Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about November 2015 Paris attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Link to Islamic terrorism in the lede

ISIL has claimed responsibility for the attacks and the French government has confirmed that they were acts of Islamic terrorism, so I think we should say that and link it in the first sentence of the lede. Cla68 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, then, if no objections I'm going to make the change to the article again. I'm not sure why someone keeps revert warring me on it when they won't participate in this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please slow down and give time for people to actualy read, think and edit the piece? Follow the lead of articles like January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 7_July_2005_London_bombings where neither lede sentence actually tries to nail a group or cause, but simply tries to state the facts clinically and verifiably. I've already consolidated all the ISIL information into one graf, including Hollande's reaction into one place and moved it up. It could even be moved up more. But the insistence that the first sentence must name "Islamic terrorists" does not fit how we write articles about these subjects. And characterizing one exchange as "revert warring" is disingenuous. This is typically what's called "editing." Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that sufficient WP:RS are now collectively stating that this can be characterized as "Islamic terrorism" that we can do so too. (In addition to it also being amazingly obvious from other evidence, but that would be WP:OR) -- The Anome (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede already states that ISIL claimed responsibility. This seems like enough to me. LjL (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to @Jumplike23: who did a good job of recrafting the lede, and moving up the ISIL/ISIS mention. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian refugee involvement?

I read that a Syrian passport was found with one of the bodies of the terrorists. Was this a Syrian refugee? Cla68 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is being reported that one was a refugee who was processed in October on Leros. 68.194.210.70 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make assertions like this here, you need to provide links to reliable sources that back them up. Otherwise, "things you read" do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd strongly suggest not to create or strengthen unsourced rumours on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a news article report the refugee connection (http://www.avgi.gr/article/6027031/eixe-katagrafei-sti-lero-to-suriako-diabatirio-pou-empleketai-stin-tromokratiki-epithesi-sto-parisi) 68.194.210.70 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We need to show extreme caution and to stick to just the facts. A Syrian passport has been found, but it does not imply directly that it was a Syrian refugee. That needs further confirmation. The source itself states:

While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Already reported by Reuters. Citation added. XavierItzm (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In US tv thy say the found Syrian Passport . Using precedense from 9/11 it when the passpords flown out of higjacked plane. They suggest one of terrorist lost his passwor out of his t-shirt pocket. Other mass outlet saing it was instead inside hes underwere pants (and this is stronger argument) terrorists usually hide things

Eagles of Death Metal

I have the news that the California band called Eagles of Death Metal escaped the Bataclan Theatre massacre; all band members were unharmed. Here's the link for this if you want to update, okay? [1] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone listening to me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Angeldeb82: - Do you have a proposed place to put that info? -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, but it's just my personal opinion, underlining the fact that a small number of "famous" people were unharmed is slightly offensive to the >100 people who definitely were harmed. If you want policy, it'd fall under WP:UNDUE I guess. LjL (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'm inclined to say: "Band member harmed" = news. "Band member safe" = not news. Though, do send our best to the band and tell them we are glad they are unharmed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The absence of information does not imply a positive outcome. Firebrace (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's another survivor added to the list: Simone Rivera, the 21-year-old daughter of Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera. Is that okay to you? [2] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay to add to the article? Absolutely not. I survived the attacks, too. Will you add me to the article? LjL (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

High speed train derailment

A high speed train has derailed in France today, with 5 dead and at least 7 injured. There are suggestions in some media that this was a deliberate act. I would suggest being very cautious, as this just happened and ANY connection is unconfirmed. News of the derailment can be seen here:[3] I mean no sarcasm when I say France is having a very bad weekend. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a really nasty coincidence, but there is as yet no suggestion that it was terrorism, and we can't link it to this attack in any way at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I suggested restraint in editing. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The article says it was a "test train", so likely no passengers, and one could conjecture something technical failed. LjL (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If it was a test train, then we have an explanation that is more likely and more mundane than terrorism, and the default hypothesis that it was not terrorism just became a lot more likely. -- The Anome (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

[4] now reports 7 dead, 40 passengers total, confirms it was a test train, no ill-doing suspected. Pretty scary aerial! LjL (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My guess is the train accident is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia at this point, unrelated to this article. I know emotions are high right now, which is why I wanted to proactively prevent the linking of these two issues. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of rail accidents (2010–present). Also, this is probably not a related incident. Why would terrorists derail a test train on an unopened line with only 46 people, all technicians, on board? epic genius (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

To cause terror!92.16.213.2 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has created the article: Eckwersheim train crash. I haven't been involved in it yet, but I'll add it to my watch list, and may collaborate. Lets keep these issues separate unless a reliable source says otherwise Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

17th reference

Hi, the 17th reference has already been corrected and completed by me. Please don't try to put any other in in the same place (like now) or at least do that in a correct form. It's resulting in a unreadable edit conflict. --La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't understand why both have been deleted - the CNN's reference was ok. Nevermind anyway. --La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

lead

Please do not delete or add content to lead without stating a reason. Also, do not combine paragraphs without doing such. I would be in an edit war if I did such. I have tried to improve the lead but someone just comes along and combines paragraphs--with the resulting paragraphs not being coherent. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, look at last paragraph, all of a sudden the fact that eight attackers were killed gets added in a paragraph that seems about context of attack--JumpLike23 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jumplike23: - I think we're good now, but double check and edit as you see fit. I think we were messed up by a vandal who tried to insert "Friday" and did not resolve an edit conflict and just wrote over some intermediate edits. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: I agree, I think national emergency flows from the casualty count and President's response. Thanks! --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuzheado likes this.

cells in Germany?

German police arrest someone linked to Paris attacks had guns, explosives, hand grenades. This should be in.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-14/german-police-arrested-man-with-suspected-ties-to-paris-attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There have also been arrests in Belgium. Firebrace (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

gunpowder was Chinese invention. But ChannyBushRumsfeld link to US. It is only mater of how dip one wnat to dig. Mudy water dip by drip.

some photos in infobox?

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/73084d25dc6ec012b8aa18b9e98f056a3fb11ece/1012_665_3550_2130/3550.jpg?w=460&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=a86cdc5e19c4fb972a556d94d256c083

http://dd508hmafkqws.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/article_node_view/public/paris_2_0.jpg (though this one may be too graphic) Add some below if you have any more ideas--Stefvh96 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. Infobox already crowded, map is enough. Photos can be added throughout the article when/where relevant. LjL (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes

Stop adding unrelated navboxes please. Navboxes aren't "see also" links (although their contents may be similar). If this article is about the November attacks, it shouldn't embed the navbox about the January attacks. That's a bogus addition. The ISIL navbox is an example of something appropriate, because it's the perpetrators of the attacks (once established), not just because it's somehow "related". LjL (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clearly linked. Compare with the 2015 Copenhagen shootings which also links to the January article. I see you've reverted that several times, in direct conflict to the talkpage header - "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users". Continue, and you risk being blocked. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know what navboxes are for. LjL (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know what personal attacks and trolling are either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

These are some of your edits on this article: [5] [6] [7]. They are reverts. They are three. Three is bigger than one. Feel free to request to be blocked yourself. LjL (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Predictability of links

Re: [8]

This user has twice reverted my removal of this link without explanation. I believe link targets should be somewhat predictable from the displayed text. Thus, a link that says "retaliation" should link to an article about retaliation, or something close to that, not an article about the spillover of the Syrian Civil War. This is widely accepted link practice, but I'm willing to defer to local consensus on this. Comments? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you there 72.198.26.61 (talk · contribs), they should at least use an edit summary. (Though, I also note that the number of dead & injured was also being changed, by them?) Linking only one isolated word means that anyone printing the page out will not see the context of what is being linked to at all. WP:Astonish links to the relevant guideline, or a similarly named guideline? The astonishment factor here is that a reader may be lead to a totally unexpected page if only one word is linked.

"...motivated by ISIL as a [[:Spillover of the Syrian Civil War|"retaliation" for the French role]] in the Syrian Civil War ..."

resulting in

"...motivated by ISIL as a "retaliation" for the French role in the Syrian Civil War ... "

would seem to be a better link, to me. "Syrian Civil War" could also be linked but avoids a semi- WP:Sea of blue text. This page also says

"The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links."

Or the link could simply be left out. I note that, right now, that link is not on the page. Pinging the involved editor H0peiambag (talk · contribs) for comment. 220 of ^Borg 00:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: 220

I saw the updated total on the morning news and I forgot to update the existing citation.

This one should work: http://nytimes.com/2015/11/15/world/europe/paris-terrorist-attacks.html?_r=0

I made no other edits to the above page, and I reverted no edits on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by H0peiambag (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 November 2015‎

• Added 2 wp:indents to H0peiambags' above comment. 220 of ^Borg 01:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

H0peiambag, please make sure that you also update sources when changing figures, it is quite common for vandals to do this so sourcing is very important. If you look at the link to your 2nd edit [9], you did in fact also change the link, twice, without explanation. Earlier edit is here. Did you have a wp:edit conflict? 220 of ^Borg 01:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I was on mobile, so not sure.

