Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hasna Aït Boulahcen suicide bomber vs victim

This article is not clear about role of "Hasna Aït Boulahcen". She is presented as a suicide bomber by wikipedia, while newspaper give a different profile of this "partygirl" who like do drink vodka during the ramadan... For its side, police says she was not a suicide bomber! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.21 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There are now many News items indicating that she died when a male terrorist set off a bomb of some sort; not sure if it was a suicide vest. I think the current version covers that but will check. Peter K Burian 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article accurately describes the initial misidentification of Hasna Aitboulahcen as the suicide bomber, as well as the later correction, as does 2015 Saint-Denis raid. Her name has been removed from this article but appears at the article on the raid. General Ization ^Talk 17:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, it is far too soon to characterize Aitboulahcen as merely a "victim"; she may have been a combatant (there is evidence she had become radicalized, though probably not ideologically), but was not the one who was wearing and detonated a suicide vest. General Ization ^Talk 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I see now that her name still appears in a different section of this article. (I removed it from the section Search for further attackers, since she did not play a notable role in the events covered in this article but did in the raid.) General Ization ^Talk 17:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe her name should be added. She was a significant player and police found the terrorists because they had her under surveillance. In about one hour, I will be adding a new paragraph based on this news report: ″Police watched the suspected mastermind of the Paris attacks being led by a woman - Hasna Aitboulahcen - into an apartment the evening before both died there in a raid by special forces, a police source said on Friday.″

Peter K Burian 17:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Are those details really needed here? We have a separate article on the raid. Aitboulahcen is not known to have played any role in the November 13 attacks, and her role in the location and killing of Abaaoud is already briefly discussed here and and in detail (including the police surveillance of them entering the apartment building together on Tuesday evening) at 2015 Saint-Denis raid. General Ization ^Talk 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

her cell phone, found in the trash near one of the scenes, is what lead police to the apartment. Given this, it seems she was involved somehow. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wondering what your source is for that claim; I have not seen any source that states this. If she had lost her phone in a Parisian trash can in the vicinity of the November 13 attacks, how is it that authorities used her "tapped phone", as many sources state they did, to locate Abaaoud and the apartment in Saint-Denis where the raid was conducted on November 18? General Ization ^Talk 19:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I revised this section based on the most recent news reports: There are two citations along with the statement. The police were aware that Hasna Ait Boulahcen, a suspect in a drug ring investigation during which her telephone was tapped, also of Moroccan origin, was an associate of Abaaoud. They followed her to a Saint-Denis apartment building at 8 Rue Corbillon on 17 November and saw Abaaoud entering with her.[99][100]

And is this relevant to the story? (Are those details really needed here?) Yes, in my opinion. The senior editor is User:LjL. Let's see if he decides that the section should be revised. Peter K Burian 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There are really two parts to the question I asked: "Are those details really needed here" and "Are those details really needed here". In other words, I didn't say that she was totally irrelevant to the November 13 events, but her active involvement, and certainly the reasons (thus far known) for her notability, started days later and a mile away from the site of the attacks, in Saint-Denis. It seems to me discussing her at this level of detail in this article, when there have been literally hundreds of raids and many other suspected militants detained in connection with the Paris attacks, and will likely be more, is WP:UNDUE. General Ization ^Talk 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Was she a victim as a few reports are now claiming? Not according to an exclusive interview published by the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34886971 Quote: In an exclusive interview with the BBC, a member of the police assault team involved in the raid said Hasna Ait Boulahcen, 26, was "trying to say she was not linked to the terrorists, that she had nothing to do with them and wanted to surrender". But he said that due to prior intelligence, "we knew that she was trying to manipulate us". Peter K Burian 19:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wonder if much of the content re: Saint-Denis is relevant in an article about the Attacks. Yes, the article about the Raid is the logical spot for all of that. Perhaps the death of the ringleader, in a brief mention of the raid, is all that is really logical when the topic is strictly the Attacks. So, should a large section be deleted entirely? Hmmm.... Well, a Barnstar editor is the one who should make a decision of that magnitude, in my estimation. Peter K Burian 20:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(Re: "a Barnstar editor".) Peter, please be aware that we don't have editorial ranks here on Wikipedia (other than service awards, which are tongue-in-cheek), nor does any single editor own any article (in fact, the lack of ownership is explicit). I'm as anxious as anyone to hear what LjL may have to say on this question, and I agree they will likely give use some useful advice, but chances are they earned their barnstar/s by collaborating effectively with other editors, not by serving as some kind of editorial dictator. General Ization ^Talk 23:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

References

HELP! Someone deleted all reference to European government reactions

What happened to the text about reactions from Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic. (This was just one of those edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&diff=next&oldid=691750393)

I don't understand the revert rule but I am very tempted to revert to the previous text which included that. I definitely feel that to remove such large amounts of text, and all of the citations, is questionable. I assume I must be allowed at least one Revert per day. Peter K Burian 00:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If you've done a revert or partial revert within the past 24 hours, you leave yourself open to a sanction if you revert now. It's not days per se, but hours. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter, if you "don't understand the revert rule", I strongly advise you not to revert anything anywhere until you do. General Ization ^Talk 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So, anyone can delete as many paragraphs as he wants to, and get away with it because everyone is terrified to Revert? Does this make sense? (I don't recall doing an Undo in the past 24 hours.) What type of Sanction is given for breaking the rule? Peter K Burian 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense, but that's what you get when some people champion overzealous application of 1RR rule on an article where a majority of editors don't even thing it should apply at all. Welcome to arbitrary sanctions. Feel free to express your opinion on the motion, too, since few are doing it. LjL (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think reverts of clear vandalism are counted. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Content deletion is not often/always considered "clear vandalism". If an editor is removing content because of a strong WP:POV but still in good faith, it's not vandalism: vandalism has a narrow definition. LjL (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Just saying, if someone adds "your a butt" in the infobox, you can revert it without violating 1RR. That's for Peter's benefit. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: you are allowed one revert per day. But... I still see the reactions you are probably referring to at November 2015 Paris attacks#European Council? Note that User:John is quite intent in removing verbatim quotations, but the rest is still there. Not sure that was one of those cases. Extensive inclusion of reactions is currently under contention, anyway: keep in mind that if you see them disappear from this article, they might have been moved to Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks instead. LjL (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter, you do know how to review the article's entire history? I can't help but wonder, since you say "someone deleted" and "what happened to the text". If you know how to review the history, these are questions you can readily answer for yourself, as well as see the edit summaries that accompanied the removal (assuming any removal occurred). General Ization ^Talk 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cut the guy some slack: this article is so involved and (at least previously) fast-paced, I very often have difficulty tracing stuff and changes both on the article and the talk page (I keep thinking some "archived" things are just... gone... but I'm not sure). And I've used this thing for about 10 years, on and off. LjL (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I really wasn't criticizing Peter, just concerned since he seems to have had this experience several times now. General Ization ^Talk 00:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with informing a relatively new editor at the risk of informing them about something they already know. He doesn't seem the type to get his feelings hurt easily. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, everyone. I do appreciate the advice as part of the learning experience and my feelings are only hurt when someone deletes important aspects of a topic, including the valid citations from highly-respected News sources, for no apparent reason. If I ever delete something (like the ridiculous Friday the 13th link to superstition), my Edit Summary makes it very clear why I had done so. Cheers! Peter K Burian 16:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

actually only parts of the content about European reactions is missing: anything that suggests that allowing refugees to enter their countries might be OK even now. Editing bias? I cannot tell. Peter K Burian 03:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really true. Anyway, the actual issue is that most of this text is WP:UNDUE in this article and if it's going to be anywhere that would be in the reactions article. Volunteer Marek  04:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The most recent edit still includes (in Reactions) comments from the same countries as to their plans to admit any refugees, after the Paris attacks. Someone merely deleted any comments that indicated the countries would continue accepting refuges in spite of the attacks in Paris (because not all refugees are terrorists.) That is why I wonder if there has been some bias. I will continue this discussion in the new topic I created, below this topic. Peter K Burian 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure enough, someone - and I cannot figure out who - again deleted the ection I had added about Poland's agreement to honour the commitment to accept thousands of refugees. I have again added it. The mystery editor only kept the section where Poland initially refused to accept any, claiming they are all terrorists. That is not balanced coverage. Because subsequently, the Prime Minister of Poland agreed to allow the refugees, though perhaps not Syrians, if the process would ensure the security of Poles. This is balanced coverage.Peter K Burian 02:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: no one reverted anything "in a sneaky manner" as you said in your edit summary where you re-added it: the edit is here, with the somewhat terse explanation that your content was sourced from tabloids. The Daily Mail is usually not considered a reliable source - I don't know about the other one. LjL (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

REACTIONS article; the one does NOT include countries' plans to admit more refugees after Paris attacks

This is a continuation of the topic re: deleted sections from government reactions in other countries. fyi, the other topic, Reactions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks, is very narrow in that it only discusses how sad other countries are that France was attacked. There is absolutely no coverage there re: the countries' plans re: admitting refugees in the aftermath of the attacks.

