Talk:Westgate shopping mall attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Links

[1][2][3]Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

RPP

Can someone please semi this page and move protect so as to elicit discussion and prevent unsourced changes on a high profile page(Lihaas (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Italicizing Twitter

Lihaas, I'm ready to hear your arguments. What is the point of italicizing Twitter? It's not a newspaper, is it? --Երևանցի ^talk 02:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Its a media outlet, just like the newspaper. Of course the newspapers itself are dead nowadays, this is the other form of media(Lihaas (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

It is not a media, but a social networking. There is a huge difference. BBC, CNN, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Voice of America, Agence France-Presse are media outlets too, however, they are not newspapers and therefore their names are not italicized. Plus, if you claim that its name should be italicized then go to Talk:Twitter and start a discussion there, not here. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, what is social media? That is the new age media and there is a specific term for that which calls it media.

See OSE, we don't need to discuss at talk twitter whether it needs ibe italiacises everywhere.(Lihaas (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

You're just being unreasonable here. Even if we consider it a media, it's in no way a newspaper. And what is OSE? Mind giving links or something? --Երևանցի ^talk 03:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Italicizing Twitter has no legitimate rationale. Grsz 11 03:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, come on man, it's a newspaper. At least, Lihaas reads it like one. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A bunch of other media sources are italicized in the article. Those should be unitalicized unless they are newspapers. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree , its still a MEDIA outlet not just newspaper . but im in the minority.

Resolved

?(Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Dead link

I'm not sure how twitter works, but it seems al shabaabs account is suspended. Will it be back soon? Because the quotes are directly from there?(Lihaas (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Not likely. I'm pretty sure promoting terrorism would violate the Terms of Service in some way. There is a HSMPress_ but it seems unrelated. Grsz 11 03:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

But ghtheyve been active for awhile, its just int he news now(Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Consistency

Most article titles name the pages according to the city or country. Rarely have i seen it named according to a shopping centre or something similar. Just look at the categories related to this article. This article title is unique. Pass a Method talk 01:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

1. get consensus BEFORE a move and per BRD. 2. OSE doesn't regard "most articles". 3. "Rarely have I seen" is IDONTLIKEIT

And more pertinently, there I =s no need for a ceaveat when there is only 1 such incident, ie- no need for disambiguation(Lihaas (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Ha, no, BRD says move first, THEN get at least 1 person to agree. (then try again, and get 2 people to agree.., then 3, 4, 5, repeat until consensus) . But the number of moves was getting a tad silly, I agree with that part. (so you're ok under WP:COMMON :-P) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Westgate is a shopping mall located at Westlands area in Nairobi. To the best of my knowledge as a resident of Nairobi there is no place called "Westgate centre" it is only Westgate shopping mall I know of. From the sources quoted in the article, there is clear indication that the shooting started at the car parking lot outside the mall. This parking lot is part of the mall since the customers and people going into the mall park their cars/bikes etc here. Read more about mall (http://www.westgate.co.ke/) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_Mall_(Kenya). I think the title should be changed to 'Westgate shopping mall shooting' Easton4516 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fihe. Go ahead withi it, but Mall should not be caps.

Thanks for discussing btw(Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Hi Lihaas! Sadly I don't know how to change an article title. Can you go ahead and do that? It is good that we reached a consensus :) Easton4516 (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I requested for lock so only an adming can move it to Westgate shopping mall shooting(Lihaas (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

So is it a consensus that we should move it to Westgate shopping mall shooting? I can do that if there's widespread agreement -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agrees to change title Westgate shopping mall shooting. to Easton4516 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

MOVED -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Easton4516 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The title should be Westgate Mall Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletions

I would appreciate it if people were to stop deleting sourced and referenced content. Specifically I am referring to these two edits [4] & [5] re-instating outdated information (with the new information coming from the Secretary of the Interior of Kenya and being reported by all major new outlets in the world) and calling this re-instating of outdated information "rvt IP vandalism". thanks, noclador (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I was reinserting SOURCED information. As for the removal of the cabine secretary, yes that was wrong. But it also needs other sources who hadve different numbers. The injuries at 200+ is also sourced. The qupote has no context. And there are overlinkin gissues.(Lihaas (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Prose vs. List

WPp prefers to keep content in prose as opposed to list format, hence the changes in the reaction section too.[6](Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

No more page moves

Please, I realize the page is move-locked, but given the number of page moves I'd suggest we do not do any further moves in the absence of a formal RM with broad participation and careful consideration of ideal titles. Hopefully sources will start to stabilize somewhat in their description but constant moves to diff permutations is just confusing for no good reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, hence lokcked. We had one with quick consensus so as to avoid such moved wars(Lihaas (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

the consensus was a bit too quick - I would have proposed adding 'Kenya' or 'Nairobi' and 2013 somewhere in the title, per other articles of this nature. I hope in the future do to an rm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The words "Kenya" or "Nairobi" should be in the title somewhere. As well as the year, "2013". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need a caveat as there is only one such incident. There aren't [notable] Westgate malls elsewhere. Likewise for the year (see the Washington attack in this regards).(Lihaas (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

While it does seem this is the only notable Westgate Mall shooting, your comment that there aren't any notable Westgate Malls elsewhere is clearly falseincorrect. Westgate Mall existed long before the article on Kenyan mall which was created due to the attack. There is also Westgate Shopping Centre both of which appear to be malls one of which is already linked in our Westgate Mall article (the red linked NZ one is probably notable but isn't really a mall although does contain them). Nil Einne (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, none of that "put the year in every news article title" crap. In the unlikely event that people don't remember something for more than a week they can read the lead section. There was only one 1939 World War II and so far there's only been one Westgate mall shooting. Internetdenizen (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I made the move previously for the unique case that the title was clearly incorrect -- as many noted, this facility is not known as "Westgate centre" so I moved it to "Westgate shopping mall" simply for accuracy's sake. We can hash out over time whether massacre, siege, attack, shooting, et al. is appropriate. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Israeli support

I'm reading that Israeli advisers or commandos are assisting in the retaking of the mall. Why is there no mention of this in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 00:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source then put it in! You might be the first to have noted this. Query, does Israel have any particular connection to Kenya?-φ- 220 of ^Borg 03:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not with the country as such, but certainly with East Africa as a region. Remember the Entebbe raid ? Jan olieslagers (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, Operation Entebbe 4 July 1976, thanks for reminding me. I wonder though if they would get so involved nowdays? צ 220 of ^Borg 05:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The mall owner is an Israeli. Internetdenizen (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Internetdenizen (talk · contribs) on their talkpage if they have a source for this assertion. ל 220 of ^Borg 05:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

BBC There you go. Internetdenizen (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy vey! It certainly says: "...owned by an Isreali businessman." Good article too. Thanks Internetdenizen! -o˞-220 of ^Borg 07:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Kenyan military has close links with a first-world country whose advisers it can call on for assistance if required. It isn't Israel. This "Israeli commandos" stuff is just the usual islamist yapping. If any foreign troops are involved - which appears not to be the case - it will be the SAS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There was an attack on an israeli cahrtered aircraft some years bck. Lots of tourists there.#

Anyhoo, debkafile is not RS. Its sources are questionable to say the least.(Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Military infobox

I have gone ahead and replaced the infobox with a military one for the following reasons:

• The Kenyan Armed forces have become involved, a civil conflict involves police, fire, ect...
  
