Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Proposed merge with November 2015 Paris attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep the pages separate, with 3 in favor of merging and 19 against. Important reactions can be handpicked and added to the main article as their significance becomes clear. Ignatzmice•talk 15:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attack is a content fork of November 2015 Paris attacks. No reason why the reactions shouldn't be in that article, like with other international events. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose -- there's a page for "International reactions to September 11 attacks", why not for this attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Because September 11 attacks is 180 KB, and November 2015 Paris attacks is only 40 KB. The September 11 attacks page is already too long. epic genius (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose -- As you can see here. There are many articles similar to this. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
These articles exist because the original page was too long. In this situation, that isn't the case. epic genius (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. Too new, and not needed right now per WP:SIZE. epic genius (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC) DELETE THIS ARTICLE. It is cruft. epic genius (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Changing my !vote Oppose now due to the article size. epic genius (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Maybe reconsider at end of this month, November. Qexigator (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. Page is currently too new and too small to require a separate Wikipedia article for reactions from various other nations. Having said that, if a single article eventually becomes too large to contain all the notable encyclopedic summary of the matter, the page can be quite easily split then. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: This article is now transcluded to the main article. The transclusion could be undone at the end of the month if the main article or this one gets too big. For that reason, we should not "wait until the end of this month," because what if the article doesn't expand? epic genius (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - as it is right now, it could easily be merged with the main article. But what is the point, as this is regarding a major event with big potential for much expansion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose We have a consensus not to use an anodyne list of condolences (which is what this is) on the main article. It would be highly inappropriate therefore to merge it against this consensus. Furthermore, this article cannot be a list of quotes as Wikipedia does not do this, though Wikiquote may be able to host such an article. WP:OVERQUOTE may be of interest here. But no, the material should certainly not be merged. --John (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It is usual practice for major terrorist incidents to have their own reactions article. Needs to be improved with more reactions globally. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two different but related topics. Volunteer Marek  14:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Frankly, the only argument presented thus far in favour of a merge is "I don't like it". Personally, I prefer the separation of reactions from the article in cases like this - the reaction sections are generally meaningless cruft that only detracts from the main article. Placing it in its own article helps this one retain focus. Resolute 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merging this with the main article would make it way too long and bulky. The reactions belong here. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Run-of-the-mill reactions, not notable; my druthers would be, in fact, to delete this article altogether, without merging, but that doesn't seem to be standard practice. As people have been saying on the talk page for the main article, if a world leader offers concrete support (logistics, food, money) that might deserve a mention on the main article. Currently there is a boilerplate statement on the main article to the effect of "many world leaders offered condolences", which is good enough for me. Ignatzmice•talk 14:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the good reasons already mentioned above. AugustinMa (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While 9/11 was a more deadly and more destructively devastating attack, this is the French equivalent. There will be much to learn about these attacks, and much written. Anything outside of the story of the attacks should be in a separate article.   Spartan7W §   14:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporary Oppose As a developing news event, the reactions may develop even quicker than the story, and may include anything from U2's concert schedule to tonight's US Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate. Wait for the information to develop, then decide whether the merge is warranted. MMetro (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Not the same scale as 9/11.  — Calvin999 15:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This attack has been likened to the 2008 Mumbai attack which has the page Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks with verbatim country quotes with flag bullets as a section. This can easily be expanded to "Reactions" mentioning social media and other issues if there is too much material in the main article. -- Callinus (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for all the reasons given above. Splitting lists like these out into their own articles prevents these lists from overwhelming the articles they relate to. -- The Anome (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if this collection of quotes needs to be given at all, then it shouldn't clutter the main article. LjL (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reaction of Syria/Assad is missing

http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article148847727/Assad-macht-Westen-fuer-Terror-in-Paris-mitverantwortlich.html http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Assad-macht-Frankreich-mitverantwortlich-article16354556.html

(He blames also the West.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a single section for popular/social reaction

