Jump to content

Talk:2017 Notre-Dame de Paris attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2017 Notre Dame attack)

"Islamic/Islamist" attack

[edit]

The guy spoke of Syria, in French. If that's all we know, we can't tag this yet, unless the hammer was recently discovered to be an ISIS instrument of choice. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That, and the video found in his home/rental apartment in which he pledged allegiance to ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the terrorist himself claimed to be a soldier of the caliphate while laying after being shot by police !!!! XavierItzm (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Neutrality

[edit]

I understood from the recent AfD discussion that the 'attacker' is due to face a trial, in which case, why is he throughout referred to as the 'perpetrator', since it is obvious that even the sources use the term 'suspect'. Anybody here heard of BLP? Do editors here know something that RS don't? Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: Could you explain what excactly is not NPOV here? It really does not get clear to me what the issue is; or who you believe the perpetrator was other than the guy shot by police.--Joobo (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is the accused, he is a living person who will be tried when he recovers. Neither I nor you nor WP has the right to pre-decide his guilt. That is why civilised countries have trials, so that juries and judges, not police and newspapers (nor WP) examine the evidence and decide who is/is not guilty. Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, yes he is not sentenced yet. Factually he did the attack, or do you have different sources? i really do not see your problem here. --Joobo (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, legally he is the accused = factually he is the accused. There is no exception for "well he hasn't been tried yet, but we all know he's guilty, 'cos the police say so and I've seen the video clip". An editor above (Cwmhiraeth) has no problem understanding this, it is a fundamental principle. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically you might be correct, factually not.--Joobo (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: Then you can change the term perpetrator to attacker throughout the article to use the correct term so far, and take out the neutrality template from the top.--Joobo (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a single small change were involved, I would, but one gets tired of fixing articles which the creator cannot be bothered with. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, enough interest in editing to add an NPOV sticker and to participate multiple times in the discussion, but not enough to do a "replace all"? Some people really test the boundaries of "assume good faith." XavierItzm (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially when they create articles that completely ignore BLP and NPOV and expect other's to clean up their private opinion piece blogs. I would never do a 'replace all' without checking the sources. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the sources would be a matter for 10 minutes -max. This article is not long at all. Changing the word to attacker in the whole article would take about 30 seconds. Yet vigorously defending neutrality here is no effort at all it seems. --Joobo (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory you concur with the argument that there is sufficient evidence for you to decide to describe a living accused person as a 'perpetrator' (ie guilty), why has that long ceased to surprise me? Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of any 'confession' in the article, but even of there were, civilised countries have judicial proceedings for good reasons. Editors who ignore that are simply saying "I don't care, I'm persuaded that he is guilty and thus am entitled to state it as fact". Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

[edit]
This discussion has been moved to WP:VPM#Use of the word "attack" in various article titles in order to have all 20-30 discussions in one place. Please go there to participate. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

Alfred Nemours (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal

[edit]
No consensus for a merge. (note: I was asked on my talk page by the merge proposer to close this discussion). Fram (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: This article was kept in a June AfD; however, the closing admin SoWhy is quoted as saying "There is no consensus whether to keep as a stand-alone article or redirect/merge it to a list of such attacks but that's not something that has to be decided at AfD but can always be proposed on the talk page". To clarify, the closing admin advised that a merge/redirect proposal could be discussed without prejudice.

