Jump to content

Talk:2017 Orly Airport attack

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

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! 05:03, 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

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]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep this as a free-standing article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

I propose this article is merged and redirected to list of terrorist incidents in France for the following reasons: as a WP:NOTNEWS event, the incident received a general cycle of news coverage in the immediate aftermath but no significant post-analysis required to meet WP:DIVERSE or WP:CONTIUEDCOVERAGE. Within that brief time, no WP:LASTING societal impact was ever established, and the article is half dedicated to trivial WP:UNDUE information about the dead perpetrator rather than the significance of the attack itself. While not much, if anything, is lost by an outright redirect, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, discussion here can add a sentence or two to the entry in the list mentioned above. The entry satisfies the key points of the incident so I hope editors can give better arguments than "per WP:PRESERVE" since I openly addressed the concern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm....what? Could you clarify that? That did not make sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a sort of stealth delete, by an editor who has taken a consistent position that terrorist attacks are not notable (except those that result in mass casualties.) The deletion-by-other-means being attempted here seems illegitimate to me because of the controversial nature of terrorism. I think that this merger ought to be closed and, if he so chooses, TheGracefulSlick can take this to AfD - where there will be more eyes on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sort of stealth delete, by an editor. That is a personal attack and is uncivil. The deletion-by-other-means being attempted here seems illegitimate to me because of the controversial nature of terrorism The merge process is a legitimate process and is not deletion-by-other-means as the article will not be deleted but merely redirected to the merged content with the history intact for a possible stand alone at a later time. That argument has failed as many times as it has been raised. I think that this merger ought to be closed.. Editors should always close a proposal uncontroversially. Complex cases can be referred to the project's talk page. Never remove a proposed merge tag unless you are intending to delist the article and only do so when all issues have been addressed. If the proposer of the merge did not start a discussion for the merge, and it is not obvious why the articles should be merged, it is acceptable to remove the tags. As long as you are asking for a delisting that is fine if the nominator wishes to de-list but at this point it might as well go the course.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pace Nom, coverage has continued in the wake of the recent Levallois-Perret attack, which drew attention to the terrorist targeting of security forces. (and also, this weeks pizza shop car-ramming, which appears to be non =-terrorism, "merely" part of a rise in deadly car-ramming attacks that are regarded as copy-cat suicides, with the method emulating the spate of terrorist car rammings. Nevertheless, it brought this attack back into the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is clear from the article that this double-terror attack was a notable event with fairly significant impact. As a side-note the article also exist on the French and the Spanish Wikipedias, and the French article is actually longer and includes more relevant context than this one. Doubt that would be the case for a non-notable event.User2534 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no impact, the attacks as a whole have cause France to be under an extended state of emergency. I just checked the sources which I removed because none of them mentioned this particular attack as being the sole cause. This should be merged and an impact section should be created on the list of terrorist incidents in France article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just replaced the sotry form the NYTimes discussing this in the context ofthe 2017 trend for ISSIS-inspired terrorists to attack the French security forces patroling the streets of French cities because , well, because of the series of ISIS-inspired attacks of which this is one. Please try not to delete RS supporting arguments you WP:JUSTDONTLIKE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please focus on impact bit here, this attack was one of several (the sixth according to the NYT) since 2015. The source does not say how this attack contributed to anything other than being part of a "string" of attacks since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that when I click "Discuss" on the template on March 2017 Île-de-France attacks it leads to a blank page. (I got here via a mention on another talk page). I am not sure how to fix this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Nom, GracefulSlick, has fixed the template.