Talk:December 11, 2007, Algiers bombings

Mispelt name

I modified the White House statement [[1]] changing Algeira to Algeria. The Reuter's source doesn't say sic so it's unclear who made the mistake. I was unable to find the White House statement on their site but I did find some other sources which use Algeria. Whether they corrected the White House error or it was a Reuters error remains unclear. Interestingly the CNN source URL has algreia. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Algiers article

The article on Algiers is badly in need of editing/cleanup.... Vrac (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

UN or UNHCR?

Some sources say that the UN was the target of the second bombing, others that it was the UNHCR. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees made a statement on CNN saying that it was clear to him that the UNHCR was the target. The UNHCR is obviously a UN organisation, but it is nevertheless relevant to be specific. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC link in the references claim that it was the UNDP office that was the target. Seems to be quite a bit of confusion on this. Anyone who knows? --86.108.68.140 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The CBC says they "appeared to target the Constitutional Council and UN offices lined up along the streets in the upscale Hydra neighbourhood." -- Reaper X 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil war casualties

Gabi, I do not want to dwell on this too long and I am satisfied with the current edit. However, your first reference stated the casualty count as "up to 200 000" and the second reference (Al-Jazeera English) provided a more nuanced view quoting several sources with statements for 2005 such as "exceeded 150 000" and "reached 150 000". The weasel words come from your references. Not from me. I cite your sources. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Reuters article said "up to 200,000" which means about 200,000. However, your edit said "may have claimed up to 200,000 lives", and this ambiguity didn't exist in the source article. Things have to be clearly laid out, especially in this article which may be read by people not familiar with the situation in Algeria. By the way, your further edits are excellent. Thanks, -- Gabi S. (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Algerian civil war

I reverted an anon here [2] but on further reading he/she does have a point. The Algerian civil war does say it ended in 2002. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually on further reading the article is fine as is, it seems to describe the situation fairly well provided you don't just read the date and think it's completely over Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gabi, you seem to be knowledgable in this. Can we say low intensity instead of ongoing? Is it NPOV to say that it is ongoing? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 12:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, but "low intensity" sounds fine; I'll change it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reaction

The section on Reaction can theoretically be made very long. My opinion is that we only can include the most important reactions such as those in Algeria and those of the directly affected parties. In that light, is the reaction from the Phillipines relevant? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't really see a need for the reactions section. None of the reactions are particularly surprising or particularly relevant. A reaction from the UN might be useful but beyond that? These sort of reactions sections tend to be added to every article about some sort of major event and usually get out of hand. I was fairly surprised that we only ended up with 3 countries so far as usually we have 10-20 by now as everyone the country they live in or some other country they are connected to, but I guess it hints at the fact most editors aren't bothered because 'it's only Algeria' Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

UN news

The UN news website now seems to confirm that two of the presumed dead UN staffers have been found alive in the rubble. The article also lists names and nationalities of the UN victims. No time for me to edit today. Any volunteers? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

why the hell are you quoting terrorists for a news article? Who cares what they think about what they did? How about you quote someone who understands the rule of law and recognizes terrorists as monsters?