Talk:2014 Peshawar school massacre

Is the mastermind killed by PAF

According to the Dunya News reports, Umar Mansoor was killed by PAF's strikes on 20 December 2014. Other channels have not commented, how valid that source is? Please See the video:

Peshawar school attack mastermind among 21 killed in Khyber Agency airstrikes

Warning: Video is only available for Urdu speakers. No English translation.

Remove stubs?

I believe enough info is provided now, remove stubs? Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

removed stubs Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 11:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hostage crisis? Is it really fit to be called a hostage crisis? Seems like a direct lift from the recent Sydney article. I think 2014 Peshawar school attack would be a better suited title. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --Saqib (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought of that too but the news was calling it a hostage situation and I was reading the Sydney one as well. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 13:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article should be called a massacre rather than an attack.The word 'massacare 'is far more suitable for this incident as it better captures the veracity,sheer brutality and enormity of this event as opposed to the word 'attack'. This event was reported as a massacre by mainstream media such as the BBC and by Pakistan's leading newspaper Dawn to quote a few and I see no reason why should this act should not be called as such on Wikipedia.Umz 13 (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You've my support Umz 13. --Saqib (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Massacre - attack is far too generic and light weight a term. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur, a sustained attack in which so many are killed is a massacre. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflicting

Dawn (newspaper) reported there are eight to ten militants and so far six have been killed. --Saqib (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think at this stage, it is better to wait. One newspaper says 8 while others say 6. It may be right or wrong, but waiting might help clear confusion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

What order is being followed in listing international reactions? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

as they come in I guess. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Saqib has reordered the list alphabetically. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Connection to other attacks on schools

Are there any reliable sources speculating this attack could help point to an hidden political motive behind mass shooting and stabbing attacks on hospitals, schools and colleges in China, Canada and the United States such as Sandy Hook? Is it possible that the Taliban or affiliated groups could have recruited people with no apparent motives besides anger and mental illness? Why is it that in the US and China, school attacks are never politically motivated, but blamed on people with specific grievances and mental issues, but in Pakistan, Nigeria, India Philippines and Thailand, such attacks are instantly connected to extremist groups? The Taliban claimed the Binghamton shootings was their operation but US authorities dismissed the possibility. Redhanker (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Highly doubtful that there would be any connection or any source for it either. At the most, this is a copycat issue. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This has happened. Terrorists preyed on a mentally ill young man, whom they radicalised. After he converted to Islam he carried out the 2008 Exeter attempted bombing. However, this type of planning and organisation appears to be rare in the Western World. Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Because generally the shooters in the western school attacks don't have political motives for the violence=terrorism? Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Numbers

Numbers differ according to sources. Please discuss numbers here. Put the ref and official announcements, if any.

• Deaths:141-145
• Injuries:130+
• Victims:??
• Preps:6-7

Regards,-Nizil (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what do we put in 'Victims'? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I think:

• Deaths: I've only found one source reporting 145, which is the New York Times. Both Euronews and BBC report 141 deaths, further specifying that 132 are children and nine were staff. I've just searched on Google News, and The Independent also reports the same thing, and so does Voice of America. I've no idea where the New York Times got their figure of 145, but since this seems to be in minority, and since the don't specify how many were children and how many were staff, I propose that we go for 141 (132 children and nine staff), which seems to be the most accepted version.
• Injuries: I've only found one source reporting the number of injured, which is Euronews. However, this specific article seems that it hasn't been updated since 12:19 CET (11:19 UTC), and it still reports 134 dead, adding that both numbers are likely to rise. If we can't find more sources to back up any figure for the injured, we should probably stick to this one, presenting an "at least" before it.
• Perpetrators: BBC report seven; Euronews report nine; not many of the most recent articles still report six. We should probably present between seven and nine.

Also, what do you mean by "victims"? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 23:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote appearing in wrong section

The quote by Nawaz Sharif is showing up in the wrong section, at least in my browser.

The quote is appearing in the international section, which doesn't make any sense. PhilKnight (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the resolution. ON most screens, including mine, as well as mobile displays it comes next to domestic. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention that all victims were boys?