However, the article about the Paris Attacks already does include comments of that type, so that is where I will be covering this sub-topic in my next edits: in the European Council section and in the International section re: Canada's intentions and plans. I will include both 1) comments that indicate they do not want refugees which are already in the Reactions section since they were not deleted ... and 2)comments indicating that some governments' leaders will continue to accept refugees. (All of the latter had been deleted by someone.) I have no bias as to whether countries should continue accepting refugees. I merely believe that Wikipedia should present coverage that is unbiased, including both the pro and the con sentiments expressed by the leaders of governments in various countries (such as Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic). Peter K Burian 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have modified the Attack article with the additional information (with citations from respected news organizations) re: Poland and the Czech Republic. If anyone artbitrarily deletes or Reverts that, I will figure out how to file a Dispute resolution request, (WP:DRR). Peter K Burian 19:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure enough, someone - and I cannot figure out who - again deleted the ection I had added about Poland's agreement to honour the commitment to accept thousands of refugees. I have again added it. The mystery editor only kept the section where Poland initially refused to accept any, claiming they are all terrorists. That is not balanced coverage. Because subsequently, the Prime Minister of Poland agreed to allow the refugees, though perhaps not Syrians, if the process would ensure the security of Poles. This is balanced coverage.Peter K Burian 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter, there is no such thing as a "mystery editor" here on Wikipedia. Every edit (unless redacted, and none have been here) is plainly in public view, along with who made it. I, and everyone else, can readily see by reviewing the article revision history which editors (there were several) removed portions of content that you added earlier today, and the reasons they stated for doing so. I am once again not pointing this out to be critical of you, nor critical or supportive of them, but to encourage you to use the tools we have at hand to see what changes were made, when and why, and to work directly with any other editor(s) with whom you have a disagreement, rather than referring to "mystery editors" who operate in a "sneaky manner". General Ization ^Talk 02:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you General Ization for finding the revision and the stated reason. I had not been able to find it. I set Watch this page and I reviewed the revisions history (as always), but I did not notice that one. I did not know that Daily Mail is not considered a highly respected source. Of course my citations also included Reuters and other news agencies. To delete an entire paragraph, filled with citations - because he did not like one of the newspapers - seems disingenuous to me; a ploy to remove information the person does not agree with. I plan to file for dispute resolution. But first, I will find other sources for the information that currently cites Daily Mail. Kind regards, Peter K Burian 02:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I had no difficulty finding other sources for the fact that Poland will honour its commitment to accept 9000 refugees, from Agence France Press, a highly respected news agency in Paris, France. Peter K Burian 03:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed another Talk section == Poland's response and reactions in general == ; comments there give me a good idea as to who has been deleting reactions sections. Interesting discussion in that thread! Peter K Burian 16:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest since...

I know this has been discussed before. I don't think we can state that this was the deadliest attack in (or on) France since WW2 because of the uncertainty about how many died in 1968. --John (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple sources stating that it's the deadliest attack since WWII, including the president of France. Beyond that, what you are referring to was not an attack. Could you cite some outside sources that back up your position? --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This article says 300 people were injured, but there were no deaths: May 1968: The revolution that never was --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There you are, you figured it out yourself. I think you should self-revert now. --John (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain? Zero deaths is less than 120. Also, could you cite a source that makes a similar claim? --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to say 1961? Specifically the Algerian massacre? If so, I think changing "in" to "on" was the product of that discussion in the Archive. I'm not sure how that got changed back. --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed "on" to "in" because it seemed the more clearly defined quality. But then I changed it back, after noticing both sources use "on". The Algerians were killed in (de facto) France, but by French police. An attack by France isn't quite an attack on France, even if it occured in the dead center of the country, to full-fledged French citizens. The papers aim to focus on external threats, it seems. Some of the perps here were French, but not officially acting on behalf of France. In general, I find "deadliest in" and "deadliest since" bits silly in the lead. Only something that's the deadliest ever should get that sort of prominence. But many other Wikipedians like doing it, so as they say in English Canada, c'est la vie. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

«This is the highest casualty count in the city since the Paris massacre of 1961.» But this was during the Algerian war which finished 53 years ago. So it might be better to write «This is the highest casualty count in the city since the Algerian war during which occured the Paris massacre of 1961.» And you also have one accident which killed 130/132 persons in 1962 (See www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1962/f-sm620603/pdf/f-sm620603.pdf ) So, we might also write «This is the highest casualty count in the city since the Paris-Orly accident of 1962.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.21 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But no one outside Wikipedia has claimed this was the deadliest attack since the massacre of 1961, or the biggest loss of life since the plane crash of 1962. For us to write it would be original research. You need someone—a journalist, politician, author, etc.—on record as saying those exact words. Firebrace (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems unlikely, as homicides and accidents are apples and oranges (suicide is a lemon and natural causes are cherries). While we're mixing and matching sources, though, I'll note that that accident killed just shy of 24 times the daily average for Paris proper (or over 19 times, by 1962 standards). So it was still a big deal (but slightly less so at the time). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So comparing what occurs during peace (2015) and what occurs during war (1962) is comparing apples and oranges?

Anyway, it looks like there were less people killed by police in 1962, than people killed by terrorists in 2015 (see www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2012/10/18/01002-20121018ARTFIG00772-17-octobre- 1961-la-tension-etait-extreme.php ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.21 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, accidents are oranges. I was talking about the one in that PDF link. 130 people. The PDF doesn't work for me, I assume it was Air France Flight 007, which is an orange. Wartime homicide and peacetime homicide are like green apples and red apples. Close enough to compare, but a source still needs to, not us. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind, while this isn't the traditional sort of war, it's still war enough for the President to say "guerre", and for The Daily Express to CAPITALIZE (or CAPITALISE). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Poland's response and reactions in general

How about we stop being ridiculous and stop making this page - which is about the November attacks in PARIS - about Polish politics? Starting with the Szymanski quote all the way through this whole thing violates WP:UNDUE.

More generally the whole section on "reactions" is way UNDUE. We have a dedicated article for the reactions and these kinds of details belong there if anywhere. Not here. Volunteer Marek  18:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I note that Volunteer Marek has repeatedly tried to remove [1] [2] these reactions from the "Reactions" article itself, too (which to me suggests he just wants them to be suppressed, not simply placed in the "dedicated article"), and also posted a very similar message to the above on its talk page, seemingly due to mixing up the two articles.

Please see these archived talk page sections for previous consensus on the matter of inclusion of these (mainly the Polish) reactions: 1 2 3. I know consensus can change, but perhaps someone is beating a dead horse here. LjL (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to "suppress" anything. That kind of wording is indicative of your own WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. My reasoning is simple - this is the article about November 2015 PARIS attacks, not about Poland's attitude towards the Syrian refugee crisis.

I can see this being discussed with due weight on the Reactions article although even there it's somewhat off topic; it's about reactions to the attacks, not about .... Poland's attitude towards Syrian refugees.

And no there was no prior "consensus" for inclusion. There was a couple editors for inclusion and a couple editors against. Please don't make stuff up.

Now. Can you please address the substance of the issue - is it WP:UNDUE or not? - rather than engaging in personal attacks?  Volunteer Marek  19:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No. There were several editors on several sections (I'm tired of chasing all these sections you end up bringing this on) which I've linked to above. People can count, you know? You were the only one against it apart, IIRC, from some drive-by editor. Several others thought this was obviously suited for inclusion. The fact that you don't even want it on the "Reactions" article pretty much makes it obvious that there's something you want to suppress about Poland in particular. Give it a cut. You're still flogging the dead horse, and in the most annoying ways possible. LjL (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No, while there were some editors who wanted it included others - and dismissing them as "drive by" just betrays your bias - did not think it belonged. Now you are just trying to shut down the discussion. Can you PLEASE address the issue at hand and explain why the topic of Polish politics should get such prominence in the reaction section? Why it shouldn't be covered in the Reactions article instead? Please explain why this info is not WP:UNDUE.

And relatedly, please stop misrepresenting my position in regard to the Reactions article. It's not true that I want it absent from that article (hence your claim that I want it "suppressed" is just a figment of your imagination). All I want there is for the issue to be presented in a reasonable and appropriate manner. That means that editors shouldn't cherry pick the statements they like and remove and ignore sourced statements which don't fit their POV. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored deleted information by Volunteer Marek, along with sources he deleted. It doesn't seem consensus has changed, and besides VM I don't recall any editors opposed to this, I believe overwhelming majority was for inclusion.For the record,Eastern European reaction to this has been noted in mainstream publications.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the situation. The problems are as follows:

1. You are cherry picking some responses and removing others. For example you have removed the official statement in which the PM says that Poland will abide by the agreement it has made, but you have inserted the unofficial statement, made in just some internet chat, about maybe planning or thinking about asking EU to amend the agreement. This is a textbook case of cherry picking sources to push a POV. If you look up "cherry picking sources to push a POV" in the online encyclopedia there's a diff which has exactly that edit as an illustration.

2. You, and LjL, are both ignoring the issue of DUE WEIGHT. In fact, both of you are resorting to personal attacks or you focus on discussing editors rather discussing the actual issue. As I said, this article is about the November terrorist attacks IN PARIS. It is NOT about Polish internal politics in regard to the Syrian refugees. It makes no encyclopedic sense to use this article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for discussing the pro's and con's of Poland government's views on the refugees. And just from a moral standpoint that kind of purpose is... distasteful. What actually happened in Paris is far more important for this article than the political capital some Polish politicians are trying to make. Volunteer Marek  22:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect to this edit, please restore the sourced information that was removed against reiterated consensus on this page that reactions from Polish government officials are worthy of inclusion (whether they are of a given editor's particular liking or not). LjL (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you not just Undo the change that person made? Or do you then get into a problem with the Revert Rule? (I had never heard of that Rule til today). Peter K Burian 23:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, once again LjL you are trying to WP:CANVASS people to edit war for you. You broke the 1RR rule so now you're trying to solicit others to revert on your behalf. That's a disruptive attempt at WP:GAMEing the system.

Second, that edit has already been undone, for better or worse. Without discussion.