  • I propose for this article to be selectively merged and redirected to List of terrorist incidents in France. My rationale will both provide reasons, supported by our policies, why the subject is not notable for a standalone article and counter the inevitable opposition to such a beneficial move. I will also define my idea of the selective merge and redirect but also encourage other ideas as well from editors in support.
Three months removed from the incident, we can determine if there was any WP:LASTING historical significance. There were no casualties or political repercussions. Drmies revealed the terror response team was not created in response to this attack.
With a week of coverage, we can designate this incident a WP:NOTNEWS event. As usual, the media released WP:ROUTINE reports with a repetitive narrative and no analysis. According to WP:RSBREAKING such sources are designated without argument as WP:PRIMARY and highly unreliable. The burst of news coverage also fails to satisfy WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and its repetitive nature fails WP:DIVERSE: "Derivative reports and reports under common control cannot be used to verify each other, nor does mere repetition necessarily show the kind of effort that is good evidence of a significant matter".
Another perhaps overlooked issue is WP:BLP. This article has a full-blown biography yet the suspect still needs to face a trial (any coverage of that is passing and routine by the way). Living persons suspected of a crime must be anonymous -- period.
I expect the opposition to argue WP:PRESERVE. Well, that is what merging is for -- to preserve essential information. If by some circumstance this becomes notable years from now we can look through the editing history of the redirect. I also anticipate a comment about the international media. Well, I urge you to read WP:GEOSCOPE: "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article"; perhaps also WP:RECENTISM if you feel ambitious. The background is described in the list; the information about the suspect is largely unencyclopedic and fails to adhere to BLP. Perhaps a sentence more can be included in the list and the redirect leaves us with an opportunity to revisit this if it truly becomes notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Pinging editors from AfD: @MrX, Knowledgekid87, El cid, el campeador, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, E.M.Gregory, Edwardx, Ansh666, MookiePlays, JBergsma1, Inter&anthro, AmaryllisGardener, Usernamekiran, Ceosad, Murchison-Eye, Power~enwiki, Drmies, Lepricavark, Neutrality, BigHaz, Deathlibrarian, BabbaQ, Pawnkingthree, User2534, Bachcell, Sigersson, Olevy, XavierItzm, and Skr15081997:TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, just got this second ping, many thanks. — fortunavelut luna 18:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does an entirely separate RfC have to do with this one? No, no one should ping them. You only suggested it because they push a certain POV and habitually oppose all these proposals without considering policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • fact check GracefulSlick's assertion. In fact, the interesting thing about that RfC is that among the handful of editors who showed up (in addition to Nom) were some who regularly work in this area (representing both sides of the discussion,) but also two experienced editors whose names I do not recognize from terrorism-related pages, User:Mr rnddude and User:Edaham. Each made well-reasoned, policy-based arguments not only against the proposed merge of the 2017 Orly Airport attack, but against the propriety of GracefulSlick's merge proposal. Their arguments apply equally to the merge under discussion here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if it makes you feel better TheGracefulSlick, I was only dropping by to say that I've participated in a few terror related AfDs and RfCs, but, that participation comes when things end up at AN/I or AN. I don't patrol (RfC or AfD) nor generally participate in this topic area. Why have you pinged 20 or so editors up above? If from the AfD, for that matter, you missed; KGirlTrucker81. Since they participated in the AfD as well and is not indeffed as far as I am aware. In fact, I've only been involved in one "attack" article AfD that I know of, I did vote to keep it. In the interest of disclosure; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing is the one I am referring to. So I am bemused by the assertion that I, or anyone else at the proposal, habitually does anything. Especially given that Mark Miller came there via Wikiproject/Merge, I came there via AN/I, Icewhiz and Edaham, I don't know how they came across it, but, Knowledgekid87, you and Greg, all came from habitually participating in this topic area. E.M.Gregory since you've pinged myself and Edaham, you might consider pinging everyone else as well (Knowledgekid87 and Xavierltzm have already been pinged due AfD) in the interest of countering any !votestack suggestion because both myself and Edaham did vote against the proposed merge. Those editors would be Icewhiz (against) and Mark Miller (for). Everyone else, is already here. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr rnddude I already agreed to drop the stick below. Are we passing it to you now; I hope not. You said it yourself, I pinged several editors and, unfortunately, I missed one. Please WP:AGF as there were many participants and I admit I should have double-checked. No more editors should be pinged from a completely seperate RfC. Everyone I pinged was involved as a result of the AfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge for the reasons articulated by User:Mr rnddude and User:Edaham at Talk:2017 Orly Airport attack. 1.) proposal fails to meet any of the 4 WP:MERGEREASONS, leaving no policy-based reason for merging; 2.) Merging runs up against WP:PRESERVE by eliminating a great deal of significant detail especially, as GracefulSlick herself admits, the wealth of detail about the unusual profile of perp; and 3.) because effectively, this is amounts to the deletion-by other means of an attack that has had massive and ongoing international coverage. ARguably, this is due not only to the unusual (PhD-candidate-award-winning-human-rights-journalist-turns-terrorist,) but because the target was the Cathedral of Notre Dame, but, as always, the question is not why an incident is widely sourced, the quesiton at WP:NCRIME is whether the sourcing supports a stand-alone article. In this case, it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory WP:MERGE is not a policy. The policy-based reasons are provided with...well policy-based arguements. If you disagree with policy, perhaps you should try changing it. However, until then, you must follow it and this comment does not show any motivation to do so unfortunately. And I never said anything about "wealth of detail" on the suspect; I said the bio section violates BLP and is unencyclopedic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Here is one of the recommendations found at WP:PRESERVE: "Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge". Perhaps you should also read WP:DON'T PRESERVE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge (I also only got the second ping, if anyone's still keeping score there). Per my comments elsewhere, it makes sense to look at these things again in the "cold light" of a few months later, and at least for now there's no lasting notability. Such information about the accused as can be appropriately sourced for BLP reasons can be included in the merged article. As TheGracefulSlick rightly points out, if the facts on the ground change later on, there'll be the page history to enable an appropriately speedy re-creation of this article when needed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the following reasons:
    1. The event has received significant coverage in reputable media, per WP:GNG, and news continues to refer back to it.
    2. Political attacks are inherently notable.
    3. Much of the article, such as details of the suspect and his radicalisation, is interesting background information that would not survive being merged. As E.M.Gregory has noted, merging would be a deletion by salami tactics. --pmj (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Why did the nom ping a bunch of people and then tell some other editor not to ping another bunch of people? And why the focus on deleting articles on terrorism in France? It's hard to look at these nominations on a case by case basis in light of the apparent narrow interest. Also, sarcastic thanks for the comment about my habitual and non-policy based voting! Again, per wp:merge, you have made a case for ether keep and improve or delete. Merging the article to a list isn't merging, it's effectively deleting. Per wp:CSC (which means "Content selection criteria") from the guideline on standalone lists entries should be either 1) all notable enough to have their own entry, 2) all not notable enough or 3) complete but not numerous. Your proposal is essentially deleting existing content while weakening the current list article. The kind of list to which propose merging is clearly a list of notable events. In this sense you've also made a weak case for either deleting or writing articles for the unlinked entries in that list. Edaham (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edaham the editors I pinged participated at the AfD and it was neutral: I pinged everyone regardless of how they voted. Gregory wanted to ping (he partially did but only those who opposed) completely uninvolved editors from an unrelated RfC because he was aware of how they would likely vote. That is WP:CANVASSING; similar to him hypothetically pinging a group of editors from an AfD to vote at another one on a similar but unrelated incident simply because the majority of them voted to "keep".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick You like thumping the PAG, I know - so let's take a quick look at that guideline on canvassing, which I happen to have familiarized myself on a previous occasion: It specifically states that; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) may be informed - and also that, Editors who have asked to be kept informed* may be notified. The person who notified me has absolsutely no idea how I would have voted. He or she was rebutting the statement you made, that your opposition's arguments on a related subject were not based on policy. Let's look at another salient section of that guideline which requires that notifications to other participants be 1)Limited 2)neutral 3)non partisan 4)open. According to said guidelines the editor's notification was limited, I wasn't asked to vote in a particular direction, I'm a Wikipedian which means I'm inherently non-partisan and the notification was made in a public forum. Think it might be time to drop that particular stick. To reiterate regarding your proposal. By proposing to merge to a list, You are proposing to fill a list of notable events with entries which you don't think are notable enough to have their own article. Would you like another trout? Or do you think you might like to review your proposal? FYI my approach to your proposal would be quite different and less trouty, were you suggesting to tag for deletion based on your stated reasons, which are centered around wp:notnews Edaham (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC) *please inform me of future RfCs of this nature - thanks[reply]
  • Umm, Edaham: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage. From Gregory: "it produced a very long discussion but was supported only one other editor. I suggest pinging the editors who participated there". What does this mean; Gregory knew beforehand a group of editors (a majority at least) held a viewpoint on a similar (but, again, unrelated) incident and wanted to ping the group based on their views from the older RfC. But sure I will drop the stick and will happily invite you to future RfCs now because you formally asked to be informed. By the way, the list has several entries without an article and I am only discussing one article, not several as you are implying. When a subject is not notable enough to have a standalone article, a merger is appropriate according to WP:PRESERVE. I demonstrated it was/is not notable. What is the issue here?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • glad you agree concerning the stick. Rather than take my word for it, would you like to explain what you think the differences are between merging to an article and merging to a standalone list? Are you saying that the problems with that list article (I.e. The non-notable entries) support your adding another one? Edaham (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edaham I would have an issue with the entries without an article if it was a list for terror incidents in Europe overall: the size of the article would be impossible for readers to navigate. However, in hopes of making a compromise, I can instead merge and redirect the article to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 where the criteria is less strict, and the number of entries on that page, obviously, will not be increasing extraordinarily. Would that be a more suitable location?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an upside down approach to organizing information. The existence of articles about notable events (any events - terrorist or otherwise) justifies the creation of an auxiliary article which lists related articles on events. If there are notable events on the list that don't have articles then create them, or remove them from the list if they fail wp:n. If you think an event which has an article isn't notable then propose its deletion and it's inclusion on the list. That the event you want merged is not notable, is pure fortified compost, which is doubtless the reason why the proposal was not an outright deletion. I do agree that the article could be written in a less editorial tone, using recent history articles as a template. However Wp:Notnews isn't some Harry Potter style incantation you can use to purge articles. That Wikipedia can cover such a body of events is what sets it apart from lesser encyclopedias of information. This particular article on an event seems to be useful in contributing to the understanding of the nature and prevalence of a group of attacks by an organization called ISIS. Relegating articles like this to un-linked snippets in lists is going to weaken the usefulness of the project. Edaham (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edaham I did not just apply WP:NOTNEWS; quite literally, I explained why this incident fails every aspect of WP:EVENTCRIT. I did not propose an outright deletion because of WP:PRESERVE, the existence of an appropriate destination article, and, this way, the editing history will always be available if this becomes notable. That the attack was a part of a wave of ISIS-inspired terrorism does not inherently make it notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. There also is no guideline stating an entry to a list must have an article hence why selectively merging is the best option. Please re-read my rationale for more explanation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; TheGracefulSlick, as this is your proposal and I have questions/comments pertaining specifically to your proposal, I'm going to ping you to this comment as well. Side-note; I read your comment to me somewhere above, no I'm not interested in having the stick, I haven't read every single comment written on this page so am not aware of any stick dropping or picking.