-H0peiambag — Preceding unsigned comment added by H0peiambag (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Added 4 wp:indents to H0peiambags' above comment. 220 of ^Borg 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I can only suggest using the Show preview button to ensure you haven't accidentally changed something. 220 of ^Borg 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Facebook part 2

Many facebook users have changed their profile picture by superimposing the French flag over it to show solidarity with the people of France. Should this be mentioned in the article? Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not unless RS has given it significant significance. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty irrelevant to me, but I do realize that, these days, any tiny thing Facebook does it bigger news than the attacks themselves. LjL (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What I found more relevant from a Facebook standpoint was the fact that users could report themselves as "safe" from their Facebook page. I was sitting in California and a push notification on my phone from Facebook let me know that my friend in Pairs was safe. I thought that was pretty cool. While Facebook has done the "change your picture" idea in the past, this is the first time (and correct me if i am wrong) that I have seen the social media website be used to report people as safe during a terrorist attack. Sorry if this was already mentioned above I couldn't find "part 1" on my quick scroll through the page Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that we need a significant RS to do a story about Facebook profile pics changing before it warrants a mention here. However, I agree with @Comatmebro: that it's likely that a mention of Facebook Safety Check is justified, given how this is perhaps the first major event to showcase that technology, and a number of outlets have mentioned this, including The Atlantic, CNN and Time magazine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Names and surnames of victims

Should we really list who exactly some of the known victims are, in light of WP:BLP + WP:RSBREAKING, and the fact that there are more than a hundred victims yet (at this point) we are only giving the name of one, so, WP:UNDUE? LjL (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not unless they were independently notable, and maybe not even then in this article: see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E -- The Anome (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A table displaying the number of victims from each country seems to be the standard for this type of article, e.g. 2002 Bali bombings and 2004 Madrid train bombings. Firebrace (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Morbid?92.16.213.2 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

so if one person ged killed you list the name when hundredds none -staistics or cannonmet. Perhps only names of one specialy ch. country?

Requested move 14 November 2015

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved/DFFT ~~~~

November 2015 Paris attacks → Friday the 13th Paris attacks – Symbolic meaning of the date being un lucky. The Telegraph Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose or Snow oppose - No one has reasonably talked about this event being know as Friday the 13th attacks. Let's be serious now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Premature. Wait at least two weeks to see what COMMONNAME emerges. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The Telegraph has begun using that name. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's one. It's light years from COMMONNAME. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed on Telegraph. I see this at their site: [10] - "How will Britain respond to the Paris terror attacks?" and [11] "Paris terror attack: Syrian passport found on attacker was used to seek asylum in Greece as one Briton confirmed dead." No FRIDAY and no 13TH. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Premature - one can foresee this might catch on but WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COMMONNAME at this point in time. DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

One swallow doesn't make a summer. Firebrace (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow oppose -- this would only make sense if the consensus among WP:RS was that this was called this. It isn't, and we haven't even been provided with any evidence that the Telegraph itself does. -- The Anome (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Number of attackers revised to 7 (press conference)

The french Procureur de la République de Paris has held a press conference in which facts about the attack were described (video of the press conference held by François Molins). I believe it should be a trusty source as it is a government official, not a news outlet.

Amongst the facts mentionned at 10:00 of the video, it has been noted the number of attackers is 7, not 8 as the article currently states.

At 5:54 it is mentionned the number of attackers in the Bataclan is 3, not 4 as the article currently states.

Can someone revise the article? I can't do it due to my poor english and I don't know how to cite the sources. I hope my report is accurate.--86.198.32.153 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is too much to change without a written source in English. Otherwise, it might be 7 then 8 then 7 then 8. Bod (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

- The problem is both French sources and English sources reported the same mistake until the statement from the Procureur de la République de Paris caused French news to rectify their numbers (the Procureur being a representative of the justice). The French version of the article is already rectified to show these numbers, and uses a source in written French as a reference. I believe it should be rectified with facts, even if the sources in English are lacking. --86.198.32.153 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Insurance

WP:DFTT

"Two Jewish brothers, Pascal and Joel Laloux, owned the Bataclan theatre for more than forty years until they sold it in September 2015."

could you help with formating source ? There may be interesting to add information that the insurance rise was worked out on another instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

...what? LjL (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, what does "the insurance rise was worked out on another instance" mean, and what is your source for this information? (This sounds almost like anti-Semite propaganda, though I hope I'm wrong.) General Ization ^Talk 23:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rather trite information - the only relevance would be an insinuation that Jews work with Mosolems. We're not in the 1300s. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether it was their intention or not, the IP has called my attention to the fact that the linked article at the New York Times has changed over time and no longer serves as a source for information about the Laloux brothers and their ownership of Bataclan. We need to either find another source for this info, or if now unsourced, remove it. General Ization ^Talk 00:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I just readed that the brothers rised insurance on object prior to the atack. "They had said that the venue had been threatened several times because of their public support of Israel. In 2011, a group called "Army of Islam" threatened the theatre because of this.[37][38][39]" :could one find source prior the atack. Any one warning buers or customers ? The 37,38,39 rerfs are all dated only 14 Nov 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 November 2015‎ (UTC)

What is your point? (And where did you read this? We need cited sources, not "I just readed [sic]".) Even if you have one, the brothers could not have raised the limits of their insurance (what I presume you mean) on a property they no longer own. General Ization ^Talk 00:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This quote may be mistook to other Jewish brother which rose insurance to 'coincidentally profit' on terrorist attack. But the point no2 point is valid: the refs are after and not before the sale. So plese put refs before attack to dismiss the notion that they did hide this insider information and do not issue warming to buyers or customers. There is however one ref from 2008 but the probability of relation to current property sale is 72 to 1 - quite odd to just dismiss as bare coincidence. Or just perhaps some may get the nose to making good deal just in time. What about to add some info there about 9/11 and the Solomon brothers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2015‎ (UTC)

No, we're not going to spend any time trying to tie this event to fringe theories about foreknowledge on the part of the Salomon Brothers investment firm of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the destruction of their headquarters at WTC7. And I suggest you drop this now, as if you continue it will be regarded as trolling, with appropriate consequences. General Ization ^Talk 03:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

who own now the blothbad bataclantheatre? 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I found an article yesterday that said the current owner wishes to remain anonymous. Can't find it now. But, yeah, this seems like an odd conversation and maybe this section should be deleted. Snd0 (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

The fact that this article has now been placed under the same umbrella as other Syria-related articles and WP:1RR is enforced makes it basically impossible to correct repeated mistakes, as this article moves too quickly and edit summaries are too scant to keep track of who changed what and when. It's exceedingly easy to revert more than once (note that revert rules aren't about the same revert, it can be unrelated reverts), including logged-in users since there is no semi-protection anymore, meaning anyone can make an account and edit.

I've edited this article a lot and, for the little it matters, been "Thanked" a lot for it, but I will virtually stop editing now unless this is lifted. I've just been threatened with blocking (see above - by a user with a history of multiple blocks, ironically) for a pretty legitimate concern. LjL (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen at least two inappropriate edits by user (talk). XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen one by you where you actually claimed I had vandalized the article (have you read what WP:Vandalism means?) over a dispute on whether we should say "ISIL" or "Islamic State" just because the source used the latter, even though the whole Wikipedia article used the former. Claims of vandalism aren't taken lightly, and you should be careful about making them. LjL (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am going to add that there is little difference between using ISIL and Islamic State. If there is a big difference, User:XavierItzm, then you should have pointed it out somewhere on the talk page so a discussion could have been started. Additionally, the infobox at the top of the page uses the expanded abbreviation of ISIL and the section that was edited had the acronym next to the full name of ISIL to show what it referred to. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting that a search for "islamic state" gives Islamic state, and a search for "Islamic State" gives Islamic state (disambiguation). Neither gives Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right. Right now, there is abuse because the voice of the WSJ is being used to read "ISIL", when the referred WSJ article never at all mentions ISIL. It uses "Islamic State." XavierItzm (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm seems to be exhibiting a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, in light of his talk page discussion. LjL (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Xaviertzm, are you saying that WSJ is referring to something other than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Perhaps worth noting that a search for "isil" or "ISIL" gives Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, so Wikipedia currently considers them synonymous. Not so for "Islamic State", as demonstrated above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We paraphrase sources routinely. We don't have to use the exact words they use, provided we don't alter their meaning. I don't think using ISIL alters WSJ's meaning, and it's less ambiguous than Islamic State, as shown above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the lede, "Hollande also said the attacks were organised from abroad "by Daesh," the Arabic acronym for ISIL," which should make it obvious that this is referring to ISIL which is used everywhere else in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I note that direct quotations are an exception, so if Hollande said Daesh, we should quote Daesh - but only if we're actually quoting him verbatim, we can always rephrase as long as we don't pretend it's a direct quote. LjL (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually best thing to do would be to fully protect the article for the near future. Volunteer Marek 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice joke. Now back to the topic, okay? LjL (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a joke. Dead serious. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble and sending out an invite to various POV pushers everywhere who are going to try to hitch their agenda to this. And we've already seen some of this. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: So, you are requesting that we restore discretionary sanctions to the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If we have full protection, we won't need DS. Volunteer Marek 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has my standing vote for a one-month delay on all major breaking news stories. Plane crashes, mass murders, terrorist attacks, and so on. Per NOTNEWS. Would make more sense than allowing creation of an article and then prohibiting it from being developed. Can't seem to get much traction for the concept. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

One Click Archiving

I failed to set this up correctly, so sections are going to the wrong page. Can someone with expertise in this take a look? Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

She works - thanks User:General Ization Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Ayad of Mercury Records dead