Why is there no mention that all of the schoolchildren were boys? I suspect that if they had all been girls their gender would be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaterno (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please present a news source that would back up your claim? We might mention it if you did so... Thanks! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 23:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"One of my teachers was crying, she was shot in the hand and she was crying in pain," Shahrukh Khan, 15, who was shot in both legs but survived, told Reuters. "One terrorist then walked up to her and started shooting her until she stopped making any sound." [1] Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Blaterno: Exactly what is your point here? Why do we even need to mention that they were boys [if at all they were]? What is this? Boys getting killed vs girls getting killed? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: Girls' abductions spark an international debate about women's rights. Not so for boys, though. Maybe it is important, depending on the context. Epicgenius (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But no source, no mention. Correct? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. Epicgenius (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"[...] all the children who have been reported dead are all boys and a female teacher has died in the attack"[2] Another article also mentions the subject, saying "All of the injured students are boys."[3] It also goes according to what @Abductive mentioned, which is that a teacher, a female teacher indeed, was also killed. Waiting for someone who is more experienced than I am to validate the sources and make the changes to the article Okymyo (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is, is it an all-boys campus? Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that relevant? If it were an all-girls campus, should the article just mention "children" rather than "girls", concealing the gender of the victims when the information is out there? Solely male children have been killed, and there's not a single mention of that in the article, despite news agencies reporting it. The article is currently misleading, leading the reader to believe girls have also been killed (due its extensive and intentional use of genderless pronouns when talking about the victims, as if it weren't a gendered situation). Okymyo (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The campus is divided between boys and girls. It is relevant to say the boys' classes had been attacked and that girls' classes were not present. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it's relevant to mention that. What I understood from Abductive's reply, which might be my wrong interpretation, was that if it were an all-boys section then it shouldn't be mentioned. Either way, the information should be added as it is entirely relevant, and at the time of this reply there's still not a single mention of the word "boy" or "male" in the entire article. Okymyo (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The only interpretation I can see for my question is that the article needs to mention that the boys' section was attacked and (if true) only male students died. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-16/pakistan-gunmen-kill-three-after-storming-school-hostages-taken.html stated that 123 male students and 9 staff (including one female teacher) were among the dead. We can see if there is an updated count in a later article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick change from Ossetia to North Ossetia

Just made a small change to specify which Ossetia this attack has parallels to72.230.133.8 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reactions section

Should the bullets be dropped in favour of prose format? --George Ho (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, the bullets keep each nation separate. Some nations, like US, India have multiple reactions. My two cents/two paise. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you should keep them. When everything is presented in prose, without any sort of a more "eye-pleasing" organisational display, the article gets too boring to be read. Whenever possible, I prefer to have the information organised in schemes (bullets will also be fine), rather than as full prose. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bullets seem to be good, see also Salala incident which is a GA. Though, in this article, the reactions do need to have some more context as wikipedia isn't just supposed to register remarks of nations, rather their reaction on the incident. Some bullets conform to this though so my comment is not a blanket remark rather a suggestion to keep a check. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Boring is not a good reason to discourage prose format. Also, what if FA criteria discourage such a bullet formatting? --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

George Ho got a point. And it has received more reactions than for Salala incident. Lots of countries already reacted to this incident and the list will keep going on and on. From what I've heard turning list into a prose the best available solution when specific section gets lengthy or overly detailed.--Chamith (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If converted to prose, it might be WP:DUE to mention some countries' reactions only by naming them as in this, this, this country condemned the attack (the list shouldn't take most of the space of the article and bare news mentions should have only their name listed). The significant ones can have detail. If this list is growing too large, it would make sense to follow prose. Let's wait for some more entries to see if it will grow further or not as this is still a current event. The "attack" section and its subsections should take most of the space in the article once it is at a more developed stage. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. The section has become a table, and converting to prose has become more time consuming than it should. --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

Why change infobox image to Candlelight vigil in London? I think map was the image that belongs in the infoxbox. Putting an aftermath image to inbox doesn't reflect about the attack. It should go under aftermath section. Infobox image should be related to the incident not aftermath--Chamith (talk)

