Talk:In Amenas hostage crisis

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

Expand[edit]

Please expand this page.DLBcoversFan1 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done?Lihaas (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

I think the name '2013 Algeria hostage crisis' has more clarity, myself, and I would ask that the redirect be changed back to the original. Jusdafax 20:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, could be wrong though, that this is the MOS specific version since there arent numerous hostage crisis in the In Amenas area.Lihaas (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

(correction: this was added yesterday as a new section without a title. I've now fixed it. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
This page has already had three titles in the 18 hours it's been in existence, so I don’t particularly want to move it yet again, but the move to “In Aménas hostage crisis" ([1]) on the basis that the “spelling of the town name is incorrect” is plain wrong.
None of the sources given spell the name with an e acute; most have In Amenas, and two have Ain Amenas, the previous title. Even the article on the French WP (who ought to know) and Al Jazeera (who should know the correct transliteration of the Arabic, if anyone does) have In Amenas.
So that is the name we should be using, n’est ce pas? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis? Who thought of that word? It is a bad habit of American TV news that they must create an episode name for certain news events. You can see it on TV sometimes.

We should look up newspapers and see if there is a common term for this event. If not, then a neutral term should be polled and created. Refinery takeover, maybe? SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER[edit]

I know this is a current event, and current events can be notable (and this one is, and will doubtless have a long-term impact that the article can discuss in due course), but this is still an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia articles should be written in the past tense as far as possible (granted, the opening might have to be present tense while it's still a current event) and should not take a journalistic tone:

  • The In Aménas hostage crisis involves up to 41 people of varying nationalities sounds like a headline—it doesn't tell the reader what the event is and why it's notable (which is the raison d'être of the opening)
  • militants have reportedly rigged the plant. Why "militants"? Is there a source for that term (and I don't mean "it's the term being used by journalists", I mean a source that details who they are). "Rigged" is journalistic; I'd suggest using something more formal. Ditto "reportedly"—try "apparently" or "claimed" or similar. Finally, past tense—"militants reportedly rigged the plant". Try to write as though the event happened ten years ago.
  • Other than erratic demands from the perpetrators, what makes this part of the Northern Mali conflict?
  • The one-eyed Belmokhtar, a veteran of Algeria’s civil war and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and reportedly dubbed "The Uncatchable" by French intelligence—journalistic tone again. It's all very well to describe key personalities in an event, but nicknames should generally be avoided and again with word "reportedly" (which is journalist speak for "I don't know what I'm talking about but this is what I've heard somewhere")
  • The whole "International reactions" section should go. Politicians will always condemn this sort of thing, and will always try to sound like they're in control, especially when their citizens are being held hostage. Some of the quotes are significant enough to be incorporated into the prose (like the Algerians' "we will not respond to the demands of terrorists" and maybe the British "cold-blooded murder"); the rest are the same boilerplate statements that politicians and spokesmen use for every crisis.

It would be worthwhile following the format of an article on a similar, historic, event. Forgive my immodesty in recommending an article I wrote, but the Iranian Embassy siege is the closest example I can think of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks HJ. Good to see you again, and to be brief, I agree with you in all the particulars. I'll be away from the keyboard for a number of hours, so if you and/or someone else wants to start the trimming process, by all means do so. Great to have an experienced hostage article writer to learn from! Jusdafax 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll[edit]

Please don´t include death toll in the infobox until deaths are confirmed. Wikipedia is not news as noted in the section above. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's wait for certainty rather than reporting others' speculation. We're not a rolling news channel, so we don't have to fill time by speculating. To that end, I've removed the fatalities from the infobox for the time being. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

600 Algerians..... - hostages/workers[edit]

Most recent BBC update says "Nearly 600 Algerian workers and four foreign hostages..." were freed in the operation. This is, well, obviously a bit more than the number currently on the article. Clearly news on this is coming and going, but I thought it was notable that the BBC are reporting a 15 times increase on the "hostages", unless, of course, Algerian workers don't count as hostages.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

I saw someone reported that the Algerian government were listing as freed people who had already been freed by the hostage takers before the operation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone be freed before they were actually taken hostage? ("Before the operation"). Or do you mean before the rescue effort? In which case they were still hostages before that and surely should then be included? As someone has said in another section, Wikipedia is not a rolling news channel and so should state the amount of hostages that were initially taken, not the current amount. Leiservampir (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By operation I did mean the Algerian government's rescue operation, yes. I wasn't commenting on what Wikipedia should say (as it should be obvious we need to report how many hostages were taken, when they were released etc), I was simply suggesting that one possible reason for the 15 times increase in hostages observed is because we were going by earlier reports which only included the number of current hostages whereas the Algerian government were reporting as freed by their operation those who had already been freed by the hostage takers. The other possibility is the earlier reports were simply wrong or misleading (only reporting foreign hostages). That's one of the problems when wikipedia tries to be too current. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian policy on terrorists/hostages[edit]