I noticed that Thomas Ayad, executive of Mercury Records, was killed in the Bataclan attacks. Somebody needs to update the article to include this one. [12] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In keeping with general practice in Wikipedia articles concerning mass disasters, we are not naming individual victims among the 129 dead and more than 300 injured in the article at this time. If and when this is mentioned in a significant number of prominent news sources (not just an entertainment industry site), it may be mentioned here. Also, meaning no disrespect to Mr. Ayad or his family, but he was not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines before his death, and his being a victim of this incident does not make him so (and they are still entitled to privacy). General Ization ^Talk 04:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Thomas Ayad wouldn't be notable just out of the 129 victims. We need to wait for more information before listing too many people. Kiwifist (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting that if Mr. Ayad is a US citizen (which can't be determined from Universal Music Group chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge's note quoted at the source cited above – he could just as easily be French, or otherwise), this may require a change in the table of casualties by nationality. We must wait for a better source. General Ization ^Talk 04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Age mention

Currently the article states "French Police confirmed that the three men who attacked the theatre were:" and one of the three listed there has the age mentioned. I think, for reasons of symmetry, either all of them should have the age be mentioned, or none. (I'd probably be in favour of everyone, since this gives extra information, compared to none). As it now stands, it feels a bit awkward to see that some individuals have more information associated with them than the others. Since the age is known of the other ones, I would like to suggest to add this as well. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Nationwide" state of emergency

@Zziccardi: why remove the fact that the state of emergency is nationwide, though? Many, if not all, of the past times it's been declared, it was only for certain territories, but this times multiple sources reported it as actually being nationwide ("sur l'ensemble du territoire", on the whole of the territory). LjL (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, LjL. Thanks for the ping. I was responding to this edit by Biwom. I can't read French, so I apologize if I'm wrong, but the NY Times article that was cited doesn't specifically mention that it's a nationwide state of emergency. As far as I could tell, the 1961 state of emergency wasn't statewide either. —zziccardi (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 1961 one. But if this one is nationwide (I'll try to find a source in English), it's either the first since 1961, or the first since the state of emergency law was instated, both of which would be relatively prominent facts, no? LjL (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the BBC is saying it's a nationwide state of emergency, but many other reliable sources just say "state of emergency". I think it's best not to use terms like "statewide" for now since it's not clear whether that's actually the case. Time says the following: Previously, the country had imposed a state of emergency only in Algeria, a former French colony, in 1955, 1958 and 1961. —zziccardi (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The French sources were routinely saying it was nationwide, though, using terms that perhaps the English sources may not have picked up properly. Let's read the original government announcement: "un décret déclarant l’Etat d’urgence a été adopté. Il prend effet immédiatement sur l’ensemble du territoire métropolitain et en Corse." [13] ("a decree declaring the state of emergency has been adopted. It takes effect immediately on the whole of the metropolitan territory and in Corsica."). Note that "territoire métropolitain" (metropolitan territory) doesn't mean the territory of a city or anything like that in French, but it simply contrasts with offshore territories like ~~colonies~~ the overseas territories (see Metropolitan France to confirm). LjL (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

These three sources (in French) say 1961 was nationwide: 1 2 and 3. 1 and 2 say clearly it's the first nationwide state of emergency since 1961, 3 says it less explicitly. My feeling is the French medias today were more focused on this "first since 1961" than "first since 2005" thing, so we should do the same. Regards, Biwom (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Reflecting the fact that France declares a state of emergency quite rarely, mentioning the 2005 occurrence seems just as relevant to me, and reliable English-language sources have given it plenty of coverage. —zziccardi (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification—I was absolutely interpreting territoire métropolitain as just the metropolitan area, unaware of the term's specific use in France. Personally, I'd prefer to reference an English-language source, seeing as this is the English Wikipedia and most readers presumably can't read French sources to verify any information stated within the article for themselves. How about we cite both the government's announcement (providing a quote in the citation) and the BBC's assertion that the state of emergency is nationwide? I think that would be most useful for our readers. —zziccardi (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

English sources are generally preferred, although non-English ones are acceptable (especially to clarify a situation like here). As long as the sources now given in French convince you, I'm fine with giving BBC as the primary source for "nationwide" within the article. LjL (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture, but it's not about convincing me, specifically. Using both the BBC and the French government's announcement as sources would probably be in the interest of readers. :) —zziccardi (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

is "piano man" playing the Lennon song really noteworthy?

I would vote to remove it. There will be lots of these sort of stunts in the coming days. 68.19.1.154 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd keep it. It's been widely reported on, and just because it didn't happen "online" that doesn't make it less important than the various hashtags and Facebook stunts... LjL (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't keep those, either. 68.19.1.154 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but good luck with that. LjL (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what he played. It sounded only remotely like "Imagine". No need to keep that in the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Err, your WP:OR on what it sounded like isn't really relevant, to be fair, what sources reported him as playing is. LjL (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it per the above discussion.--Malerooster (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Suicide bombings" and "bombings"

"Suicide bombings" and "bombings" are both mentioned in the second sentence. Aren't they both the same thing? Why is it being differentiated here? Kiwifist (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

due proces is only possible in absentia for sucide bombing. Do It explain somehow? (legality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like it's already been fixed now. Kiwifist (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

the killed people of Jewish ancestry

how many generation back it count. If somebody has grand granmather roots could be added to victim section ? 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you on about? Nowhere does it talk about Jewish victims in the article. Stop posting nonsense to this talk page. See what I told you on my talk page. Thank you. LjL (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

France has started bombing Raqqa massively, this should be put

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/15/middleeast/france-announces-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/index.html--Stefvh96 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

20 bombs dropped. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996678/Paris-terror-attacks-victims-isil-suspects-Syria-arrests-live.html?frame=3500718 92.16.213.2 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed an unreliable source

The French source quotes a tweet by Yannis Koutsomitis saying: Toskas confirms Paris attacker w Syrian passport was registered as refugee on Leros island in Oct, which quotes Antenna News which quotes Greece's deputy minister in charge of police, Nikos Toskas, who says "The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on Oct. 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules". I'm removing the French source on grounds that it doubles the Reuters source, but fails to properly quote Toskas. Jan Winnicki * 14:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Times of events

The body copy says that the attacks began at 21.16 but the info box further down says 21.20. One of them is obviously wrong. --Doris Kami (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've amended that, thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing SCW&ISIL sanctions

I am going to be bold and get rid of the {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} template on this, to remove it from the status of being under the discretionary sanctions, for several reasons:

This article is related to ISIL but certainly not one of the ones in high contention from that arbcom case.
It is a new article that is being actively edited and is also a breaking news article, which means it is in high flux. It's unreasonable to think that people can be banned or blocked after one small mistake and reverting.
Heuristically and operationally, it has ruined the working dynamic here which I thought was developing quite nicely
I'm going to be WP:BOLD and WP:IAR and do this in the name of common sense.

Removing the template now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Highly reasonable. Thanks. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I support this. (I'd rather support ArbCom not just slapping 1RR sanctions on things as a default, but when all you have is a hammer....) -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the removal of the template the Discretionary Sanctions still apply, but I would hope that they would not be used against editors making routine edits on a fast developing news story. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The sanctions for SCW&ISIL automatically apply and users should be aware of it. Any edit on pages related with ISIL - "As the result of a discussion at WP:AN, the scope of the Syrian Civil War general sanctions is amended to apply to all pages related to the Syrian Civil War or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed" [14].GreyShark (dibra) 12:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There has to be a logical limit to that blanket decision, and if the consensus in this editing community on this page is that the edict should be put on the back burner until there are specific parts of this article that touch on Islamic State or Syrian Civil War topics that breach that ARBCOM ruling, then we should have the liberty to do so. We should be able to stick to the explicit and implicit consensus seen above. I understand the desire to use Arbcom power to pre-emptively enforce civility, but articles like these about breaking news with information in flux, rapid iteration and high standards for WP:V show the great flaws in applying the sanctions indiscriminately. We have ways of dealing with this without a 1RR hammer. Please respect the original spirit of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Five_pillars points 1 and 5) and let thinking editors decide. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The statement "All articles related to ... the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is sufficiently vague to be almost meaningless. For example, the article No. 12 Squadron RAF mentions ISIL, so is it covered by 1RR? It's time a minority of editors treat others as adults and stop trying to micro-manage editing. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuzheado likes this.

Semiprotecting required.

Article needs protecting so only autoconfirmed users can edit: It is attracting numerous acts of vandalism.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kinda tired here anyway. :D 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also potentially numerous new editors to the project, though. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your observations, and am sorry for the contributors with noble intent, but the alternate is 2, 3 or 4 acts of vandalism per minute. They can still propose edits on the talk page though. Also, they can become autoconfirmed users.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do it, but at least for a little while we may have to keep it as semi so the vandals don't return. I'd like to try to get out of that status as soon as possible. 72.198.26.61 - do create an account and edit more if you can. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have an account, just choosing not to use it at this point (long story). But I understand. I'll make myself useful elsewhere. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not pending changes? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it still allows IPs to edit, and the object of the exercise at WP is to remove all IP editing, by stealth. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite SP now. This just goes to support what I said above. There is a massive push in WP to ban IP edits completely, hence any excuse for permanent SP. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that indefinite does not mean forever? It doesn't even mean a long time necessarily. It means "unprotection date to be determined". If you wish to discuss this conspiracy, please do it in a more appropriate venue such as WP:VPM. If you feel any discussion would be futile, why are you wasting your time and ours discussing it? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means someone has to do something to change it. And guess what? That nearly always doesn't happen. Why are you wasting your time responding to me? I didn't ask you to do so, so just move on, like you said you were going to, above. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll gladly move on from this waste of time. I will not move on from this talk page because you say so, regardless of what I said above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Victims

To add to the page :

A Chilean among the victims. The niece of Ambassador Ricardo Nunez said Senator of the Chilean Socialist Party Isabel Allende.
Two Algerians, a woman 40 years a man of 29, were killed in the attacks fl according to APS quoted Algerian diplomatic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.20.21 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Links to the sources please... you can't expect autoconfirmed editors to do the research for you! LjL (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a reputable link from 9 minutes ago re: Algeria. Can't find anything re: Chile.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The bombers are victims too. They should be included.

and we schold give they names. But no victims names?

