Talk:Christian Peacemaker hostage crisis

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 22, 2012 and March 22, 2016.

Untitled[edit]

Just a question, but why are we showing a cropped image of only Kember? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

That was what I found online already at Kember's article, so I used it because it was there. If you can find a photo (or several photos) of hostages which we can use (or at least accurately describe the copyright status of) then be bold and include it. --Saforrest 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting media stories[edit]

Just decided to check this news story on the Al Jazeera website. They are reporting it somewhat differently, that the Prisoners were freed by their captors and not rescued by Coalition forces. I'm not sure if it is just that the wording of the story by Al Jazeera is biased or whether there is any basis for truth that they were in fact freed. [1] --Cockers 18:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is some evidence for this, in the fact that there were no kidnappers in the house when the forces arrived. So they may (I stress may) have simply decided to abandon the hostages. --Saforrest 19:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Abandoned" is not the same as "freed" or "released," especially since all the hostages were still tied up when found. One could imagine that if they were not found, and the hostage takers didn't return, they might have starved to death. Since the coalition forces found out about the location of the hostages from a detainee they were questioning, perhaps whoever else was there fled when the detainee didn't return. As of now, the coalition story is the most credible. -- Cecropia 19:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your explanation of flight is also one I considered. Definitely we should leave the story as a rescue. And at any rate, the rescue forces did risk their lives, whether or not there was an actual threat of attack, and that's significant. With reference to the use of the phrase "coalition forces", see my note further below. --Saforrest 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Help wanted fixing references....endnotes are all out of order... Thanks! --Krubo 16:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say "JESUS IS A MUSLIM" at the top of the article? --wikimike

Canadian law enforcement instead of JTF2? Both?[edit]

Ayub Nuri (freelancer in Bagdad) reporting to CBC mentioned 'Canadian Police Agents' as opposed to using the phrase 'Canadian special forces' or 'JTF2'. so that may or may not need changing in the timeline (pending confermation), other reports point to roumors of JTF2 elements in country for a few weeks or RCMP personal being involved. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are JTF2 forces involved? I thought Canada was anti-Iraq occupation? 70.68.46.180 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But pro-rescuing retarded Canadian citizens. --M4-10 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You suck M4-10. I'm Canadian you jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian Reject (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not retarded, religous, there is a difference. By their strong religious convictions what they were doing was the best thing to do in the situation, they were trying to help the people of Iraq - that some of those people were stupid and violent and decided to kidnap and then kill one of them is not their fault. It is the fault of the stupidity of those people living in Iraq who believe that taking random citizens hostage will help them get what they want, which is definately retarded considering the United States' policy with terrorists lately. 65.95.229.9 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not retarded, religious, there is a difference. By their strong religious convictions what they were doing was the best thing to do in the situation, they were trying to free their co-religionists and fight the infidels. God keep us safe from those with strong religious convictions. --M4-10 19:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of distinction between being willing to die for for beliefs and willing to kill others. The hostages were quite willing to risk death, and unwilling to let others die in an attempt at rescuing them. They were no more "retarded" than a soldier is for walking into a war zone. --Saforrest 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who act positively on their religious beliefs are to be commended. But if you put yourself in a martyrdom position, you take what comes. So far their comrades have reiterated their hatred for the coalition, have not criticized the captors, and have not thanked the people who prevented three of the four activists from attaining martyrdom. -- Cecropia 19:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Their attitude has, so far, been entirely consistent, if potentially suicidal. They didn't ask to be rescued; in fact, they all signed a statement requesting that no lives be risked in rescuing them if they were captured. They were fully prepared to "take what comes". So it would be a bit off for them to thank the forces now. --Saforrest 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a bit "off" for them to continue to bleed on behalf of the people aligned with their captors while cursing their rescuers. They were done a personal service at the risk of others' lives. Since they are selective in the people who they wish to protect, they are partisans, no matter how well intentioned. As they claim the mantle of Christ, did He send them a message that they should witness for one side in an armed conflict? -- Cecropia 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. --Saforrest 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that argument before, that human rights groups (including very large well-known ones) attack western interests rather than more brutal non-western regimes because the latter would simply ignore them. But has the instant group actually made this argument themselves. As to the "pernicious" of the lies, maybe so, but what an exercise in moral relativism. I feel you have highlighted the defect in such groups, as their writings indicate that they have made a political judgment in deciding which side is, as it were, more "pernicious." And if they feel (a left-handed compliment if there ever was one) that the coalition side is "invincible," there are other people for whom they could be witnessing and interposing their bodies, who are not invincible, such as the men, women and children that the suicide bombers, the IED deployers and such, kill with cynical regularity. -- Cecropia 21:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. --Saforrest 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is "offically" not involved in the invasion or occupation. At least that's been the governmant line. I'd imagen that *if* JTF2 is involved, its because of this situation involving Canadian citizens (at least I'd hope that's all they're doing there...). Mike McGregor (Can) 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised either. But considering the Canadian's government's stance, who knows? 140.161.76.127 19:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? The Canadian government has been a bit wishy-washy on Afghanistan, and intervention in general is definitely a political football in Canada now, but what is obscure about Canada's involvement in Iraq? They're not involved, as nation: end of story. --Saforrest 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada might be "officially" not involved, but Canada's prime-minister made some comments. The CBC reports that the prime-minister ' did say, however, that it should be no surprise that Canadians are in Iraq. "There have been a small number of Canadian military personnel embedded in American and allied units. That's been the case since the beginning of the war. Nothing has changed on that front," he said. ' Nfitz 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not strike anyone weird that Canada might be in the position of defending themselves for the crime of having saved noncombatant hostages from murderous captors? -- Cecropia 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