Third, can you please address the issue of WP:WEIGHT? Why does any of this info belong in this article at all? You are in fact required to substantiate these changes. Volunteer Marek  23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that as discussion, not canvassing actually. Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't address claims of canvassing or gaming the system as I find them entirely spurious. As to WP:WEIGHT, it can be discussed whether these reactions belong here or in the Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks article, but they quite obviously belong in at least one of the two, and you've been repeatedly trying to remove them from both, even making it hard to follow which section you're arguing in. I think given we're talking about EU countries, which are a tight pack with France, at least a summary of their reactions (including the ones about refugees, if spawned by these attacks) should be given in this article. In fact, a lot of the stuff from this article might need summarizing and transferring to the Reactions article, but that's as long as it's not just your per-peeves about Poland, and it doesn't result in removal from both articles. For now, while you threaten me with 1RR sanctions in both articles, I will insist for inclusion, and ask for consensus (which has been referred and linked to several times) to be implemented. LjL (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing what belongs in the Reactions article. But most of this stuff, Poland or otherwise, doesn't belong in this one. This is the article on the attacks themselves and this info is basically off topic POV agenda-hijacking. Volunteer Marek  04:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Marek, I've noticed a tendency in your comments to fail AGF and flirt with NPA. Please take any behavior complaints to ANI and refrain on this page. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice this discussion until now. My question: Is any discussion about accepting refugees valuable in this article? Yes, it is, in my view. And if a long section about the governors of the US states refusing refugees is relevant, why is the section about Poland not relevant? In fact, I have added to it for more balanced coverage, and also added a section about the reactions of Canada and the United Nations. One of the aftermath aspects of the Attacks is how it has changed public opinion in some countries while not changing in others, such as Canada re: accepting refugees. There is a Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks page too, and it lists numerous countries and their sadness for France about the attacks and their solidarity with France. But it does not cover the other significant reaction: how countries are now feeling and acting re: allowing refugees, in light of the attacks in Paris. If an Admin moves ALL of the reactions sections from here to that article, (dealing with the refugee situation), fine. That is not up to me. But until then, why would Wikipedia ignore such an important cause/effect? (My own problem is someone deleting the content that I added re: Poland, as discussed under other headings. But in principle, I support retaining the section about countries' reactions, and how those affect their handling of tens of thousands of refugees. Peter K Burian 04:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither is particularly relevant to this article. This article is about attacks in Paris. It is NOT about Syrian refugees or individual countries' policies in regard to them. All of that needs to go into a different article. This article's getting too long already anyway. Volunteer Marek  07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on that logic, Marek, why does the article have anything at all about the Aftermath? Significant aftermath issues include the greater security checks at European borders that were once open, the extension of the state of emergency in France AND how the Attacks have affected how countries are now feeling and acting re: accepting refugees, in light of the attacks in Paris. And I repeat: If an Admin moves the entire section about the aftermath from here to the Reactions article, (dealing with the refugee situation), fine. That is not a decision for you or for me to make.Peter K Burian 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And if you, or anyone else (except an Admin) starts deleting sentences from the Reactions section again, including the paragraph about Poland, I will definitely file for Dispute Resolution to ensure that the coverage remains balanced. And I just got an e-mail that Wikipedia will be starting an Arbitration process; great idea. Peter K Burian 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A short summary about the reactions plus a link to the Reactions article would suffice. That's how this usually handled on similar articles. And I think dispute resolution would be a great idea. Try WP:MEDIATION (btw, admins are subject to the same rules as everyone else when it comes to editing)

Also I think the email you received is about the ArbCom election. Volunteer Marek  16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: you seem to be confused as to what WP:Administrators do. They don't take part in content dispute - at least not in their admin capacity: they can take part as simple editors like you or me, and when they do that, they become WP:INVOLVED and in fact mostly stop being able to take part as administrators. Where to put this content is a content issue, that people like "you or me" have to settle. As to the email you got, it's about electing a new set of arbitrators; there is already an arbitration committee, there are just new elections. LjL (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, LjL (talk) Well, I don't feel qualified to start removing pages and pages of content from Attacks and drop that into the Reactions article. And if I did that, I'll bet a dozen people would complain. But I have noticed that some editors are shown as admin while I am not (and don't want to be). Isn't there some very experienced editor who kind of oversees major articles like Attacks?

No, there isn't. Admins deal with administrative matters; dispute resolution can be used to resolve content disputes (but usually, people taking parts in dispute resolution are also "normal" editors like you and me, no one "special"); then there is the Arbitration Committee, which is an elected body, but they certainly won't get into details such as what content has to go where, at least unless/until things escalate very very much. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort: WP:EQUAL. LjL (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: There are SO many revisions to the Attacks, that I simply cannot figure out who was deleting content that I had added about Poland and the Czech Republic. (I am absolutely convinced that those comments make for balanced coverage: i.e. some want no refugees admitted at all, while others believe there is a responsibility to the tens of thousands of families stuck outside European borders. My added content has included commentary on both aspects, and both are essential for balanced coverage. This has nothing to do with my own view of which side is right; I simply believe that both sides' comments need to be published. (Whether that section is left in Attacks or moved to Reactions.) Cheers! Peter K Burian 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be more constructive if Marek would in the face of an overwhelming majority just stop filibustering and drop the issue.Dorpater (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Does Friday the 13th link make sense?

Someone added the word Friday to turn the sentence into a link to Friday the 13th, about superstition. How is that relevant or valid in this article? Peter K Burian 23:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&diff=next&oldid=691735935

Someone reverted it to remove that link. Thanks, I am paranoid about reverting edits now that I heard about the Three Revert Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Peter K Burian 23:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

First, the revert rule doesn't make sense on this article. Bod (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: people claim that on this article, a One Revert Rule applies, which means that two reverts in the span of 24h (even if partial and/or unrelated) could be grounds for a block. I'm certainly being burned by this. LjL (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose adding "Friday" to the lede. The reader can make their own connection. If possible in a later section, we should briefly describe the significance and link to Friday the 13th. Both the French and German articles mention the day of the week in their ledes, the former in the first sentence. Bod (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How is the day of the week relevant at all in a news item? Especially if it becomes a link to an article about superstition. Is there any relevance to that in a discussion of terrorist attacks?? Peter K Burian 23:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: Friday... more people out on the streets partying. Bod (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It goes without saying they chose the busiest time/day to attack. Day of the week adds nothing to the article. Nor does an attacker's birthday, the name of a dog, or the colour of a car. Just because the gutter press are trying make 13/11 a 'thing' doesn't mean we have to do the same and create a self-fulfilling prophecy where people think it's called that because Wikipedia says it is. Firebrace (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That's already happened once today. The Guardian sort of says the City of Manchester Stadium is called the Liverpool Under-19 Training Ground. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose the addition of "Friday" or linking to Friday the 13th. Unless a connection is shown by reliable sources, we should neither state it explicitly nor suggest it indirectly using "tricks" like these. LjL (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

1RR only applies to reverts against logged in editors, not IPs. You are unlikely to get tagged unless you are acting like a jerk going against consensus. I've edited ISIL and related articles for more then a year and not been tagged with 1RR Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Or unless you're trying to apply consensus on edits made by someone going against it, who can exploit the 1RR system. LjL (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

1 or 2 can't edit war against many editors and not violate 1RR. If they report you, boomerang it. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely concur with LjL. The world is already too full of superstition, some of which (IMO) fueled the very series of acts that this article describes. Let's not encourage it here. It is entirely unencyclopedic and inappropriate in an article on a serious (and tragic) topic. General Ization ^Talk 23:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support to match French and German articles. Both mention Friday evening in the lede. The former in the first sentence. Oppose linking to Friday the 13th but support mentioning it later in the article. Also, future opposers or supposers please distinguish between adding Friday to the lede section, mentioning Friday the 13th, and linking to it. Bod (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia project has its own rules, and we are under no obligation (nor is it often a good idea) to "match" articles from Wikipedias in other languages. LjL (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the link per other opposition. Oppose mention of the day of the week unless RS overtly lends it relevance (more than a mere mention). Re the above comment, we don't even see a need for consistency across English-language articles on things like this; why would we across projects? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of 'Friday evening' because that shows a time when many people are out at concerts, sporting events and dinner-a fact pointed out in several detailed anaysis pieces i read. They picked a time when maximum damage to civilians could be done. I don't support a link to or phrase 'Friday the 13th' because I've seen no evidence this was a factor in the timing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says this (that authorities have conclusively determined that the militants chose to act on a particular day of the week because of the prevalent activities unique to that day), by all means add it (with a citation) to the article. That is different than simply mentioning the day of the week, with or without an intent to link it to the superstition. General Ization ^Talk 00:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No argument from me, as long as we do not go back to a link to Friday the 13th as it relates to superstition. Peter K Burian 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

People don't plan bad things on Friday the 13th, bad things just happen. Bod (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right, Bod, as they do every other day of the week. General Ization ^Talk 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why did anyone invent it? Bod (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they were prone to magical thinking. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

See Magical thinking. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia doesn't use ordinal numbers in dates. Lucky day or not, it's a bad date. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Fun Fact These attacks also happened on World Kindness Day. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone just deleted the word Friday again; I don't care one way or the other although another editor suggested it was valid because many more people are out partying than on a Monday for example. Peter K Burian 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Then you should vote here with your support for its inclusion. Bod (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Yes, I think we should add the Friday, but not if it becomes a Friday the 13th (superstition) effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A rumor about the Stade de France

According to snopes.com, there is talk around the social media blogosphere that a security guard named Zouheir saved thousands of people by turning away the attacker. That is simply not true, and the source, which is linked here, never says anything of the sort.