The bombers are deceased, but per definition of wikt:victim, they are not "victims" of the attacks. LjL (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. victim is deceased. Her name is in the Washington Post. And people are objecting to her inclusion? All the names of the Charlie Hebdo massacre are included.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/among-the-victims-in-paris-a-american-exchange-student/2015/11/14/6dc2d9fa-8afc-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_tick-tock-430pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory XavierItzm (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Time of second Explosion

Concering the the time of the second explosion around the Stade de France, it is stated: "...an explosion at a bar near the stadium at approximately 21:30, about 20 minutes after the start of an international friendly football match...". This is an impossible statement. As the game started at 21:00 CET ^[1]. If you listen and watch ^[2] the uninterrupted first half broadcast, you can clearly hear a scond explosion at game time 19:35. This would put the second attack arround 21:20 CET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.58.207 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Agreed and changed. The uploader of footage of the game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc9ITokfVFc) reports two blasts; the first time 21:17 matches various other reports; the second time 21:20 matches a statement (in e.g. the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html) that the second blast was 3 minutes later. "live-text" reports of the game indicate that the game started on time Cathalwoods (talk)

Suppressing international reactions about refugees/Schengen

@Volunteer Marek: seems very intent on removing reactions by ministers in Poland and other countries from International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks (here is the relevant discussion) against multiple editors. Now he has moved on to doing the same on this article. His opinion on those statements not being worth repeating seems to be very much his own; but aside from that, he appears to be even removing things without realizing, since he gives the edit summary "uh, it's "countrY" not "countrIES" - did you even bother before hitting the revert button?" to my revert, and yet, text removed included sourced Czech Republic statement, not just Poland ones.

Please add this stuff back to either article or both, it pretty obviously matters. LjL (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I removed it because it it's not an official response - as the text pretended it was - but just what a politician said online. And since we have JUST STARTED discussing this saying that this view is "very much his own" (i.e. mine) is disingenuous. There's two people who disagree. You and MyMoloboaccount. Ok fine. Let's have a wider discussion. Start an RfC. But per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact its off topic, let's keep it out until then. Volunteer Marek 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That is incorrect. From the section above, User:MyMoloboaccount started the discussion and it continued until your posts. At one point, MyMoloboaccount said the following, "It wasn't "one politician" but Minister for European Affairs. As to the rest of your personal views, they are not supported by RS.Please kindly present them.True they clarified what they meant, but the stance remains the same.", to which you replied very aggressively as with the three edits you made to the article. If anything, the only one who disagrees is yourself, with everyone else discussing. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it was there before, and you aggressively removed and removed it again from articles (check WP:Edit warring), and it's well-sourced, and you're the only one so far claiming the sources are wrong about it, I'd very much say keep it in until then. LjL (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Right... so I "aggressively" removed it, but you "reinserted it back into the article in the most pacifist way possible"? Did I get that correct? And I'm the one who "edit warred" but you just ... "reinserted it back into the article in the most pacifist way possible"? Gimme a break and cut out the weaseling. And NO, I did not say "sources are wrong". I said "sources are being MISREPRESENTED". It's not that hard of a difference to understand if you pay attention, or if your interest is anything but reflexive blind reverting. Volunteer Marek 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If what sources say is not that "Poland" said something, but a Polish minister said something, then amend the article to state so. It's still very much relevant. See WP:PRESERVE: you almost deleted entire section of sourced, relevant material that came from involved countries' ministers. That's just short of inexcusable. LjL (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making stop up. This "entire section" that I deleted was ... a sentence or two. You're trying to make it seem like I gutted the article. Nice rhetorical move, but dishonest (although I guess you do give yourself a bit of wiggle room with that "almost" thrown in there). And I made my position clear - it's not official policy, it's a statement in an online op-ed. And the burden for inclusion is on you, not me. Volunteer Marek 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the history of the article, you have removed 3,345 characters from the article in three edits. For the edit in discussion, the article was left with a single three word sentence and a single reference after your edit. Prior to your edit, it was three sentences with a combined word count of fifty-eight words (24, 17, 17) and with three references. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, if there was an article like Poland's reaction to the European refugee crisis then maybe that statement would belong there. But it's way too parochial, Poland-centric and off topic for this article. Volunteer Marek 23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with LjL, edits by VM do not seem to be justified and removed well sourced and relevant material covered by Reliable Sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know you agree with LjL. This isn't a vote. What you're suppose to do is substantiate and give a reason for your view.

And IF we do include this then we MUST include the response by Human Rights Watch and other sources which condemned this joker's statements by saying that "Gold medal to #Poland for the most ridiculous&ignorant response to #ParisAttacks #Refugees flee war and persecution " This has also been covered in sources. Probably should also include the opinion of Henry Foy "#Poland says #Paris proves EU migrant policy flawed. Known position, but I'm astonished @ speed of criticism. Still blood on the streets". Maybe we should have an article on the Reactions to the reactions to the November Paris attacks?

And if this is the standard we're going to have for inclusion might as well include the fact that Russian media is blaming... Americans (who else!) for the attack. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically, can someone please just add the Polish and Czech declarations back into the article, without having me do more reverts? This as well as the above discussion show overwhelming agreement to include them, with only Volunteer Marek opposed, and really on the sole ground that unless a government minister's word is made "more official", it shouldn't be included here (which seems, uh). LjL (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You've been here since 2005. More or less. You should know better than to WP:CANVASS other people to edit war for you because you've ran out of reverts. Volunteer Marek 23:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "run out of reverts". I believe I've effectively only reverted you once (per article). I was asking others to implement the clear consensus (which you are the lone opposer of) to avoid edit warring. But anyway, I've now boldly gone and re-added the information anyway. Everybody who said anything about it except you wants it there. (Asking people in the relevant talk page to implement consensus isn't canvassing, it almost looks like you haven't actually read the page.) LjL (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You are asking others to edit war for you. That's a blatant demonstration of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude rather than a desire to resolve the dispute. The fact that you immediately claim "consensus! consensus!" after the discussion HAD JUST started also shows you're not here to work on an encyclopedia but to do "battleground". Volunteer Marek 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You reverted me again, with the edit summary "it's ridiculous to claim "consensus" when the discussion just started". It looks likve you've neglected again to consider the linked discussion above that shows blatant consensus and that the discussion did not just start. Just because you just joined it, after coming in and starting aggressively removing content, doesn't mean there wasn't consensus before. I am running out of good faith for you: you are ignoring the obvious. LjL (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you stop being dishonest? There is NO "overwhelming consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. There is NO "clear consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. The discussion you link to [15] DOES NOT establish clear consensus. It's basically just you and MyMoloboaccount. It's really bad form to try and claim consensus when you don't have it.

And please stop. it. with. the. battle. ground. attitude. Stop trying to get others to edit war for you. Volunteer Marek 23:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to stop being aggressive with everyone. Also, I believe it is silly for you to have removed so much content from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with LjL, MyMoloboaccount and Super Goku V. It's Warsaw's official policy. Poland's conservative Law and Justice party is strongly anti-immigration, anti-Muslim. – "Anti-immigrant party sweeps to power in Poland". The Times. 26 October 2015., "Poland's Duda Blasts EU `Dictate of the Strong' on Migrants". Bloomberg. 8 September 2015., "Polish PM candidate backs closer ties with neighbors on refugee crisis". Reuters. 5 October 2015., "Refugee crisis stokes anti-Muslim fervor in Poland, Eastern Europe". Fox News. 29 September 2015. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's NOT "Warsaw's official policy" - and you have no source to back that claim up. Again, don't make stuff up. Volunteer Marek 03:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Ministries of Poland, there is no Minister of European Affairs. Not anymore. You might be confusing the Polish government with the European government. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It is the common name used for Secretary of State for European Affairs in Poland Minister do spraw europejskich--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Boulevard Beaumarchais

40 boulevard Beaumarchais (Le Barbier de Bastille, between rue du Chemin Vert and rue du Pas de La Mule)

I cannot find reference to the importance of this street in the sources. It will be deleted if someone cannot substantiate what events occurred there in this article. Bod (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Europe1, which previously included this location, has now removed it: http://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/attentats-a-paris-des-attaques-menees-sur-sept-points-differents-2620171 Cathalwoods (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Casualty section (citizenships)

The Spanish and the U.S. citizen killed also held Mexican citizenship. I think the Mexican citizenship should be mentioned, too. I just don't know how we should do it. Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I did some changes to the infobox with the nationalities. I'd welcome some feedback on it. Thanks again, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sydney Opera House French Tricolour.jpg

Per discussion at files for discussion, this photo is almost certainly a copyright violation. Especially given the high traffic on this article, it should be removed. 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. Kelly ^hi! 00:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly: FYI, I have commented at the deletion discussion that I contacted the photographer via his website about this issue,

Unfortunately the (abridged) answer is

:

"That text is for Instagram use only. None of my images are license free. Thank you for deleting it from Wikipedia and for bringing this matter to my attention. Matt Weller."