At some point, November 2015 Paris attacks#Social media and popular reactions must have been copied and pasted (by the way, WP:Copying within Wikipedia, anybody?) into this article, and now both sections are being edited independently. If we're going to have this article cover reactions in general (see above section), it all should be merged here. In any case, it should be in one place. I've added merge templates accordingly. LjL (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There was an easy way to merge the two articles while having them still say the same thing. I transcluded the section from here to the main article. epic genius (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I also agree. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The goal should be to use summary style on the main article. -- Callinus (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the transclusion that's currently being done, so I say stay this with the transclusion and remove the merge tag. If the section gets so overloaded with information with the main article that it carries excessive weight then the main article's version can be changed to a summary. --Pine✉ 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sydney Opera House French Tricolour.jpg

Per discussion at files for discussion, this photo is almost certainly a copyright violation. Especially given the high traffic on this article, it should be removed. Kelly hi! 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. Kelly hi! 00:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ulster Banner

We cannot use the Ulster Banner to symbolise Northern Ireland, see Flag of Northern Ireland. It is like using the Confederate flag to symbolise the Southern United States. --John (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The article you linked claims that the UK government itself has been known to use the Saint Patrick's Saltire to specifically represent Northern Ireland, so that would seem like the natural choice. LjL (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Mmm. The problem really is that, as the article states, Northern Ireland doesn't currently have a flag, and all the possible choices are regarded as insulting to some sector of the population or other. Not to mention WP:NOR. Wikipedia consensus is not to use a flag for NI, except for football and maybe one or two other sporting contexts. --John (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I don't know about any previous consensus, but how would it be WP:OR if the government's using it? Is it also WP:OR to state what a country's anthem is when it's technically unofficial, for instance? LjL (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The government sometimes uses the Union Jack and (occasionally) the saltire. It is a matter of controversy, hence the consensus to use no flag. --John (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Firstly, it really is nothing like using a pro-slavery flag. To say it is trivialises the evil of the Confederate flag and slavery. I would be happy with the Union flag being used as it is the official flag of the UK and therefore Northern Ireland. If the Saltire is used by the government that would be appropriate as well, surely. AusLondonder (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you link to that policy, User:John? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:IMOS FLAGS. --John (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
But does that prohibit the use of the Saltire or the Union flag in this context? AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. --John (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That is your interpretation. I don't think it does, actually AusLondonder (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It quite clearly does. The only exception it allows is for organizations that use a NI-representing flag to represent themselves, not for NI itself. LjL (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well you've changed your tune, then. But it talks about organisations, teams and people. It does not say the Union Jack can't be used in list alongside Northern Ireland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I have changed nothing, if you actually read the course of this discussion. I was also not aware of the policy until John linked it; now that I'm aware of it, I can read what it says and interpret it. LjL (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, back to being insulting again I see. "if you actually read" "I can read what it says and interpret it". Again, why do you find the need to be so consistently pettily insulting? AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
User:John or User:LjL could you clarify what specifically in that policy prevents the Union Jack being used on a list to represent Northern Ireland? AusLondonder (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I call myself out of this debate because I think you are now making it personal: the policy is there for everyone to read, so I'm done (try not making personal, and false, statements like "you've changed your tune" if you don't want personal responses, maybe). LjL (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you seriously think "You've changed your tune" is a personal statement? Did I call you a name? Did I swear at you? No. You did change your tune. Initially, you said the Saltire "would seem like the natural choice". I understand you didn't know the policy, but you still did change your tune. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
These criticisms on this article by people who wanted it deleted are amazing... The Ulster flag is NOT the equivalent of the Confederate flag for christ's sake! The Ulster flag is the national flag used by Northern Irish athletes. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
And for that matter, the Confederate flag is only being seen as synonym for slavery with a modern eye, and wasn't seen as that by anyone in its time, except perhaps as propaganda. But you know, people need to be dramatic. LjL (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly. But anyway, we can't use this flag. --John (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It was used by groups fighting for the right to continue slavery. Let's not be pedantic, User:LjL AusLondonder (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring

User:Callinus has engaged in edit-warring and violated the WP:3RR by removing a paragraph about Facebook allowing its users to change their profile pictures to the colours of the French flag and introducing a safety check-in system on the grounds of "narcissism" despite it having been reverted by multiple editors. AusLondonder (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Then report them on WP:ANEW if you think that's warranted. Do we really care here? LjL (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you making a point here User:LjL? AusLondonder (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I just did. Report it in the right place. This is not it. LjL (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
That is just not right. Matters of edit-warring should be raised with editors before a report is made. I cannot re-add the material without violating WP:3RR myself. Stop being so petty, by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Then raise it on their user talk page. Here, you can raise the issue of whether the material should or should not be included, but just accusing users of violating 3RR (or being petty) is gratuitously inflamatory. LjL (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? You respond to my post with "do we really care" and now tell me I am being "gratuitously inflamatory" for daring to say, correctly, than an editor has violated WP:3RR. Check page edit history if you don't believe me. What is your problem? AusLondonder (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
AusLondoner is correct - edit wars (not involving trolls/vandals/serial reverters) should be brought up on talk page to gain consensus. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

I estimate this article is about 50% quoted material. There are problems with our free licence when we include this much quoted material. As a rule, this should be no higher than 10% in an encyclopedia article, though obviously Wikiquote may like to host some of the quotes as that is what they do. We, as an encyclopedia, use summary style to include material, not full quotes. --John (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that the case when the quotes come from dozens of different sources? Can you cite policy? AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I won't touch the topic of whether the article's style is editorially appropriate, but I take issue with the concept that there are license problems. The separate quotes, from different personalities, are very brief, which is much more important copyright-wise than the amount of them. Fair use would most likely apply, even if it somehow didn't apply due to the fact that they are short declarations from heads of state to the entire world, which makes any copyright problems virtually non-existent. LjL (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem with placing things in prose? Many of the quotes say the same thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome that whenever possible, especially if it means that several countries' statements could be condensed into "X, Y, Z, ... offered their condolences." LjL (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I oppose that. It makes the article far too bulky and less user-friendly. The current format is the usual practice see International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 or International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation for example. A whole category tree exists Category:International reactions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, you may oppose that, but you do so against policy, regardless of how many potentially policy-breaking articles already exist. LjL (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies here but WP:NOTQUOTE states "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, I believe this page meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
A page can meet WP:GNG, and still be deleted for failing other Wikipedia policies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, broadly speaking, the chances of that happening are rare, because even if an article is "bad", but the topic is notable, policy says the article should not be deleted, but merely improved. LjL (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully you are right in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Which you are, the article is kept =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is hardly a "quotefarm" - even the listing by country has some paraphrasing and short quotes. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
What percentage of copyrighted material do you think it is? And how does that match with our mission of free material? --John (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
What planet do you live on? —МандичкаYO 😜 19:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
User:John - how much of this is more than 10% of one copyright source? AusLondonder (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@John: look, you can have many good reasons to have doubts about this "quotefarm", but copyright really shouldn't be one of them. Copyright really doesn't apply to any short statement said by a person. Copyright involves a "work". A newspaper article is a work, but a short statement of condolences or declaration by a world leader is, by any notion of common sense, not. The content is perfectly free. LjL (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no copyright problem here, at least in the US. These are short quotes individually, and the statements were made with the express purpose of being reproduced as widely as possible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC).
There may be no legal problem, but our mission is to go beyond the legal minimum in creating free content. An article like this which consists of about 50% other people's work, is against our norms and our mission, even if we are unlikely to be sued for it. I recognise that it somehow makes people feel better in the wake of some awful event to post these meaningless flag-bedecked condolence pages, but it does not bring back the dead and it is not what we are here for. --John (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, with great respect, User:John you have lost that argument. I feel it may be time to move on. AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not other people's "work". It's reporting leaders' declarations. This doesn't fall under the legal definition of "work", and I feel at this point that your idea of "going beyond the legal minimum" is more geared towards not including what you don't like for other reasons unrelated to copyright-related "freedom". LjL (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic State