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • E.M.Gregory and I suggest you fix your pings above. Odd how TompaDompa and Pincrete, two editors who haven't just voted keep on every single AfD about these incidents, are spelled incorrectly. However, unlike you in your latest comment, I will WP:AGF and assume you made simple spelling errors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Does not meet any of the recommendations for merging. This is not a duplicate article, it doesn't have significant overlap with another article, it is not a very short article (at least not by my estimations at more than 10k bytes mostly prose) and does not require context from another article. Not to mention that merging should be avoided in situations where the article could arguably warrant a standalone article. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr rnddude in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE I choose to do this instead of an AfD. The article is not notable enough for a standalone page but some of its content can be added to the list mentioned. So far there have been three oppose votes yet none have addressed the notability issues I brought up in detail. In other words, no one has addressed why this incident meets the criteria for a seperate Wikipedia article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick perhaps nobody is addressing why this incident meets the criteria for a separate Wikipedia article because that isn't what merger discussions are for? While merging is in the spirit of preserve in some sense, the reasoning you outlined does not support a merger precisely for the reasons outlined in my first two sentences. That is, none of the recommendations for merging have been met. Child articles are meant to discuss in greater detail what is already present in the parent article. Indeed that particular parent article is not an article at all but a list which serves to aggregate scores and allow navigation between articles discussing similar topics in greater depth. On top of that, merging is not the only option to preservation. A "per preserve" argument includes, for example, keeping this article split from the proposed parent article on the grounds that; child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. Which, coincidentally, is what this article is currently doing. So you may consider that to be another reason why I oppose the merger. In different terms, the existing parent article offers an extremely brief summary of each event with more notable events having been split off into their own more expansive articles. Thus, it may be argued, that a merge is not appropriate because any such merger would burden the parent article. In essence what I am saying is this; there is nothing to merge, only the question of whether or not to delete the article completely. Which, in essence, is what is being proposed here. I presume that this obvious fact is what led to the redirection. So indeed I have provided a reason to oppose the merger, - there is nothing to merge and this child article performs the function of child articles as stated. What I have not done is provide a reason to keep the article. That question is handled via PROD, CSD, or AfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that you provide no direct attribution to what I suppose are guidelines (with no links for others see if you are accurate or not), you fail to make a legitimate argument against the merge per the actual, written procedure. While you get the reasons right, you say the merge nom has no basis in the merge recommendations (merging is a procedure it is not policy or guideline) when, in fact, it passes a couple of things you state outright that it does not (see below). Also, what is this; "I presume that this obvious fact is what led to the redirection"? The link is to the diff showing the article redirected. That as well can be done boldly. When reversed ( I assume it was reversed) that is a clear objection. I don't understand what point you are attempting to make.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you didn't read my comment. I did provide direct attribution to the guidelines. Did you not see "per preserve"? It's the only guideline I am citing aside from the information page WP:Merge in my original comment. I am not aware of any policies/guidelines that exist for merging and I did put some effort into trying to find one - Wikiproject Merge is by no means a "guideline" as you suggest below. You also make a bold claim and don't even bother to say what; it passes a couple of things you state outright that it does not and what precisely is that? I reread the recommendations for merging and again I contest that it does not meet any of recommendations. For the second time, it is not a duplicate of an existing article, it does not significantly overlap with an existing article (200 bytes/10k bytes overlap), the page is as long as 2005 Azores subtropical storm which is an FA (short for FA, not short for your average article, there are tens of thousands of shorter or similar length articles), and there is no broader context required for this article to be understood by the average reader. For that matter, Wikiprojects have no hegemony over procedure and are not guidelines. The fact that Wikiproject Merge has a guideline doesn't make it one, guidelines require broad consensus through discussion and are formally recognized by the community. Wikiprojects neither require such consensus nor do they generally get them (rare exceptions may exist). I never said a redirection couldn't be done without discussion, the point I was making was that the reason this article was redirected with no merger was because no merger could take place for the aforementioned reason that merging 10k bytes of material to a list would overburden the list and place significant undue focus on a single terrorist attack. Indeed, had you bothered to look at the list you'd have noticed that an entry for this terrorist attack already exists and, more importantly, that it is no longer than two sentences long which is about as long as most other entries in the list with the exceptions of the most major terror attacks that took place. So please do tell, what material exactly could possibly be merged from this article to the list. Note, I am aware that not all material needs to be merged, I am contesting the idea that any material (except maybe the name of the attacker) could be merged. I do not consider moving 50 or 100 bytes from the article to the list to be a merger. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read everything. But now..not all of that. Sorry but I stand fully by my statement that you are incorrect about the lack of reason per the procedures.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is NOT a guideline. I was absolutely clear about that. This does seem to demonstrate that you did not read my post very carefully.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disseminated all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures for the project page. That is all I stated, not that it was a guideline page. No project has guidelines. This project simply states all of the pertinent guidelines that are separate from the procedure itself such as attribution and other factors that must be adhered to.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"[T]he point I was making was that the reason this article was redirected with no merger was because no merger could take place for the aforementioned reason that merging 10k bytes of material to a list would overburden the list" That is a false assumption. No one and nowhere does it say that the content would be merged as it is now. Mergers need only merge the pertinent information and would follow formatting established at the target article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Miller, in your haste to tell me that I have't read your comment you do an excellent job of demonstrating that you have either not read or not understood mine. Please cautiosly read my comments and make sure you've done so properly before responding. It is quite tiresome repeating myself three times and having the person I am talking to demonstrate the restricted reading comprehension that has been audaciously attributed to me. Try again. Preserve is the only guideline I am citing aside from the information page WP:Merge in my original comment. I said explicitly that WP:Merge was an information page and that no formal guideline on merging exists. I was absolutely clear about that. I referred specifically to the merge information page as it is the relevant page that exists and Wikiproject Merge just repeats near exactly what is stated on the information page.
My apologies for misconstruing your comment to be implying Wikiproject Merge as being a guideline, that is an error on my part. The phrase Wikipeida's guidelines and procedures for the project page had me interpreting your comment to mean that the project itself was endorsed as a Wikipedia guideline. Though one might hasten to mention that the "guidelines and procedures" you reference on the project page appear to be lifted wholesale from WP:Merge.
With regards to your last comment, I said that not all 10k bytes of the article would be merged, in fact I have said that three times now and have stated that approximately 50-100 bytes at most could be merged because a large merger would put undue emphasis on this one terror attack in a list. I do not consider a 1% merger to be a merger, I consider that to be a redirection at best.
I don't mean to be rude, but, you're not addressing what I have actually said and have also selectively ignored things that I have said. Case in point, when quoting me in your third comment, you very casually ignore this comment by me; Note, I am aware that not all material needs to be merged, I am contesting the idea that any material (except maybe the name of the attacker) could be merged. I do not consider moving 50 or 100 bytes from the article to the list to be a merger. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Can you please point by point actually say why Gracefuls policy points wouldn't apply here? If an article isn't notable enough for a stand alone article then it is deleted or merged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowledgekid87, here's part A of the answer to your question, part B will be the Keep rationale when I've written it up. I'll start by pointing out the "policy points" that she's applied into her OP that have actually been met. [A]s a WP:NOTNEWS event, the incident received a general cycle of news coverage in the immediate aftermath but no significant post-analysis required to meet WP:DIVERSE or WP:CONTIUEDCOVERAGE. Not really true, this event had originally been through the news cycle in March and then re-entered the news cycle in August following the Marseille van attack (though only as a sort of side-note regarding the state of France's state of emergency). Furthermore, a quick scan of the article will tell you, that it was covered by a multitude of "diverse" sources. Side-track just to deal with "mirroring"; this Guardian article and this ABC article are completely and utterly different. Nor for that matter are either of those two articles in any way similar to this NZHerald article. The NZHerald isn't used in the article, I'm just making a point about international coverage. So at least both DIVERSE and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE are achieved, NOTNEWS is a different question altogether that I won't be addressing here. Within that brief time, no WP:LASTING societal