- 220 of ^Borg 08:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal ("International Reactions to...")

There is a currently a suggestion on the page to merge a section of this article into another, "International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks." This page is being considered for deletion.

I propose that that page be merged here. You are encouraged to debate this topic in this thread. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 00:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No way. There was previous solid consensus that we shouldn't have that here. Whether we should have it at all is a matter for the International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks deletion discussion. LjL (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
nein - perhaps each atack site nedd separate article to list all woonded victims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.120 (talk • contribs)

flag

Could you change the flag to French? The one is Russian (or rotated?) and thus false flag of course. 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which flag? LjL (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

the flase flag 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that helps a lot understanding what you mean... not. LjL (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But i do not understand why now is only the black flag with the word 'jews' in center of cippa. and other words barelly readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean the ISIL flag? Next to the "Perpetrators" entry of the infobox? LjL (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015 - remove political propaganda related to Missouri protests

This edit request to November 2015 Paris attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

These 4 paragraphs should be removed as they are not directly relevant to the page, and they are clearly added for the purposes of political propaganda:

Protestors at the University of Missouri, who have been complaining about unfounded racial attacks and slurs were shocked the Paris Terror Attacks, where at least 129 innocent people were murdered on 14-15 November 2015, were taking headlines in the US news media away from their cause.

According to breitbart.com; "Campus activists in America showed their true faces during an international tragedy last night: they are the selfish, spoiled children we always knew they were. Black Lives Matter and Mizzou protesters responded to the murder of scores of people in Paris at the hands of Islamic extremists by complaining about losing the spotlight and saying their “struggles” were being “erased.” Their struggles, remember, consist of a poop swastika of unknown provenance and unsubstantiated claims of racially-charged remarks somewhere near Missouri’s campus." [167]

Many of the Mizzou activists took to twitter and sent hateful and racist tweets because the news media was no longer paying the attention they demanded. Black Lives Matter and Mizzou tweets fell broadly into two categories of stupidity last night:

Paris and Mizzou are equivalent: both represent “terrorism.” (This is the message from Black Lives Matter.) White people are “erasing black lives” by focusing on Paris. (This is the language of the racial grievance-fuelled campus social justice movement.[168]

Andrewnwilliams (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see these paragraphs in the article. LjL (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

...Er, those references do not seem to exist as quoted. Mind if you add the url from the page you are on or the section of the page you are on? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewnwilliams: request has been answered so 'pinging' them. 220 of ^Borg 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

table detailing number of casualties somewhere in the article

I think to make it simpler, there should be somewhere detailing the number of killed and injured in each location where the strikes took place.--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry--just noticed that there is one in the description. though i suggest expanding it to include those who were injured -- in one attack, 15 were injured and 0 killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The infobox already details that for those who have died and could be modified for those who are injured. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

french version

In the french version of the article they included the arrondissements in the headings under each attack, i think it should be done here too.--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There can be a reasonable assumption that (some) French Wikipedia readers will be familiar with them, while the same assumption doesn't generally hold true for English-speaking readers. LjL (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that all readers of the French Wikipedia are French and all of the English Wikipedia are English; the majority of first language speakers of those languages lie outside of those countries, for the sake of accuracy and completeness they should be included. Mtaylor848 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think all Parisians are fluent in English, either. The current format is okay. epic genius (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

French victims 'non applicable'??

At the moment we are listing French victims as 'non applicable'. Why? They may be unconfirmed, uncertain, unverifiable but they are most certainly not 'non-applicable'. Mtaylor848 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bad choice of terminology. LjL (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mtaylor848: N/A also stands for not available, which was the intended use here but it seems General Ization went ahead and changed it. We have no known details on the number of French nationals killed/injured, which is why there's an "unspecified" row. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We should make a note of that next to France then. Kiwifist (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been changed again to note TBC (to be counted) so I think that suffices for the time being. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The actual meaning of TBC (as explained at its linked article) is To be confirmed and agree it is appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 03:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's also a streetcar in Bordeaux. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Locations needs to be updated

Updated list of locations

The address of the Brasserie Le Comtoir Voltaire is 253 boulevard Voltaire.

In the section Boulevard Voltaire, the statements, Another attacker detonated his suicide vest on the boulevard Voltaire near the Bataclan theatre. At about 21:40, he sat down in the cafe Comptoir Voltaire ... are incorrect.

It is not a "cafe", it is a "brasserie".
The brasserie in not "near the Bataclan theatre", it is near Place de la Nation

The listed source L'Express calls Comtoir Voltaire a brasserie, and lists the attack as close to Place de la Nation at 253 boulevard Voltaire, which is not close to the Bataclan theatre.

source: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/fait-divers/a-nation-le-kamikaze-s-est-fait-sauter-en-passant-la-commande_1735885.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.241.108 (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A better section would be:

Another attacker detonated his suicide vest at 253 boulevard Voltaire near the Place de la Nation. At about 21:40, he sat down in the brasserie Comptoir Voltaire and placed an order before detonating his suicide vest and killing himself. About 15 people were injured.

Toll include or exclude the attackers?

Just to make sure: does the death toll 129 include or exclude the eight attackers?

--140.180.248.47 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the current infobox, it includes them. Kiwifist (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That isn't how I read the notation "129 (+8 perpetrators)", and I think the IP was looking for a more definitive answer based on something other than our infobox. General Ization ^Talk 05:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the 129 excludes them (or should, if it doesn't), from how I'm reading media reports. I had it formatted last night to more clearly differentiate the two—[number] civilians<br>[number] attackers—but it was changed to the current style while I was offline. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I read the "+" as "including". Maybe we should clarify by saying "excluding 8 perpetrators" instead. Kiwifist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The notation is already clear. "+" is the plus symbol, and it means exactly that: "plus", not "including". 129 victims plus 8 perpetrators. —Lowellian (reply) 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the symbol is plenty clear. Whether it reflects reliable sources, I don't know. LjL (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Only seven attackers killed now?

Recent reports (like [16], [17]) are only mentioning 7 attackers killed - including some sources we are using to show eight. I think some updating is required but which attack location has one less attacker? Rmhermen (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most articles speak about seven attackers but there might have been one more who escaped. Or at the least, it should be mentioned as to what area this eight one could have been included; there also were other activities in Belgium, which should perhaps be in a separate article that connects to the article here. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please fix the translation in reference

"Երեւանը սգում է Փարիզի հետ" [Yerevan is trying to come to Paris.]. Yerkir.am (in Armenian). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.

"Yerevan is mourning with Paris" is the proper translation. "Trying to come to Paris" -- who came up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C43C:E460:183F:3FC9:B74:41F6 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the work of Google Translate, I've corrected the translation accordingly. Thanks for letting us know! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Worst terrorist attack in France

These terrorist attacks are the worst ever in France (not since Second World War). I don't know how to edit sources, but here it is (in French): http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/article/2015/11/15/pendant-que-l-enquete-se-poursuit-la-france-se-recueille_4810269_4809495.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkestra (talk • contribs) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Worst" doesn't always mean "deadliest". Our article says these are the deadliest since then. These scared more people, because news travelled slow then. So this was worse than then, like that. No clear contradiction here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article also doesn't specify deadliest terrorist attacks. If this is called the deadliest terrorist attack in France somewhere, that might be worth noting, but wouldn't change the fact that deadlier general attacks happened in the old war. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Or even earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That was in Paris, but Paris wasn't in France yet. The Battle of Octodurus seems pretty nasty, if we're playing loose. 10,000 suspected terrorists killed. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Time says they are the deadliest terror attacks in France in many decades. Whether they distinguish between terror and terrorism, I don't know. I know CTV treats them as the same word. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Stade de France bombings timeline

The times given for the first two of the Stade de France bombings in the "Timeline of Events" box are different from the given source:

page: 21:16 (first explosion), 21:20 (second explosion)
Reuters: 21:20 (first explosion), 21:30 (second explosion)

This needs review. --Vachovec1 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

HI. That's right, its neither in line with the French not the German interwiki chronology.

(French and German) À 21 h 20, une première explosion retentit rue Jules-Rimet près de la porte D du Stade de France. À 21 h 30, toujours rue Jules-Rimet, porte H, un autre kamikaze porteur d'un dispositif similaire se fait sauter. Une troisième et dernière explosion aux abords du Stade de France, avec le même mode opératoire, a lieu à 21 h 53, rue de la Cokerie, devant un établissement de restauration rapide, McDonald's. À nouveau le corps d’un kamikaze est retrouvé25. Quatre personnes sont mortes, dont trois terroristes26.
21:16 – First suicide bombing near the Stade de France.[43] 21:20 – Second suicide bombing at the Stade de France.[43] 21:53 – Third suicide bombing at the Stade de France.[43]

Cordialement Serten Talk 15:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Paris attacks and Template:Saint-Denis

I notice a user keeps removing this incident from Template:Saint-Denis from the history section. I don't understand what the problem is. This is history, isn't it? @Debresser: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I don't see a problem with your addition: it's in the right place, and it's appropriate. WP:CRYSTAL seems unrelated here. I have reinstated it. LjL (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hostages?