The Islamic State has made a statement claiming responsibility. Should it be included in the article and if so how should it be worded?Brahmavihara Bhavana (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is already included in the main November 2015 Paris attacks where it much more logically belongs... LjL (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
An international response is an international response. As an encyclopedia, should we not make ourselves dispassionate and report all notable and verifiable responses regardless of their evil actions? Brahmavihara Bhavana (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
My point is merely that we shouldn't be duplicating information. This particular bit of information is vital enough to stay on the main article. LjL (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It'd be only a few bytes of data. The main article only describes the statement. I was maybe thinking of maybe putting the full statement on this page. Would that be too much? As demented as their actions are, I'm sure there are some people who would like to read and understand their words straight from the horse's mouth. Brahmavihara Bhavana (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a super-strong opinion. Add it if you want, if people don't want it you'll notice real quick. LjL (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is being back-and-forth'd again, and I have a somewhat stronger opinion now. It shouldn't be included in "reactions". They're the perpetrators and they made a declaration of motives, which is included in the main article. It isn't part of "international responses", it's an admission of guilt. LjL (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The perpetrators don't change the reaction of the attack in this case as the international reactions happened before anyone claimed responsibility so mentioning it might be redundant. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Poland and/or Latvia and the refugees

What are, as of now, unofficial statements, by government officials speaking in a private capacity - with some of the statements already being withdrawn or toned down by other government officials - about the Syrian refugees neither belong in this article due to WP:SCOPE nor because quite simply this is an ongoing situation and WP:NOTNEWS.

I got to say also that trying to utilize this tragedy to push POV on Wikipedia is quite obnoxious. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What POV? Care to explain. As someone living in Poland I assure you that our politicians have our security in mind, nothing else, perhaps it is confusing to somebody from another country, where this might be interpreted according to some internal disputes it is having.

