Talk:Westgate shopping mall attack

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)

Floor collapse

This article and the one for the mall itself state that three floors "of the mall" collapsed, but aeral and ground-level images being published today appear to show the collapse occurred in the parking garage, not the mall proper. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Source?(Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)).

Infobox: missing people

Theres reports of over 50 people still missing in the attack, not included in the number of victims. Shouldn't the infobox have a number of missing people as well? Jørgen88 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of uncertainty - "Kenya's Red Cross has said that 61 people remain unaccounted for. However Interior Minister Joe Lenku has said that he does not expect the toll to rise significantly." Best to avoid estimates until more is confirmed, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also seen reports that there are bogus missing person reports that have been filed. I'd suggest in the "victims" section you could add the KRC's claims, as a claim (not as an absolutely statement that 61 people are TRULY missing).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi. (what a change? ;))(Lihaas (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)).

ex irish army ranger wing and ex british SAS

Several newspapers have reported that an ex irish ARW and british SAS saved 500 people,http://www.thestar.ie/star/ex-irish-army-ranger-killed-terrorists-and-saved-500-lives-in-nairobi-33759/ http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/ex-irish-army-ranger-helped-evacuate-nairobi-shoppers-1.1540066 Would this be note worthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.128.114 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like Die Hard with a Vengeance ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Great story. If true, he deserves a fri@@in' medal! Suggest waiting till more sources confirm story, especially "saved 500 lives". May turn out to be bogus, or over hyped. -λ-220 of ^Borg 16:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Westgate shopping mall shooting → Westgate shopping mall siege – The current title implies it is only a shooting. It should be renamed to Westgate shopping mall siege or, alternatively, Westgate shopping mall hostage crisis. Michael5046 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I would prefer Westgate shopping mall attack. It was undeniably an attack. Shootings were a part of it, as was the siege - but the word "attack" encompasses the whole crisis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no problem with the word "attack", but the article title needs some geographical context by including either of the words "Nairobi" or "Kenya" within the title. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• What about Nairobi shopping mall attack? Is that sufficiently specific though? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That would have my support. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Given the usual disambiguations, Westgate shopping mall attack is sufficient. kencf0618 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Support Westgate shopping mall attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm fine with 'Westgate shopping mall attack' title too. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Westgate shopping mall attack would be the most natural location for this article. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• comment: I !vote for Westgate shopping mall attack as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Shooting?

Let's get serious here ... even if it is not PC to call it terrorism, this is much more than a shooting ... it is at the very least an attack/occupation/hostage situation. --65.51.209.126 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)