I listened to a couple "talking heads" on the national radio station yesterday stating that Algerian policy is to move swiftly and brutally against terrorists and this is why the operation was done the way it was. Can we find a Reliable Source along these lines? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varying[edit]

varying nationalities -- their nationalities change from time to time? Surely you mean different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.163.107 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Thanks for catching that. -- Orionist ★ talk 21:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libya[edit]

With the Malian crisis mentioned (and its consequence since libya), there is an interesting pieve showing the probability of a libya conncestion again. This could be included.Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On removing Project Norway[edit]

The attacked gas field was managed by a Norwegian company (along with 2 other companies). The company had 16 employees on place when the attack happened, of which 13 were Norwegian citizens. This is a major event in Norway, maybe the most important that will happen in 2013, so I think the article clearly is of interest to WP:Norway. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of attackers[edit]

The article says:

"The terrorists are not from Mali, Libya, or "any other neighboring state", however at least one is said to be Canadian.[14] An Algerian news website confirmed that three Egyptians, two Algerians, two Tunisians, two Libyans, and one French national were among the attackers.[15]"

How is it that the terrorists aren't from Libya or any neighboring state in one sentence, and the next says at least some were confirmed to be from Libya or neighboring states? 173.59.0.201 (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partially addressed. Could be cleaned up further, even if just for copyediting.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ain or In Amenas?[edit]

This source spells it Ain.[2] Is there a reason for this spelling difference and should we note it in the article? Rmhermen (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is In not Ain. TonyStarks (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True: While “Ain” is a common enough prefix in Algeria and in the Arab world generally), the towns in southern Algeria for some reason use “In” instead.
OTOH the second part of the name is universally spelt Amenas, without the e acute (which I’ve raised before, with no response). So, if there is no objection I will change the title and text accordingly. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Should the intetrnational criticisms (and defence) of the operation be reworded? Currently, the article states that: "Several Western officials bemoaned Algeria's failure to minimize casualties". This is a slight rewording of the cited article ("Several Western officials complained that the Algerians appeared to have taken none of the usual care exercised to minimize casualties when trying to free hostages"), which (IMO) slightly alters the meaning ("bemoaned" vs "complained", "failure to minimize casulties" vs "not taking the usual care to..."). And although the source talks about "several Western officials", they only quote one (anonymous) European diplomat.

Furthermore (at least by my impression of the BBC's reporting), while the initial reaction of many governments was to criticise, they now seem to be taking an attitude more of "they did a good job in a bad situation". Given all that, and given the potential POV issues, I think this needs to be a bit clearer about who criticised what, who disagrees, and who has changed their minds. Iapetus (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese[edit]

The numbers don't add up. 5 were held but 12 were killed?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In the News"[edit]

I notice that the "headline" on the In The News bit of the homepage states that the raid "results in dozens of fatalities", but doesn't mention the hundreds of people successfully freed by that operation... Bias through being selective which facts to highlight? 86.179.102.207 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've avoided that selective bias in the article itself, at least.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, one big problem is we didn't know, and in fact possibly still don't know how many were freed by the operation. There were some reports that the Algerian government were being particularly generous in their reports and listing as freed people who had already been freed by the hostage takers or escaped themselves before the operation began. We cannot get in to such suitabilities on ITN. While I did have some concerns about the casualty figures as there seemed to be some dispute, from what I could tell by the time I saw the item on ITN it seemed to be accepted that dozens had died if we included the hostage takers and the ITN wording did not specify hostages but simply fatalities so logically has to include hostage takers. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per common name on the evidence presented. DrKiernan (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Aménas hostage crisis → In Amenas hostage crisis – Per sources. All sources for this page ( including non-English ones) use "In Amenas" (without the e acute) as the place name. This should be corrected before citogenesis sets in.
Also:-