impact was ever established ... umm ... lasting impacts are not established within a brief time, per LASTING; It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Not relevant at all but brought up anyway; ... and the article is half dedicated to trivial WP:UNDUE information about the dead perpetrator rather than the significance of the attack itself. Eh, the only really "trivial" thing I noticed was this; The attacker was found to have been carrying a gasoline can, a lighter, a Koran, a pack of cigarettes, and €750. Besides, UNDUE is not a deletion/merge/redirection rationale and ashouldn't have even been brought up. Notability is not determined by the quality of the article. Lastly; I hope editors can give better arguments than "per WP:PRESERVE" since I openly addressed the concern. No, only one of the many, many, per PRESERVE arguments was even addressed. I've already covered the one that currently applies to this article. I am not interested in repeating myself further. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An addendum to my original oppose merge to Keep the article; First, WP:GNG; As demonstrated in my above post, the article has received sigcov in a diverse array of reliable, secondary, independent of the subject, sources. It is there presumed that this article is suitable for a standalone article. Second, WP:NOTNEWS; 1. Original reporting; obviously not the case here as the event happened six months ago. 2. News reports; In this case, given it went through the news cycle twice, it can't be reasonably considered routine. 3. Who's who; perp does not have their own separate article. 4. Diary; non-notable individual, notable event = not diary. So, in terms of NOTNEWS, only the second point could apply and I don't think it does. Lastly, I'll note that I made a significantly longer per preserve argument in my second comment under the original Oppose Merge post that dealt with a portion of the guideline that was never addressed. That was about keeping this article split as a child article. I'm not going to repeat it here, for obvious reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note from a participant and contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge (I researched and disseminated all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures for the project page, with some help in the writing process). On Wikipedia, articles may be boldly merged without any proposal taking place, though it is recommended where the merge is expected to be controversial. This article is controversial so having a merge discussion is best. A merge discussion can begin as long as no deletion discussion is underway and the article meets one or more recommendations as well as the resulting article will not be too long or "clunky". The article being nominated for merger is indeed Minimal content and the resulting article will not be too long or clunky with the addition of the information from this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on the merge other than that. Merge - No valid reasoning has yet been given why this must remain a stand alone article. Terrorist attacks are not inherently notable for a stand alone.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Knowledgekid87:, question. This discussion is deadlocked at 3 to 3 but those in support of merge have actually provided a rationale to merge and redirect while those who oppose have not (except, weakly, User2534). How should this be handled? Should I go to WP:RFC as you recommended to Gregory? If I actually try to follow through with a selective merge and redirect after the 30-day period and the vote remains the same, I fully expect to be reverted despite the rationale provided here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick, everybody has provided their rationales for opposing or supporting the merge. That you do not agree with those rationales for opposing the merge does not make them illegitimate. You may start an RfC if you like, don't forget to be neutral in doing so. Obviously you cannot close this discussion as you are involved. So obviously you would be immediately reverted if you did do a selective merge and redirect. One would think that you would know this. Apparently not. Yet, somehow, you wonder why E.M. Gregory bludgeons discussions at AfD. Objectivity is not your strong suit. Strike reason: I'd promised to strike this comment if TheGracefulSlick explained what they meant. Besides, I spent more time attacking the editor than addressing anything they said resulting in a pointless uncivil back and forth that has contributed a negative value to the merge discussion.Mr rnddude (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr rnddude that is odd; I thought I pinged Knowledgekid. I never said I considered your responses "illegitimate", something Gregory might say, just that they fail to rationalize why a merge would not be the best route for a subject that is not notable for a standalone page. Obviously, I never said I would close this discussion but I did say I would wait after the 30 day waiting period -- the total duration of a merge discussion -- and, of course, under the condition consensus was met. Your snark and inability to read my comment is discouraging but expected.