Jump to content

Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Does this article contain mention of contemporaneous, extensive French bombing campaign directed at alleged perpetrators?

This is noted given that at the present time, mention of contemporaneous, extensive French bombing campaign directed at the alleged perpetrators is lacking.

In an article filled with mentions of Paris "attacks" there is at present no trace of any mention of the contemporaneous extensive French bombing campaigns that began the year before, covering a huge range of territory including parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia in the west (Operation Barkhane); and with the cooperation of the United States and the UK, Syria and Iraq in the east (Operation Chammal). Particularly when one considers that one the bombings in Paris apparently targeted a concert held by a musical group known as "Eagles of Death," it doesn't take much more than reading the writing on the wall to surmise that what have overwhelmingly been described as "attacks" throughout the article might be as plausibly described as "response." (I myself neglected to add above that France began its occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and Libya in March 2011.)

Note that this is not a request for a cosmetic change in word choice, but a reminder that as this article develops over time, it should not shield preexisting French military policy against the alleged perpetrators--and therefore of obvious relevance to the background of the event--from the view of a concerned reader. Alfred Nemours (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Enough already. We are not here to write a political blog based on your opinions. This is a rehash of the view that acts by western governments have helped to foster Islamic extremism. If reliable sources say this, fine, but it won't be added to the article otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
WP is not censored. Nor are WP talk pages a forum for peremptory bullying. These are not opinions, but the mere posing of a question obvious to any considered understanding of an event that includes motive and background. Recentism has been described as "imbalanced focus" without "an aim toward a long-term, historical view." It is precisely in order to avoid allowing an article about a historical event to slip into an impassioned political blog filled with kneejerk innuendo that this question is raised. Alfred Nemours (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Please find reliable sources that make these points. From what I can see here, you are arguing that the actions of western governments either directly or indirectly caused the Paris attacks. To give another example, after the 7 July 2005 London bombings two of the bombers left behind video statements explaining why they had done it, which were predictable rants blaming the actions of western governments. After the murder of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolajo gave a videoed speech in which he said something very similar. These are reliably sourced statements from the attackers themselves, not personal analysis or commentary. Some eyewitnesses thought that the Paris attackers were on drugs, but this was rejected by toxicology reports.[1] The mind bending drug that they had taken was extremist Islam, and ISIL predictably claimed that the attacks were retaliation for air strikes in Syria.[2] This has become a standard theme for justifying attacks of this kind. The article mentions this, so it is giving due weight to the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to avoid characterizing questions and concerns raised by others in WP talk pages as arguments, particularly since it distracts from the matter at hand, and too easily reads as a transparent apparent to close discussion in favor of a particular view. Please take this in the spirit that it is meant. As to the substantive issue we are talking about, the article you cited is a reliable source that underscores the question raised by this bulletpoint. I missed it entirely because I went right to the "Background" section and saw nothing. So you've already accomplished the task that at the start of your reply you delegated to me. Nice work. So Operation Chammal if not Operation Barkhane was explicitly cited as as a motive by the alleged perpetrators. In my opinion--and this really is an opinion--Operation Chammal and possibly Barkhane ought to be mentioned explicitly and by name in the Background section. Whatever our own personal views of Operation Chammal may be, it goes directly to explicitly stated motive, as you have pointed out. For one thing, Wikipedia has work on Operations Chammal and Barkhane that deserves explicit mention, with the added consideration that explicit mention might encourage others with knowledge might take up the task of further developing it. For another, passing mention of "airstrikes" does not really do justice to these being vast military campaigns of considerable scope. From what our limited sources tell us at the present time, this was no mere flyover hours or days before the event. The WP entry on Operation Chammal, for example, tells us that it was a bombing campaign that had been ongoing for nearly 14 months at the time of the event. Alfred Nemours (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
We are not here to write a rehash of Ward Churchill's essay On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. This argued that US foreign policy was the root cause of the 9/11 attacks. As for the Paris attacks, it is stated in the article that ISIL gave Western bombing campaigns in the Middle East as the motive/justification for the attacks. This was entirely predictable and a recurring theme of Islamist extremists when explaining their actions. The article can only mention what reliable sources have said about the motive. Anything else would be original research.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on November 2015 Paris attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on November 2015 Paris attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

A lot of things are wrong with the "Bataclan theatre massacre" section of the article:

  • Maybe it is anecdotical, but the band was well into the song Kiss the Devil when the attack started. If I'm not mistaken, the band was actually playing the climax of the song.
  • Contrary to what has been written here, they did not first took up positions on the mezzanine. The gunmen started shooting first in the street (to the patrons of the bar, outside), then inside the theatre, right at the entrance of the pit, close to the second bar.
  • No grenades were thrown at the audience.
  • The terrorists did not take "60-100 concertgoers" hostages, but more like 10-12 hostages.

