Talk:2016 Ouagadougou attacks

Intended target

Resolved

• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-burkina-attacks-idUSKCN0UT2HC "Sangare said one European woman being treated at the hospital told him the attackers appeared to target white people." 64.134.64.190 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Naming

Resolved

The name of the article should be 2016 Ouagadougou attacks, back to initial name. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reason? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The attacks were carried out only in one city, which is capital of the country, and a well known city. Using simple Burkina Faso is too vague, and it is possible that other attacks that take place in Burkina Faso a very unstable country where there is no security at all. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says something else, any personal reasoning or liking does not take precedence over Wikipedia policy, when there are other attacks, they can be named after their common name, please see the sources in the article and analyze carefully what is the common name for this event. How many times Ouagadougou is mentioned and how many times they refer it to as "Burkina Faso attacks" or "Burkina Faso hotel attacks". If sources are not calling them "Ouagadougou attacks" then who are we to call them so? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok I can understand the media changed the name to Burkina Faso attacks because Ouagadougou is not as known as Tel Aviv, Paris, Hurghada, Istanbul, Jakarta and that this attack is quite unique in Burkina Faso for the time being. But we should come back to 2016 Burkina Faso attacks because the attacks were not only in one hotel. Wykx 17:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with OP. This is not a personal name to one's liking, its a fact. Contrarily to the second poster, who has twice moved it to his liking instead.

Also they were not just the hotels, indicating the mover's disingenuity.Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2016

Resolved

2016 Burkina Faso hotel attacks → 2016 Burkina Faso attacks – The attacks were not only in one hotel but in two hotels and in one cafe. Wykx 17:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

oppose all 3 related attacks happened in the capital city and is in line with other such named articles. Neither were they in the hotels alone.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Move to "2016 Burkina Faso attacks" as that is what the common name is as per sources in the article. If Ouagadougou is not well known by international media then its not well known and cannot be the name of this article. As someone pointed out that what if there are other attacks in Burkina Faso in 2016, then they can be named after month of the year if their common name also comes out to be "Burkina Faso attacks". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are other attacks then we do it then, we don't Crystal Ball. Come to think of it Ouagadougou attacks seems most pertinent as theres been none in modern history. Mind you WP is not a media outlet to blindly propagate either. Naming conventions have been long-standing here, while no one is using the naming convention "Burkina Faso attacks," they're merely indicating to the mass base where the city is. And neither is Hurghada well-known as above.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• neutral this is the widely used terms for news articles covering the topic, but it lacks descriptiveness. Attacks such as these are very local and the title should reflect that. Considering the main targets appear to be foreign tourists, it's perhaps less about the country and more just the location. Jolly Ω Janner 00:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It name should be specific, November 2015 Paris attacks is an example. Ouagadougou may not be well known in Western media but that does not mean the city is not notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: Definitely, city is notable, nobody said, its not notable but there are policies on naming articles, most importantly WP:COMMONNAME. The reason behind this move request is to adhere to the policies whether we like them or not and at this point if you look at the headlines of sources in the article, except couple of them, Ouagadougou is not mentioned anywhere so my point is if Ouagadougou is not good enough to be mentioned by WP:RS's on which we are building our article on then its not good enough for Wikipedia to name the article after that. Simple as it is, adherence to article naming policy! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"except couple of them" is the exception that proves the rule.Lihaas (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eugen Simion 14: discussion moved here, so pinging your inpot per above (NOT canvassing)Lihaas (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose After re-reading examples given WP:COMMONNAME, I can see that WP:COMMONNAME is applicable to different namings of the same place. But Burkina Faso and Ouagadougou are not the same geographical constituent (one is the state, one is a city). Thus we should use the place where the attacks happened, which is the city of Ouagadougou. The current title 2016 Ouagadougou attacks is the right one (and thank you for having removed hotel from the title which was my original request). Wykx 11:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wykx: want to withdrawn and close this as resolved?Lihaas (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed yes we can close as per my comments about and because the request I did originally has been renamed. Wykx 10:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Calling an attack on a specific city after the country it is located in, adds to a lack of precision in Wikipedia. Ouagadougou is a major city with 1,5 million population. Burkina Faso covers a much wider area and has a much bigger population than one single city. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nationalities don't add up

There were supposed to be 18 nationalities, yet we have spce for only 11 more with 12 countries not represented. Need to keep an eye on this.Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: now have 10 more left with 11 nationalities to go.Lihaas (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of table

Resolved

I originally removed the table of victims on 16 January for the following reason "If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table.", but was reverted for "consistency with other article fr presentation". The policy is quite clear that lists are preferred to tables. I see no reason to ignore the rules, as the table quite clearly disrupts the flow of the article and creeps into the next section. Ideally it should be in prose, but it might be difficult with several nations. A table is pointless as it only has two columns. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Such articles have a table for presentation. Prose is also preferred over lists, though.

"They can be useful for a variety of content presentations"...albeit granted "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes..." Ease of reading quickly is appropriate, IMO and the other caveat is sometimes so its not "quite clear ".

We can probably move it to prose eventually if ya'll feel that's better. I did move the reactions into prose to avoid FLAGCRUFT.