The use of term hostages is incorrect in this case. Here is the definition from Oxford English Dictionary: noun A person seized or held as security for the fulfillment of a condition:

‘the kidnapper had instructed the hostage’s family to drop the ransom at noon’

While media reports referred to people in Bataclan as hostages, this was likely due to government press releases or assumptions. In fact, no demands or conditions were ever produced. Accurate language is crucially important here. While hostage situation calls for a siege and contact as part of the protocol, a mass shooting calls for immediate storming of the premises. I will not change this for lack of editorial experience, but I think someone should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.75.146 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Motives are over-simplified

Paris was attacked by a sophisticated terrorist group that is clearly very strategic in its actions. Claiming that this attack was merely done out of hatred for the culture of Paris or the French king's behaviour in the Middle East is clearly just a childish excuse that is clearly wrong. Yeah, ISIS may say they're doing it for that reason but since when did was any powerful adversarial force so simplistic in its strategy? Are we to say that German Unification under Bismark was done in the name of higher ideals? Are we to say that Russian theft of much of Ukraine was actually done to protect Russian Ukrainians? Are we seriously to believe that Julius Caesar just wanted to make Rome better? Face it, these are terrorists and they do terrorist attacks in order to get a reaction that benefits their overall objectives. If they wanted to kill people over degeneracy, then they wouldn't have lasted very long as a terrorist group before an Otto Von Bismark came along and used actual strategy. 63.152.96.23 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The French... king?!

Anyway, this is all well and good, but do you have reliable sources to improve the "motives" coverage, or is this just your own original research? If the latter, it won't be used. LjL (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

agree ; the same as 911 they did itbecouse they hate our freedom. Perhaps a word 'blowback' if be any chance it is back and not blow-forward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.120 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 November 2015‎

All are over-simplifications but unless you have a reliable source talking about it you can't change it in the article until they do. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken page with VisualEditor

(Also posted at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback, posting here for information.) This article is currently broken when opened in the Wikipedia:VisualEditor. To reproduce, try opening this revision of this article with the VisualEditor. The page looks fine until the "Attacks" subsection, at which point raw wikitext becomes visible, starting with the text

{{quote box↵|title=Timeline of attacks↵|align=left↵|width=25%↵|quote=↵13 November

and then most of the rest of the page following that is lost. It's been some time since I've seen the VE break on a high-profile page like this. Browser: Firefox 42 on Debian Linux. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rifles used in the attack?

Looking at the article now, someone has typed in that the rifles used by the terrorists were "AK-47s." Somehow I doubt these guys got their hands on 50s era Soviet rifles. They likely used AKM type rifles in this attack. Does anyone have any pics of the weapons used by the terrorists so that we can confirm what they are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FR4NCH3K (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

AK-47 rifles, despite being largely supplanted by smaller caliber AKs, are still not uncommon as there are many in circulation and knock-offs from other manufacturers. However, you're right that the mainstream media is typically lazy and uninformed about specific firearms, so this does merit some more research. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Going by my experience, and also by our own AK-47, I'd say the term now is used generically for all variants of the rifle. It's the Kleenex of automatic weapons. Anyways, we should probably follow sources, not interpret images. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't use AK-47 then, we should use "a Kalashnikov-style rifle" or "a Kalashnikov." Though, here's an article in the Daily Beast that says that since Russia has just upgraded their AKs, there is a glut of the older model. But I'm not sure if that's a glut of AK-47s or AK-74s. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

“One of the reasons we see a lot of Kalashnikovs and AK-47s on the black market is because Russia has just upgraded the Kalashnikov,” Kathie Lynn Austin, an expert on arms trafficking with the Conflict Awareness Project, told Al Jazeera, “and that has created massive stockpiles of the older models.”[18]

Numerous sources mention 7.62mm cartidges found on site, ruling out AK-74s. Rama (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that would do it for me then, in terms of keeping AK-47s. I only found one source, though. AP: [19] -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I herd it was AK47 assault rifles.20:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources call them "AK-47s", then that's what goes into the article. Yes... sometimes this is kinda' dumb, but that's just how Wikipedia works. (by the way, there are still plenty of AK-47s in circulation. They are certainly cheaper than new AK-74s and AKMs and, if a group is going to sacrifice any weaponry in a suicide attack, it's certainly going to be older cheaper inventory as opposed to newer and more expensive equipment) Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 23:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'm new to Wikipedia's editing system, but to those saying that 7.62 cartridges rule out it being an AK-74, that doesn't rule out it being an AKM. AK-47s were milled receiver guns that were only produced for a few years before they were modernized into AKM variants with stamped receivers and a bunch of other features. Chances are these rifles were an AKM variant, and if we cannot classify which one it is we should at the very least make it proper by not identifying a specific type of AK call it a Kalashnikov or an AK rifle rather than categorizing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FR4NCH3K (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hashtags

Do we need a whole section about a "#portesouvertes" hashtag, when this is already mentioned in the proper "Social media reactions" section on the linked article (except the hashtag is "#porteouverte" there, seems sources cannot agree)? LjL (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That Local response section is now expanding and dangerously getting close in concept to the separate, linked Popular reactions section. There is now even a Mass that is "due to" being celebrated, which makes me want to link WP:FUTURE. LjL (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@EP111: the edit you reverted clearly indicated in the summary that I had started a discussion about the issue here. Why did you not take part and instead just reverted? Now see my rationale for keeping it please. LjL (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit did no such thing. Regards, EP111 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@EP111: uhm, what do you think that "see talk" in that edit summary, with "talk" being a link to the relevant talk page section here, meant, then? LjL (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As to your reason for reverting, please see this talk page for wide support towards moving the article from "International reactions ..." to just "Reactions ...", even though the move hasn't taken place yet. LjL (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, even plain old generic #Paris has nothing at all about anything unterrible. #VisitParis is considerably more optimistic, but even it has been tainted. Only one guy had the social grace to use #IHateParis on Friday. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Updates

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html 92.16.213.2 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Forensic police search for evidences outside the La Belle Equipe cafe, rue de Charonne. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
From there, the militants drove around a mile south-east – apparently past the area of the Bataclan concert venue – to then launch another attack, this time on La Belle Equipe bar in Rue de Charonne. #At least 19 people died after the terrace was sprayed with bullets at around 9.35pm. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
The unit drove about 500 yards to the Casa Nostra pizzeria in Rue de la Fontaine au Roi. A young woman told Le Monde she spotted a “very young” man – 18 to 20 years old – in the front seat of the car. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
At around 9.50pm, an hour after the band took to the stage, black-clad gunmen wielding AK-47s and wearing suicide vests stormed into the hall and fired calmly and methodically at hundreds of screaming concert-goers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
At around 9.50pm a third blast took place near the Stade de France, this time by a McDonald’s restaurant on the fringes of the stadium. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
At least 89 people were killed in the concert hall. Three assailants were also killed after police stormed in - two by activating their suicide vests and a third shot dead. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
A little further east at least 19 people died when the terrace of the La Belle Equipe in Rue de Charonne was sprayed with gunfire, while 15 people were killed at Le Carillon bar-cafe in Rues Bichat. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
Five people at the Casa Nostra pizzeria and a nearby bar were killed by attackers wielding rifles. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html

92.16.213.2 (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

At least 129 people were killed

Actually it's 136, according to the numbers in the article itself: 129 victims and 7 perpetrators.-79.219.181.249 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Per other articles we don't count the perpetrators among the victims. We should always show apart. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I'm asking that we do. I said that they very clearly should be counted among "people" that were "killed". Just use another term for people, one that would exclude the killers.-79.219.181.249 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Innocent people? Innocent: "a person involved by chance in a situation, especially a victim of crime or war." Firebrace (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's awkward. Why not just "victim" then, since the very definition you gave would give "innocent people" as a superset of "victims", whereas everyone except the perpetrators are "victims" here? LjL (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Suicide victims" are a thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The word for that is "civilian". epic genius (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The perpetrators were also civilians (a person not in the armed services or the police force). Firebrace (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Except for the one shot, the perpetrators were not killed by anyone but themselves here. They committed suicide. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Deaths: 129 civilians

The sidebar calls the victims "civilians". Chances are that some are military or police, so that should be changed to something neutral.-79.219.181.249 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed to "victims". LjL (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. They are not victims but French and intl martyrs or killed. Agree that the use of the term civilians birders on slight propaganda.

More neutral is to call them 129 dead or 129 deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIS59000750002015 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Victims" is pretty neutral, "martyrs" would obviously not be. They are already being called "dead" or "deceased", the issue here is to distinguish them from the perpetrators, who are also dead, in the infobox. LjL (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

More neutral and wrong. They are 136 dead, and 136 deceased, not 129.-79.219.181.249 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It says so in the infobox (129 +7). This section is about the infobox ("sidebar"). I don't care about elsewhere. Raise it elsewhere. LjL (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It says 129 + 7, but if it would say "129 dead" as AIS59000750002015 suggested, it would be wrong.