• The Kenyan armed forces are fighting against a militant group.
  
• This event seems to be connected to the Somali civil war.
  
• Four Kenyan soldiers have been injured
  

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think describing the incident as a military conflict is inaccurate, in that it ignores the much more significant initial attack on civilians and its dominating relevance in the issue. wctaiwan (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree. A military infobox is stupid. It makes it look like a fight between militants and soldiers while the civilians were collateral damage. The military involvement is secondary. Internetdenizen (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree. War is when there was a declaration of war between recognised governments. The present action is terrorism. Admittedly the local army is involved, but only as a support to the police. Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: (edit conflict) I intended to concur with Wctaiwan (and other Editors now) as this initially seemed odd. In a terrorist type attack/hostage event the military is frequentlythe source of the Special Forces that ultimately resolve the crisis, such as the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege in the UK where the SAS 'resolved' the hostage situation. This doesn't make it a 'military conflict', just military assisting civilian police. However I found that that Embassy Siege page was also using a Military info-box, so there is a precedent. Saying it is part of the War in Somalia (2009–present) still seems to be drawing a pretty long bow at this stage. So I will just make my comment, and leave it at that. -α- 220 of ^Borg 04:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree as well that the military infobox is appropriate. In fact other police forces were the first ones to arrive at the scene way before the military was deployed. The military was deployed after the situation escalated and after the police discovering that this were not ordinary criminals they were dealing with. I am a resident in Nairobi and the nearest military barrack to the mall is about 30KM away. From victim's accounts been aired on local TV I highly disagree with the military point of view. There have been involvement of the intelligence police who do not wear uniform but are armed with light arms, infact some of them were inside the mall doing their own business at time of attack and they were the first ones who tried to subdue the criminals. Other police depts have also been involved and the president who is the commander in chief termed it as a "multi agency operation". SO no to the military infobox Easton4516 (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems inappropriate. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, the most analogous recent attack that I can think of, uses a civilian attack infobox.108.202.210.162 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

per consensus(Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Siege

This is being described in media as a siege, not a shooting. Jmj713 (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And it's also a hostage crisis and a massacre. Forget about the title for a while. Internetdenizen (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree The page title has been changed about 5 times already. It's a Terrorist attack and Mass shooting, that was a Massacre, became a Hostage crisis, and is now also a Siege. The final title will be determined by what it becomes commonly known as, IIRC
Any further comments on page title/changing it, should be put in one of the 2 earlier threads above ↑ where the matter is being/has been discussed.-ǂ-220 of ^Borg 08:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Holding company & operation

According to Israel's Deputy Ambassador to Kenya, Yaki Lopez, the Westgate shopping center is Israeli-owned. Four of the restaurants in the complex are also Israeli establishments, and many of the employees and customers are Israeli too [7]. However, a spokeswoman for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that Israelis weren't specifically targeted in the attack [8]. A Kenyan security source also indicated that Israeli security forces were rescuing the hostages and the wounded, although the Israeli Foreign Ministry reportedly refused to comment on whether its agents were involved in the Sunday nighttime operation. Additionally, Reuters reported earlier the same day that an unidentified Israeli security source indicated that Israeli advisers were assisting with negotiations but weren't involved in "any imminent storming operation" [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We will certainly need a more RS source than one with a potential COI(Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Found something, adding it.(Lihaas (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Mugungu

A statement purporting to be from one Sergeant Major Frank Mugungu was linked to this article. However, he isn't mentioned at all. Hopefully this is an isolated occurrence. Middayexpress (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

added new source, good find.

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Reactions section

Like most current events, this article falls victim to the dreaded "Reactions syndrome" where people find it OK to post huge amounts of quotes from leaders around the world. It's overly detailed and hardly relevant that some leader said "that's really said huh" so it should be trimmed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A one-paragraph summary of the reactions would be sufficient, as all these reactions are undoubtably "The people of X Country [optional: strongly] condemn this [heinous and/or cowardly] [attack and/or act of terrorism] [optional: against innocent civilians] and stand by the people of Kenya." -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Its sources to RS, its notable. WP is not only for the editors, its is also for the readers and readers want to know who said what. Notably who did NOT react. That said TRIm the quotes is fine, not to remove and cherry pick notability(Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Just because something is in reliable sources doesn't mean it needs to be on Wikipedia. I don't think there's any basis, or reason to believe, that readers want to know what each and every leader said. If one of them said something out of the ordinary, sure, but most of these quotes are variations of the same condemnation. -- tariqabjotu 18:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Its notab;le', we ought not to think from an editors perspective, which is what we are doing. Poli Sci students do study reactions and who reacts and how and who dont react.

And neither are there space constraints/(Lihaas (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

• Space is not, nor has it ever been an issue. Just because some politician or government official said something doesn't necessarily qualify it as encyclopaedic, and blind rhetoric (i.e. that not backed by action) is plainly worthless. A simple distillation of reactions is more than sufficient. As there seems to be a fairly strong consensus for its banishment, I have now removed the offending soundbites as well as the MOS:FLAG-violating flagfest. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with flag and I even warned that someone ELSE added it back. Agree also it should be trimmed but not cut out altogether. Hencde its best we decide waht to trim and not everything. Certinly it doesnt mean to REMOVE content as the admin did (without coming to discussion , as mandated by BRD removals (note i supported a trim, so it was a falgrant lie that I was a dissenter to this))

You cant cherry pick notability. Cameron and Obama's rhetoric is not invaluable over others. in fact African responses are more notable. ESPECIALLY Somalia. You really think that is not?(Lihaas (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

victims

Can we please add Kenyans to the list of victims? I find it rather horrible that only foreign nationals are listed. There must be a broader list somewhere, no? He section could be called 'victims by nationality' or something.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I revised the section similar to what I saw in a different attack. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The as Kenyan's listed Joyti Kharmes Vaya (called originaly Jyotiben Dharmesh Vaya), Mitul Shah (Bidco Head) and Maltiben Ramesh Vaya are Indians not Kenyans! At least nine Indians died in the attack. Three other killed Indians named Anuj Shah (business man), Jyoti Vaya (jeweller), Rajan Solanki (TV Cook/Personality) and Neha Mashroo (dancer, actress).Source (Lord of the Universe) 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.229.108 (talk)

The BBC slist them as Kenyans. Of course because their names are Indians doesnt make them citizens. There are many Indians in Kenya

Also the one from T+T is desi(Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Correct, I think these are Kenyan nationals (BBC lists as Kenyans).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• We dont normally list the names of victims unless they are otherwise notable, all we need is totals against nationalities and a list of any notable victims (normally indicated by having or would have a wikipedia article), thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We should start by listing the names; some names may be decided to be notable as a result of this incident. Later on, we could trim the list and only show specifically notable people, but I think it should be discussed. In the meantime, sources are listing names so we shouldn't fear to follow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldnt post it just cause its mentioned, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL(Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

I dislike it when WP:MEMORIAL is just causally used without any reason. Could you explain how this is an article on just the victims? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but none of the foreign nationals except for Kofi Awoonor and Ruhila Adatia-Sood were notable enough to have wikipedia articles. So then the other 14 non-Kenyans whose names appear on the list of victims -- what justifies their inclusion besides the fact that their names appear in news articles? Which, again, is fine, but there are also more Kenyan victims whose names appear in news articles, and they have an equal claim to being listed as do the non-Kenyans. Sauti ya mungu (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems resolved. Only the wikilinked pages and Kenyatta's family left now

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Double count

There is deliberately pedantic editor who refuses to see WP:COMMONSENSE. The source for this, says 6 dead brits and exlicitly mentions one of them as the australian citizen we have already listed here. Instead of putting 2 and 2 together, we dont need this when it is already ###explicit who the other person is.