I know it because I was there. Plus, there are numerous official French reports, freely available for those who wish to read it. Maybe it would be better to translate the French section of this article. I would do it if I could (the page is semi-protected). Something needs to be done about this because quite frankly, three years after the attack it is quite embarassing, to say the least, to read such misinformation on Wikipedia. Thibault2000 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Unfortunately, we can't simply take your word for it. Please cite reliable sources to back up these claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I am answering your message the right way, but shouldn't the French wiki about this event be a reliable source?

For instance, this Wiki is telling that "60-100" concertgoers has been taken hostages, but this is simply not true. This is an article about the hostages situation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34889539

The first-hand witness is telling that 11-12 concertgoers has been taken hostages.

And it goes on and on. Maybe YOU should cite reliable sources when you speak about so many hostages, grenades and shooting starting from the mezzanine. I'm fairly confident that most of the sources cited in this section of the article are not relevant anymore. For instance, one of them is claiming "26 dead" in the Bataclan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibault2000 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hand grenades inside the Bataclan

No hand grenades were used by the terrorists inside the Bataclan. They wore explosive vests and were armed with automatic riffles, but they did not throw any grenades at the audience.

You can read here a very comprehensive official account of this night's events :

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/rap-enq/r3922-t1.pdf On page 51, about the Bataclan attack.

My English is most certainly imperfect, please do improve what I'm trying to write here but it is not serious to let such things written on this article. --Thibault2000 (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

The first sentence in paragraph 3 in section 'Background', should be edited to remove"pro-palestinian activists", as this assertion is not corroborated in anyway by the linked citation: "The Bataclan theatre had been threatened a number of times by pro-Palestinian activists because of its public support for Israel.[37]" The inclusion of 'pro-Palestinian activists' is unwarranted and is likely a politically motivated miss-read of the article.

The article does state, though it does not warrant the interpretation currently published,: "In 2007 and 2008, Le Bataclan, a pagoda style building with bright red and yellow facades from the 1860s, received threats. The venue was hosting conferences and galas for Jewish organizations. (One was in support of the Israeli border police.) In 2011, a Belgian man named Farouk Ben Abbes, arrested in Egypt in conjunction with a terror attack that killed a French high school student, confessed that he was “planning an attack against the Bataclan.”"

The inflammatory assertion, and the specific way in which it is framed, needs strong corroborating evidence which his not contained in the current citation. Ikesmith (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done as unsourced. Courtesy ping to Avaya1 who added that text in 2016. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Deadliest since the Second World War"

The lead describes these attacks as being the deadliest in France since WWII, but if I remember correctly, the deadliest terrorist attack before the 2015 November attack in Paris was the Vitry-Le-François train derailing by the OAS in 1961, with 24-28 deaths and 132-170 injuries. Shouldn't this be corrected? Liberscriptus19 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And it's STILL semi-protected!

Why is that? 31.52.166.41 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Economic consequences of the attacks"

Hello, I would like to add a part discussing the economic repercussions of the attacks on the french economy. Would you please let me do so?

Thank you, David Sofer (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

On the section regarding the Bataclan massacre, considering that there is conflicting reports of terrorists mutilating concert-goers/hostages, I think it would clear things up to add a blurb that all 12 of the hostages were rescued safely w/o injury. This is based on the accounts of one of the hostages interviewed in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34889539 113.28.145.61 (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Nimaex (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

The french article on wikipedia shows a slightly different timeline see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentats_du_13_novembre_2015_en_France#D%C3%A9roulement

21 h 17 61,62 ou 21 h 20 63,note 1 – Première attaque-suicide à l'explosif près du Stade de France. 21 h 19 61, 21 h 21 62 ou 21 h 30 63,note 1 – Seconde attaque-suicide à l'explosif près du Stade de France.

ou is the french word for or cites: 61 - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentats_du_13_novembre_2015_en_France#cite_ref-figaro_61-0 62 - http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/nationalelf/startseite/fussball-nationalteams-freundschaftsspiele/2015/6/2856069/livematch_frankreich_deutschland.html 63 - https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-france-shooting-timeline-idUSKCN0T31BS20151114#h8KRqimXftutLeR3.97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonstwer Vienna (talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Both of the current video links for the football/soccer match at the Stade de France, which are noted in the first paragraph of the Stade de France Explosions section, are unavailable. The direct link goes to a "video unavailable" splash page, while the Wayback Machine link provides an error that the video in question is not indexed by the Wayback Machine. I personally cannot find any other videos that fit into the scope of the note on the paragraph, are there any other links that have been shared with reference to this particular event? I have looked through the talk archive and can't find anything, but there is a chance that I've missed them or it's been deleted over time. 104.255.82.11 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bataclan attack?

Recent news coverage I've seen is calling this the "Bataclan attack", so maybe a move to Bataclan attack or 2015 Bataclan attack in in order? (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks/Archive_5&oldid=1083528121"