Talk:2007 Zoé's Ark controversy

Redirect

IMHO, this should be a redirect to Zoe's Ark. The association appears to be notable only because of the recent abduction or alleged abduction. --Edcolins (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the kidnappings are notable enough to warrant a seperate and distinct article exclusively dealing with this topic, which should treat also with the impact on Chadian-French relations, possible reasons and causes, ecc. It may not be clear to those who have a modest knowledge of Chadian affairs, but this is by the far the best news-covered event in Chad in the last years.--Aldux (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. Maybe merging Zoe's Ark into 2007 Zoe's Ark kidnappings would be better, at least under Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Merging 4.

"Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it."

Would you agree with this merge? --Edcolins (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well, I do think it would be better than a merge the other way. On one side, there is the question if the notability of the organization is such to warrant a seperate article; but due to the importance of the event, which has brought to a considerable mass of reliable news on the previous activities of the NGO, and judging by what I've seen at the RfD, it should be probably kept and expanded. The best way would be, in my view, to expand this discussion to other people, either bringing it to RfD, or leaving a notice at WP:AFRICA, asking them to give an opinion.--Aldux (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The title including the word "kidnappings" seems biased to me. Was it really (i.e. is it considered as) a kidnapping from the perspective of everyone involved? Shouldn't the title reflect fairly the view of all parties involved? --Edcolins (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The title is quite problematic, I agree with you here, and must say it's unsatisfying, as the NGO certainly doesn't consider itself responsible of a kidinapping, and many papers have been careful in there wording. Maybe it should be renamed 2007 Zoe's Ark controversy?--Aldux (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and moved. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Conviction

If they were convicted of kidnapping, this should be tagged as a child abduction. However, since that would probably be reverted as pov, I did not add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.71.70 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/12/24/chad.trial.ap/
  • In 2007 Zoé's Ark controversy on 2011-05-26 03:10:13, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Zoé's Ark controversy on 2011-05-27 15:26:17, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Zoé's Ark controversy on 2011-06-15 20:17:08, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Zoé's Ark controversy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706161931/http://www.enjoyfrance.com/content/view/1370/36/ to http://www.enjoyfrance.com/content/view/1370/36/

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) 05:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Smear by Bad Faith Editor?

The following has recently been added edited: "The founder, Eric Breteau (who is now living in South Africa running a games cafe that children frequent called Big Box Cafe https://thebigbox.co.za/cafe/owners/), is among the six."

The person that made the edit only has 1 other edit, which is changing the genre of music a South African artist makes to "trash". Clearly this person is editing in bad faith and I just wanted to draw attention to this as the following appears to be leading... "who is now living in South Africa running a games cafe that children frequent called Big Box Cafe https://thebigbox.co.za/cafe/owners/"

That phrase there is what is leading. This case is seen by most reputable sources as misguided activism not something average children in Cape Town have to fears - it appears to be an edit designed to create a witch-hunt since it was made soon after the story broke locally in Cape Town recently - on Reddit (here's the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/capetown/comments/c62snt/the_child_traffickers_of_big_box_cafe/ - you can tell by the title of the thread that there is no room for nuance, and NOTHING is mentioned about this being "activism", gone wrong or otherwise).

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.