Talk:Tongo Tongo ambush

Article Name

First of all, great job on the article! Since this is the only ambush in Tongo Tongo that has an article on wikipedia, (and i am unaware of any others regardless), the proper name for this article should be Tongo Tongo ambush without the year in the title. Wikipedia military history naming conventions only put the year in the title when there are multiple battles or engagements with the same name, IE Battle of Warsaw (1831), Battle of Warsaw (1920, and Battle of Antietam.XavierGreen (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with this name but since most sources do not directly name Tongo Tongo and just talk about the attack in Niger, shouldn't that be reflected somehow in the title?  Volunteer Marek  01:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Potential Editing

I noticed a couple issues under the Ambush section: A 'Green Beret' unit does not consist entirely of soldiers called 'Green Berets'. It would be more prudent to refer to the unit as a "Green Beret unit" or a "Green Beret led team". Referring to all of the individual soldiers as such may prove to be inaccurate. All four of the killed US service members appear to be from the US Army, in which Sergeant is abbreviated 'SGT', and Staff Sergeant is abbreviated 'SSG'. I would recommend spelling out the ranks instead of abbreviating them to avoid confusion. 2601:600:887F:C4F0:9C7E:13D:DEF7:7F9F (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I changed the incorrect rank abbreviation to fully spell out the rank. Wwengr (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Naming a person of interest.

There are two names, apparently from the same family, which are being used interchangeably. The equivalence contradicts the source material, so I am using the talk page to resolve the disagreement. The French source, Voice of Africa, writes:

"Ces militaires étaient à la traque d’un complice d’Abou Adnan Al Sahraoui"

The American source, Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, writes:

"Adnan Abu Walid Sahraoui, then a senior leader within al-Mourabitoun, issued a pledge of bay`a to the Islamic State"

The names are distinct references; the latter being to a father and the former being to his son.

Consequently, the line in the Attack section, subsection Ambush: "On 4 October, the soldiers met with local leaders, asking them for information about the whereabouts of an accomplice of Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi" incorrectly cites the VOA source, by changing the name to the person identified in the American source.

Do we have any factual basis to assume that the names refer to the same person? My inference comes from a basic understanding of titular customs in Arabic. I recommend @JayCoop: we should undo the most recent edit so as to faithfully represent facts from source material. WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamJennings1989: I think that it is the same person. It's kind of like Osama bin Laden or Usama bin Laden.

Sources stating Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-group-ambushed-us-forces-niger/story?id=50566657

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/09/islamic-states-sahara-branch-claims-attack-in-burkina-faso.php

The VOA article in French says, "Ces militaires étaient à la traque d’un complice d’Abou Adnan Al Sahraoui, un ancien du Mouvement pour l’Unicité et le Djihad en Afrique de l’Ouest." Google Translate interprets that as "These soldiers were tracking down an accomplice of Abu Adnan Al Sahraoui, a former member of the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa." With the background information, I'm quite certain that this is the same person. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong,@JayCoop: the difference is not between two romanizations of an Arabic name. The difference is between two separate patrilineal references in two names which differ in permutation and presence of words. You are equivocating between "Adnan, son of Walid" and "son of Adnan". This would not be acceptable if we were talking about viking nomenclature. Changing the name in the ambush:attack subsection does not adequately paraphrase the VOA source. If you want to repeat the name that is consistent with American sources, then you should change the 23rd citation to include the same name- as per American or English sources.

We do not have any specific information to confirm that Abu Adnan and Adnan Abu Walid are the same person, we only know that both names are affiliated with MUJAO. Unless you can show me a source where both names are used in the same context, with explanation that they are the same person, then your previous edit is not a statement of fact. It is merely a guess which is easy to rebut. WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Timeline changes

Note that later sources say that the U.S. military's timeline of events has changed in later reports - "U.S. officials have repeatedly modified the timeline as facts trickle in" (WSJ). It appears that U.S. officials have contradicted earlier information with later statements.

The WSJ suggests that there was a political issue in using U.S. drones to launch hellfire missiles - that they needed approval of the host nation to use armed air support.

The timeline seems unreliable at this stage -- Callinus (talk)

Flags

Does anyone else think there are a tad too many flags in the infobox? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead size

Hi, the lead is too short. Given the size of the article, it should be expanded to 2 paragraphs, per WP:LEADLENGTH. I would suggest we remove sources from the lead (see WP:LEADCITE) so we're able to cover the article's information with greater generality. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Berry aviation ?

Should they be mentionned in the infobox ? They are said to have conducted casualty evacuations, not combat operations.Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Known page issue

Hi, I flipped the source for pictures #3 and #4 under casualties, as they were mis-ordered, but it ruined the formatting of the pictures in the “box.” I noticed #3’s picture height set almost 3x the others, so I reduced it to match, but that still left an undesirable result. I would rather leave it to someone who is more knowledgeable, I don’t want to spam edits until I stumble upon the correct size. UsersLikeYou (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Helmet cam video

Should the helmet cam video really be included in this? Could we shorten it to not include the deaths? Or should we add a still image from the video showing the US soldiers fighting? Ianp18 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included. Why shouldn't it be? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There should be a warning on that. I watched it and did not expect to see a graphic first person death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenpauli0 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darrenpauli0 same 2A02:810D:1B80:1E7C:FCEF:880F:2402:6C56 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Images

Does anyone know if it would be aloud to add still images from the helmet cam video? Ianp18 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you can create a derivative work, by PD-USArmy.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely; it's a work of an agency of the U.S. federal government (in this case the U.S. Army) so it's irrevocably in the public domain. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Large edits under the Ambush heading

Hello, I'm pretty new at this. I made some significant edits to the phrasing and facts presented in the ambush section. It seemed to me that it was very editorialized, and the references didn't really support some of the claims. I'd appreciate input.

Succynic (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A misunderstanding I should apologize for in the first place