References

Now, is this little fact about the social media uproar worthy of inclusion, either here or at Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks? epic genius (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I say enough with the social media nonsense, but that might just be me. LjL (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that too. I found out about this particular nonsense when a friend posted this on my Facebook feed, so I searched and found more of this nonsense on Twitter and across Facebook. Anyway, people from Twitter and Facebook are going to search for this article and wonder "why isn't Zouheir's heroism depicted here?" I just want to see if readers actually care about this kind of stuff, though. epic genius (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it's not totally out of the blue, according to that WSJ source. It says Zouheir says he heard that a suicide bomber was deterred from entering the stadium by other security personnel before self-detonating. It sounds like social media took that and played Gossip with it until it morphed into what was stated above. But I don't think there's enough there for inclusion, anyway. It's still just Zouheir's uncorroborated claim. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do talk sections about the reactions article keep ending up here? Isn't that why that one was made? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

British English or American?

Just noticed we say "organised" and "radicalised". I think, given the lack of ties to any English nation, we should use American English. That's what the sources (at least the ones we use where we use those words) do, and in sheer numbers, more readers will be used to the Americanization, not the Anglicisation.

Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nay. What the sources use has no bearing, unless it somehow establishes WP:TIES. Otherwise, WP:ENGVAR applies: the article should be internally consistent, but it doesn't matter which variety is being used (and American is certainly not the "default"). In case of disagreements, we MOS:RETAIN the existing variety, and I've always seen this article use British English. Policy aside, anyway, are you quite sure "in sheer numbers" more readers will be used to American English? India has the most English speakers, and they certainly don't use American spelling; in Europe and other parts of the world, "international English" is taught, which is often based on British spelling. LjL (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. There are indeed more English speakers in India than in the US, but the US media machine is a relative juggernaut, and their ESL program is nothing to sneeze at (according to a quick Google). I feel sure. This deal seems to be an offshoot of the American-led ISIS kerfuffle. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Cough I bet you are American... England, though, had much more of a continent-spanning empire than the United States in the past, resulting in several countries who still speak "their" English or a closely related variant, and as ESL goes, in Europe in particular students are more likely to visit the UK than the US (and so are teachers), meaning that the British variety is often favo(u)red, even though, at least in my experience, the main differences between British and American English are simply presented to students without mandating a choice. But that's also the thing, really: most of the spelling differences are inconsequential, and people, including ESL speakers, will understand either way; when it comes to markedly different words, WP:ENGVAR tells us to try to find a "neutral" synonym for everyone's benefit (though if there isn't one, tough luck: we stick to the article's main style). LjL (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You'd lose that bet. I use Google.ca, and write things like "nationalized theatre" or "coloured truck". When I watched TV at all, I saw BBC stuff as often as FOX stuff. I use "chips" in my poutine, not "freedom fries". And so forth.

But yeah, it's not a huge deal, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also British English with Oxford spelling. That one makes it pretty tricky sometimes to understand whether an article was "originally" using American or British spelling. LjL (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's history books, this article originally said there was a bomb attack by a bar, not a pub. Does that count? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think "bar" is acceptable in British English, especially when referring to foreign establishments (which may in fact be called "bars" in the native language, at least they are in mine, which is definitely related to French), but I cannot be sure. Anyway is it worth insisting? This article has used British spelling for a long time, and there really is nothing compelling that makes Wikipedia prefer American spelling lacking a very specific motivation. In fact, it may be quite inflammatory to insist on a variety of English even though the article is using another... myself, I've insisted for using American English in other articles before, on the grounds that that was what they were using. For the same reason, I'm insisting on British English on this one. LjL (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly insisting, just stating my case. When I'm insistent, I typically make the edit first, then discuss if it's reverted. If "bar" does nothing, we can at least agree that the original use of "November 13" rather than "13 November" was clearly AE, till someone decided to unretain it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Most countries, including France, use the DMY date format. Firebrace (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That the someone who changed it is the someone who added it certainly adds a wrinkle. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that in the same version that had "November 13" there was already also "13 November" being used in the reference. The fact that very editor later changed them both to the latter format suggests they thought "November 13" was a mistake. Anyway, MOS:DATE treats date formats separately from English variants. LjL (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nay Too much to change now. This article has established that it uses English English. I also agree that it matches the date format. Bod (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: WP:GS/ISIL sanctions apply to this article

This is a reminder that this article falls within the scope of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL community-authorised discretionary sanctions, meaning that the WP:1RR per twenty-four hours rule applies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess that means that despites Fuzheado's best efforts, I will actually leave this article. I find it pretty questionable to enforce 1RR on a piece of still fast-changing news like this, where there's even still a "current event" template acknowledging the high traffic. LjL (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I find the whole Syrian War thing questionable. That's not to say I disagree, I just can't understand why it exists at all. Something about Israel and Arabs? There are many controversial topics. Is there a short summary of why this one needs special protection, or related to the other one? I've tried following the links. Didn't help. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As you will see at the page that I linked, a community discussion determined that such sanctions should be established. Therefore, they were. They are separate from the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. Users cannot be sanctioned unless they have been notified in line with the procedure specified at that page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Community" meaning "less than about 10 editors", as far as I can see from the discussion links above. As I said, oh well. LjL (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, RGloucester, I get it, you're very set on having these sanctions applied (even though an admin boldly remove the notice before), and now because I'm objecting to them and pointing out you're the first among perhaps ten people who really wanted them to exist, you're making very sure I can be sanctioned at the first misdemeanor you spot. LjL (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Indeed, I was not involved in the drafting of the original sanctions from 2013. I have no reason to want anyone to get sanctioned. I'm just issuing informative notices, that's all. I gave them to those currently editing the article. That's the standard practice, specified at WP:AC/DS and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. They do not imply misconduct. No one gets sanctioned unless they do something to get sanctioned...they're just supposed to encourage good practice in dispute-prone articles...no need for bad faith. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What faith should I assume when the template and restrictions were boldly removed by an admin whose action was applauded by pretty much everyone on this talk page, then I find them reinstated and myself somewhat bullied after slightly objecting to them? LjL (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wondering what or how. That much is apparent. Just why. But that's a question for another talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notifications (LjL—RGloucester—InedibleHulk—Legacypac—WWGB—Kendrick7—Greyshark09) -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You can remove the template all you want, but the sanctions still apply. Volunteer Marek  16:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as it remains off and doesn't scare away contributors, that's the most important immediate outcome. The next step would be to formally challenge the entire legitimacy of those "broadly constructed" sanctions. As @LjL: pointed out, it was a side discussion section on WP:AN with fewer than a dozen voices chiming in. It was not an RFC, and even had pushback from users, yet it was declared "consensus" that we're living with today. How can a small set of voices in an obscure corner of Wikipedia get to impose blanket 1RR sanctions, "broadly constructed," on entire categories, including the article that is the #2 most visited page this week [3]? I cannot recall seeing a dragnet this broad and punitive in the history of Wikipedia, and I've been around a long time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, it means new contributors will be unaware that they can land in trouble really quick. Are we really doing them a service by withholding this info from them?

And the sanctions themselves were actually authorized by ArbCom. The idea that the Syria-related sanctions also cover ISIL was made at AN. The reason why participation was low was because it was pretty damn obvious. In fact, Syria related sanctions would still apply to any ISIL related article EVEN IF that AN discussion had not taken place. That discussion just spelled out what was already true. Volunteer Marek  16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What was true, "broadly construed" (hehe). I can probably count more members of the "community" here who showed an opposition to these sanctions, than members who supported them on AN to make them apply to an indefinite number of articles. LjL (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, AN is NOT where this decision was made. AN is where it was decided to clarify the wording of the DS notice template. Volunteer Marek  17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually let me be more precise. The idea that Syria related sanctions apply to ISIL related articles was NOT made at AN. It was made by ArbCom. In the AN discussion one user just asked for clarification and suggested making this fact explicit in the DS notice. Volunteer Marek  16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are neither imposed by "the community" nor are they removed by "the community". It's all ArbCom WP:AC/DS. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Marek. There are indeed "community-authorised discretionary sanctions", and these particular sanctions have nothing to do with ArbCom. They were originally authorised in a community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, and subsequently amended at that board. This is specified by the community-authorised discretionary sanctions procedure. Once again, ArbCom has nothing to do with this set of sanctions. Indeed, if editors here are so unsatisfied with their existence, they are free start on discussion at WP:AN on the revocation of the community authorisation.

As for the actions of Fuzheado, they make no difference. He has no authority to remove articles from the scope of the sanctions. Indeed, as is specified at WP:GS/SCW, "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions", and hence his removal of the template does nothing but make the process more opaque. If he wishes to challenge the sanctions, he can do so as I said above, by starting a community proposal for their revocation or clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For my information, RGloucester, can you please point me to this community-authorized discretionary sanctions procedure? LjL (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

See the page WP:GS. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this situation is a bit more complicated because the Syria/ISIS sanctions originally were an extension of the Israel/Palestine sanctions. This extension was made by ArbCom in this motion and this motion also specified that extending the sanctions from 30 days to indef would be decided at AN. However, you are correct in that this particular set of sanctions can be challenged at AN. Volunteer Marek  18:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed quite a mess. For that reason, I just wrote a history of and guide to the sanctions system in my userspace. It might be useful to anyone struggling to understand this mire. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the SCW&ISIL sanctions apply automatically to this article, as mentioned by RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. The purpose of the sanctions notification on the main page and on the talk page is to warn the editors to evade edit-warring - this is one of the that the sanctions had been initiated in the first place (to make a sufficient deterrence). User:Fuzheado is making a bad service for the community for removing the notice. In any case, i will issue a personal warning and/or file a case for any violation of the sanctions, whether the warning appears here or not.GreyShark (dibra) 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For any violation, meaning any (possibly partial) revert that comes after another (possibly partial and unrelated) revert in the span of 24 hours? Way to be WP:POINTY. LjL (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

These 1RR sanctions are a joke. They were slapped on the Israel-Palestine conflict years ago. The end result is that Palestine is now nothing but a disambiguation page. That's not how you write an encyclopedia, by giving Point-Of-View pushers the weapons to carry out their agenda and to punish their "enemies" any time they step over some imaginary line. Those who have ears, ought to hear. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe not, actually

• Nonsense. Events in Paris have nothing to do with a civil war half a world away simply because one of the two parties are involved. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kendrick7, that's your opinion. ISIS thinks otherwise. In the meantime, you can challenge the decision to have ISIS fall under those sanctions, at WP:AN. User:RGloucester, thank you for bringing this up; it is a bit of a complication.