Is this the talk page of the sidebar only? I don't quite understand where you send me and why.-79.219.181.249 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Civilians sounds a bit too general and broad, "victims" may also be a bit problematic if you include the attackers in that, for instance. Perhaps a better term would be "deaths", or to, rather than use an abbreviation, word it slightly longer such as "136 individuals were killed during the attack" or something like that. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying you can make another section about the issue with the article body, but this particular section starts with "The sidebar", so let's not confuse issues. The article body says "at least", by the way. LjL (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I did make another section, and I wasn't mentioning it here.-62.155.206.143 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"First United States death is listed under Mexico"

This comment is found within the casualties table, even though the article body talks about a United States death. Is there a valid reason why the victim should be listed under Mexico and not (additionally) under United States, since the comment says they had dual citizenship? Why does the Mexican citizenship take precedence, and why can't we list a victim in two places? (This shows all the problems with a naive interpretation of WP:CALC, by the way.) LjL (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This now appears to have been changed (the United States are now listed with 1 victim). LjL (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Appears there was only one US citizen who was killed - a Californian college student who had dual Mexican nationality. I can't find any references to a second American death. Cantab12 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what the article says, isn't it? LjL (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not until I edited it. It said 2. Cantab12 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Anyway my point with this section was merely that if someone has US citizenship, they should be listed under US (as well as any other country they have citizenship of). LjL (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Rue de Charonne - Restaurant name

The name of the restaurant on Rue de Charonne is "la Belle Epoque"....not "La Belle Equipe" ^[1]

No, it's not, see [20] [21] [22] (all mentioning it's in Rue de Charonne), as well, of course, as very many sources about the attacks. Liberation here is wrong, as Google can hint (first hit Liberation, later hits are "La Belle Equipe"). LjL (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.liberation.fr/france/2015/11/14/rue-de-charonne-des-balles-partaient-dans-tous-les-sens_1413328

Presumably "La Belle Équipe" ("The Beautiful Team") is a deliberate pun on the part of the owners. -- The Anome (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:-)92.16.213.2 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Names and personal details of victims, again

@XavierItzm: is insisting on adding the full name and personal/educational details about a victim from the US. We had previous agreement that should be avoided. The rationale for the edit seems to be that WP:BLP doesn't apply since the person is deceased; however, if you have a look at what WP:BLP actually says, it mentions "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased)". In any case, WP:BLP is not even the main concern here (see previous discussion). Let's discuss it further, but no single-handed consensus overthrowing, please. LjL (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Absurd. Person is deceased, gone, dead. Name, occupation, photo of the parents on the Washington Post. Any objections to publishing name are utterly capricious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/among-the-victims-in-paris-a-american-exchange-student/2015/11/14/6dc2d9fa-8afc-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_tick-tock-430pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory XavierItzm (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to post all the 129 names? And what they did for a living or study? This is not like the Charlie Hebdo attack that you mentioned in another section above. There are not a small number of well-known dead people. Just because something is sourced we don't have to include it. And you're almost giving credence to the sometimes-advanced concept that some people only want to highlight American victims, by the way, hence WP:UNDUE. LjL (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper. Firebrace (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Nor is it a WP:MEMORIAL. We established that after 9/11, with the spin-off into the separate sep11 memorial wiki as a one-off. -- The Anome (talk)

Morbid?

Heh, all the responses use some excuse other than the original "BLP" excuse. Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Although WP:NOT (in terms of "memorials") refers to actual articles per se, and NOT lists/names contained within an article, it should be noted it encourages meandering sentiment-laden stories as to victims' personal lives in a mass casualty attack.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the original "excuse"; but I have already pointed that out. And as various other people also pointed out, WP:BLP is relevant in what it says about recently deceased people. I suggest you accept that your opinion is the lone dissenting one, and that you overlooked some parts of policy. LjL (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with a Wikipedia page that died should be named and linked (ie notable). The rest should not, because the event will not be known by their names, unlike a kidnapping or something. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeh!92.16.213.2 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Should these details be added?

Oppose - per the multiple policies and persuasive arguments above - ^theWOLFchild 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Age mention

Currently the article states "French Police confirmed that the three men who attacked the theatre were:" and one of the three listed there has the age mentioned. I think, for reasons of symmetry, either all of them should have the age be mentioned, or none. (I'd probably be in favour of everyone, since this gives extra information, compared to none). As it now stands, it feels a bit awkward to see that some individuals have more information associated with them than the others. Since the age is known of the other ones, I would like to suggest to add this as well. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

129/132

All the news sites are saying 129 and the numbers add up to that; why does this page insist on 132 victims?

State that they died in Hospital then - but couldn't we manage to separate the deaths of the victims and the attackers a little more? I don't think I'd want my death listed together with theirs. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the source linked to the 132 figure (which, I see, has been taken back to 129 now, without changing the source) repeatedly states 132. LjL (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note this quote from them: "18:25 - Death toll now 132 - AFP reports the death toll in Paris attacks rises to 132 after three die", so they didn't dream it up. AFP is Agence France-Presse. LjL (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the bar to state explicitly that three died afterwards - and separate then from the immediate casualties. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Do the sources change or is the article updated? I think then that we should try to make an archived version of the page like https://archive.is/bEco9 (or webcitation.org or webcitation.org) for the source that stated 132 deaths (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996678/Paris-terror-attacks-victims-isil-suspects-Syria-arrests-live.html) Nsaa (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nsaa:It turns out the three victims died in hospital afterwards. Do you want to check how I've arraigned the infobar accordingly? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? If (or sadly, when) the death count changes, the sources will changes, and so will our article have to change. Surely we aren't going to keep saying 132 when it's no longer true? LjL (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

129 fell on the night; that number should be kept. As three more have since died, and that number may as you say rise, a separate total should be placed beside 129. Currently, 132. I've already clarified this on the page. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the current infobox version. It's a detail, but last time I had checked it, the "in hospital" death were as indented as the other death location; now that's been de-indented, and is at the same level as the 129 "victims" and the 7 "perpetrators", making it look like it's neither victims nor perpetrators, and making the sum look like it's wrong. I favor the older version. We shouldn't give the impression the victims who died later are "just" "futher persons" who died in the hospital. Their status is basically the same as all the other victims. LjL (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why can't it be as I've just put it? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just seen this at BBC News: "Paris hospitals have said that the official death toll remains at 129 people, and not the 132 as had been earlier reported by AFP news agency." Firebrace (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK how's that? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The 352 injury non-fatalities must also change if true.Bod (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't change it yet - the reports are still very confused with some media saying the original 129 included the three later deaths. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The numbers will come in when they come in. I'm not rushing to change anything. Bod (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the reporting is all over the place. BBC reports 352 injured, 99 critically, but on the same page it says 415 were admitted to hospital, 80 of whom were critically injured. Firebrace (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Other where it says some were removed from critical care. Many were naturally discharged. I don't see a reason to have all the numbers now. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's cliche that so many of our articles about mass casualty events say "at least XXX" were killed. It's as if we always want to give the maximum number possible, and then suggest there are even more, even when all deaths have been accounted for. Our sources now say 129 are dead, not at least 129 dead. (Well, that's what the BBC says.) Can we just give the most reliable number in our sources? More might die as a result of their injuries, but they're not dead yet. Let's not write them off. Our statement is present or past tense, not WP:CRYSTALBALL. Dcs002 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The "at least" stems from a time when the numbers weren't clear at all and it was virtually obvious that there were more casualties than the ones accounted for. Perhaps it's time to get rid of it now (but mind WP:NUMERAL). LjL (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. I added the BBC as a second source. Is it redundant to say the attacks killed 129 victims? If it is, feel free to clean that up - anyone. Dcs002 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You would either say 129 were killed in the attacks, or that the attackers killed 129. The attacks did not kill anyone, the attackers did. General Ization ^Talk

Good point. I'll fix that - if you haven't already. I prefer the latter option, per WP:NUMERAL, as LjL pointed out. Dcs002 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done - "The attackers killed 129 victims,..." Still, it feels redundant to say killed and victims. They couldn't really kill non-victims. Still struggling with that. Dcs002 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But there can be "victims" that weren't "killed" (injuries). LjL (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You could just say that the attackers killed 129 people. General Ization ^Talk 02:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But they also killed themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just a reminder that this article needs to follow WP:BLPSOURCES. Specifically, it cannot make any contentious claims about living or recently-deceased people based on tabloid journalism. --John (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wounded (not injured)

They're called "bullet wounds" and "shrapnel wounds". They are not "injuries". These people were not playing a game of football.--99.232.1.160 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Injury and wound are synonymous, doesn't matter which is used. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If someone was not wounded but, for example, suffered an internal organ injury due to explosions, do they not count? LjL (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Injury is damage to the body. This maybe caused by accidents, falls, hits, weapons, and other causes. Major trauma is injury that has the potential to cause prolonged disability or death. In 2013 4.8 million people died from injuries up from 4.3 million in 1990. Bod (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course we're free to use poor English on Wikipedia. We're also free to raise the standard if we choose.--99.232.1.160 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Except it's perfectly proper English, more proper than "wounded" in fact, which may not cover all the injured, as mentioned above. LjL (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. Never mind all the bullet and shrapnel wounds. One of them may have fallen over. Therefore paint them all as injured. Brilliant.--99.232.1.160 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You are wounded by an implement - gun or knife - designed for the task. Anything else is an injury. Isn't that how it works? 86.185.30.207 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A wound is a type of injury which happens relatively quickly in which skin is torn, cut, or punctured (an open wound), or where blunt force trauma causes a contusion (a closed wound). In pathology, it specifically refers to a sharp injury which damages the dermis of the skin. Injury is damage to the body.This maybe caused by accidents, falls, hits, weapons, and other causes. I've certainly been both injured and wounded by falling over the handlebar of a mountain bike and hitting the gravel road. One might argue that a mountain bike is "an implement designed for the task", but the road almost certainly is designed for another task. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Check the definitions. And again for the third time, wound is external, while injury can be internal, and it's perfectly conceivable that some people affected by the attacks had internal injuries (there were explosions) rather than wounds. LjL (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't we get the neutral word casualty in?Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It is already there and mainly used for deaths, not injuries. The word "injuries" is perfectly neutral, and I don't think we should cave in to some editor's weird interpretation of English. LjL (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

M. Hollande has said these attacks were an act of war. In war, there are specific usages. My memory needs checking, but I think in the US military, soldiers (combatants) are wounded, and civilians (non-combatants) are injured. Is that a standard in other English-speaking countries? (US vets, have I got that right?) Dcs002 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The only distinction I can find (e.g., here) is that a wound is a deliberately inflicted injury that tears the flesh, while an injury can be the result of something not intended, i.e., an accident – but wounds are injuries, i.e., those wounded are injured, but those injured may or may not be wounded. In this case, however, I think the distinction is entirely semantic (and rather crass); clearly all of the wounds or other injuries that occurred here were intended (by the attackers), and even if the injuries did not involve broken flesh (such as broken bones from falling from the window of a concert hall or blunt force injuries from an explosion), they were certainly injuries. General Ization ^Talk 05:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe... - ^theWOLFchild 23:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Number of Perpetrators (more than 8)

The number of attackers dead during the events turned out to be 7, not 8. But the total number must be at least 11.

