Talk:Marriott Hotel in Islamabad bombed
"It is thought that ... It is feared ..." neither of these are attributed to anyone -- Netscr1be (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 |
Revision [1] of this article has been reviewed by kamnet (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Very good, breaking news will have to watch closely for updates The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision [2] of this article has been reviewed by kamnet (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Very good, breaking news will have to watch closely for updates The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
The article states "The Marriot [sic] is a popular place for foreigners to stay and the most prominent US-owned enterprise in the city, despite a wave of violence the country suffers."
The hotel is not US-owned. It is a franchised business owned by Hashoo Group, a Pakistani company owned by Sadruddin Hashwani, a Pakistani businessman. Marriott is simply the franchise the hotel is run under. ++75.131.161.173 03:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you by any chance have a realiable source that says that. I did a quick search but nothing came up. Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)re
- The Hashoo Group's website is offline, possibly due to the events this story is about. You can find mentions here, here, here, and here. The last link is of special note. It is documentation of an interview with Mr Hashwani himself. One of the questions specifically asks him about establishing a hotel chain in his country. ++75.131.161.173 04:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually here is the original New York Times source. It appears it was an advertisement, but that has no bearing on the facts we are discussing. The other link was a copy of the article pasted into a forum. ++75.131.161.173 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Late edits
editI have reverted an edit which required the addition of a source dated the 21st to substantiate it. I appreciate the article is not very old, but it is dated the 20th. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)