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick, anybody may respond to your comments, or do you not know what a discussion is? I'm going to stop taking digs at you here. [B]ut those in support of merge have actually provided a rationale to merge and redirect while those who oppose have not. I'm sorry, but, you must think that I am stupid. That is indeed an explicit suggestion that the opposing rationales to the merge are illegitimate. On top of that, you say Obviously, I never said I would close this discussion. To quote you; If I actually try to follow through with a selective merge and redirect after the 30-day period and the vote remains the same. In effect, this would be closing the discussion without consensus too. Like I said, you may start an RfC, you don't need to wait for another editor to tell you that you may. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I apologize if you believe you give off the impression of being stupid Mr rnddude. I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth but who am I to stand in your way. Do you have anything productive to add to this discussion or was this just a way to throw a few jabs at me? Hopefully your next few comments will be a bit more civil but, again, who am I to stop you from saying what you want? Did you at the very least want to entertain the idea of reading my selective merge proposal or is that out of the question?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick, your strategy isn't going to result in a productive discussion any time soon. Please read WP:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility, it is more likely to result in productivity then what you are currently doing. No seriously, read the 8 points and identify which are currently in play. I would be amazed if you could show me putting words in your mouth when all I have done is "quote" you with precision and then tell you what those words mean. Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V tend to make it impossible for me to put words in your mouth. Case in point, would you like to profer a different explanation for the meaning of; [B]ut those in support of merge have actually provided a rationale to merge and redirect while those who oppose have not. Now, on the topic of something serious, what selective merge proposal? It is not obvious to me if you mean your OP, which I have addressed in detail (more annoying detail than anybody else has), or if you have made some other proposal elsewhere in the discussion that I have not seen. I'm also going to be very blunt with you, but, not rude to you, for a second, you are not demonstrating any ability which you are asking me to display. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick, I am trying to send this unproductive bickering somewhere productive. If you are just trying to discuss a merge then would you point me to which of your last four comments has actually done this? I have a series of questions for you. I would sincerely appreciate a response to the first two at least although if you answered all of them that would be swell. Of course you can ask me whatever you want as well and I will actually answer your questions. Where have I put words in your mouth? Can you profer me an alternative meaning to this that would suggest my interpetation of the meaning of your words is wrong; [B]ut those in support of merge have actually provided a rationale to merge and redirect while those who oppose have not? What selective merge proposal are you referring to? Have you read the short policy/guideline section I've linked you to? Do you know why I've linked it to you? Are you willing to engage in a healthy dialogue if I am doing that myself? To answer your only question; Umm, strategy?. Yes, your diplomatic strategy of responding to incivility with incivility while concurrently asking for civility. I know that you did not intend this to be an actual strategy, but, I'm describing what is happening in the best terms that I can. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an effort to move this along in the right direction, I am going to selectively answer all the questions that are actually refering to a merge -- the point of a merge discussion. Looks like that only leaves us with one question. To answer it: My selective merge proposal involves two additional sentences in the list mentioned as the destination. I believe the fact that the perpetrator was not on the "Fiche S" list requires a mention as does the evacuation at the airport immediately after the incident. The "impact" described in the article is actually a background of prior terror attacks in France, all of which are already described in more detail at the list. This leaves us with very little useful information; hence why I call this a selective merge and redirect. Please let me know what you think Mr rnddudeTheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick; So your selective merge is about 1-2% of the article content. I fail to see why that detail couldn't be added without redirecting this article in the first place. There is no need in either case to actually merge unless the goal is to actually get rid of this article. I'm not going to support that proposal for the reasons that I have mentioned repeatedly in my four or five comments in the thread where I posted my !vote above and which has taken the brunt of the discussion. I don't consider this to be a valid or appropriate use of merging. I think I have made that perfectly clear. I'm going to recommend one last time that you start the RfC, if you want to break the deadlock, that is going to be the fastest way to do it. I am not overly attached to this or any other similar article. I'm going to accept whatever the outcome is provided it's enforced by a neutral third party. I doubt that I'll be responding further unless prompted. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowledgekid87, then perhaps you'd be able to explain to me what these two sentences mean. [T]hose in support of merge have actually provided a rationale to merge and redirect while those who oppose have not. To me that sentence means in no uncertain terms that the oppose rationales are illegitimate. I also never said views nor did I ever say mine. If I actually try to follow through with a selective merge and redirect after the 30-day period and the vote remains the same. To me this sentence means; If nothing changes by the end of the discussion, she is considering performing the merge regardless of any lack of consensus. This would in effect be closing the discussion in a support outcome. Of course, she does not see a lack of consensus because she does not see the current oppose rationales as legitimate - barring one "weakly" rationale. I have repeated this about five times now, TheGracefulSlick has only suggested that I've put words in her mouth and has refused to defend that statement by providing any example of me doing so. Though the charge of incivility has some validity. Now, would you be so kind as to profer me an alternative meaning to the ones I've taken from her text. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr rnddude wouldn't it have been so much more simpler if you just asked what I meant from the very beginning instead of insinuating and continuing to misinterpret my own comment? I am pretty sure I know the most about what is going on in my own head. As I read once, "my mind is well beyond your area of expertise".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm...I already did explain what I meant. I stated already that I do not consider the oppose votes illegitimate, just that they do not rationalize why a merge is not the best option. I never said I would forcibly close this discussion but would wait for the 30-day period and act (or not act) on consensus. You can believe me or not -- that is your choice. I just ask that you focus more on this merge discussion instead of your interpretation of my comment. If you cannot handle that, take this to whatever forum you find appropriate in handling your interpretation of the comment and we can deal with it there.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick, I think that opposing the merge implicitly suggests that not merging is a better (not necessarily the best) option then merging. I've never been asked to provide a keep rationale at a merge discussion, but, this time it seems necessary, so I'll do that as well soon. I've repeatedly explained why I do not think a merge is appropriate. On a side note: Not being a legitimate rationale and failing to rationalize are the same thing. [Does not] rationalize -> [Does not] attempt to justify with logical reasons, even if they are not appropriate. [Not] legitimate -> [Not] able to be defended with logic or justification; [Not] valid. If it isn't rationalized, then whatever is provided is not legitimate or not valid as a rationale. You've used different words to say almost the same thing. I don't know which definition of legitimacy you think I'm using (given there is more than one), but, I'm using the definition of legitimate that means; valid (or illegitimate; not valid). Beyond that, I am done with this discussion. I will strike out the first comment as promised. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is well sourced with lasting coverage. Merging the well-sourced content into an article which otherwise contains a list will result in this incident taking up a significant portion of the list article's contents. Removing well-sourced material is also a bad choice. There is no lack of space on Wikipedia, and there is no need to delete or redirect/merge articles that clearly meet GNG and NCRIME. If and when the pace of events in France picks up to a full scale war with several incidents a day (which presumably would collapse to a daily news coverage of X people killed today in terms of coverage) - then we should take the merge/redirect (or delete) with a list-based or even just a weekly/monthly casualty count.19:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC) whoopsie, resigning Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge - Keep Article - Well-written article with solid WP:RS about an event that has been cited more than once by WP:RS as one of the reasons why France is still in a constitutional case of exception wherein soldiers openly patrol the streets (not a light thing). XavierItzm (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose failed wp:merge− on point 1. This isn't a duplicate. Point 2. This doesn't overlap the proposed merge parent article. And point 4. Context. It doesn't require the background or contextual information from the proposed parent article in order to maintain clarity or completeness. It passes wp:n, wp:v and wp:Rs with relative ease. It could be further expanded, with information as to the background, when such info becomes available. It would help if the person who proposed the merge could become familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines as this is a clearly failed RfC proposal. A reasonable case has been made for article improvement per the policies quoted in the merge proposal, but that's about all. Edaham (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC) Closed by me as per consensus; I was involved in the discussion.[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.

Propose move to 2017 Orly Airport attack

[edit]
Proposing a move to 2017 Orly Airport attack, because in current articles referencing this pair of attacks, the WP:COMMONNAME seems to be "Orly Airport attack"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Orly_Airport_attack&oldid=1256555438"