And incidentally here is the pov term "renowned" and the mythical addition of UN ambassador that is not in the sources. (yet the editor accuses me of not readin teh sources and he dint blindl rvt)(Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

It is simply true to state that 6 britons were killed. It is also true to say 1 australian was killed. The disclaimer at the top is largely sufficient. We may already have similar double-counting with Indians and indian/kenyans. Plz just try to follow sources. The fact that the Ghanaian was UN ambassador was sourced in oodles of news sources - you don't have to be so pedantic, please try doing a search before removing easily sourced information (esp information that is already sourced to articles linked elsewhere in the piece).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that we have double counting in Kenya or elsewhere? No that is your unsourced presumption. If there are oddles of sources then you cite that or keep it out, you dont keep what "can be found in sources!"

Now you wrote 6+, when the source doesnt say that. You cannot presume what is not sourced. You are nt RS for WP (and neither is another editor)

This is another blind evert (incidentally per BRD you cant add it back withou consensus)

1. "Note: Some dual-nationality victims may end up counted twice in the totals" is unsourced as there is not some, there is only ONE as per the source Seems resolved now.
2. as for the french bit, see the column you moved the suff to. it is for ###NAMES, the caveat is for notes.
3. You continue to vandalise as you gave no reason for the reinsertion of the POV term "renowned." that is your personal interpretation.
4. Neither do you have a reason for your removal of the see also explanation, which is noW WHOLLY factual and parallel to this

And we dont need detailed biographies of every victim and waht they did/do.(Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Please stop using the word vandalize, it makes you look daft, and by your edit count you've been here a while. We may have editorial disagreement, but I'm vandalizing nothing. The word "renowned" is not POV, it is used to describe this poet in dozens of sources, check google. The point is, he wasn't just a guy who wrote poetry, he was well known and renowned AS a poet. I dont think we need detailed bios either - job is sufficient.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I look daft? with an admission of blind revert?

Renowned is a judement term, it is no an encyclopaedic term. We could remove stuf from the Dutch gal about her employmen history. (es. sinc eyou allege there was a mistake)(Lihaas (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Why don't you just call him a major poet and move on? Sauti ya mungu (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we're running into some different uses of renowned. In general it is perfectly applicable in this situation. If he is a poet with name recognition/acclaim, he is a renowned poet by the literal defintion of the word. I think the confusion comes from the value judgement sometimes attributed to the word in the vernacular. I think it's fine as it stands, or we could look for a substitute like "widely-read", "widely published", "well-known", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.186.96 (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

But there is an editing competency issue as a certain editor seems not to realise that a tag is thre for discussion and consensus building and not personal whims of removal. not to mention other basic WP duguidelinbes(Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Dispute?

User:Lihaas has restored the {{dispute}} tag. What is the dispute, exactly? --John (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

See 2 sections above. Not edit waring. All bils to blind reverts .

To paraphase from above:

1. The Kenya numbers was changed from unknown (which is what i is) to an arbitrary number of '+'. But thats mnor.
2. POV term "renowned." that is personal interpretation.
3. UNexplained changed of the WHOLLY factual and parallel see also link explanation(Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

These are unbelievably minor disputes which do not merit a "factual" accuracy tag.

1. The Kenya numbers are clearly 6+ (e.g. 6 or greater)
2. The term is appropriate here for context, and is not POV, given this guy is described as renowned by dozens of sources
3. You don't normally give explanations for "see also", and it felt rather editorializing. we should probably remove it all together.

None of this merits the tag, so I've reverted and removed it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

These sound like minor editorial disputes that could be addressed by normal editing. No need for a tag, especially on a high-traffic article like this one. --John (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Victims

Elif worked for the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI)

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/press-releases/statement-president-clinton-secretary-clinton-and-chelsea-clinton-death-elif-yavuz

Another victim:

Ravindra Ramrattan from Trinidad & Tobago

http://www.opm.gov.tt/media_centre.php?mid=14&eid=457

He worked at FSD in Nairobi

http://ke.linkedin.com/pub/ravindra-ramrattan/23/811/58b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.254.6.146 (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

---

More Kenyan victims:

David Muthumbi Karechu, a manager at Bank of Baroda, age 63.

Wachiru (last name unknown), chauffeur. Kenyan.

http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Searching-for-loved-ones-at-Nairobis-morgue-20130923

Rehmat Mehboob, student

http://womennewsnetwork.net/2013/09/23/kenya-violence-women-nairobi/

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-136847/uhurus-nephew-east-fm-presenter-among-62-dead

Other victims (not sure of nationality):

Mohan Mistry

Yasin Hersi Diriye

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-136847/uhurus-nephew-east-fm-presenter-among-62-dead

Please add them to the list. Sauti ya mungu (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE and per Wp:MEMORIAL feel free to take it off.(Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Are we really going to name and describe every fatality?

We have started down a slippery slope in naming victims and their background in such detail. With at least 62 killed, such detail is going to swamp the article. The article on 9/11 did not list every victim, why should this article be any different? Only notable victims should be named, otherwise details of the toll should be limited to a table of nationalities. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We definitely should not do this. A summary will be fine. --John (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It happened for the Newtown shooting. I don't know if that was the first time, but it certainly works as a precedent, no doubt. The information age seems to dictate that every fact be listed, but it doesn't make for good encyclopedic articles. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the list; I wonder how long that edit will stand. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia. we should aim to summarise, not to be comprehensive. --John (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that some of the victims are notable, and those should be listed. That's what we do in other articles as well. The Dutch victim made headlines in the Netherlands, of course, but that doesn't make her notable (BLP1E); I have no doubt that local or regional information on every victim (at least every Western victim...) will be available in the coming days since that's how the media work. I read above that apparently there might well be information about Kenyan victims, but this is/was not reflected in the article--that's more than a bit Westro-centric, or whatever the going term is. We've gone way into MEMORIAL territory in those recent events, from Newtown to Aurora to Boston to Kenya. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a manifestation of recentism, where the tabloids go digging out every detail on every victim ad nauseum, so there is potentially more to include in each article on even the least notable of individuals. Frankly, some of the details like which bank one victim worked for is of little relevance to the grand scheme of things. There may be a case to be made if any victims are notable. But we shouldn't include a strapping list just because other articles "set a precedent". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to speak in favor of a list of names, I think the point of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic. News sites list a few names, just enough not to lose readers' interest, but a site like Wikipedia can keep a more comprehensive list while the situation is still fluid and people are looking for information. There's no other such list online right now. Since this is an ongoing situation, is it really such a bad thing to keep the list up until the situation has resolved itself? Personally I'm looking for the names of people I know who may have been killed there and it would be better to have all the names in one place. You can always take it down later, this doesn't have to be a memorial page, but it can crowdsource and consolidate information for the time being. Sauti ya mungu (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no other such list online right now. Then we should not be the first. Wikipedia should follow, not lead, the coverage of an event. What would a list of names add to this? --John (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There are such lists; BBC is maintaining one. I've reverted for now. In a small crime of a few people killed, we would list their names. For 9/11, we wouldn't. So there seems to be a middle ground after which we stop listing names. I think <100 is still under the threshold. I agree it is useful for readers. Some of those other victims may turn out to be notable; I think we should keep and build out, and eventually we may come to consensus to just keep counts-by-country.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And I have removed it in accordance with the majority of above comments. Current trend favours non-inclusion. WWGB (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I randomly clicked on a number of articles from "mass murder in the US" - check the following:

1. 2010_Appomattox_shootings
2. Amish_school_shooting#Victims
3. 101_California_Street_shooting
4. Atlantis_Plastics_shooting
5. 2012_Aurora_shooting#Victims
6. Binghamton_shootings#Victims
7. Brown's_Chicken_massacre
8. Burger_Chef_murders

All list victims, sometimes their job, and usually their age. I really don't think this is a memorial, and I think the information of both the geographic diversity of victims and diversity in their ages, roles, etc is encyclopedic and of value to the reader, and we already have several news sources, including BBC, publishing much more detailed pages covering as much as possible about each victim. Don't say OSE, i've heard that before - but it is clear that our general practice here, especially for high profile mass murder, is to list the victims - especially if their numbers are under 100 or so. As such I really think we should add that information back, and I have yet to see any reason to NOT have it in the article. You can also add the Virginia Tech massacres to the list of mass murder articles that list their victims. I don't think we need to have detailed bios, but simply noting their name, age, and job does not a memorial make. If you want to change the policy on listing victims of such incidents, I'd suggest starting a broader conversation, rather than duking it out here and going against common practice.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's a well-observed point, and I have noticed that too. Nevertheless, we don't work by precedent here and those articles are probably also in violation of WP:MEMORIAL too. What encyclopedic use do you think this sort of thing achieves? --John (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE and per WP:MEMORIAL feel free to remove that.(Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

OSE is an ESSAY, John, and does not carry the weight of policy. I think if there are dozens of articles about mass shootings, and the bulk of them do list victims, then I think that can be read as a rough community consensus that such lists are encyclopedic and valuable. I already explained what it achieves, and the fact that the media has been covering the stories of the victims and noting the diversity of their backgrounds is an important part of capturing and understanding the tragedy. I really can't quite understand what is the opposition to having a simple list of names here. Even for 9/11 we have a list of all of the emergency personnel who died. Emergency_workers_killed_in_the_September_11_attacks. I also have no idea why people are linking to MEMORIAL - it's not clear that they actually read what is written there - read this: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." - this means, you shouldn't set up a personal memorial b/c someone you know died, and that subjects of articles should be notable. That's fine. However, we're not talking about the subject of an article, we're talking about simply listing names/nationalities of dozens of people recently murdered and wikipedia is likely to be the most complete list of such anywhere, since each media source has it's own errors and omissions. Lihass, I suggest you read WP:MEMORIAL, it doesn't say what you think it says.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You may also want to read OSE, which also doesn't say what you think it does. "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain." and "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". One thing I have noticed is that one could probably demonstrate that the more western/white the victims, especially for mass murder, the more likely are the names to be listed; the more brown/foreign-seeming the victims, the less likely are the names to be listed. (see Missing white woman syndrome) This is an example of systemic bias - which isn't just ours, but comes from the sources themselves - and if we're going to tilt one direction, I'd tilt towards listing the victims in all of these cases as opposed to not, as it would be rather silly to storm into all those articles above and excise the victims lists that had been so carefully compiled and cross-checked. Think about it this way - if the same attack happened on a mall in the US, and we had 50 white American victims, do you really think there would be the same push to remove the list here? I'm not sure. We can check - see 2011_Norway_attacks#Victims - 77 victims, all listed. Think about another case - a car bomb goes off in Iraq, killing 10; the same day, a car bomb goes off in New York, killing 10. Will western media print names/photos/backgrounds of the 10 new yorkers and the 10 Iraqis? I think you probably know the answer. But to the extent we can, we should try to fight systemic bias, and this is one example, right here, right now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

On that note, we should add reactions lists too.(Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

No, we shouldn't. Here is how the BBC covers it. They list five people by name, and sum up the other deaths by nationality. They don't use little flags. Think we can cover breaking news better than the BBC? --John (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

John, try clicking around a bit: [10]. I don't know why the flags bug people so much, but it's irrelevant to this particular discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure. There is nothing to stop you starting a well-referenced article called List of victims of the Westgate shopping mall shooting. That's effectively what the BBC have done; hived the list onto a separate page, not the top-level coverage. We should do the same, if we need to list the names at all. --John (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm, havent you noticed we are NOT the BBC and we are NOT a media outlet. See the top left, "free encyclopaedia". We dont parrot the BBC as out leader almight in direction. come one..

Case in point incidentally tht this is not an encyclopaedia clearly, but social media(Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Since you didn't read my earlier message, here is WP:MEMORIAL. "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. [...] See WP:RIP for a mostly complete list of such Wikipedians." For such an article, see here for one example that is allowed per WP:RIP. If you check, you will see that the whole article is only about those people and nothing else. THAT is what WP:MEMORIAL refers to and why it mentions the "notability requirements" for creating an article. The fact that it is used incorrectly as a policy is something that must be fixed.

Now then, I believe that these victims are notable through the event, and for most only the event, that killed them. Therefore, they should be allowed to be at least named as victims on this page only, since I do not think that there is a dispute over if they are dead or not. --Sincerely, Super Goku V (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering there wasn't a full consensus to remove the table (Four to remove; Four to keep), nor a good reason to do so, I would like to propose restoring the table back into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs)

Edit request on 24 September 2013

Hello,

I would like to change the following line "As of 23 September 2013, the siege is ongoing, with hostages still being held." to read "As of 24 September 2013, the siege is ongoing, with multiple media agencies stating that hostages are still being held.".

This information can be viewed by visiting to the following website for clarification http://news.sky.com/story/1145604/kenya-siege-heavy-gunfire-heard-inside-mall

Thanks.

Chris. YorkChap (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable request, correcting the date is required, and as I was the editor who added the date to that sentence, technically(morally?) my responsibility! So done.

  Actually that report says "All hostages trapped by the attackers have been evacuated from the Nairobi complex, according to government spokesman Manoah Esipisu." Third line of body text.
Have to try to clarify that. If anyone want to remove the "hostages still held", with a good source, please do so!-♠-220 of ^Borg 09:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail: "British hero of the mall massacre: Ex Royal Marine with a handgun saved 100 lives as terrorists ran amok"

This article from the Daily Mail is called "British hero of the mall massacre: Ex Royal Marine with a handgun saved 100 lives as terrorists ran amok."

I realize the Daily Mail is not the most reliable source. But everyone please be on the lookout if other, more reliable sources mention it.