That said, let others weigh in.Lihaas (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideally it should be in prose, but I wanted to make an intermediate step, as news articles so often go quiet once the event passes and things never end being converted to prose. IMO, the policy is clear enough on the matter and the "list is simple" as it is only showing one piece of data (the number of deaths). If we were comparing numbers of deaths, injuries, perpetrators etc. by country then I could see a table becoming useful. Jolly Ω Janner 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then let's go ahead and take the further step and turn it into prose. Another paragraph would not hurt there. Also we will only need to use the source once then ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: How's the new version here? If its better than you can mark this as {{resolved}}Lihaas (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I was in the middle of doing the same, but yours was pretty much what I was going for. What happened to the reported Indian death though? Jolly Ω Janner 00:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It was an injury/hostage, he apparently made it out. Ive listed it just above in the injuries/hotsages.Lihaas (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Background

In regards to the wording/removal of wikilinks [1], the coup was directly related to the election (citing the electoral law as a reason) and followed the uprising (more of a power vacuum much akin to Mali). I reworded it to draw further parallels between the 3 wikilinks as background context. Feel free to reword it, but the wikilinks are most important.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is noted at the end of the Hindustan article on the attacks, so I think it is a notable fact to the background. Jolly Ω Janner 23:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reactions sub-headings

@SheriffIsInTown: I don't understand your reasoning for splitting domestic and international reactions. We have a sub-section on domestic reactions which is only two sentences long. Other comments welcome. Jolly Ω Janner 00:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you completely. The other version was better, and it also still had the differentiation without the FLAGCRUFT.Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It just looks better guys and a multitude of articles have sub-sectioning even with lesser lines than what is under "Domestic" at this point, I have never seen this type of formatting in an article before where you just bold up the section heading but anyways it's okay if you like it this way, not much of a deal. Stop displaying an attitude of ownership and fighting on little things, others are here to edit as well. By the way separating the response with flags were even better. I can give examples of many articles, 2015 Mina stampede to begin-with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer it be broken down by paragraph without any need for headings of any shape or size. We don't normally edit articles, based on what other articles do. Jolly Ω Janner 00:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, but what's your reasoning behind keeping it the way you want it except that you like it that way? We don't go by editor likenesses either. At least I gave examples of other articles! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

To me, there is not enough content under the sub-heading domestic. I think all we're going to get to here is opinions, as I can't find much policy on it. Jolly Ω Janner 02:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He cites that we don't lopok at other articles and then says "ive seen other articles"? That reeks of disingenuity. And then the don't display attitude vs. resorting to building consensus??? Apparently he likes it that way, while lecturing others not to.Lihaas (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

FLAGCRUFT

We usually get these claims, and also, per above, prose is preferred. So I left it at prose. However, opened this discussion if consensus out votes me.

@Vinegarymass911:Lihaas (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the flags because of its use in articles like Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks and 2016 North Korean nuclear test. There is no policy against using flags or this style in Reactions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• We shouldn't use flags because other articles do. Flags are not suitable in an article like this and should be kept to list-class articles. Jolly Ω Janner 03:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

lede should mention claims of responsibility.

Resolved

The lede should mention that AQ claimed responsibility for the attack.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Good spot.Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Good point @Jolly Janner:. Good you brought it up, I had doubts too. According to the sources on the page (incidentally citing a POV body (I interned there (and they edited their WP page))). It mentions the Mourabitoun militants but the main claim seems to be AQIM. and that source mentions a very vague re-merger.Lihaas (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Italian victim

THe IP that added this did not add a source and arbitrarily changed this. I have this removed this and re-used the relevant content from the source. As such, I'll remov the twitter post about the Italian till we get a reliable independent source.Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources of information for the reactions is a bad idea. There's probably a very large amount of notable people that have tweeted about the event. Best stick to secondary sources to establish notability and avoid undue weight. Jolly Ω Janner 05:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Primary is better as a complementary/supplementary source.Lihaas (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Injured hostages

Apparently some editors are clearly too lazy or incapable of reading articles before inserting what they wish to see. As regards to the injured protesters that is ALREADY listed on the page: "almost half of whom were injured in the process.[13]" The source clearly indicates "Simon Compaore, the security minister, told journalists at the scene that so far they had confirmed 23 people were dead, of 18 different nationalities. More than 120 people have been rescued, approximately half of them were injured in the process, he added . "

No idea which "two sources" were looked at. In fact with clear proven disingenuity, the original should be put back on.Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sheltering Wings

@Lihaas: I've corrected a repeated error: The NGO the victims Rey and Lamon was not named Sheltering Wings. per the cited source:

"Jean-Noël Rey et Georgie Lamon se trouvaient au Burkina Faso pour visiter une école créée grâce à une association dont ils étaient membres."

"l'attaque avait aussi coûté la vie à un citoyen américain. Il s'agit d'un bénévole qui vivait près de Ouagadougou, selon l'organisation chrétienne Sheltering Wings avec qui il collaborait"

This translates to, in summary: Rey and Lamon visited a school created thanks to an association to which both belonged; and the attack also killed an American who worked for the Christian group Sheltering Wings.  Sandstein  08:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks. My French is not THAT good then ;)

add it to the US casuality, then?Lihaas (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Hows thisLihaas (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's factually correct, but I'm not sure whether it's worth mentioning, because that victim was not notable as far as we know.  Sandstein  10:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok take it out if you wish.Lihaas (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)