I have some issues with some of the new wording on the page.

A distinctive feature of this crisis was the victims' dedication to nonviolence and prayer for their captors.

The CPT organization prayed for the captors. The victims prayed for Iraqis in general. But we have no evidence, as yet, that the victims prayed for their captors specifically. I could believe this, but until we hear interviews with them talking about what their imprisonment was like, we don't know this. --Saforrest 19:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did they pray for the coalition to rescue them? It may be the only prayer that was answered. -- Cecropia 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the cynicism here. Your disdain for these people is obvious, but it adds nothing to the discussion. And as for your question, no, we have no evidence they prayed for rescue. As I said above, they had signed a statement on entering Iraq that specifically called for no lives to be risked in their rescue in the event of capture. --Saforrest 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm cynical, the writers of their group tends to support it. When a "peace group," even a completely honest, dedicated, group, injects themselves into a political-military situation, they must accept what comes. Does that mean they "deserve" to die? Of course not, I wish them no ill. But I also don't want to see anyone else die on their behalf. -- Cecropia 20:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that it appears they were "prepared to accept what comes". They stated they wanted no one to die on their behalf.

Now, there is certainly room to accuse them of hypocrisy. Given the political situation, it is hard to believe there would have been no rescue attempt, so you can argue they did endanger the soldiers who rescued them even though they asked not to be rescued. As well, their deaths might have sparked some cycle of violence which led to more deaths. But as far as their public statements go, they did not want and refused to support any blood shed to rescue them, on either side. --Saforrest 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition forces[edit]

As I said on Talk:Norman Kember earlier, it's not correct to refer to the rescue team as consisting purely of "coalition forces", since in an Iraqi context this generally means the "coalition of the willing" for the invasion.