3 self-killed at Stade
3 dead at Bataclan
1 dead on boulevard Voltaire
PLUS all the shooters at the restaurants
even if the same 2 attackers were at sites 2 and 3
add 2 attackers at site 5

Equals 11 conservatively. There must be sources. Bod (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't the seven dead men been at other sites before? There were three teams and six sites right? So they had moved around I cannot see eleven. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the map and timeline, I think you might rethink the plausibility of travel. There were three teams, the Stade team, and the Bataclan team were all killed (6). One of the shooter team died (1). Bod (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Media is saying three teams. They had cars and accomplices, we know. And they were extraordinarily well organised. I don't find it implausible at all. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if the same 3 guys (somehow) moved from the rue Bichat to the rue de la Fontaine-au-roi (7 minutes later) to the Bataclan (8 minutes later), there were still 2 attackers at the rue Charonne, making the total 9. Bod (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's just the ones we know. It get be more than 11. Kiwifist (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

One paper points out that bomb makers don't go on suicide missions since their skills are to important to the group. SO that is at least one suspect at large Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the butler. He was seen in the library with the now-missing candlestick holder at 9:00pm. (in other words... what do the sources say?) - ^theWOLFchild 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Many sources quoting experts saying there is a bomb maker out there. [23] Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick Restaurant

According to this report at Sky News, when Hollande was first informed of the situation in Paris, it was by saying that "The Quick has blown up", referring to one of several fast-food outlets in Paris. Sky says "The Quick fast food restaurant, just outside one of the stadium's main gates, had just been attacked by a suicide bomber." This would seem to be the Quick St Denis Grand Stade located at Quartier Stade de France rue, 1 Avenue Jules Rimet, 93210 Saint-Denis. I don't see the Quick identified as one of the targets in the article. Does anyone have any info on this? General Ization ^Talk 23:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to ask this as well, because I have heard some news sources say there were two bombers at Gate J (where there was most likely only the attacker who got flagged down by the security guard) but some say it was a pub near by, and some say it was the Quick. Wondering if there is any one agreement as to which one of these claims is right. YingBlanc (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Street View shows that the Quick is located directly across avenue Jules Rimet from Gates H and J of the Stade. General Ization ^Talk 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the suicide detonation at the Quick was the terrorist who was turned away from the gate to the Stade (though we would need a source that says so). General Ization ^Talk 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this bomber was the one who got turned away. There was only 1 bomber with a ticket to the game and he got turned away at Gate J at which point he detonated his vest. The third attacker past Gate J and the McDonalds haven't been given as much details which is where this confusion of where the bombing happened is taking place. YingBlanc (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

bolding and including the article title in the article

What is the wiki policy on this? I have seen both done. My rationale for excluding is that our article title is not the commonly used term for the attack. For example, the frontpage does not use our article title. What are some other thoughts? --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE completely supports your position (see the Mississippi River example there). General Ization ^Talk 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it called "Paris massacre"?

If so, a disambig hatnote at Paris massacre of 1961 may be created. Or we could make Paris massacre a disambig. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's sometimes called that. A disambig hatnote seems fine, but a whole page seems like something we'd only do after this becomes this one's article name (if that happens). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators in the info box

At the moment the info box states that the perpetrators are the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". While that may be the case, I have not seen any proof of it. Nor have I seen any reliable sources stating that as a fact. Most articles states that "ISIS claims responsibility of the attacks".

Should we change it from: "Perpetrators: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to "Perpetrators: Unknown. However, ISIS claims responsibility."? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NO, they claimed they did it, some of the individuals came back from Syria, and there is no credible suggestion it was anyone else. In fact France bombed ISIL in retaliation. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Or just because that's what France, as a NATO member, does. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Earlier, I'd put "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants". I was told this didn't suck and still agree it doesn't. We know the general shadowy organization, but not who actually perpetrated (or planned) the attacks. It's a known unknown of sorts. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am ok with, "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants" or something like that. I just don't like to state, with Wikipedias voice, that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" did it. We don't know that. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There's tons of stuff we don't know about this, and ISIS is general. All we can do is follow the sources. Wikipedia doesn't presume to be certain, just accurately reflective of the majority of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The referenced article states that "ISIS claims responsibility". And it is more than one jihadi group in Syria (if any group in Syria is behind this). Erlbaeko (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Erlbaeko on this. Sources don't state that ISIS was responsible but that ISIS claimed responsibility. Not the same thing. Volunteer Marek 09:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants (alleged)"? It's not just claimed to be claimed by ISIS, but also widely blamed on ISIS. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

For that reason I would skip the "Unknown" part. It is... sort of "known" but not with certainty and there are some grounds to be skeptical (it'd sort of be the first for ISIS). Maybe just "(claimed)" or something like that. I'm too tired right now to think of the proper way to do it. Volunteer Marek 09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That the perpetrators were aligned with ISIS is what is sort of known. Who they were (names, ages, birthplaces, motives) is virtually entirely unknown. The "alleged" part would cover the first slight uncertainty. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, apparently I'm out of the loop and we have four IDs now. That's not "virtually entirely". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried this. Simpler than having perpetrators, assailants and suspected perpetrators, and the "suspected" part covers our asses regarding the people and the group. Does it suck? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, however I prefer a small change to: (allegedly working for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I figured "allegedly" was implied by "suspected", but that would make it clearer, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is ok for now, but this is likely to change rapidly. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I'd bet there are five hundred edits here before there are five on the Beirut one. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong. There were 372 edits here before Beirut got five. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

All that is certain so far, is that, through its channels, ISIS has claimed responsibility. Maybe that is all that should stay there. --109.69.249.37 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is not a person. It can't perpetrate anything without actual people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is true. An official "spokesperson" has yet to make a claim... --109.69.249.37 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Beware wording such as "The claim could not be independently verified but it was similar to other IS claims." Because the other claims were fishy, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.dfb.de/die-mannschaft/spiele-termine/?spieledb_path=%2Fmatches%2F2223178

[2] ttps://www.sportschau.de/fussball/videofrankreichgegendeutschlanddieerstehalbzeit102.html

[3] ttp://www.liberation.fr/france/2015/11/14/rue-de-charonne-des-balles-partaient-dans-tous-les-sens_1413328

[1]

[2]

[1]

Link to Islamic terrorism in the lede

Syrian refugee involvement?

See also section

Eagles of Death Metal

High speed train derailment

17th reference

lead

cells in Germany?

some photos in infobox?

Navboxes

Predictability of links

Facebook part 2

Names and surnames of victims

Requested move 14 November 2015

Number of attackers revised to 7 (press conference)

Insurance

Discretionary sanctions

One Click Archiving

Thomas Ayad of Mercury Records dead

Age mention

"Nationwide" state of emergency

is "piano man" playing the Lennon song really noteworthy?

"Suicide bombings" and "bombings"

the killed people of Jewish ancestry

France has started bombing Raqqa massively, this should be put

Removed an unreliable source

Times of events

Removing SCW&ISIL sanctions

Semiprotecting required.

Victims

Time of second Explosion

Suppressing international reactions about refugees/Schengen

Boulevard Beaumarchais

Casualty section (citizenships)

File:Sydney Opera House French Tricolour.jpg

Merge proposal ("International Reactions to...")

flag

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015 - remove political propaganda related to Missouri protests

table detailing number of casualties somewhere in the article

french version

French victims 'non applicable'??

Locations needs to be updated

Toll include or exclude the attackers?

Only seven attackers killed now?

Please fix the translation in reference

Worst terrorist attack in France

Stade de France bombings timeline

November 2015 Paris attacks and Template:Saint-Denis

Hostages?

Motives are over-simplified

Broken page with VisualEditor

Rifles used in the attack?

Hashtags

Updates

At least 129 people were killed

Deaths: 129 civilians

"First United States death is listed under Mexico"

Rue de Charonne - Restaurant name

Names and personal details of victims, again

Should these details be added?

Age mention

129/132

Sourcing

Wounded (not injured)

Number of Perpetrators (more than 8)

Quick Restaurant

bolding and including the article title in the article

Is it called "Paris massacre"?

Perpetrators in the info box