per sources for those pages also. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I raised this matter a few days ago, and again earlier today, but got no response. I then moved the page but this was immediately reverted with the edit summary "It's the name of the place. with the é. It doesn't matter what English sources say as they "romanize" it to thier letters. see Pokémon"
There is in fact no evidence at all that "In Aménas" is the correct name: All our sources here (including Al Jazeera, who I would expect to transliterate correctly) make it "In Amenas", as does the French WP, (who would definitely use an e acute if it was appropriate). Also, the name when spoken in new reports reflects the short e, rather than the longer e acute sound.
And according to WP:TITLE, it actually does matter what English language sources say.
I have raised the matter with the reverting editor, but have yet to receive a response. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all (but please add Talk tags to all) - the deliberate lack of accent on fr.wp appears to be deference to Arabic and Tuareg language usage on the Libyan border rather than the French-Arabic names still found in Algeria's cities. Roger Duvollet D'Alger à Tamanrasset 1983 Page 141 "Il faut lire IN AMENAS et non Aïn Aménas. C'est la route des Pétroliers, construite par eux..." As for English sources, NY Times uses French accents when French has accents, so the issue here is Tuareg vs Arabic vs French, not French accents in English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Algeria Press Service/Algérie Presse Service also seems to use In Amenas in both English and French. Although this site [3] [4] does use the accent in French but [5] does not. Both were taken from the airport article BTW. (.dz is the domain name for Algeria.) I do agree with In ictu oculi we shouldn't discuss the other pages unless they are properly tagged. Edit: Some more searching shows APS does sometime use accents in French [6] and English [7], although the French one is only in the headline and the rest of the article does not use the accent and the English one is only a single occurence. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: El Watan (French-language Algerian Newspaper/news source) also leaves off the accent on the "e". Scarletsmith (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The name is a Tuareg word that can be written with or without the accent in latin script. Since it is already in Wikipedia with the accent there is no compelling reason to remove it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the “compelling reason”, as you put it, is that pretty much all the sources we have so far don’t use the accent, and we are supposed to use titles that are supported by sources. And the reason these articles are “in WP with the accent” is because someone at some point has moved them there, mostly without much of an explanation. As for it being “a Tuareg word that can be written with or without the accent” do you have any evidence for that? Or a stack of sources that demonstrate the accented version is the preferred English language version of the name? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of pulling my support for the Airport - seems from that Nil Einne's sources above Air Algérie uses In Aménas Airport. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu:You are of course free to withdraw your support for changing the airport article back any time you like, but as four of the six sources there use the unaccented form, and only one uses the other, (while this one manages to use both terms indiscriminately; it also uses "aérodrome" and "Algérie" with and without the e acute) and as the sources you yourself have found use the unaccented form, your actions would be based on personal preference, rather than any conclusive evidence, n’est ce pas? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article for Tuareg languages section on orthography spells it out with citations. There are two systems for rendering Tuareg in latin script. The Malian national literacy program DNAFLA doesn't have the accented e and the Nigerian system does. It looks to me like both are used and the only reason to change is some people do not like it. If someone moved the pages before, then it should have been stopped then and I would have oppose adding the accent. I think one is as good as the other and it should be left the way it is. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but (as requested previously) can you provide some evidence that this is a Tuareg word (the town article says it is the English rendition of an Arabic name, إن أمناس, ‘In ’Amanās )(NB: short 2nd, long 3rd syllables) or that "In Aménas" is the preferred way to render said Tuareg word in English? And can you suggest a WP policy that would require us to use that term in preference to the one already used fairly unanimously in the sources?
In fact, far from “one being as good as another”, all the evidence supports using the unaccented form, and the only reason not to change is that some people don’t like that. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I was wondering why it wasn't Aïn. Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I’ve tagged the talk pages of the other articles, as suggested, and linked this discussion, if anyone wishes to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No view on the main question. But ... it strikes me that the phrase "crisis" was a good name during the event. But after the event ... do we have a convention for a more descriptive term? Thanks. I see that hostage crisis is one we use a lot; other formulations that we have used for such hostage killing events include attack (as in 2008 Mumbai attacks and Attack on the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum), massacre (as in Munich Massacre), siege (as in Balcombe Street Siege and 1993 Cangai siege), and shooting (as in Lindhurst High School shooting and Johnson Space Center shooting).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:DIACRITICS: "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged". It is well established that In Aménas is a place in Algeria, and the diacritic is part of the name. "Reliable sources" for facts are not necessarily reliable when it comes to matter of style, which is more often than not dictated by limitations of the qwerty ketboard. We would not drop the 'In' in the name (i.e. we would be correct in saying "there was a hostage crisis in In Aménas"). Although some sources refer to "the Amenas gas plant" (probably out of journalistic simplicity) and we ought not to drop the diacritics nor the 'In'. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that “well established that...the diacritic is part of the name”, perhaps you could provide some evidence of the fact, as pretty much all the sources here, and on the location article pages, say otherwise. So saying “some sources” don't use it is understating the case by quite a considerable margin. And it isn’t just “journalistic simplicity” that leads them to do so (though that’s a whole other argument); a search of Google books for "In Aménas" (here) gives just one example (and by the look of the cover, even that listing is a mistake): All the rest (for the next dozen pages or so) use the unaccented form. Even the travel books, which might be expected to use the local spelling, omit the accent. So where does this confidence come from? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support According to the Google Book search, " In Amenas " is the most common name.
    • “In Amenas" -“In Aménas" 3.800
    • “In Aménas" -“In Amenas" 36
By the way, French article uses In Amenas.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone here should read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UE, and WP:DIACRITICS. The guidelines says the most common English name supersedes the Romanization of foreign word. And the most common English name is "In Amenas". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per most common English name, used for instance by BBC, CNN and New York Times. In Amenas wasn´t very well known when this story started, and I think several media have wavered in the spelling of the name, but I see a tendency that media are now more consistently using In Amenas. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to add, in a google search for "In Aménas" (here), pretty much the only examples in first dozen pages are English WP pages and their mirrors. Which seems to mean, pretty clearly, that we (by which I mean WP, though in practice it means .a) the guy moved the page here without looking at the sources, and .b) the guy who insisted on putting it back after it was fixed) have made a mistake. So the only question now (to my mind) is how much argument it is going to take to fix that mistake. Hmm? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for a reference. As I said above the French article's title is "In Amenas", The Google Book search in French is as follows:
    • "In Amenas" -"In Aménas" 2,450
    • "In Aménas" -"In Amenas" 71
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move: from the evidence I see here, the proposed title is the verifiable usage of our sources.Erudy (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Common usage is a key factor, per WP:COMMONNAME. Another is ease of reference. Jusdafax 20:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'm all for keeping diacritics, but this isn't the article to fight the battle on. It appears that there aren't really any reliable English sources that spell this name In Aménas, and very few French sources either. The overwhelming preference in both languages is for In Amenas. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation errors[edit]

