik, told the visiting FBI director Robert Mueller that his own intelligence reports indicated Indian involvement. Foreign diplomats believe this to be little more than a conspiracy designed to detract the blame from the Pakistani government's own doorstep.'

Even though this accusation is discounted by most sources I feel it deserves a mention as an attempt was made by Pakistani officials to (falsely} blame India and that is a valid point worth mentioning for sake of completion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the attack

[edit]

Goodbye cricket, hello gulli danda. Interesting editorial form Dawn. what parts do we need to incorporate into the article and where ? Any thoughts.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing and open ed sources culprit wikireader

[edit]

wikireader again is pushing his propagandist pakistaniphobic rants with the open ed addition of some BBC report it must be removed 86.156.208.244 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppets of Nangparbat are banned from wikipedia. dont ever forget that.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Page

[edit]

There's another page at 3/3 Lahore Attacks that covers this event. Shouldn't these be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.170.160 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Lucifer (Talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected that page here. This page is more comprehensive, and I didn't see anything that needed merging, but in case, somebody wants to take a second look, here is the

map Updated

[edit]

Map has been updated Red star is for where attack took place.yousaf465'

Indian weapons used

[edit]

According to IndianExpress Indian wepaons were used in the attack.[15]yousaf465'

And militants from South Waziristan are suspected according to Dawn. Do you have the link to the above news in Dawn.com since Express sourced it from Dawn as well? Nshuks7 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was Intial report look at the Lastest one.yousaf465'
Found it. According to a forensic report, four rocket-launchers and nine explosives seized from the scene are factory-made and used by Indian forces.[16] Nshuks7 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also 'The SMGs used in the attack are of Russian, German and Chinese made,’ an investigator told Dawn on Monday.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POv pushing again by Yousaf.....I bet Pakistan buys the same Chinese weapons....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that was pov pushing then what about Interior Adviser Rehman Malik informing National Assembly Standing Committee on [17].Foregin Hand not India.Be open minded.yousaf465'
Just an observation: Rehman Malik was also responsible for Benazir Bhutto's security when she was assassinated. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even this report mentions no suicide jacket and " on ‘positive leads’ that none of the militant organisations in the country had the capacity to carry out the attack without the help of a state agency. "[18].Pl don't take this as povpushing it's mention in the source not my mistake.yousaf465'

New developments

[edit]

Any example ?yousaf465'

No news since 10.Only something about weapons.yousaf465'
According to BBC Pakistan has a long history of not being able to solve extremist attacks & it is yet to solve a single attack out of the hundreds that have occurred on its territory since the 1980s.Hunt for culprits of Lahore attack, BBC, 2009-03-03. keeping this in mind I would not hold my breath for more developments--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also how about an article on 27 March 2009 Jamrud bombing. looks pretty notable.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was moved to critic section.yousaf465'

2009 Lahore police academy crisis

[edit]

More attention is required at 2009 Lahore police academy crisis, a rapidly developing story. JSR 0562 06:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On it! Nshuks7 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Many hands make light work ! JSR 0562 07:01, 30 March 2009 (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 move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team → 2009 Lahore attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team — Suggest moving as current title sounds extremely awkward without the use of the definitive article, and to be consistant with the Sri Lanka national cricket team article. YeshuaDavid (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be preferable to remove 'Lahore' from title, as unnecessary disambiguation. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Survey

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

Move?

[edit]

Page moved from "2009 Lahore attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team" to "2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team". YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

2009 Lahore attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team → 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team — Lahore isn't neccesary to disambiguate this attack. See my above point when I made the move request above this one. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, seems to be logical and uncontroversial, not required to list the location in the article name. So I have moved hope I haven't jumped the gun here - but I don't think anyone would object to such. Pahari Sahib 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can't see it being controversial. I'll remove the move request. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Survey

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

Broken sentence

[edit]

Under the Investigation section, this appears: "Interior Adviser Rehman Malik, told National Assembly Standing Committee on Interior ,that no evidence of Let's invlovement has been found so far.sufficient evidence has been surfaced pointing to involvement of foreign hand. [2]"

aside from the misspelling, it is unclear what should happen after the first period. --Bobbozzo (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team. 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) 03:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team. 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) 15:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism/linkspam on March 3, 2017

[edit]

Hi, this edit was apparently vandalism. Biologos (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_attack_on_the_Sri_Lanka_national_cricket_team&oldid=1252581995"