Jump to content

Talk:Dahyan air strike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flags

[edit]

I wish to thank whoever it was that removed the flagicons, and strongly urge that they never disgrace this or any other article again. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that flagicons should be used; I've never seen a similar article that didn't use them. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flagicons are filth and should be eliminated. They are a crutch for lazy users, and real editors remove them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You're going to have to give a better rationale than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. According to MOS:FLAG this is the right time and place to use flag icons, so if the only reason provided is "but I don't like them! they're filth!" then I'm going to reinstate them until there's any substance backing the opposing view. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the one who removed it. These are the reasons: WP:FLAGCRUFT and WP:USEPROSE. There is good reason and consensus against the use of flags in "International reactions" sections. Just because you seem to see them everywhere is not an indication of their good merit. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In which way does this violate WP:FLAGCRUFT? Per WP:MOSFLAG this is appropriate as we're discussing the countries themselves: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words. Coffeeandcrumbs, you do realize that the example of WP:FLAGCRUFT provided in that guideline was to not overemphasize the nationality of someone in a biography article, right? The subject actually represents the country, and flags are not bulletpoints; this doesn't turn the prose into a bulletpoint list, this simply follows MOS:FLAG recommendations.Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are thinking of it the wrong way. The first and most important issue is WP:USEPROSE. I wanted to convert to prose but I couldn't without removing the flags. In the section you quoted, notice Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style.... Notice the spirit in which WP:MOSFLAG was written. It was written to allow for flags where its important like Summer Olympics but discourage use when counter productive and not useful. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was clearly still prose based on WP:USEPROSE (Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed.) as introducing the flags did not convert it to a list format, and it does not somehow necessitate that less information is provided. It is useful as it simply adds to information about the responses from the representatives of the countries involved in / responding to the subject, and it doesn't somehow hinder productivity or limit our abilities in any way. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you say it is prose doesn't make it so. It has every characteristic of a list. All that is missing are the bullets. If it was prose I should be able to conbine two paragraphs into one but that creates a WP:NOICONS issue. Read WP:PROSELINE. Reverting it while we are have this discussion is also not smart. Both me and Abductive have said you are wrong. Reverting was against consensus and counter to WP:BRD. WP:BDR is not a thing. You cannot discuss something and just act against the consensus or lack of consensus in the discussion that disagrees with you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps User:BrendonTheWizard would first be willing to agree that there are some editors that seem to really dislike flagicons in articles. Then User:BrendonTheWizard should ask himself, "Why do I want flags in articles so much? Is this something I want to fight editors about, only to probably lose in the end? Do I want to antagonize Abductive to the point that he spends the next 12 hours removing flagicons from hundreds of articles on Wikipedia?" Abductive (reasoning) 02:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of response is that? How did I "antagonize you?" I could turn that around and ask: why do you dislike them so much? Is this really something you want to fight editors about? These things are to be decided by consensus on case by case instances, and threatening to spend the next twelve hours blindly removing them from hundreds of articles as a knee-jerk emotionally-charged reaction because you got angry is just openly admitting that you'd be acting in bad faith. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no definitive rule that states flags should be removed in this issue. WP:MOSFLAG seem to agree with adding the flag icons. Adding flags icons in this context does not violate any policy as cited above and hence they may be added. No rule particulary disagree with adding them in this context. Wikiemirati (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with regards to the use of flag icons, it's mainly a judgment call about what would look the best. Although I do think that flag icons are useful for identifying at a glance which countries and organizations have responded, for a section as small as this, the flag icons would disrupt the flow of the prose somewhat, in my opinion. I would lean towards keeping the flag icons out, unless the reactions section grows large enough to give each country/organization their own subsection. For comparison (as of now), the article Canada–Saudi_Arabia_relations#International_reaction doesn't use flag icons, but International_reactions_to_the_2018_North_Korea–United_States_summit, a much more extensive article, does use flag icons. -- Ununseti (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
International reactions to the 2018 North Korea–United States summit violates WP:ICONDECORATION. Placing flags in section headings creates accessibility issues. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"even first responders were killed"

[edit]

Al-Jazeera and one similar looking article at ilna.ir talk about how "even first responders were killed".

The problem I have is that articles and commentary seem to refer to Saudi Arabia dropping a bomb. [1] I didn't see any indication that the Saudi Arabians double-tapped the school bus, which would have been even more horrendous. Does this mean that first responders were already on board the bus for some other reason? Or were there unrelated casualties on the ground near the bus? There's something that doesn't add up. (note: I'm not recommending any specific edit, unless more information can be obtained. Sometimes historical events never add up, and the student just has to live with that.) Wnt (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have placed {{Dubious}} to the statement. It is clear the double tap occurred in a different air strike earlier in the same day. But Al Jazeera is the only one reporting that first responders were killed in this specific incident. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on only Al Jazeera which doesn't even report this in its own voice. It quotes a single journalist but doesn't explain how responders could be killed in a single strike. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS we should withhold insertion of questionable passing reports until there is confirmation. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths--at least 51 or as many as 51?

[edit]

The lede of this article says "As many as 51 people may have been killed in the attack", while the infobox says under Deaths, "At least 51 people". One presents an upper bound of 51, while the other presents a lower bound of 51. --Joshualouie711talk 18:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems unambiguous that it's 51 dead at this time; considering delay in information leaving a war zone, and the fact that many injured people have not been released from hospital, "at least 51 people" seems appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have resolved the issue until we get more solid numbers.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Hunt

[edit]

The article says:

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has told the BBC that the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia stops bombs going off on the streets of Britain. Mr Hunt also said he was "deeply shocked" that at least 33 children were killed in rebel-held northern Yemen when an air strike by the Saudi-led coalition hit their school bus.

How is this a summary:

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt defended the Saudi–British alliance and described Saudi Arabia as a "very, very important military ally"

of the BBC News? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not good, since it excluded the comments relevant to the topic of the article. It's Hunt's being deeply shocked at the death of children that's relevant, not the strategic alliance. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the UK on record expressing deep concern and dismay at the casualties. An additional comment from Hunt isn't needed. But if we must we can start the sentence with "While reiterating the distressing nature of the casualties, ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also theres no reference to "Islamism" in the Hunt quote so that dogwhistle has to go. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is in the video. This is a summary of the video.Jason from nyc (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would still prefer our summaries avoided bigoted dogwhistles please. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our POV doesn't matter. That's the word he uses. We can put it in quotes. One needs to explain why the UK allies with Saudi Arabia given the costs of the war otherwise it looks gratuitous. Or we can leave the whole thing out. We already have the Foreign Office. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dahyan_air_strike&oldid=1205864793"