  In general, these sanctions don't exist to punish editors; they're here to prevent editors from getting in trouble; such articles often attract new editors and sometimes there's just too much zeal. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• And... that's also your opinion. I don't see the template on this page, so go harass some other group of editors committed to WP:5P if that's how you like spending your time. I rather prefer writing an encyclopedia. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 05:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether the template is on this page or not, the sanctions apply. Also, will you please stop changing other people's comments or inserting sub-section headings into the middle of existing discussions? Volunteer Marek  06:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to your magical thinking, Marek, but some of us live in the real world. The ArbCom sanctions clearly don't apply here, and that is the actual consensus on this talk page. I've restored my sub header to where I would have put it, should I have known it was objectionable, in the first place. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

First, nobody's "yelling". Second, I don't really care what you believe. You've been notified. That's all that's needed. Volunteer Marek  07:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing the template. You are doing a disservice to editors by misinforming them. Volunteer Marek  07:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you policing us?

That's sort of annoying. If you look here: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#2015_notices, it's like a who's who of people majorly contributing to the articles on the Paris attacks. Who is this RGloucester? Also, whoever notified Kendrick forgot to list there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevant: this report. It mostly speaks for itself (if you look at the actual edits being put under scrutiny), but I commented on it anyway. Why am I nearly the only one (save an admin or two) trying to speak up against this in the proper places? LjL (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous prevalently shown under international reactions?

All the content for the reactions section has been moved to the Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks page, with the exception of a one-line summary... and then a line about Anonymous. Shouldn't this also be moved to the reactions page? --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You'd like to move it, move it. I'd like you to move it, move it. Bod (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Seemed rather uncontroversial. Just wanted to make sure. Done! --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I know you want to feel it, cause I know you need to feel it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In case that sounded very stupid to anyone, see Reel 2 Real#Discography. That should make it sound only rather stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You're being too hard on yourself, it only sounded quite stupid. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Paris attacks - were they targeting President Hollande?

Did the terrorists who targeted the stadium in Paris on November 13th have advance knowledge that the President of France would be there? Why is there no discussion about this?

WP:NOTFORUM. If you have any source making this claim, then feel free to present it, otherwise, it's idle speculation. LjL (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Septimius Severus is still down at the Forum. Just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, there's an Africa (Roman province) and Africa (Toto song). Coincidence? Does this train go to Amsterdam or Morocco? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

funerals

Please ad info on funerals. Why it has been here removed? 70.208.33.97 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO limited number of authorized editors. So the subject lag. Kind of logistic. Anyway the do good job kiping things by time order. the order of proceding is.

1. count victims
2. body identification
3. authposy
4. returnig decesed to family, last will
5. anoncing funeral
6. last farewall
7. main funeral.

some other depending on custom religion etc. Only the first is mentioned here. One (symbolic or real?) funeral was alredy hold in Benetki.

Stade de France explosions

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentats_du_13_novembre_2015_en_France#cite_note-incoh.C3.A9rence_avec_la_vid.C3.A9o-50

If you look above, the explosions happened just over three minutes from each other. Why do we keep perpetuating the idea that they were 10 minutes apart and nicely aligned with the :20 minute and :30 minute of the hour? I tried to update this ambiguity but my sources were thrown out as "too old". We should be accurate on this and at least have a note about it. Bod (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a note and linked to it. Bod (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The computer internal clok is nanosecond. -9. The speed of sound depends on weather. Given the FR/GE event was recorded on computer and usualy is it is possible to check the time aligment with presision: imo 10-5s (for higher frequency wave mor if superposition defourierized). If the precise locatipon of explosiaons is knows. 10 cm of position displacement give substantial part of second delay. If you say time is aligned then is remote detonation by kind of computer software, Terrorist may use this easy. But given fortunately for us low body cont of the explosions . Anyway seem this time this terrorist did not intended to maximize demage . What if they predicted more destruction will push Holande to Iraq in furius statew like war? Anyway they crosed the line doing enought destruction. 70.211.65.207 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions template

@WWGB and Kendrick7: as well as everyone else who keeps on the dance of removing Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions just to see it re-added later... I know you and several other people are against the sanctions existing at least on this particular article, and yet, very few people (among which, not you) provided their view in the AN motion about these sanctions that I had started and clearly advertised on this talk page. To be honest, just removing the template without saying a word there seems silly and almost like disruption at this point. You don't build "consensus" by edit warring, especially when it comes to Wikipedia-wide sanctions. Take it to the proper place, and maybe we'll eventually accomplish something: if "most here do not want it", then say it for heaven's sake! Right now, I feel silly for even having started it, since I thought a few people would follow up, but instead, everybody was too lazy or something. People get what they deserve. LjL (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, @LjL: I simply don't believe in WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and I won't be goaded into such behavior. I appreciate your point of view, but nevertheless, rules are not the purpose of the community. This page is getting along just fine without the WP:JANITORS slamming their boot down upon anyone who crosses some imaginary line. Take a chill pill, count backwards from 100, and relax! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking things to their proper venue is not "forum shopping", please don't accuse me of that for no reason. Someone has actually ended up on WP:ANEW and almost been blocked for a breach of WP:1RR that was only technical (the reverts involved were perfectly justified), and I've been forced to self-revert myself even though I had made a change that was in line with consensus, because the one editor who disagreed put the 1RR dagger on me. But whatever. The sanctions apply whether the template is there or not, anyway, as long as no one has the guts to actually challenge them. LjL (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The sanctions apply whether the template is there or not Pfft. Nonsense. We have a consensus here that the 1RR sanctions do not apply. Any rogue admins attempting to breach this consensus risk losing the mop per WP:DICK. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The page for the Syrian Civil War/ISIL general sanctions clearly says: "Pages may be tagged with {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used to indicate that articles are under general sanctions. The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned." and "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice, with the following specifications is imposed:" Since an attack planned by ISIL is obviously related to ISIL, broadly construed, the sanctions would apply regardless of if the templates are present. Given the direction of the discussion on AN linked above, these sanctions still have the support of the community. Yes, it is tedious to have to follow 1RR at times, but it also saves a lot of time from having to deal with POV-pushers. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

LjL is correct. All communities since the beginning of civilization have seen the need for rules, since that is how communities survive. The problem is with the bad-faith use of rules as weapons, and I have seen no evidence that LjL is doing that. WP:BURO is not a license to be disruptive. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IP is right. What LjL did in no way constitutes forum shopping. After a contentious debate on this talk page, he talks it to the only forum where the sanctions can be officially overturned for discussion. I see no problem with this. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I also note that WP:Local consensus cannot trump global consensus, so just because there is consensus on this page that 1RR should not be applied, sadly, that doesn't make the sanctions go away. Whether the template should stay or go is a slightly separate issue (the template can scare editors off, which was part of the rationale for originally taking it away), but Kendrick7's insistence that the sanctions can and should be challenged by the local consensus right here is simply out of place. What I do note, however, is that the local consensus on here is formed by almost as many editors (if not more) as the ones who took part in forming the community consensus for the sanctions in the first place: so how about challenging them properly? LjL (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I consider removing the template 3 times + mocking comments to be edit warring. If you don't like the sanctions, go change them in the appropriate forum. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I don't have an account, so I can't edit the article myself since it's protected. But I would like to suggest an edit to correct an error. One of the perpetrators is named as "M Al-Mahmod" in the article. To match what the source says, this should be "a person travelling under the name M. Al-Mahmod." It is fairly likely this is a false identity, so Wikipedia should not be claiming that this is the perpetrator's real name. I hope someone will make this correction.96.46.197.13 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not create an account? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove category

• Please remove Category:Current events from November 2015 from this article (non-current event already). 178.94.166.186 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sub-article about victims

I have started a deletion discussion about an article that was created to list the victims of these attacks, something which was previously rejected on this talk page. LjL (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rklawton: I appreciate your concern for giving the AfD the attention it deserve, but reinstating the link to the victims list directly contradicts the comment that comes immediately below it inside the article body, which had strong consensus on this talk page. One shouldn't get to override consensus just by creating a separate article: that's called a WP:POVFORK. LjL (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. A link is not the same thus as long as the fork exists it can be linked inline or as is.--TMCk (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
(E.g. you can't have consensus prevent linking of "Eagles of Death Metal" in the same paragraph).--TMCk (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that folks don't want a list in this article is not the same thing as a consensus that the list shouldn't exist - and have a link here. Rklawton (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the actual consensus you will see that it is not about having it within the article specifically, but about the general concept that such a list shouldn't be present on Wikipedia. There is a reason while, in general, it's not allowed to let WP:POVFORKs WP:GAME decisions.