Anyway this was already discussed and deemed notable btw, even before we had numerous RS available like The Independent, Newsweek or CNBC. Here is my question which I have asked before putting the information in article. All users were of opinion that if we have RS it should be included. offered condolences but noted that due to these attacks Poland will renounce EU refugee relocation scheme. Is this notable to be included in international reactions? Perhaps you should ask your questions there. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please quit it with the personal attacks - you know what I'm talking about since I've asked you repeatedly, as have other users, to stop making these.
And no, it was not "deemed notable". And because you blatantly misrepresented the sources - making it seem like this was some kind of official policy of the Polish government rather than just one politician mouthing off online, some editors might have gotten the wrong idea.
And no, "if we have RS it should be included" is not Wikipedia policy. RS is a NECESSARY not a sufficient condition for inclusion. If it's off topic, if it violates WP:NOTNEWS, if the RS in question is being misrepresented then it shouldn't be included. Volunteer Marek  22:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you move your concerns to the appropriate page where this was already discussed [offered condolences but noted that due to these attacks Poland will renounce EU refugee relocation scheme. Is this notable to be included in international reactions? I am open to amending the paragraph to point out who exactly said what and what was stated.Your claim "one politician mouthing off online, some editors might have gotten the wrong idea" is just a personal view not supported by Reliable Sources. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this the official position of the Polish government? No? Is it just a statement online by one politician? Yes? What you are calling "original research" is just an accurate description of the sources. It's YOU who's misrepresenting the source to make this sound as if it was an official policy when it's not. THAT's ... not even just original research but blatant misrepresentation of sources.
And again, WP:NOTNEWS. All the he said she said then he said again can be hashed out once the government actually decides upon an official response. There is really no reason why any of it - particularly when it's inaccurate - absolutely must be in this article, especially since it's more or less of topic. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This should stay, it's reported by sources as something that not "politicians", but ministers (European affairs or foreign ministers), said, and they're reported as saying these things in direct relation to the attack, so there's no conceivable reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. It's much more relevant than the hilarious amount of "condolescences", too. LjL (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, following WP:NOTNEWS we should wait for an official response. There is no need to include it, it's not encyclopedic, both the situation and sources are being misrepresented and it's not directly relevant to the topic.
And btw, calling "condolences" "hilarious" ? Really? That sort of shows where you're coming from. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I called the amount hilarious. You seem to have neglected reading some words, just like you seem to have neglected reading the parts of November 2015 Paris attacks that you deleted where Czech statements (and not just Polish ones, as you snarked at me on your edit summary) were included. LjL (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Right, cuz that actually makes it better. Volunteer Marek 
Right, User:Volunteer Marek. Let me get this clear. It is "utilising a tragedy" for editors to insert well-sourced and highly notable comments by senior politicians utilising a tragedy? Irony bypass? Or letting your own obvious POV show? AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it is "utilising a tragedy" to use this article to push a certain view about the current refugee crisis in Europe. Who's POV is obvious then?  Volunteer Marek  22:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest I have no idea what POV you are talking about. We are just covering what major media news sources covered regarding Poland's reaction to the attacks. It is widely covered by Reliable Sources. Whatever POV you have in mind, it is unknown unless you elaborate, but I believe irrelevant to the article in question.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
My POV is simply that it's a very big deal if an EU minister announces plans to stop following an EU agreement (like the refugee scheme) or an even more binding treaty (like Schengen). LjL (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, if and when the government stops following an EU agreement then I agree, it WILL BE a very big deal. And then I'll be the first one to put it in (though I'm not so sure it belongs in this particular article). But until that happens (and the fact that it is a EU agreement suggests that it won't, and this is just a politician blowing smoke, like Trump on deporting American citizens of Mexican ancestry) we should err on the side of caution and keep it out. Volunteer Marek  23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
No, because it is the relevant minister of the country involved that stated this and not "one politician", no matter how much you keep using that label, and that makes it entirely different. And of course it belongs to the "reactions" section of the article, given it was stated in direct reference to the attacks. LjL (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this information needs to stay as it was widely covered and concerns a major international situation. Also please note that VM is wrong in his claims "Is this the official position of the Polish government? No? Is it just a statement online by one politician? " If you go to The Independent you will see that VM is wrong. Here is what The Independent writes "Poland has signalled it will retreat on an EU-wide quota commitment to relocate migrants across the continent" "Konrad Szymanski, Poland’s incoming European affairs minister, said his government did not agree" "In a separate interview for RMF FM radio, Mr Szymanski added". [1] So yes, Reliable Sources are treating it as position of the government, and Minister Szymanski also said it its position.The statement wasn't made just online but in fact repeated on radio broadcast as well. All in all definitely notable and covered by RS--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Marek on this. Until an official statement is made it ought to be covered under wp:recentism. Hollth (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MyMoloboaccount. This information is relevant and should stay in the article. Dorpater (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the consensus that it is noteworthy and should stay. Volunteer Marek is out of line here. 98.67.190.14 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Flags

They are colourful, but probably unnecessary decoration. Can we remove them? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC).

The problem as I see it is not with the flags, but with the verbatim quoting of many equivalent statements. I'd leave the flags there, per se. Those are not a problem. LjL (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The flags are as pointless as the verbatim equivalent statements. So, too, is the long list of buildings that were illuminated. We're going crazy here with another NOTNEWS article. We could cut something like 50 per cent of this article simply by referencing one or two BBC news stories, eg: this. I despair of this place more and more every day. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree, but as long as the extensive per-country citations are given, then the accompanying flags make sense. LjL (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you even read my link to the MOSFLAG guideline? - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure which section of that you're thinking would apply here. The main thing I see is "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.", which I read as supporting their use here. Perhaps you'd care to quote me the parts you have in mind? LjL (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the bit you cite says may, not must. Then there is

Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative.