It's debatable whether or not the current Iraqi forces can be classed among "coalition forces", but the Canadians definitely cannot be, and they were involved in the rescue team. --Saforrest 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though as I noted above, the Canadian PM today said that a small number of Canadian forces had been on the ground in Iraq since the beginning of the war, and that it should be no surprise that Canadians are in Iraq. Nfitz 21:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right; Canadians are serving in U.S. units, and other Canadians are in Iraq specifically for the rescue mission. As well, there are probably American soldiers with Canadian nationality in Iraq. However, I don't any of these justify the inclusion of Canada among the "coalition". --Saforrest 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, if JTF2 is operating in Iraq (and the Canadian government has refused to confirm nor deny this), with any scope beyond the hostage rescue, then surely Canada is part of the coalition whether it wants to admit it or not. When this war first started back in 2003, there were several "unnamed" coalition members. Have these all been sorted out? (haven't thought about it in 3 years!). Nfitz 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all wild speculation at this point (and certainly unsuitable for inclusion in the article). For me, I find it very difficult to believe the government of the day would have secretly participated; Jean Chretien has wasted no oppurtunity ever since 2003 to trumpet his choice to abstain. --Saforrest 23:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact role of the Canadians is definitely muddled at this point, see e.g. [2]. Jack Straw has said the Mounties were involved in the operation, as well as "other agencies from Canada". It's unclear who exactly constituted the force that made up the raid, though I think we have to assume they all might have been there until we hear otherwise. --Saforrest 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the text of that link, Harper states that Canadian troops have been on the ground in Iraq since the invasion. That certainly comes as a surprise, despite Harper's own words. Kyaa the Catlord 09:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I saw in that link to Canadian troops on the ground since the invasion referred to those troops "embedded in American and allied units". The existence of these embedded Canadian troops was publicized way back in 2003 during the invasion; it was cited by Harper (then Leader of the Opposition) as evidence of Chrétien's inconsistency in saying Canada would stay out of Iraq. --Saforrest 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also troubled by the vague use of the term "coalition" (coalition of who, specifically, with what purpose?) in many spots in the article. I'm not sure how to correct this problem... --Krubo 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition refers to the Iraq Multinational Force. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 12:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""The RCMP has also provided training overseas in Iraq and other peace-keeping missions."" (what is this suppose to mean?)--24.81.6.211 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This from the CTV article:

Meanwhile, Harper made it clear that the Canadians who were sent to Iraq have nothing to do with the U.S.-led war in the violence-racked nation. "Any personnel that have been present for this particular crisis will obviously not remain," Harper said.

The article also mentions that CSIS was involved. Heqs 17:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional critical references[edit]

The article presently mentions that they were criticized by supporters of the "war on terror". So far, the only reference I can see that suggests this is Limbaugh. Are there any others we can dig up? --Saforrest 20:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rewording that sentence, leaving its sense unchanged. However, I wonder how many outspoken critics there really are in this case? Other than Limbaugh, that is. --Krubo 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the criticism is inaccurate, as it tries to contrast CPT's attitude toward the captors (pray for them to be led away from ways of violence) as different from their attitude towards military rescue forces (pray for them to be led away from ways of violence). So I'm going to remove the assertion of their "sympathy for their captors". Also, since the only criticism we have (Limbaugh's) was against their very presence in Iraq, that should be mentioned. --Krubo 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would be useful to note that CPT has not said a single word in support of the hundreds of thousands butchered under Hussein. Mitchberg 02:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that for sure? --Saforrest 05:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citations[edit]

Can someone restore the numbered citations in the reference section rather then the bullets? it would make things easier to verify...Mike McGregor (Can) 00:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were out of order with respect to the references in the text. The two choices were to convert them to references or attempt to recreate the reference order in the text in the list. I thought the latter would be too fragile, so I converted it to a bullet list.

Is there a way, possibly a different reference format, which isn't as fragile? --Saforrest 00:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe inline citation links should go directly to the story (web page) being refrenced rather then to the refrence section. But, then also have all the citation links kept as bullets as they are now in the refrence section?Mike McGregor (Can) 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's similarly fragile because, like the other plans, it duplicates information. I'd prefer the second choice above (resorting the refs) to that. I swear, though, I saw a different reference format used elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Saforrest 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"supporters of the Iraq War have criticized the team's presence in Iraq"[edit]

Are critics of the team's presence in Iraq, then, labelled "supporters of the Iraq War"/ Is that neutral? Or intellectual honesty? --Wetman 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this wording should be corrected so that it doesn't imply that only "supporters of the Iraq War" have criticised CPT's presence in Iraq. mennonot 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only critic I've heard of is Rush Limbaugh, and he's a supporter of the Iraq War. We should really find other critics, unless we want it to read "Rush Limbaugh has criticized the team's presence in Iraq". Otherwise, maybe we should ditch that sentence altogether? --Krubo 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including Limbaugh quote?[edit]

At 00:24, 27 March 2006 a user at IP 70.168.32.250 removed this paragraph:

November 29: Three days after the event, radio personality Rush Limbaugh stirred controversy by stating, in reference to the kidnapping, that "part of me likes this". Earlier in the broadcast, explaining this point, he said "Well, here's why I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality."^[3]

His explanation was "limbaugh was taken out of context 2) what he said didnt affect the timeline of the crisis itself". I disagree that Limbaugh was taken out of context. The citation (which wasn't removed from the article by 70.168.32.250) gives a large excerpt from the transcript that indicates Limbaugh knew what he was saying. I also disagree with his second point. The timeline should reflect significant events related to the crisis and a well-known media personality making a statement directly commenting on the event in such a strong way is certainly of significance. What do others think? mennonot 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, Mennonot, and restore mention of it. Yes, Limbaugh's criticism is clearly wiki-worthy: It's one of only two actual criticisms cited in the whole article. (see Additional critical references, above) It's not fair to say they were criticized without citing actual criticisms. And the timeline currently contains a large number of announcements-of-support, so it's currently also a good place for announcements-of-disdain. --Krubo 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued or released?[edit]

CBC radio reports the day they were, er, retrieved said they were "rescued," but subsequent reports indicate that they were in fact released, and retrieved from an empty building where they were tied up and waiting to be picked up. Does this qualify as a "rescue" as per the intro, or were they in fact "released?" Sounds more like the latter, the more facts come out. --66.129.135.114 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. Browser's acting funny today. --MattShepherd 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail of Saturday quoted an anonymous source stating that the kidnappers were mostly kidnap-for-money types, rather than religious ideologues, there had been a schism between them after Fox's killing as some thought it bad policy to kill hostages, and one disgruntled hostage-taker led the rescue forces to the site, which had by then been abandoned by the kidnappers.

All we really know is that when the rescue forces got there, the kidnappers were gone and the hostages were tied up. So it's unclear whether the kidnappers fled in fear once they figured out what was happening, or if they actually orchestrated the arrival of the rescuers with a tip-off. --Saforrest 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However it does seem unlikely they were religious ideaologus since if they were, presmuably they would have killed the hostages before they fled. Nil Einne 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful link[edit]

This link should be useful but I don't have time to edit the article [4]

Homosexuality[edit]

I remember hearing something about one of the Canadian hostages being homosexual. This wouldnt really be important except for the fact that this information wasn't released while he was kidnapped for fear that he would be executed by the seemingly religious kidnappers. Unfortunately i don't remember the source or the name of the hostage, so if someone else would look that up it would be great.

It was James Loney. Find out more in his 2011 book Captivity. 2601:144:200:496E:DC69:E6B1:59F4:5669 (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to check this video, I found it had already been removed from YouTube. I've removed the link from the article. --Ahc 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. (I've got about 3800 more notes to put on articles. :)) ---J.S (t|c) 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued?[edit]

The article has lines like "the remaining three rescued," "the troops who rescued them," "The three remaining hostages are rescued in a British led operation by a multinational force ... led by SAS Troopers."

Certainly the hostages do not believe they were "rescued," but rather "picked up" after a ransom payment. The initial reports said they were rescued militarily, but that was based purely on what the various governments involved decided to release. The "rescue" angle is probably spin (it was certainly seized upon by pundits who were politically opposed to the CPT ideology, esp. pacficism.) I do not think we can state it as fact; we should go with a formulation like "freed" the way the CBC source [5] does. <eleland/talkedits> 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hostages-Kember-Sooden.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Hostages-Kember-Sooden.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Tomfox111.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christian Peacemaker hostage crisis. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent Autopsy?"[edit]

The article claims that "The results of an independent autopsy have not been made public." Is there any reason to believe there *was* an independent autopsy? 2601:144:200:496E:DC69:E6B1:59F4:5669 (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christian Peacemaker hostage crisis. 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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christian Peacemaker hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060325182319/http://www.cpt.org/iraq/response/06-23-03statement.htm to http://www.cpt.org/iraq/response/06-23-03statement.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christian Peacemaker 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian Peacemaker 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Peacemaker 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Peacemaker 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120102052/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051212/HOSTAGES12/TPNational to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051212/HOSTAGES12/TPNational

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]