It we do fine a more reliable source, it should be added to the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430201/British-hero-mall-massacre-Ex-Royal-Marine-handgun-saved-100-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html

Xshq5672 (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

More sources on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/24/kenya-terror-attack-sas-soldier-hero_n_3981003.html?just_reloaded=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/10329838/Nairobi-terror-attack-SAS-hero-saves-up-to-100-lives.html

Xshq5672 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See also description

Not arguing with this, but suggesting that there is related context for this as the attacks also lasted days and targeted similar upsacale sites.(Lihaas (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Yahoo! confirms standoff is over

In this article http://news.yahoo.com/kenya-president-says-mall-siege-over-losses-immense-165332742.html Yahoo! claims the stand off is over, and even has more about the reactions from the president of the country. --Matt723star (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Saw it too. Agree with reliable source.JOJ ^Hutton 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

death toll

official death toll is 59 civilians and 3 kenya army soldiers , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.181.5 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And your point is? Please provide a source for your assertion if you want something on the page changed or corrected. Use template:Edit semi-protected thus {{Edit semi-protected}}, saying EXACTLY what it says now and EXACTLY what you want it to say, with sources if needed. I thinks its up to 65 deaths now actually, no source, just overheard on TV. Unfortunately likely to increase once the terrorists are 'dealt with' and police are able to search the building thoroughly. -«»-220 of ^Borg 16:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess well put the al shabaab deaths there too? Maybe seperated as "=+"?(Lihaas (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

A friendly recommendation -- WP:DONTBITE. You were a little harsh there, 220 of Borg. Ljpernic (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Kenyan deaths

[11][12][13] there is a minumum number of Kenyan deaaths here for the table. (from user feedback)Lihaas (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

israel (and the use of chemical weapons)

Very interesting and has reliable sources.

Shopping center is Israeli owned

If true, so what, everything has to be owned by someone WWGB (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Kenya and Israel have a secret security pact dating from the 1976 Entebbe raid.

Evidence? WWGB (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I HAVE PROVIDED THE LINK TO THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE Midemer (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Israel sent commandos and advisors to retake the building.

Already noted in article WWGB (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The terrorists claim they were gassed by chemical weapons (the claim is laughable but the fact is they claim it, which is notable).

So what, who cares how they were neutralized? WWGB (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Google these facts and sources like CBS and LA Times come up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Israel is discussed above, and I believe there are several sourced statements in the article about Westgate being Israeli owned and Israel sending advisers in to help end the massacre/siege. As for claims of gas, this source from AP makes mention of it. We could include the lines: "Al-Shabaab has claimed through its official twitter feed that Kenyan forces used chemical weapons to clear the mall and end the siege. Government spokesperson Manoah Esipisu, however, has denied this." Thoughts? Ljpernic (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I can help.....

Kenya and Israel have a secret security pact. See http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/507981/20130922/nairobi-kenya-israel-westgate-al-shabaab-siege.htm Israeli military advisers participated in the counteroffensive against the hostage takers and, according to some report, participated in the fighting.See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57604047/kenya-westgate-mall-hostage-standoff-continues-death-toll-hits-68/ and see http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-

Midemer (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WWGB, my opinion is that it would be better to discuss this in blocks, with each new comment below the old one. It will get very confusing pretty rapidly if each person responds to each line. That being said, the fact that the shopping center is Israeli owned seems notable to me, given that the attacks were carried out by a militant Islamic group. This topic is already covered in the article, however, with the quote from the interior minister saying that they do not believe Israelis were specifically targeted.

As for the use of gas, I would say it was notable if the Kenyan government used chemical weapons, but the ambiguity of the language here is problematic. We already mention tear gas in the article (itself a chemical weapon), but if there is some evidence than the government used banned chemical weapons, this certainly seems notable. Right now I would tend towards not including it unless there is some support besides Al-Shabaab's claim that they were used. If we did include it, I would reiterate my suggestion above. Ljpernic (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Bowman persists in attempting to add an Israeli agenda to this article, generally without references or credibility.[14] [15] While her/his motive is unclear, the edits are problematic with regards to relevance, emphasis and independent referencing. WWGB (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I think I mentioned more or less the same thing as you did in my first reply to the Israel section. The part about the gas, though, didn't seem to have anything to do with Israel, so I thought it at least warranted discussion. But, haha, I've already said what I had to say on it, so no worries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljpernic (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have dropped a few relevant templates (edit summaries, previewing) on the editors talkpage and given a rather long (and terse?) explanation of some of the errors she has made in this case. See here. The source she provided did not support what she said, either "...shopping center is owned by Israelis." or "...attacked by chemical weapons..." nor the POV "...this is not believable.", which is worrying.

• Still, lets still keep in mind wp:BITE, the editor has only 33 edits, 12 to articles, 14 to article talk page, 4 to AN/I.(!?).

• Is there a template to tell her we're discussing her edits here?-¿-220 of ^Borg 14:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I added it per sources as a reader feedback asked it. But i still think that is more pertinet to the page of the mall. And when the page settles down we can clear that up. The centre was israeli owned, iadded the first time (not seen the article since last night), and came from RS.

For shabaab's claim we can add it to the perpetrator article (or even reactions , as its after the incient)?

Seems clear Bowman has an agenda of some sort with 2 seperate sections which are ALREADY in the article (added by ,me). Just post on her talk page that there is a discussion here and she can com explain if she wishesLihaas (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just advised the editor of this discussion and invited them to join the 'conversation'. 220 of ^Borg 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

American [sic]

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.

---

In the quotation of the U.S. reaction, what's the "sic" doing after the word "American"? --Theurgist (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. WWGB (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

American is soemeones from America. Even Latams call themselves American. Its pure anglocentric ignorance/bias(Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Per American, "American(s) may refer to: Anything related to, or originating from, the United States of America". Ii is an entirely appropriate use of the term by one who knows best. WWGB (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WP does not cite itself. And at any rate that is wrong and POV!(Lihaas (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

In YOUR own link did you see the point at th ebottom of the first section? Don't be dceptive(Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

I don't have a clue what you are talking about, but you quite clearly do not understand the correct use of sic. Citizens of the USA are known as American and are entitled to be referred to in that way. WWGB (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

EVERYONE in America is an American. you clearly don't understand what America is. That is Barrow to Punta Arenas. Clearly youre blinkered by n america(Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Isn't that the etymological fallacy though? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling those from the US Americans would be. The word comes from those of the Americas. Not onmly was I todl that in a USA geogaphy class in high school, I went to Nicaragua nad heard actually heard that complaint (then lending credence to what the teacher said, who was in fact, American from the US)(Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

the sic is completely inappropriate, we have thousands upon thousands of reliable sources using this term to mean exactly that. I realize some in Latin America do not agree with the use of that term that way but we should not go around putting 'sic' every time Obama speaks to the 'American' people unless it becomes broadly accepted that the term has ceased to mean US citizens.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oer abjotu below, just because it is a RS doesn't mean WP has to keep it. (not my words)(Lihaas (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

That is a perversion of my words so blatant I don't even need to bother correcting you. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dint ask you to comment/correct. But while at it, so its only okey when you agree something shouldnt be in if its RS. When someone else says so then its not true?(Lihaas (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