There are currently three malfunctioning citation tags on the the page, if someone has a couple minutes. Rmhermen (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to be there now. This bit was deleted, then restored, which seems to have been the reason for the cite errors.
OTOH it kind of raises the issue whether a list of the dead is appropriate, so I've tagged it as dubious, for discussion. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The article seesm to have acquired a table listing the names of those who died. Is this appropriate? Articles don't as a rule list the names of casualties, as WP is not a memorial. Should the table stay or go? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individuals are heavily covered by the RSs. A number have entire articles devoted to them. Seems appropriate. RS coverage is the guide. In notable killings, it is not unusual at all for us to mention the name(s) of the person killed, whether it be in a table or in text. WP is not a memorial applies to memorials of deceased friends and the like. One has to read the text of that policy to see it has no application here -- it says: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that the names shouldn´t be included. I checked the Utøya massacre article and the names of all victims are included there, so it does happen, but I could´t see any lists of names in the Oklahoma shootings or 9/11 attacks (allthough I haven´t checked all subpages). I would guess if we check articles on terror attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. we will seldom see list of all victims. Even if media write about the victims, I don´t necessarily see it as encyclopedic stuff. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In Amenas hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on In Amenas hostage crisis. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on In Amenas hostage crisis. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In Amenas hostage crisis. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on In Amenas hostage crisis. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Security alarm and plant shutdown[edit]

Hi Editors, I would like to highlight a factual error regarding the events surrounding activation of the security alarm. It is correct that the security guard activated a security alarm in the Base de Vie. However, this action was not connected to the events in the processing facility. The correct version of events is as follows: At 05:49 a bullet from the exchange of fire when the bus was attacked penetrated a transformer in the Base de Vie, causing an earth fault and then a full short circuit of the transformer that simultaneously caused a power blackout in the Base de Vie and closure of a protective relay in one of the main turbo generators at the central processing facility.

This tripped all the main generators and caused a power blackout across the In Amenas facility, which triggered an automatic shutdown of the plant. According to the technical logs there was no deliberate shutdown of the facility.

As designed, the emergency generators at the central processing facility automatically started in order to maintain predefined essential systems at the site. However, the battery system designed to cover the transition from main to emergency power was deficient, and seeing insufficient voltage in the electrical grid the emergency generator control unit went into failsafe mode, a process that automatically stopped the generators and triggered the fire alarm in the central processing facility and adjacent offices. There was no linked security alarm in the CPF, as alleged.

Without power the pressure in the instrument air system could not be maintained and pneumatically-operated valves that kept the gas and condensate locked within the shut-down plant soon began to drift open, feeding the flare system throughout Wednesday 16 January The only power now being supplied at the site was from the various uninterruptable power supply (UPS) systems designed to provide a short-term supply from battery banks. These systems, which included fire detection and telecommunications, gradually expired.

MalcolmCrabtree (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC) <https://www.equinor.com/en/news/archive/2013/09/12/12SepInAmenasreport.html>[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Amenas_hostage_crisis&oldid=1218212941"