This isn't forking or gaming. The vote was to not include a list in this article.[4] There is no wording that says such a list should not exist, and there was no concensous. People voted both for and against the proposition of including a table directly in the article with most voting in favor of not including a list. Construing this as a mandate against any list anywhere is simply not appropriate because it was not how the discussion was framed. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

1) There was no "vote", because we don't "vote" on Wikipedia. 2) You're linking to the wrong non-vote, because that was about a breakdown of victim numbers by nationality, without any names; then there was a sub-section about the names, and every opinion there was "no"; but that was just a reinstatement of the previous consensus here. Your claim that there was no "concensous[sic]" is entirely surprising because the exact opposite is very apparent. LjL (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

TBA

Are the actual French casualty figures still awaiting announcement, or is this overlooked?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

{{edit semi-protected|First page to be deleted|...|answered=no}}

Whitetigirl100 (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

International reactions images

Is there currently some sort of consensus regarding which images should be used in the International Reactions section? There seems there could quickly become a little bit of a dispute between Chronus and LjL regarding this edit - I've reverted back to how it was solely so it can be discussed. So, any thoughts? -- samtar ^whisper 16:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The image in dispute is of Christ the Redeemer (statue), which is in Brazil - this is also where Chronus lives, which could introduce a bit of a WP:NPOV issue -- samtar ^whisper 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I had already previously expressed my belief that the statue of Christ shouldn't be prominently featured in preference to other images that are adequate to show French-colored features here. It seems apparent to me that showing a Christian symbol in "response" to an attack by Islamists introduces undesirable undertones. It's not Wikipedia's place to declare that this is a war of religions (especially not to declare Christianity one of the religions at war). LjL (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: I agree with your reasoning that alternative non-religious images exist. @Chronus: any thoughts? It would be useful to hear from both sides, as well as any other interested editors -- samtar ^whisper 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't censor ourselves either. Images are supposed to illustrate points made in the text. From the current text, I draw no preferences between the Sydney or the Rio picture. It's simply stated that "Many heads of states" (from the world over) sent their condolences. The Cairo picture, on the other hand, is justified as there is a whole section dedicated to reactions in the Muslim world. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Who's censoring anything? It's just that when there is a choice between a neutral image and a somewhat more controversial one, there is absolutely no reason to prefer the latter. Besides, the Opera House was the status quo before this editor started pushing their local landmark instead. LjL (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, for an additional reason to favor the Sydney Opera House over the Rio statue that's not related to religion, the former is pretty obviously in the colors of the French flag, while I'd say that looks very non-obvious about the latter. Since this is meant to illustrate that some buildings were lit up in the French color, this matters. LjL (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with LjL here, the Sydney Opera House photo is clearer than the Christ the Redeemer photo and is thus the superior choice, without even considering the (valid) point that Wikipedia should distance itself from portrayals of this as a Christianity vs. Islam scenario whenever reasonable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Sydney Opera House based on the quality of the image and clarity of the colors. Bod (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominate the Vegreville egg. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Sydney Opera House due to high quality and emphasis on French colors, clearly depicting support and condolences for France. Fraulein451 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Sydney Opera House, per Fraulein451. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of tactics

While the title of the section Analysis of tactics seems like a topic that could become a worthy improvement to the article, the content of such a section would have to meet Wikipedia standards for notability, something which the current content does not. Currently, the section contains opinions about the Paris attacks from two sources: one is from an American ex-counterintelligence expert, and the other from a Mumbai police Commissioner, making comparisons with the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Now, while I see nothing a priori wrong with these opinions, I also imagine that very nearly every chief of police and numerous counterterrorism experts around the world were quoted in their local newspapers following the 13 November attacks, but they don't all deserve to be quoted here. Do either of these two sources have any conceivable expertise or connection either with the events, or with the investigations in France, Belgium or elsewhere? I don't think so, but if they do, that should be sourced and added.

In my opinion, this material should be removed as non-notable opinion by unrelated figures remote from the events. Conceivably, some of the material could be moved to "International Reactions", if they are in some way illustrative of international reaction around the world, but even that would have to be substantiated. Furthermore, material of questionable notability was added about the opinions of an Indian police commissioner by an editor who edits frequently on Indian topics (contribs) and who is currently blocked as a sockpuppet.

A brief section history: the section 'Intelligence Review' was first created at 23:14 on 13 Nov‎ mentioning an unnamed 'senior American security official'. The section went through various name changes, including "Intelligence review and analysis", "Intelligence review and analysis of responsibility", "Analysis of tactics and responsibility", and "Analysis of tactics". At 23:37, 13 Nov it became "Intelligence review and analysis" and mentioned Leiter (an American official) who made a comparison to the 2008 Mumbai incident. Mention of Mumbai Commissioner Bharti was first added 23:51 15 Nov by the now blocked sockpuppet account.

A section about Analysis of tactics could be a useful improvement to the article, but it needs some significant work to get there. I would say the current content of the section should be junked and rewritten from scratch with analysis by figures with some demonstrable notability for the topic, and not just by quoting random talking heads around the world who happened to fill the pages of their local newspapers with excerpts from their impromptu interviews by newspaper editors breathlessly scouring their coverage area for a local "expert" to quote for their November 14 edition.
Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

French typo

I am French and I noticed a typo in a French sentence in Aftermath/Local response: "Je Suis En Terrace". In French, terrace should be spelt "terrasse". Besides, it should either be written in lower case except for the very first letter as per French standard case usage, or all in capitals as written in the actual banner [5]. I can't edit the article myself as it seems to be protected. Could someone edit it for me? Melodie c (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I added that, and had mixed feelings about capitalizing it. Ultimately decided to follow the source verbatim. No good excuse for misspelling it, though. Just too English, I guess. Thanks for noticing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

detonation AT a fast food restaurant, or rather away from it?

Currently [6] we have

Another 23 minutes after that, the third bomber's vest detonated nearby; according to some reports, that location was at a McDonald's restaurant; (Wall Street Journal Daily Telegraph) others state that the bomb detonated some distance away from any discernible target. (Yahoo News)

.

I wonder if we could find better sources on this and maybe clear it up. -- Seelefant (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Listing all victims

The article should not include a full list of victims. The main reason is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The associated AFD resulted in delete, so no link is needed to Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks.

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

---

I thought we had solid consensus about this (see 1, 2, 3), but according to some it may not apply to linking to a separate sub-article such as this one I nominated for deletion.

Should we list the individual victims of these attacks (their names and/or other information like age), either directly inside this article, or by linking to or transcluding a separate article? LjL (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (as nominator): Wikipedia is not a memorial or obituary where we should list non-notable people just because they tragically died; it's not something you expect to find in an encyclopedia. Even though these people may have been cited in passing by newspapers, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and they have generally not received the in-depth coverage which would make them notable. LjL (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - show me a page with all 3000 names from 9/11 and I might my change my mind... - ^theWOLFchild 17:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, WP:NOTMEMORIAL was created with precisely that in mind, but that concept keeps being impugned on the deletion discussion for the article in question. LjL (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And the 100 million victims of WWI and II... Firebrace (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

or the hundreds of thousands killed by ISIL in Syria and Iraq, or those on the Metrojet flight days before. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging everyone contributing to previous discussions mentioned (The Anome—Firebrace—92.16.213.2—XavierItzm—Kieronoldham—Legacypac—Thewolfchild—Nsaa—John—InedibleHulk) LjL (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support linking.
• First of all, this discussion is redundant to the AfD and need not take place here.
• Second, I haven't seen a mass shooting article that didn't include a list of victims.
• Third, we're only talking about including a link to a "List of..." article. If the article survives the AfD, then it would be absurd to not include the link herein. If the article doesn't survive AfD, then this discussion will be moot.
• Fourth, If you read WP:Memorial, you'll see it doesn't apply in this case. Memorial references individuals and not groups made notable by repeated media coverage.
• Fifth, a list of victims in this article would make it overly long, so a simple link to an existing article makes a lot of sense.
• Sixth, the last "consensus" wasn't a consensus as several people wanted to include a list herein. Furthermore, the discussion only revolved around including a list within this article. The proposal did not consider a simple link to a separate list that would do little to disrupt this article's flow.
• TL;DR: as far as I know ALL mass shooting articles DO contain victim lists and WP:Memorial doesn't apply to lists. Rklawton (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you please edit your comment so that it doesn't seem like it makes up several responses in the bulleted list? That said, this discussion is not redundant since it's asking whether we should have a list (or a link to the list) in this article and you were yourself the one saying that consensus that had formed about this article was not relevant to the AfD (even though I believe that's not true at all). So make up your mind, it can't be both one and the other. Your other points are mostly addressed in the AfD (or even here just above). As to your "sixth" poin, that's simply not true: the consensus was overwhelmingly against the list and that can easily be seen, it's one click away. LjL (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons given at AfD. Firebrace (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• oppose WP:NOTMEMORIAL AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose current practice is to only list victims if they have or likely to have a wikipedia article by being notable before the event. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - actually, current practice is to list all the victims of mass shootings. Check it out for yourself.
    1. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
    2. 2015 Colorado Springs shooting
    3. 2015 San Bernardino shooting
    4. 2015 Chattanooga shootings
    5. Charleston church shooting
    6. 2015 Lafayette shooting
    7. 2015 Tyrone shooting
    8. 2015 Harris County, Texas shooting
    9. 2015 Waco shootout
  • I'm curious, why would you post something that is blatantly false? wp:memorial clearly doesn't apply in the case of victims lists for mass shootings. Rklawton (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would call it "blatantly false" when it's stated both above and at the AfD that [WP:MEMORIAL was created explicitly with a terrorist attack like 9/11 in mind. Why single out "mass shootings"? How is that different from other incidents? It has been pointed out above that the Metrojet Flight 9268‎ incident doesn't include a victims list. It almost seems like you only see what you want to see. I think you should let both this RfC and the AfD play out without telling people they're telling lies when they are not. LjL (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - @Rklawton:, obviously some articles have "slipped through the cracks", listing non-notable victims when they shouldn't have. This is likely due to the fact that these lists are within main articles, and not separate lists - something you repeatedly fail to mention. But thanks for doing all the leg work of identifying them for us... obviously they will have to be addressed as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, as well. - ^theWOLFchild 13:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose either list. That's too many names. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support including list of victims. The victims of analogous cases are all listed, why the effort to discriminate against the victims of terror in Paris? XavierItzm (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not "discrimination". Stop calling it that. That's just a needless, baseless and inflammatory accusation. - ^theWOLFchild 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support in separate article. As demonstrated above, the current practice is to list those who died, but for the case of this article, we need another article because of the number of names.Bod (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose including a full list of names in either this or a separate article per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per reasons given by LjL. Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor an obituary. Yes - these people were tragically killed, but they are not notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. If we listed every single person who ever tragically died in an accident or attack like this one, Wikipedia would be overflown with names. I don't think we should include a list of names in either this article or a separate article, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - should absolutely not be on the main article per WP:UNDUE and many other reasons like the sheer number of victims. However, if there is an article with victim names, we could have a link for it until it is deleted. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others. It is not a memorial and is undue. I would like to note that wp:otherstuffexists is not a very good reason to include it, especially when the practice is against policy and there are more instances when it doesn't result in an article.Hollth (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2016 (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.