Agreed. This is about something that happened in Peshawar. Showing a picture of London makes zero sense. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this page doesn't requires a map. It is only a map of area. Movement map could suit this but there was no such movement in this case. Furthermore, the map doesn't point to school building. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, he caption does say the school is in the centre and the map does label it. If the map could also include the cemetery mentioned, it'd be great. Perhaps someone could add it to OSM. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It'd be great if someone can re-upload a new version of this map with location of the school marked with something like red dot, etc. In that way readers can easily identify the accurate location.--Chamith (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an OSM snip, on the Commons with a CC licence. Anyone familiar with the territory could do it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

New images

Several of the recently added images, which are sourced to "received on Whats App", can likely not be hosted on Commons, as they are likely unfree. However, they may fulfil :en's fair-use terms. Please check which of them you would like to have in the article and prepare a fair-use rationale. So, also c:Category:Peshawar_school_attack. --Túrelio (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Reduce the size of images in Aftermath section?

It seems like they take unnecessary amount of space. If it's only 1 picture then it's OK but the section has 3 images of the same size. I think it'd be better to reduce image size of each picture.--Chamith (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Would also be good if images are aligned to one side of the page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Public reaction

The Reaction in Pakistan section should put more emphasis on public reaction in Pakistan. This article makes no mention of it but it's WP:DUE to give it about a paragraph given that there's been a strong public reaction not only to the attack but also instead of pressurizing the army to back off, the public is now supporting the operation Zarb-e-Azb further. Just a note to those adding content here. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for public reactions, then add it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of the attack

I noticed that someone re-added those disturbing images of the attacks. As Wikipedia isn't censored I won't/can't request to remove those images. However if those images are going to stay then they must be described. It'd be better if someone provided a little description under each image.-Chamith (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A user Nockayoub removed them citing Gore picture are forbidden in the edit summary. While I don't know where it is forbidden, it has been removed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Gory images are not forbidden, but they certainly aren't required either. We add images that help define the subject. Myself, I don't think they help, so should not be included. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Now there is a space where those images were. Either remove them all or align them.--Chamith (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Other reactions

An IP added 11k bytes of reactions of various celebrities. I undid it because it makes no sense to add every reaction here. Any thoughts on this? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We should add only those reactions that have remained influential in the previous similar events or they have influenced the current situation of this event. These celebrities names aren't so important. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You can add a 1-2 line statement covering the blanket reaction from the celebrities. It is WP:UNDUE to give every individual's separate but similar remark. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Both the reactions of a list of celebrities, and of a list of governments, are essentially, I'm sorry to say (given the recency and sensitivity of the subject) worthless in an encyclopedia: of course they are all rightly horrified, but this is a human emotion, the same thing repeated dozens of times. One paragraph with three or four practically identical reactions would already be enough. By the same token, we are way too early to judge whether this article is GA-worthy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Every time a news story gets "world leader" attention, more news stories pop up about the attention. When more stories pop up, Google's simple brain gets confused about what's important and what's just current. Editors want to contribute, ask Google, get the wrong idea and share it here. Celebrities do the same thing, but share with Twitter. Both further confuse Google News.

Wait a week for the swirling to stop, and things will be clearer. The reaction section always suddenly grows before shrinking forever. The only mystery is whether the pattern causes the discussions and wars, or vice versa.

For what it's worth, I support removing all but Pakistan's and the TTP's. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination

Are you sure this article meets WP:GACR? The article is still expanding, and now is not the right time to review or nominate it as Good Article. Hold off nomination until things calm down? --George Ho (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it meets good article criteria. Article expansion doesn't effect the review process. The reviewer only focuses on material quality. UBStalk 09:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are overlooking the stability criterion. An article must not be rapidly changing to meet WP:GA. Recency is not in itself grounds for rejection, though it's an indicator of other issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Peshawar school attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a great article. Will start the review soon. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Pre Review Notes

I do my review with a main review, then a prose+source review to accompany it. Here is a good example: Talk:Global financial system/GA1

I'm already concerned with Talk:2014 Peshawar school attack#GA nomination as the person who stated this comment is completely right. An article must be stable to become a GA article. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Good to have you as a reviewer. Thanks for quick response. UBStalk 20:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