A bullet-pointed alphabetised list is all that is required for decent navigation, especially since the list should be massively pruned also. We're not a child's colouring book and do not need the extra visual clues. Honestly, use of flag icons is generally deprecated outside of sports and military articles. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Given the sheer length of the list (which may need to be addressed), I'd say any items that "serve as visual cues" to aid the reader should be used here to help. "Generally deprecated" doesn't mean much, when AFAIK, most of the other "Reactions" articles have these flags... not saying such predecents override policy, but policy plainly doesn't forbid any of this. "May" doesn't mean "must", but it certainly doesn't mean "may not". LjL (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I support the flags. They are standard in international response articles and I see no reason to remove them. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But even you seem to think that the list shouldn't be as long as it is, and the rest of your arguments seem equally contradictory, specious ("may not"?) or irrelevant (other articles have adopted this idiotic idea). Plus, removing them neatly avoids the Northern Ireland issue referred to above. You really, really do not want to get involved in the UK/Ireland etc palaver in any form unless you have a deep understanding of the issues. (I'm a Brit and even I don't understand a lot of the to-ing and fro-ings that go on - IIRC, Gladstone once bemoaned of the failure of his Third Home Rule Bill that "every time I answer the Irish Question, they change the question".) - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that one flag is problematic must not be an excuse to remove them all - that should be a general principle on Wikipedia. The policy not only doesn't say that flags "may not" be used, but actually (see above quote I gave) provides an explanation of when it's appropriate to use them that seems to match this article's usages. That the list should be shorter is a separate issue that doesn't need to be confused with this at all. LjL (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Strongly support keeping the flags. Flags not appropriate in many contexts, but this is one of the few occasions in which they are suitable according to policy and precedent. Suggesting because of the Northern Ireland issue we should remove all flags is ludicrous. Stop trashing this article. See Category:International reactions and the related category trees. AusLondonder (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The flags are awful, but they are the least of this article's problems. It is a quotefarm, full of largely identical anodyne quotes. It violates so many policies that the flagcruft is not worth bothering about. We can leave it here and horrible for a few weeks until people lose interest and move onto another story, then those of us who know what we are doing can trim it back to more like a Wikipedia article. At the moment it fulfils the role of a dumping ground for all this trash; better here than on the main article, I suppose. --John (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a good thought, John. This thing is a complete mess of trivia seemingly driven by over-eager and/or inexperienced people. I've watchlisted it and hopefully will be in better health in a few weeks' time. It looks likely that the same treatment may be needed at other articles in the category that AusLondonder mentions. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)User:John - please stop threatening to over-ride community consensus. I, for one, am not going anywhere. Again, long-running consensus supports these articles - see Category:International reactions. Your conduct has been unbecoming. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

UK subnational responses.

  • How come the UK is the only country with sub-national responses/quotes - i.e. Jersey, Wales, Scotland, Guernsey. I think it is unnecessary and propose deletion. Surely the Prime Minister or the Queen speaks for the nation. Cantab12 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, did other countries give sub-national responses? Did every governor of a US state, for example? 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
More than likely - the first three I looked at did. [1][2][3]Cantab12 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I know it's popular for everyone to use Twitter and Facebook for important national announcements these days, but seriously, if this article about "international reactions" consisted only of Twitter statements how useful or relevant would it be? o.0 While the sub-national UK countries or whatever do include several mentions of Twitter, they also mention "formal letters of condolences", longer statements that were probably made to media, etc. They might be no more informative than those from heads of state of other countries that have a seat at the UN, but still show a deeper level of concern than a Twitter statement would. "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom"... this seems to support the case for "sub-national" statements. If they weren't acting as though their statements mattered then it would be a reason to avoid mentioning them, but they are acting as though their statements are important. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The UK is not see Hong Kong and Iraqi Kurdistan. It is relevant because these are constituent countries. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
As someone who lives in the US, I can say that I don't understand the UK, or England, or whatever. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Christie Twitter".
  2. ^ "Abbott twitter".
  3. ^ "Walker twitter".