Lockdown in Brussels

Unless I'm misunderstanding, isn't this pretty much repeating itself? Two sentences saying Brussels was in lockdown, said in different ways. This could easily be reduced to two sentences and have less citations. I did have a change, but it was reverted, so I thought I'd ask here before altering it myself.Hollth (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

geolocate la belle equipe - slightly east at the corner

at #92 also photo of place in daily mail ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320856/EXCLUSIVE-woman-saved-hero-La-Belle-Equipe-turned-human-shield-threw-bullet-save-her.html#v-6207294940301933515( Martin | talk • contribs 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

New video release by ISIS

ISIS has released a new video which potentially contains novel information on the perpetrators and the attack. I am bringing it to everybody's attention in order to possibly expand the encyclopedic information of the page. Ralphw (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

About recent reverts

I've cited policy to back up the changes. If nobody can bring any policy-backed reason to have it otherwise (or reasons they believe the policy is not applicable), I'll be re-introducing my changes. Hollth (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this message now. You are misreading WP:TERRORIST. That policy clearly states that the label "terrorist" can be use when "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." This this what we have here so the label is warranted. --McSly (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with McSly. By the way, it's been about a day or so. I'd wait about a week or so to get any sort of consensus - in general it's a good idea to wait if your edit has been reverted quite often. Reading through the references, even the article headlines refer to terrorism a lot. Based on your interpretation of WP:TERRORIST, the September 11 attacks should not be described as terrorism, though they clearly are - that lead directly to anti-terrorist policies in the United States, thousands of articles discussing terrorism and the significance of September 11, and much more. WP:NPOV is really a policy put in place so that we don't make biased articles and lead viewers to believe this was a terrorist attack when at least a significant minority believe it was not. However, I don't see any sources that claim that the Paris attacks were not a terrorist attack, and quite that either don't mention it all or directly call these attacks terrorist attacks. Appable (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

To add a bit more now that I think about it - WP:TERRORIST does mention in-text attribution. However, I don't think that should be a requirement in this particular instance, and I'm not sure whether there's an actual policy stating that or if it's just a WP:IAR (which I hate to go with but the logic behind that is that calling it just an "attack" when it's been described so much as a "terrorist" attack seems to misrepresent the event, so it'd be improving Wikipedia by describing it as a "terrorist attack" rather than "this attack was considered a terrorist attack by X"). When I see a situation where everyone either calls it a terrorist attack or doesn't express/vocalize/write any opinion on whether it's a terrorist attack or not, and there's no reliable sources claiming it's not a terrorist attack, I think it hurts Wikipedia to try to use in-text attribution on every single instance of calling it a terrorist attack. Again, like with September 11 - virtually everyone agrees that it was a terrorist attack. Adding in-text attribution makes it sound like a contentious opinion, which it's really not. Appable (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with McSly and Appable too, of course. Wikipedia articles are not meant to get stuck in (incorrect readings of) policies even when they make them sound grotesque. There is no problem and no contention in calling this a terrorist attack, even though WP:TERRORIST may still apply for things like saying "the attackers" instead of "the terrorists". LjL (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Even "the terrorists" seems fine to me in this case. While I don't think it's a good idea to speculate that they are terrorists, a group known for using terrorism to accomplish their goals (Islamic State) has claimed responsibility - so I don't see a huge problem with calling them "the terrorists". Similarly, on the September 11 attacks, the Wikipedia page uses "terrorist" to describe the people responsible for the attack, and given the coverage by reliable sources that's justified. Same thing for this - I'd be fine with calling them either "terrorist" or "attacker". Appable (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: I don't have a strong opinion about this, but while calling the events "terrorist attacks" instead of just "attacks" adds information (which is reliably sourced), calling the attackers "terrorists" probably just adds loaded language with no clear advantage for clarity, which may fall under WP:TERRORIST territory. LjL (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's a fair point. In that case, should the September 11 attacks page be revised (though obviously should start a talk page discussion before making a fairly substantial change to such a major page)? Seems like a worthwhile discussion at the very least. Appable (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Since I don't have a strong opinion (and I don't find it a big deal either way), I would go on a case-by-case basis. For instance, in the September 11 page, there is a passage that goes "terrorists who died in the attack"; changing that into "attackers who died in the attack" would just sound bad from a stylistic point of view. It may also deserve to be considered to favor using "attackers" when in the context of them executing the attacks, but "terrorists" when in the context of planning and coordinating them. Just thoughts. LjL (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This might be a bit ramble-y, because I missed half the discussion and am trying to respond to all the points. To start, I didn't wish to wait a week and be seen as trying to 'sneak' in the change when nobody was watching, that's why I did it after a day or two. Ironically, you probably now see it as me trying to sneak it in early! Haha.Without further ado... NPOV, is all about neutrality, or the presentation of information, rather than the information itself (which is what I disagree with). The importance of attribution is so that it is not in wikipedia's voice. There is a difference between 'Gary Oldman is the best actor' and 'Gary Oldman is described as the best actor'. I agree we shouldn't do 'described as terrorist by X' because the lead is the only point I can see where 'described as terrorist' is needed (that description is certainly lead-worthy), and it's simply not feasible to list. Thinking out loud, I suppose we could do 'described as terrorist by heads of state and media' ? Personally, I think a link to the reactions section/article would be warranted either way. I disagree that it makes it sound like a contentious issue. Adding, 'Al-Nasura Front did not consider it a terrorist attack' certainly would be (per wp:GEVAL) and nobody (I hope!) is after that. (Think I've covered every point by Appable here? )

LjL There is only one instance I can find of 'terrorists' were 'attacks' would be more appropriate, the rest are instances were it is non-wikipedia voice, so there is no problem. I disagree that there is any clarity lost in changing the lead from 'is a terrorist attack' to 'described as terrorist attack' Can you elaborate on why you think this?

Now that I've addressed other's points, my own thinking was as follows. The policy says that attribution is needed, the primary importance of this being the use of non-wikipedia voice. I acknowledge that many reliable sources call it terrorism/terrorist, I am not questioning that. However, terrorism/terrorist is non-neutral. When an equally used, more neutral term may be used we ought to go for that, i.e. attack. Terrorism/terrorist is very much loaded language and full of negative connotations in a way that attack/attackers is not, so I consider it a subtle form of POV only when used in wiki voice. Secondly, due to the nature of terrorism, it is highly, highly subjective, as evidenced by the Definitions of terrorism. For this reason 'is terrorism' is not a fact, while 'described as terrorism' is a fact. Similarly, 'ISIS is a terrorist group' is not a fact, while 'ISIS is designated as a terrorist group by the UN' is a fact. The same as 'Gary Oldman is the best actor' is not a fact (subjective), while 'Gary Oldman is described as the best actor' is a fact (objectively true). I do not wish to remove the word 'terrorist' from the lead, because I agree, that description of the events was significant. What I disagree with, and what I claim the policy backs up, is how it is worded.

Hollth (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on November 2015 Paris attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151114163337/http://www.france24.com/fr/urgent/20151114-lorganisation-etat-islamique-revendique-attentats-paris to http://www.france24.com/fr/urgent/20151114-lorganisation-etat-islamique-revendique-attentats-paris
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151113220611/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995227/Paris-shooting-Many-feared-dead-live.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995227/Paris-shooting-Many-feared-dead-live.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151113212158/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995227/Paris-shooting-Many-feared-dead-live.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995227/Paris-shooting-Many-feared-dead-live.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151119155512/http://www.france24.com/en/tag/paris-attacks/ to http://www.france24.com/en/tag/paris-attacks/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Attackers were not all EU citizens

"All of the known attackers were EU citizens" in opening section of the page is incorrect.

Two of the attackers were confirmed to have immigrated from Syria through Greece a month earlier in the refugee program. This was confirmed through fingerprint data. It is highly unethical to claim they were all EU citizens, because this falsely leads people to continue to blindly support the refugee program without full awareness of the situation. Please be unbiased about this. The sentence should be factually corrected by saying:

"While most of the attackers were EU citizens, two of them were confirmed by fingerprint data to have entered Europe through Greece posing as Syrian refugees one month prior to the attacks."

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327928/Fingerprints-reveal-TWO-Paris-suicide-bombers-entered-Europe-Greece-month-attacks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4601:84D1:D83D:4A2:8F90:1BEF (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they were all EU citizens but entering the EU posing as refugees does not prove otherwise. Rob984 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

18 March 2016‎

Please fix the first paragraph - it's wrong. There were 9 direct attackers who died, not seven as stated.