First the "Reaction" section was formatted in bullets; now it becomes a table. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There were different categories in that section which needed to arrange in a format format. Table looks better than bullets. UBStalk 04:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-reviewer commentary: If the reaction section keeps getting large why not create another article for reaction. For example Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has a separate article for reactions. As there were many reactions from governments around the world editors decided to copy the list to another article and turn existing list to a prose. If not this article will keep getting bigger and bigger making it difficult to read. Reactions section is the largest section in this article.--Chamith (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I'm going to create it. --Saqib (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As another Non-reviewer comment, surely it's much too early for this article to be considered sufficiently stable to meet the GA criteria? Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comment I support Nick-D and MrWooHoo on the stability criteria. I can't see how this could be considered stable enough in the near future. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comment I agree. The article is still unstable till the investigation is complete et al. Hence, it is too early to try and push for a GA. I think maybe a few months would let it cool down before it can hit GA. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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.	See prose review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead should be expanded a bit, layout is good, no buzz words, etc.
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.	See source review.
	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).	All sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information in article is cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It seems to cover all aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No in-depth unnecessary detail that I've seen.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is very recent, and there have been plenty of vandalism, etc. Please see this page for a more in-depth wording/definition.
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.	File:Peshawar_child_attack_Quran_reading.jpg and File:Girls-mourn-peshawar-ap.jpg are both non-free. Please either change the rationales or delete them from the article because it is copyrighted.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relavant images w/ suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	From other users and myself, this article is too unstable and too recent to become a GA. Try renominating in about 2-3 months. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 19:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to editors

Kindly stay neutral on the such topics and do not mis-quote your references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Aamer Shah (Scientist) (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) banned user-block evasion

What kind of topics? Is there anything with neutrality of this article? If so please BE bold and fix/rewrite them yourself or post them here we'll review and fix them.--Chamith (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dyed wants editors to insert pro-terrorist material like he likes to insert. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hostages?

Of course, we wouldn't expect this article to be very good yet as it describes events which are still unfolding. But we should attempt to get the basics right. Were the attackers intending to take hostages, or not? At the moment the article states both. Editors should also be mindful of WP:TERRORIST; we do not need to remind the reader in every sentence that the attackers were terrorists. --John (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

16 December 2014

I suggest Title 16-12-2014 or 12-16-2014 for this artilce.

Requested move 24 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, largely due to a lack of participation. Dicklyon's oppose is not unreasonable. Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

2014 Peshawar school massacre → Army Public School Peshawar massacre – Both titles refer to the same thing, but I hope this is not too precise. I almost inserted a precedent, but I do not want to use preexisting pages to compare. I reluctantly provide sources for the proposed title: HuffPo UK, Express Tribune, New Indian Express, Pakistan Today, Xinhua, BBC, Pakistan Observer. Want to know other sources? George Ho (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – it sounds like it's treating "Army Public School Peshawar" as a proper name, but I don't see support for that in the article, nor in your linked sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There is Army Public School Peshawar, Dicklyon. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see there is. Seems like an odd made-up WP title. Perhaps Army Public School (Peshawar) would be better? or Army Public School, Peshawar? Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm removing the banner, so it'll be withdrawn without closing. --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No one was interested in changing Army Public School Peshawar; the RM discussion there was closed as "no consensus". I relisted this discussion, therefore. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2014 Peshawar school massacre. 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/20141218181927/http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/12/16/national/militants-attack-peshawar-school-five-students-injured/ to http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/12/16/national/militants-attack-peshawar-school-five-students-injured/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220035603/http://jang.com.pk/jang/dec2014-daily/20-12-2014/main4.htm to http://jang.com.pk/jang/dec2014-daily/20-12-2014/main4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222193442/http://www.songshd.pk/2014/12/zindagi-yaad-karti-hai-by-shehzad-roy.html to http://www.songshd.pk/2014/12/zindagi-yaad-karti-hai-by-shehzad-roy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219195114/http://www.floridanewstime.com/national/85920-malala-yousafzai-s-father-says-his-heart-is-bleeding-over-peshawar-school-massacre.html to http://www.floridanewstime.com/national/85920-malala-yousafzai-s-father-says-his-heart-is-bleeding-over-peshawar-school-massacre.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220053419/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/18-Dec-2014/govt-lifts-moratorium-on-capital-punishment to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/18-Dec-2014/govt-lifts-moratorium-on-capital-punishment

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) 23:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)