Damascus

Added, removed, insults, etc. It also mentions many other organizations and groups in Syria denouncing the attacks. If that reference isn't acceptable, there are many more. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01: those are dead links. You can link them as external link (full URL) and they'll work. LjL (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, @2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01: I just posted about this below as well. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I think 2601... meant en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks?diff=prev&oldid=690827871 and so on. They don't work in wikilinks. epic genius (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Repetition

Could someone please find synonyms for condolence and condemn. In the Government reactions (?) section, my control+F option found more than 100 words using condemn in its form, in the past tense, the present tense and as a noun. It found nearly 95 matches using condolence. Isn't that excessive and unnecessary? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem lies deeper than this, though this is a symptom of the problem. This article is a cesspit of anodyne quotes, drawn up without regard for notability, decorated with tiny flags and defended by a group of people who think that doing this will bring the dead back to life. It won't. It isn't a Wikipedia article but a condolences book. Introducing elegant variation isn't enough to save it. When I lived in the countryside we had a septic tank and once a year it had to be emptied. The time to clean this article up will be in a few weeks when the magical thinkers have moved on to another article. Right now, I fear there is nothing to do. --John (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a vote for deletion, but how is this different from International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting? 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This isn't an AFD, but at least this article contains stuff other than quotes of condemnation, censure, reproof, etc. The Charlie Hebdo reactions article only contains these quotes. epic genius (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved early per unanimous consensus (the only "oppose" vote seemed to focus on the fact that a redirect would do the job with no need to change page title, not on an actual opposition to the change). LjL (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks → Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks – This attack has been likened to the 2008 Mumbai attack which has the page Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. I think International reactions should be made a section, with other sections for wider coverage of social media and reactions in the article, similarly to the article "Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks". The social media phrases have included "Peace for Paris" and "Pray for Paris" as well as phrases like "Je Suis Parisien" which has a longer history (Je Suis Charlie, Ich bin ein Berliner, After the September 11 attacks a France 2 journalist said "Tonight, we are all Americans" ("Ce soir, nous sommes tous Américains") -- Callinus (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, if it would be best for the article to be at a given title, then it should be moved to the given title, not be "solved" by redirects. LjL (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stop WP:POINTy disruption

A number of editors have an issue with the concept of this article, mostly citing policies that can easily be contradicted by other policies. A long-running consensus exists behind these articles. Stop being WP:POINTy and nominate all the articles in Category:International reactions for deletion and see how it goes. Don't try and kill this article by a million cuts in the meantime. AusLondonder (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, doing that thing you suggest would be WP:POINTy. LjL (talk)"
No, it would be starting a broader discussion about the existence of such articles. It is more POINTy to find petty issues here and try and over-ride community consensus through the back door. AusLondonder (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The article has survived AfD, so what is your problem? The "concept" is resolved for a few months at least; the style is the current issue. Articles such as this always end up being forgotten about once the initial surge of silliness has happened, and that's when the clean up can probably best take place. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)It's already been settled as keeping the article. I still don't agree with it but if that was the community decision, I can't push my opinion further. I've tried multiple times over the past year to get the ball rolling on these discussions and this is the first time there's been considerable input (granted the vast majority was simply "keep because precedent"). I'm just not going to edit this article. Simple enough on my end. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
My problem User:Sitush, is that people such as User:John (and now yourself) have specifically stated their intention to "clean-up" this article (ie changing the concept endorsed by the community) once people have "forgotten". AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, maybe some editors could quite clearly state right now what it is they wish to remove? AusLondonder (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and it often does with news-related articles once the blow-ins have moved on and people become more rational/less emotional about the news event itself. You'll only learn this through years of experience here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Sitush I've been here almost 10 years, even longer than you have, and AusLondonder is right IMO. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: The majority of those in opposition to this article agree on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which was brought up in the deletion discussion. The article is mostly statements of condolence and endless quotes of such from talking heads. It drowns out actual actions taken by nations to help France and curb the overall issue of Islamic terrorism. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree, this is a "recent event" article that is still evolving and changing fairly rapidly. Certain editors who referred to this article as "Dreadful, worthless garbage" that will "function as a septic tank" should perhaps find something more constructive to do than slapping templates all over this. Studying the history of the Confederate Flag would be a start. And Cyclonebiskit those who argued this article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE at the AFD were not making a good argument; this was a Snow keep. So clearly that argument does not reflect consensus. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)User:Sitush. I'm not a "blow-in" nor am I being "irrational" or "emotional". If a change in consensus is sought the only approprate way would be through a new deletion nom, not a underhand death-by-a-thousand-cuts operation. AusLondonder (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Wikimandia: I disagree severely with your assessment. The majority of arguments to keep were hollow at best. They stemmed from high-strung emotions in the wake of a tragedy and based themselves on precedent (as in they voted keep solely because other articles exist), which is an awful argument when discussing the actual merits of a topic. I'll let your subtle jab at myself and other editors opposing slide just this once. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mention your name, AusLondoner. You do, however, seem to be mistaking consensus for what is included in the article with consensus for whether or not an article about the subject should exist. And even on that latter point, the closer of the AfD did note that a reassessment might be necessary when things calm down. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Cyclonebiskit - Nice that you are letting a "subtle jab" pass, like I let your "subtle jab" at emotional irrational blow-ins pass. AusLondonder (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyclonebiskit if you really think that is true, then feel free to nominate any past "reaction to...." article. Surely those high-strung emotions in the wake of the tragedy have long subsided, right? Surely people are much more level-headed by now. Go to Category:International reactions and start knocking out those AfDs one by one! I look forward to your nominations. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: That would be a clear violation of WP:POINT. As I've stated, directly or indirectly three times already, I have no intention of pursuing deletion again. Furthermore I don't feel the need to bite into the bait your tossing my way to provoke improper actions on my part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyclonebiskit How would that be a violation of WP:POINT? I've seen many AfDs in which subject is not notable in the long-term but seemed notable at the time. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots (2nd nomination).) I fail to see how I'm baiting you into something improper. I would like to see you demonstrate that these are being kept because of "high-strung emotions in the wake of the tragedy" and would be very interested in the AfD response. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Go on. How about someone nominate at least one for deletion. Many, many more exist. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Refer to my previous comment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. AusLondonder, you seem upset. Why not have a cup of tea? --John (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hah AusLondonder great minds think alike. Roll up your sleeves and get to work Cyclonebiskit, if you really think you are correct about the "emotional" response. Sitush it's already been stated: WP:NOTQUOTE says, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." Feel free to add UK police involvement. As I said above, this article is continually evolving as it's in relation to a current event, so more actionable reactions will be forthcoming. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This will be my last comment on this thread. It's hardly constructive, for all parties involved, and wasting everyone's time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominated

I have been convinced by Sitush, Cyclonebiskit and others that these articles are essentially just holding grounds for crap that can be cut out at a later time in order to keep the main article. Therefore, since the above articles have already had much time for their events to settle down, I have nominated them for deletion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear. hopefully this will settle the matter. At least you have the guts and integrity to seek community consensus rather than simply seek to ignore the community consensus now the events have passed and kill the articles by a thousands cuts. AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You still seem not to understand consensus, AusLondoner. Watch and learn over the next few months and keep your mind open - it is a weird concept and consensus to keep an article is not consensus for content of an article itself. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
As for this, well, unless you have a reliable source that says Castro can see into the future, the words are completely irrelevant and the phrasing plain silly. He couldn't have sent the message unless he had heard of the event. D'oh. - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand consensus. Which is why these articles that have been nominated, most of which consist entirely of quotes will be interesting. Re Castro people wanted more prose style, not just direct quotes, User:Sitush. I am consensus building. Quotes and prose. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You have now reverted me again without seeking consensus here despite telling others to do so about the buildings? Are you serious? How about you stop edit-warring and trying to damage the page to assist your argument for deleting/butchering it later. AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
[redacted insult]. Your accusations are baseless, your writing style is atrocious. Prose means prose, not fluff. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) (edited by Fences&Windows 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC))
  • I'm concerned about the AFD's that are nominated; most of all the nominations have no base whatsoever and seem like they could have been discussed in a simple on-the-talk-page of the article or even an RFC. Quite literally I'm against all of those nominations because all it seems that they have been nominated for having problems in the articles that can be completely fixed without even talking about it. They all pass WP:GNG and all it seems like they are doing is making a point on the articles rather than actually reaching some sort of real consensus. Adog104 Talk to me 02:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks/Archive_1&oldid=1137116365"