"The attackers killed 130 people,[2] including 89 at the Bataclan theatre,[9] where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. Another 368 people were injured,[4] 80–99 seriously.[5][6] Seven of the attackers also died, while the authorities continued to search for accomplices.[3] The attacks were the deadliest on France since World War II,[10][11] and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.[12] France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo offices and a Jewish supermarket in Paris that killed 17 people and wounded 22, including civilians and police officers.[13]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.109.238 (talk)

Only seven of the attackers were killed during the attacks. The other two were killed in a raid five days after. The lead is only summarising the attacks. We don't for sure how many people were directly involved yet, other than the seven that died at the scene. Named suspected militants or accomplices include Chakib Akrouh, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, Salah Abdeslam, and Mohamed Abrini. But there are reports of many more suspected militants being arrested. Rob984 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Rob984 (talk) What you wrote was very informative, so perhaps this can be edited into the first paragraph somehow? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.109.238 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on November 2015 Paris attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208191825/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/france-publishes-guide-on-how-to-survive-a-terrorist-attack/article27598417/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/france-publishes-guide-on-how-to-survive-a-terrorist-attack/article27598417/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bataclan Security

Singer Jesse Hughes said during an interview with Rolling Stone that "security had a reason not to show up" during the concert. I think this should perhaps be added in the description of the attack because it's a report from somebody present during the attacks who is also a first-hand witness. There is also this new interview of Jesse Hughes done by Gavin McInnes giving more details of the attacks inside the Bataclan theater. Ralphw (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Interviews are not reliable sources because they are largely primary sources in which people talk about themselves. Some of the material may be suitable for inclusion in the Jesse Hughes article, but would be too detailed for this article. In any case, this conspiracy theory that the Bataclan guards were complicit in the terrorist attack was soundly rejected by the Bataclan and retracted by Hughes himself should not be added unless the official investigation actually finds such a claim.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is the "Aftermath" section so big?

We have Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, is there anyways we can merge some of the info there if it isn't already? This aftermath section takes up over half of the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Abaaoud apparently not the mastermind after all

See "French authorities say they have identified the commander of the Nov. 13 Islamist militant attacks on Paris and know that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, cornered and killed days later by police, played a lesser role."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Snopes confidently declares Bataclan torture a hoax

Walter Duranty declared famine in the Ukraine to be a hoax, because it did not correspond to official reality. In today's world, it can sometimes be difficult to determine whether a story covered exclusively by right-wing outlets and completely ignored (or immediately "debunked") by the Progressive-controlled mainstream media is more akin to the Ukrainian famine or is simply the latest example of a right-wing demagogue raving about "FEMA concentration camps." To be clear, I don't trust right-wing demagogues as far as I can throw them, which is why I chose my words carefully in my original edit on this topic, using the qualifier "reportedly" and omitting the spin about France "suppressing" the reports of torture, cited to a French government report. I certainly am not surprised to see the Progressive MSM shouting in unison that Islamic State is innocent, and the torture allegations have been "debunked." (After all, I had doubts about the story myself.) But then I remember Rotherham and Cologne, and I find the Snopes debunking rather less than convincing. To wit:

• Snopes's Kim LaCapria notes that the story broke only in the aftermath of the recent (July 14) Bastille Day terror attack, even though the French parliament heard this testimony back in March, claiming "Nothing more occurred between the March 2016 inquiry and the July 2016 spate of claims to warrant republication of unvetted rumor in a time of international grief and worry."
• In addition, LaCapria argues that the "unvetted rumors" are implausible on their face: After all, French investigators are skeptical, the "chief police witness" indicated he did not see any evidence of torture himself, and "There was nothing stopping the vast majority of surviving witnesses from sharing their stories. None did."

While LaCapria may well be proven correct in her analysis, I cannot resist making the following rejoinders:

• Something did indeed occur "between the March 2016 inquiry and the July 2016 spate of claims"; namely, the official French report on the matter was published on July 5 (the head of the inquiry neglected to Tweet about it until today). What is less clear is what new information leads the entire MSM to declare the matter settled, when they are all citing the same official report without even attempting to conduct any independent research.
• More seriously, LaCapria's confident declaration that no survivors corroborated reports of torture turns out to be (as Snopes would put it) false. For example, British survivor Mariesha Payne told the Daily Mirror on November 16, 2015, that "We knew people were being tortured in the theatre because we heard people screaming, but they were not being shot and these were singular screams. When we escaped a man trapped on the level where it happened said to us the terrorists were stabbing people in the stomach." Particularly relevant with regard to claims of castration is the testimony of a female survivor known only as "Alice," who told Le Monde on November 15:

Mais de l’autre côté de « leur » porte, si les chargeurs sont vides, le massacre continue. « On entendait hurler, puis plus rien. » Alice et ses compagnons pensent alors que les assaillants achèvent les blessés, « peut-être à l’arme blanche ». C’était des francophones, précise-t-elle, des gamins qui riaient « d’un rire d’adolescence en demandant à un mec de baisser son pantalon ».

That translates to:

But on the other side of their door, if the [gun] magazines were empty, the massacre continued. "You could hear screams, then nothing." Alice and her companions thought perhaps the attackers were finishing off the wounded "perhaps with knives." The terrorists were French-speaking, she specified, kids who laughed "with a teenage laugh, demanding that a guy drop his pants."

In sum, as recounted by Louise Mensch at Heat Street: "We have multiple reputable news sources at the time reporting that police officers said the terrorists threatened decapitation; that at least three witnesses heard what they thought was knife torture; that one witness states she heard a terrorist laugh as he asked a victim to lower his trousers; that one police officer’s mother stated to her local paper that her son saw severed heads; and that one witness on Twitter says she saw decapitated heads." It's looking more and more like the Progressive MSM is still playing Duranty's part.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw this on Snopes and wasn't sure what to make of it. Snopes is well researched, and various MSM sources have questioned whether the torture claims are correct.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Snopes might be jumping the gun a little on this, as the story is still developing. The French authorities are saying that no knives were found in the theater and that only a few people were disemboweled or castrated and it could have happened from shrapnel. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly their skepticism will be borne out, but falling back on "we found no knives" is a bit odd when everyone still remembers that the terrorists were threatening "to decapitate a hostage and throw the corpse out of the window every five minutes."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

They are not jumping the gun at all given that the allegations are made by twisting known information. Louise Mensch does not exactly have a reputation as a serious journalist - or a serious anything - either. Mezigue (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an appeal to authority rather than a rational argument based on evidence. We already have enough Durantys here on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

An article in Les Décodeurs [8], the media analysis section of LeMonde.fr, traces the rumour to two fringe sites, based on hearsay from a policeman who did not see anything. I frankly do not think that this story is even worth mentioning. Rama (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Another article here [9] mentions these claims as "conspirationist delirium". Rama (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Torture?

It's starting to come out in press reports that victims on the second floor of the Bataclan Theater were tortured by the terrorists, including eye gouging, disemboweling, and castration and that the French government suppressed the information until recently. Add to article? 152.130.16.22 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Which press reports are these? If you want them added to the article, it would be helpful to provide the sources, as Wikipedia doesn't publish such material unsourced. LjL (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Source: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/rap-enq/r3922-t2.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.107.179 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The facts from your sources have been added. Thank you very much for the link and for your cooperation!

KOT-TOK (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Busted WP:FRINGE claim, see http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up-bataclan-victims/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

M. le président Georges Fenech. Pour l’information de la commission d’enquête, monsieur P. T., pouvez-vous nous dire comment vous avez appris qu’il y avait eu des actes de barbarie à l’intérieur du Bataclan : décapitations, éviscérations, énucléations… ?

M. T. P. Après l’assaut, nous étions avec des collègues au niveau du passage Saint-Pierre-Amelot lorsque j’ai vu sortir un enquêteur en pleurs qui est allé vomir. Il nous a dit ce qu’il avait vu. Je ne connaissais pas ce collègue, mais il avait été tellement choqué que c’est sorti naturellement.

M. Alain Marsaud. Les actes de tortures se sont passés au deuxième étage ?

M. T. P. Je pense, car je suis entré au niveau du rez-de-chaussée où il n’y avait rien de tel, seulement des personnes touchées par des balles.

This the only quote mentioning torture at Bataclan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It is hearsay and he does not even tell the committee what he heard from the investigator. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

So, he wasn't an eyewitness to torture, he wasn't an eyewitness to the results of torture, at most he was an earwitness to screaming people, but unable to figure out if they were merely shot at or tortured. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If they were to torture there they would have needed guards to protect the torturers from being attacked by the mass of people, they would have needed several people to hold the person being tortured and it would have needed a lot of time in order to torture many people. So solely in practical respect, it is highly improbable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

11/13

@MarioProtIV: Re [10], who refers to it as 11/13? Particularly in Europe, where the date is written as 13/11... Firebrace (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nationality of attackers

The article states: "All of the known Paris attackers were EU citizens[23]" which is now misleading. Three attackers were not "known" when that was written, and were only later identified.

In particular two are not EU citizens (but Iraqis): <ref<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34896521</ref>

A more accurate statement would be "All of Paris attackers had fought in Syria[24], most were EU citizens[23], for a list of nationality see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_ISIL_terror_cell#Paris_assailants" 89.253.82.68 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Claims that two of the attackers were Iraqi are not supported by cited articles.

The supporting citations for the repeated statement that two of the attackers were Iraqi, [22] and [23], do no seem to say anything of the sort. I don't see any mento=ion of Iraq or Iraqis in those articles. Can someone verify this? 2407:7000:8166:F299:6233:4BFF:FE12:74FF (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 5 Jun 2017

Number of deaths at the Bataclan

According to the plaque shown here, 90 people died at the Bataclan. "To the 90 lives fallen in these places" is the English translation. Yet, this article says that 89 died at the Bataclan. Is it known whether or not there was an additional death at the Bataclan which went unreported in the days immediately following the attacks?

Noseycjr (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)