For this point of argument, I agree with Lihaas: an American is someone from America, and America is a continent. Even if there are very numerous instances of incorrect wording, that does not make the error correct. US'an is a far more precise term, and shorter on top, and (as far as I am aware) not insulting to anybody. (But Lihaas would gain credibility by taking care of writing) Jan olieslagers (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you using the word "incorrect" to mean "incorrect in my opinion" or are you using it to mean "factually incorrect"? Language is a strange beast, and meanings of words do not always flow logically, and indeed, some words can have multiple meanings. The word "American" as used in the vast majority of English-language world media means "Person from the United States"; it can "also" mean "person from the Americas", but that's ok - words can have two meanings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Do Lihaas and Jan olieslagers claim to speak English? By their reasoning, they do not have the right to make that claim ... English is the language of England, where they do not live! How dare they ..... ! WWGB (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the statement "I realize some in Latin America do not agree with the use of that term that way" highly condescending. Regardless, the term "American" (across the world, not just Latin America) has generally had a double-meaning of both the USA and the Americas. Understanding the meaning ultimately depends on context.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

why the hell is it condescending? I'm simply stating a fact - ease up on the sensitivity.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse, the term "American" has historically been used in English to refer to people only from the United States. One must only look at the article for Americans to see the word's prevalence in this usage. See also the article for American (word): "In modern English, "Americans" generally refers to residents of the United States, and among native speakers of English this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification of the subject under discussion.[1] However, this ambiguity has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.[2][3]" (see article for sources) I've personally never heard anyone say US'an (and I've never once seen the term in writing), and even in many other languages (with the exception, I believe, of Spanish), some derivative of American is used to refer principally to people from the United States.

Definitely the term is being used now more and more in a broader sense, but still among English speakers, the term is almost universally used to refer to people from the US (again, for better or worse). My personal opinion is irrelevant, but just looking at the prevalence of sources, I would say also that the sic is inappropriate here. Ljpernic (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP does not cite itself. People in Texas and large swates of the southwesrt speak ENGLISH too. Not to mention Guyana, etc. Just because they dont have anglo blood doesnt make their eNGLISH credentials any less.l Lets not make this racialistLihaas (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you mean. Who is making it a racial thing? I didn't mention race at all, and it's a little offensive to jump to that immediately. I also tend to think that "American" should refer to people from the Americas, but across the English speaking world, this is the case, and I'm afraid that just because I think something is wrong (although, honestly, we have much more important things to complain about that what we call ourselves), that doesn't mean that it isn't true. Actually, just the opposite, usually.

And while Wikipedia might not cite itself (a claim that is true for articles certainly, but dubious for bringing up well-sourced articles on a talk page), the 55 sources on the American (word) article should paint a pretty clear picture of the evolution of the term. In the future, please refrain from calling me racist. Ljpernic (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? American is defined in Merriam-Webster english dictionary as "a person born, raised, or living in the U.S." as well as "a citizen of the United States" and "of or relating to the U.S. or its citizens." Just because it has other definitions as well doesn't make this one any less valid. This is not some recent corruption of the word, the 1913 version of the dictionary contains similar definitions. It's by far the most common meaning of the word when used in in spoken English, informal or formal writing, journalism, in essentially every country where English is spoken... it's just what the word means. I don't see how this can even be a point of dispute. Đẹp Trai (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This was my point exactly. No worries. This whole thing should just be put to rest, though. Sic was determined to be inappropriate, so I think we should sideline any other talk on the topic, per WP:FORUM. Ljpernic (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That was a crap reason, Merriam Wesbter is direcly involved, it is FROM THE USA. Theres a COI there.

At any rate, the part in questions doesn't exist on the page so this is futilev.(Lihaas (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2013 (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.

Reader feedback: Among the dead are Kenyans P...

199.74.85.142 posted this comment on 23 September 2013 (view all feedback).

Among the dead are Kenyans Peter Simani, director for the CCK, as well as Anjum Chaudry, a muslim that stayed behind with Peter despite being allowed to leave. Executed at short range.

Any thoughts?

Well. one. Terrorists don't execute people; they murder them. Execution is a judicial process.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Source?Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Found source for Simani.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source about Simani [1] Easton4516 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I polite disagree with the distinction between murder and execution. Summary execution is a type of execution that forgoes the judicial process. My opinion is that "murder", while accurate in my opinion, might be considered a biased word. Since Al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab operate as paramilitary groups with a stated political purpose (crazy as it might be), execution seems the better term here. Ljpernic (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed

Also , feel free to add the source if he is notable. I dont know what CCK is.(Lihaas (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)).

Completely disagree. A paramilitary force is "a militarised force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military". Professional militaries don't take over shopping malls and shoot people for not knowing the name of a woman who died 1,400 years ago. AQ and al-Shabaab are terrorists, not paramilitaries. Also, execution - even summary execution - are killings carried out as punishment for a crime. Not knowing the name of a woman who died 1,400 years ago is not a crime in any jurisdiction, and being killed for this is not an execution. Murder is not a biased word - it's a completely impartial word that means an illegal deliberate homicide. Under what law were al-Shabaab's actions legal?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I find this position to be a little strange. How is Al-Shabaab and Al-Qaeda not a "militarised force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military"? Militaries certainly attack civilian targets (including shopping malls) and shoot people. You twice mention a woman who lived 1400 years ago (honestly, I'm not sure who you are talking about), but my opinion is that this is irrelevant. They have an expressed ideological purpose (terrorism, by definition, does). I think your definition of a summary execution (that it is a punishment for a crime) leaves something out... a summary execution is an execution carried out for a supposed crime, and for people who belong to Al-Shabaab, not being Muslim is a crime. It's a ludicrous position, of course, but nevertheless, murder leaves out the political context, while execution (and other things like assassination) imply a political context, and this context is needed here. To say that they murdered these people implies that they did so without reason (however crazy we might judge that reason). This is my opinion. Ljpernic (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Elif Yavuz

Although the deceased's nationality is not important Elif Yavuz was a Harvard educated Turkish (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pregnant-turkish-woman-killed-in-kenyan-mall-massacre.aspx?pageID=517&nID=54973&NewsCatID=357) doctor born and raised in the Netherlands. She was 8 months pregnant when mercilessly murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Moved by me from top of page to correct chronological position.-↓-220 of ^Borg 09:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of this comment is. Most of this info was on the page at one time. Please see wp:forum 220 of ^Borg 09:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

""It is a very important point as it sheds light on the terror organisation. Elif Yavuz was a Turkish Muslim women killed by so-called "Islamist's". Every news outlet claims that Al-Shabab is an Islamic entity yet it is nothing more than a terror organisation. A few months ago they bombed the Turkish Embassy in Somalia killing Turkish diplomats. News outlets also claimed that the attackers were asking victims to recite Islamic verses. Then why was Elif Yavuz murdered since as a Moslum she could respond to the attackers. Elif was also 8 months heavily pregnant. Forgot about religion for a moment no human would touch an unborn child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC) (indents added 220 of ^Borg 07:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