    Q1; Living persons suspected of a crime must be anonymous -- period.[citation needed] Where exactly have you read this in BLP or any other policy. I regularly see the names of suspects in articles, so I have doubts that this is accurate. Period. -- for dramatic effect. Though if you could point me to it I'd appreciate it! -- exclamation mark, for even more dramatic effect. (I'm being light-hearted here, in case it appears otherwise)
    C1; There were no casualties or political repercussions - There were two casualties, but, no fatalities. A casualty can be a fatality, it can also be a wounded person as well (and not just within military usage which is specifically reserved for people who can't perform their duties for whatever reason).
    C2; As usual, the media released WP:ROUTINE reports with a repetitive narrative and no analysis. According to WP:RSBREAKING such sources are designated without argument as WP:PRIMARY and highly unreliable. Uh, no(-ish)? RSBREAKING is about the fact-checking of sources (Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies) coming out as the event is occuring or immediately after (It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia), and a number of the sources used do fall within this category (many are also well outside of this range), but, that has nothing to do with ROUTINE and everything to do with the amount of time that has passed for fact-checking to be completed. So, right argument, but, improperly synced to the proposal to suggest that a lack of anaylsis makes these unreliable when it's actually a lack of fact-checking and accuracy that does (or would).
    C3; I picked two articles published on the day of the attack at random (The Daily Star and the BBC) to verify whether its repetitive nature fails WP:DIVERSE. They don't repeat each other. They are similar, but, distinctly different. More ROUTINE than repetitive. Other than that, you've presented a relatively solid argument. I'll refrain from voting one way or the other, but, I might try to do a detailed analysis both for and against the proposal. Let everyone work it out for themselves. There's also a comment on your talk to read. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP DO NOT MERGE Appears to be another disruptive attempt to purge Wikipedia of detailed coverage of terrorist attacks. ISIS is a lasting global problem, at the moment probably the largest single source of politically motivated killing so NO ISIS attack is not notable, and no such attack merits deleting an article which goes into more detail than a brief mention in a list. Bachcell (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NO ISIS attack is not notable"; putting it in caps does not make your statement true. So does that mean all terror attacks by the IRA or white supremacists are inherently notable or does this only apply to Islamist terrorism? Please, can you at least pretend to be neutral?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not merge - Meets WP:GNG. Besides, it is quite a "unique" case, as the article itself clarifies, of a dude from a privileged background (with a PhD!), winner of European Union awards for his exquisitely progressive journalism, "all of the sudden" claiming allegiance to the Islamic State and attacking police in a terror attack for "no reason at all"? Who knew? Wasn't it supposed to be "oppression" or something that triggered these guys? (Well, maybe he was oppressed by the Swedes in Stockholm or by the Parisians in the Champs Elyseès, what do I know?) In any event, that by itself makes the case quite, quite unique, as this is a specimen "never before seen", and therefore properly an encyclopaedic entry.XavierItzm (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • JBergsman's comment shows why we don't use WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments. Today, in Paris, a man with a knife attempted to attack a soldier , failed, and was arrested. Today's attack is precisely the sort of attempt that should go on a list. But the article about today's attack continues, "The soldier was deployed to the area as part of the army's Operation Sentinel, established in the wake of the city's 2015 terror attack.
  • Some 10,000 soldiers and almost 5,000 police officers were deployed to guard the city.
  • It comes as those protecting city landmarks have increasingly become targets for lone jihadis.
  • In June, an ISIS-inspired PhD student lunged at cops with a hammer outside Paris' Notre Dame cathedral.
  • The French landmark was put on lockdown with 900 people barricaded inside it as shots rang out when Farid Ikken screamed "this is for Syria" before lunging at cops.[1] Whatever the reason: the fact that it was Notre Dame; the lockdown of hundreds of tourists; the PhD. The reality is that coverage has been ongoing, and the notability of this attack is validated by the ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - No it hasn't. The bad-faith nomination was closed. You cannot use AfD to support keeping an article: it is called articles for deletion. You are simply trying to derail this proposal because you see support for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is an abuse of process. Moving the well sourced material in this article to a list article will result in an unvavigatable list. Reducing the content to two lines is the same as deletion. This event passes standalone notability, and IDONTLIKE merge and delet noms have gone too far in this topic area.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "canvassing" is a specific and serious accusation. Comments by editors above demonstrate that this is not what occurred in this case. As you note, "flinging baseless allegations" is not collegial conduct.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge proposing to "merge" an over 20,000 byte article into a list consisting of one-sentence entries doesn't make any sense. As far as I can see such a merge isn't supported by WP:MERGEREASON and would be an unprecedented move. If it was ok to compress 20,000 bytes into a one-sentence entry — nothing short of an article deletion — it should have been supported by the AfD which was closed as keep. User2534 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in addition to the ongoing and WP:INDEPTH international coverage given to the unusual PhD-candidate terrorist; significant and worldwide international coverage has been given to the unusual lockdown of 900 toruists inside one of the world's most famous cathedrals. gNews search here [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Synth