Sorry, it is not "very important". Tragic as it is, the death of one person, even pregnant, is unfortunately not very special when over 70 have been killed. As she was the partner of an Australian (I also am Australian, I see you likely are too! See this ), so I feel a bit more for her (and unborn childs') death.
• I am well aware that Al-Shabaab (militant group) is a declared terrorist organisation. (My POV, their actions speak for themselves!) Do you have a source for "Every news outlet claims that Al-Shabab is an Islamic entity....". If this is just your opinion (See wp:NPOV) you can have it, but it has no place in an encyclopaedic article.
• I have no idea why she was killed. Perhaps she was shot in the initial spray of gunfire, perhaps she refused to leave her partner. Perhaps she did try to speak with the attackers so they shot her. Turkey is Islamic, but a fairly secular state (see also Secularism in Turkey) and 'westernised' so perhaps not so well regarded by Al-Shabaab. All speculation.
• The unfortunate fact is children (even un-born) have been the targets of genocidal attacks through-out history. (Rwandan Genocide, The Holocaust etc. etc)
  This discussion is rather off topic and not helping to improve the article, so we should end it here.--220 of ^Borg 07:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Flagcruft again

The article has the usual flagcruft section of excessive reactions. This needs to be trimmed. See WP:PROSE, these sections do not need flags when words are used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I originally adde d without flags in rprose but someone went and made it with flags. I don't mind. That's also easier navigatabiloity(Lihaas (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

I agree that flags are unnecessary clutter and I have removed them. I also agree that these reaction sections get too long, and I would agree with them being trimmed. -84user (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And I have also removed them, after they were put back. I used the rationale MOS:FLAG, as I was unaware it had been discussed here. -α-220 of ^Borg 16:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removing it. We cant cherry pick notability. If its RS then it stays.(Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Its back(Lihaas (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Well, somebody put the flags back, and they make the section look like a Christmas tree. This is *so* unnecessary. Also, there are way too many "Politician x offered his condolences", see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Its back again!.

Also that's not memorial, its international relations, which is academic study to have the commetns.(Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)).

Flags increase visual accessibility and navigation. Personally I would prefer flagicons be retained.LegalEagle (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive listing of what every politician said in reaction is a classic flaw in the early days of articles like this. The fact that it has appeared in a reliable source does not make it essential for inclusion. And the flags are still unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

i agree that there is much too much cruft, from flags to stoopid mee toos from all those self important and sanctimonius politicians. it should given a good pruning. ! Lolo Lympian (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Lihaas seems to be engaging in a one-person edit war to reinstate blind rhetoric into the article that most other editors agree should be removed. I am making a note of those objections here whilst at the same time given them a warning to desist in repeatedly reinserting the rubbish, apparently against consensus. Maybe it's a question of degree, and I'm happy to listen. Can the assembled please decide on which of these two versions of the Reactions section 1 2 is preferred, if any? I'll start. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 19:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well if you bother to read what i wrote in this very section you will see that i do NOT oppose cutting down the links. I oppose removing them (As in the EU quote). I also made a compromise to list the countries and add the notable reactions as I explained. So you are really saying obama's quote that he was disappointed or whathaveyou is worth in full as notable and somalia's is not. Do you even know what this article is or are ##you blindly warring? Likewise AU state reactions are more notable, and Sahrawi has few states that recognise it, so yes that is notable. Israel was involved in th incident so they are notable, especially the foreign min's reaction. The current incarnation I put leaves the states as name itself without rhetoric (as did those who removed it()). Adding South Africa, UK, USA only is falagrant POV. READ THAT FIRST!!(Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Talk page is a discussion, consensus is NOT dtetermined by voting. If you feel somethign then discus it or produce a compromise as i've done. Please familiarise yourself with WP and realise we don't vote here!

Before you start voting ANSWER some questions: Why was EU suppressed? Why is Obamas "gratuitous rhetoric" (IF that is, you bothered to read before blindly reverting, which is in high doubt now), along with Cameron, so special? And yet Somalia's wording is not deemed notable? Considering the USA/UK have had NOTHING to do with this operation that Somalia, Kenya (without dispute (thankfully)) and israel did. Yet the two are not even mentioned in your deemed version of keeping only notable stuff in and gratuity out.(Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Well we seem to have made an accomodation to cut down the majority of it, but leave som entoables. Im sure thats compromise enough. Ive taken off the tag. Shall we close this?

Incidentally,. there are hordes of pages and standalone pages about reactions..(Lihaas (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Also Flags are back again, for the THIRD time. Dont forget that is also a support for the flags, and there was 1 person above who justified, so 4 people support that. And it seems about even that oppose it. For the record, I haven't affected either ide of this debate(Lihaas (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

• "Reactions" from AU nations should perhaps be weighted more highly than the others, but I absolutely oppose keeping soundbytes and meaningless rhetoric. Let's evaluate these and limit the use of such quotes, which have little encyclopaedic merit. As to polling, I find it a little ironic that you mention that consensus isn't in the numbers, yet you wave the numbers around to support your flagfest. Happy editing. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You still have not answered the questions I posed except for that of teh AU. I asked about israel and somalia vs. that of uk/usa that you inserted instead. The latter have zero credibility to stand alone. As for the formers we can work something out. Perhaps remove peres' but the foreign ministry is notable. Somalia is moistly notable too, i fnot all as that is the CRUZ of international relations it needs SPECIAL attention (perhaps lead mention too()

If you "absolutely oppose keeping soundbytes and meaningless rhetoric" then what is obama doing there? You havent bothered to explain why you made your changes but just reverted to your version. THAT is why i tagged and changed (noting the accomodation i did not reinstall EVERYTHING), to genreate this discussion. Seems to be the only one doing so per BRD(Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)).

You have once again gone ahead and added such pov maentions as "particularly the US". You have ZERO consensus for that. (show me your consensus?) I am trying to get a discussion and making consensual accomodation. You are only inserting your version without regard for discussion THAT IS WHY WE DISCUSS HERE.

do not remove the tag while the discussion is ongoing per BRD, get consensus first!Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Per the last version I edited, there is nothing left of the Obama or Cameron or Hague comments, so I don't honestly know what you are on about, or why you are still edit warring to restore stupid unencyclopaedic newspaper fodder like the declaration of "brotherly love" from Saharawi, or "sadness and dismay about the shocking and cowardly massacre perpetrated in Nairobi that took the lives of many innocent people and wounded much more in one of the most chilling terrorist attacks". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

note back, but i removed due to the users history on other articles and it also had no reason.(Lihaas (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)).

This discussion seemed to have gotten a little off topic. It started as a discussion on whether or not flags should be used. I'm personally in favor of it (in my opinion, it makes it easier to read/stand out better in a section that is light on pictures and is therefore only a wall of text). As for the (in my opinion unnecessary) tag and debating what reactions should be included, I think a new section would be useful for that. In any case, my opinion is that African Union and Somali reactions should be emphasized over western governments. Ljpernic (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tthe OP said there were too many flags and "excessive reactions". And we seem to still be talking about too many reactions... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• comment: Does it really matter? As long as the countries are wikilinked, it is fine. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So it seems we now have MORE people in favour of the flags with the three who added it and the three here who supported vs. three.