[edit]

With this edit Gregory has reinserted WP:SYNTH material previously removed by Pincrete. It has already been stated, several times, this attack had no bearing on the committee being formed and it seems like an attempt to establish an impact that doesn't exist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure synth, what Reuters says is France created a new counter-terrorism task force on Wednesday, bringing together all the intelligence services, to coordinate the response to attacks, a day after an Algerian student assaulted police officers outside Notre Dame cathedral. Newly elected President Emmanuel Macron, portrayed by rivals as weak on security during the presidential campaign, ordered the task force to be set up last month
Nothing about the Reuters suggests that it was anything other than chance that the announcement happened the following day yet your text (took the occasion of this attack to announce) and the heading 'Impact', both suggest a direct causal relationship. Maybe Macron did 'bring forward' an announcement by a day or two, but it certainly isn't in the Reuters, so is even less likely to be generally supported by less 'explicit' sources and isn't a fact in WP voice. Pincrete (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Islamic terrorism"

[edit]

The investigation is still on-going, so it's premature to classify the event as "Part of ..." and ascribe a motive. Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reinserted it. It is mentioned in the 2018 Europol-report on terrorism, on page 24, in the chapter "JIHADIST TERRORISM." That is enough for reinsertion. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Notre-Dame_de_Paris_attack&oldid=1256557913"