And once gain, you have reverted without answering a single question.Lihaas (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of the flags. The reasons that are expressed here against them seem to be, at least to me, that some users simply don't like how it visually looks to them. The practical side to me and the other pro-flag users is that its easier to identify and read the nationalities instead of it being just bare text. I would like to direct the anti-flag editors to other examples how the flags have been used in other terrorist attacks. For example here Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks Casualties of the September 11 attacks. I am certain I can look up more. EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Against the flags. They add no value, they only make wikipedia look like a children's book iso an encyclopedia (nothing against children's books! but that is not what we are doing here). As User:Epicgenius stated: As long as the countries are wikilinked, it is fine. And they are, indeed. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

They are already wikilinked WITH the flags. And I have no idea where you are getting this kindergarten and children's book ideas. I am not seeing it. EkoGraf (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Poll

As a note, this is an opinion poll., not a voteLihaas (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Version 1

1.  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?}
2. But shorter is better. And no flags: we're not in kindergarten. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
3. 100% support User:Drmies. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, rather than a tabloid. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
4. No flags, thank you. Abductive (reasoning) 20:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Version 2

It is not apparent to me what this poll is for. A description would be useful. Ljpernic (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Things have moved on, and the content has changed radically. The poll has no meaning now except for the principle of keeping or removing of quotefarms of meaningless soundbites. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the heated "Reactions" section

I propose the following changes to the section in this revision on a sentence by sentence basis (additions in square brackets), as it seems this is the only way to solve the impasse:

1. The African Union's <unlink>Chairperson of the African Union Commission</unlink> Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma condemned the "dastardly terrorist attacks" and[,] reiterated that the AU would continue in its fight against Al Shabaab. She also[and] expressed the AU's solidarity with the government and people of Kenya.[62] – Comment: remove redundancy and the horrible tabloid soundbytes and the chain linking.
2. The European Union's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton released a statement expressing condolences, on her behalf, to those affected by the attack in Nairobi.[63] –Comment: who cares what Ashton thinks? the quote from Ashton was written in the first person and does not engage the EU or the EC, except for "The European Union offers its full support to the Kenyan authorities in dealing with the situation. We are willing to do our utmost to help prevent such attacks happening in the future." An abridged version of this latter quote (highlighted) can be substituted if needs be.
3. The United Nations Press Office released a statement that read, on behalf of [UN] Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, that he "is following closely and with[expressed "]alarm" the developments and was being regularly briefed. He also spoke with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and, according to the statement, "he also offered [and directly offered Kenyatta "]his solidarity as the Kenyan authorities handle the incident."[64] –Comment: just cut through the crap, lose all the newsy and unnecessary "also spoke with..." and "according to the statement" type of commentary; simplify the grammar.
4. The United Nations Security Council condemned the attack "in the strongest possible terms" and called on Kenya to note that any response must comply with international human rights law.[19] During the General Debare of the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly, many national leaders condemned the incident, some of whom condemned it in conjunction with other incidents.[65] –Comment: deleted weasel-worded repetition of condemnation registered elsewhere in the article.
5. Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud condemned the killings, calling them "heartless acts against defenceless civilians" and pledged to "stand shoulder to shoulder with Kenya."[ and pledged his solidarity with Kenya][78] He also cautioned against prejudgement, saying that "we don't have any proof that the people who did this are Somali."[80] –Comment: cut through the bullshit rhetoric.
6. The day before the attack ended he described al-Shabab as "a threat to the continent of Africa, and the world at large."[25] –Comment: general statement of no direct relevance to the incident that isn't in the background.
7. Other African states, like Morocco, responded in shock;[81] [the ]Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete[79] and South African [p]resident[s] Jacob Zuma also expressed condolences and reiterated support for Kenyan and international efforts "aimed at peacekeeping, stability, democracy and nation-building in Somalia."[82] Sahrawi Republic President Mohamed Abdelaziz expressed stated: "We have learned with ["]sadness and dismay about the shocking and cowardly massacre perpetrated in Nairobi that took the lives of many innocent people and wounded much more in one of the most chilling terrorist attacks," he expressed[ and his country's] "deepest condolences" and "heartfelt sympathy" to the families and friends of the victims.[83] –Comment: remove contextualising part of comment that can be taken as read; again, lets cut through the bullshit rhetoric about "brotherly love" etc.

• I'd also say that, bearing in mind this incident involves most closely the AU, and the feeling among one (maybe more) editors that this should be more prominent, I suggest that we integrate these into a single paragraph or subsection. Then, the AU's reaction and those of its member states can be read all grouped together, lending it greater emphasis and weight. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please refer to each sentence by the sequential number above.

I think it sounds good. Cleaned up a lot of the language, and got rid of the fluff. I'm in favor of the change.Ljpernic (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Keep in African Union
2. You may not care but to IR students it is pertinent what she says. Wikipedia is not for editors "who cares what X thinks"
3. It snot newsy, if you studied IR you wouldnote these discussions ar epertinent. In IR is is often noted that who doesn't speak is important, so all data on who did is just a s important for cutting out possibilities (or impossibilitieS)
4. This was accommodation as there are MORE states that we don't have here and instead f of linking them all (which people like you would oppose), there isa wikilionk to that page)
5. Sorry "bullshit" is your opinion and your like. Somalias words are the most pertinent here.
6. Nnot directly relevant? Al Shabaasb just commited the most lethal attack inAfrica at a high profile target.
7. Fair on brotherly love, NOT fair on removing the names.
8. Fair enough on AU.

Again your idea of "bullshit" needs to be toned down. And the fact that particular editors think so is not enough got for the 50k viewers of this page. It also seems there is strong support FOR the flags. In order to find consensus sand accomodte you cant hae your version on all issues.(Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)).

• We seem to be making progress – fewer of my changes have been reverted ;-). Typos aside, again, did I mention any flags in the last 24 hours? I don't recall touching any flags in the article today. As to the 'Reactions', I'm just trying to give the various parts their due weight, and I don't feel you have got it right despite your "concessions". I don't care so much on the names, but we don't mention any other countries' leaders' names, so sought to cut out Zuma and Kikwete for consistency. Your insistence on keeping Zuma and Kikwete seems to imply that either people don't know who these individuals are and/or that the individuals are weightier than their positions with respect to the comments made.

  You state your position, as for "Keep in African Union", but neglect to give rationale. I've stated my belief that the chained links are undesirable, and that it's a repetition already subsumed in "African Union Commission". "Pertinence" isn't a valid defence against removal of unencylopaedic tabloid cruft. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and whilst pertinence may be important, we try to keep soundbite comments to a minimum.

  It's not our job to be exhaustive, we just do the best we can, and we're bound to miss some along the way. Some comments don't get covered by the press, and it won't be our fault we don't pick it up. Some speak louder than others, are equally pertinent and so there are more column inches, but you don't seem to see that the USA are the policeman of the world and didn't object to stripping out Obama's comments. So who apparently had a reaction and who didn't isn't all that important in the scheme of things, and just because some neighbouring country expresses brotherly love doesn't make that country's remark more important. I'm not the only one apparently against your cruft, but you seem to be the only one fighting to retain cruft. Keep your "epertinent [sic]" bullshit for now. Someone other than me will remove it, no doubt.

  And please analyse the grammatical structure of the following sentences and tell me why:

  I was wrong to change "that" to "hinting at":

  At about 2:30 – an hour after reporting five "visibly shaken" hostages' release – the National Disaster Operation Centre (NDOC) wrote that "major operations underway."

  and why:

  I was wrong to change "jeopardising" to "jeopardise" in this:

  The al-Shabaab warned the Kenyan government that any attempt by Kenyan forces to attempt a roof-landing would jeopardising the lives of hostages.

  and why you changed these back. I'm open to suggestions if there are better ways of expressing these ideas without the dodgy grammar. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)