Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Age mention

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

Better source than Taheri?

I searched briefly but couldn't find other news articles to backup the statement that 'Islamic State has referred to the Paris attacks as a "ghazwa" (religious raid)'. The Wikipedia entry for the author raises concerns about reliability. Meticulo (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well as Wikipedia isn't a news site I'd say it would be best for us after "the smoke has cleared" to see if any other news agencies will use the term, and especially agencies of more prestige. The problem with these types of articles and the news sites reporting on them is that when you insert the wrong sources it might fall under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is Washington Post better? I just added WP reference. epic genius (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Epic. Nicely tracked down. Meticulo (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxes

A Skith man was falsely labeled by Spanish and Italian news organisations of being one of the terrorists in the attack

  1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/canadian-pictured-as-paris-terrorist-in-suspected-gamergate-smear
  2. http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/sikh-man-at-centre-of-storm-after-being-depicted-as-paris-attacker/story-7FYafLuavIvYJRdUf91f3O.html

31.17.1.71 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

needs to be put in aftermath with title "hoaxes" 31.17.1.71 (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it really? Many pieces of wrong information have been / will be circulated. Is it important? LjL (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Strongly oppose Has nothing to do with the attacks and the subject is not a public figure and should not be harassed. -- Veggies (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Not relevant. General Ization Talk 13:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Mosque arson and mother beating is bad enough for Canada's image today. Don't need other idiots getting angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not Wiki's responsibility - nor the news outlets' - articles are to cite RS's and written per the guidelines, and that's all. 98.67.190.14 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's far from "all". We include or don't include things not just based on WP:RS treatment of them, but also WP:N, WP:UNDUE and a number of other policies. Specifically, "Like everything else, hoaxes must be notable to be covered in Wikipedia—for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years." (from WP:HOAX). LjL (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise known as GUIDELINES. But I wasn't referring to any of that - read who I was replying to and what I replied about. It isn't Wiki's responsibility to prevent crimes in the outside world, just to write an encyclopedia. 98.67.190.14 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
An encyclopedia written per the guidelines (and policies, which technically are distinct here). I'm not opposed to potentially putting a target on man's back because it's my responsibility as a Wikipedian, it just seems like a dick move. If it added any value to the topic, I might consider it. Seems like it could be relevant in GamerGate. But since we know there's no actual connection to this, we'd look foolish connecting it here. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done for now: As other editors have said, this may not be relevant and the statement not correct. epic genius (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Les Fédérations Musulmanes

@Firebrace: ... what? I'm not sure if Les Fédérations Musulmanes is notable enough to have its own article on the English Wikipedia, but surely, it makes no sense to claim that "if it had its own article, it would be in French". What's the rationale for that claim? That their name is in French? Surely that means nothing. An organization with a name in any language can be covered on the English Wikipedia (random example: Accademia della Crusca). LjL (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Much more importantly, I'm seeing that the sources given make no mention of an organization called "Les Fédérations Musulmanes": the English source doesn't mention it at all, while the French sources simply talk about "les fédérations musulmanes" (meaning "the Muslim organizations") generically. Dare I suspect that someone just mistook that for a specific organization? LjL (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to Les Fédérations Musulmanes on Google. It translates as 'Muslim federations' and appears to be a generic term, rather than a proper noun. Firebrace (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll remove it. LjL (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quotes from concert hall

"What's happening to you, is your fault. We are avenging our brothers in Syria."
"For five minutes, the gunmen next to us tried to boost our confidence."

2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates

{{coord}} templates for the various locations, should anyone care to add them to the infobox or body. Decimal degrees format to 3 or 4 decimal positions depending on the rough size of the area represented, per WP:COORDPREC. The article currently specifies one coordinates pair (Comptoir Voltaire) as a ref, which I believe is improper usage of coord. Footnotes using {{efn}} could be used to save space, as at the end of this sentence.[note 1]

72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Good work.92.16.213.2 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added these to the infobox, except for the Boulevard Voltaire. I presume it's not listed on the infobox because it isn't on the map (perhaps because no civilians were killed). Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. I see someone removed the Comptoir Volltaire ref, which is good. As for the infobox, the map is simply incorrect, the article is about all the attacks, not only the fatal ones. The map caption says "Locations of the attacks", not "Locations of the fatal attacks". I'd be strongly inclined to add Boulevard Voltaire (Comptoir Voltaire) as item 6 in the infobox, and perhaps the map will be corrected later. Less optimally, an efn could be inserted following "Comptoir Voltaire cafe" in the body. After re-reading the text, I'm tweaking the coords for that to better reflect in the cafe (per Google Maps, at least). 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Coordinates: 48°55′26″N 2°21′43″E / 48.924°N 2.362°E / 48.924; 2.362

qui bono

This should be standard section in any crime related article. Terrorism is a high crime and is good to point of which district of criminals may "bono or qui bono".92.16.213.2 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Diplomatic reactions

Russia, Belarus and the USA.

  1. http://www.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-napravil-soboleznovanija-ollandu-v-svjazi-s-seriej-teraktov-v-parizhe-170296-2015/
  2. http://lenta.ru/articles/2015/11/14/paris/
  3. https://russian.rt.com/article/129852 92.16.213.2 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Reaction

Is it a religius figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Political/Religious, as is common there. Why? Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Numerals

@Firebrace: it's honestly a bit annoying to have to write a talk page section about this, but I keep having to revert your "minor" edits where you change digits into spelled-out numerals somewhat inconsistently, according to a narrow or superficial interpretation of WP:NUMERAL.

However, WP:NUMERAL doesn't only say that numerals before 10 must be spelled as words and those after as digits, it gives a number of more specific examples and exceptions:

  • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures: [...] • There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries (even though "3" would normally be given as "three") which definitely applies very well to our case here
  • Not There were many attacks. 23 men were killed, but There were many attacks; 23 men were killed which shows that after a semicolon, digits are acceptable (and in our case, anyway, the rule above would take precedence, since you changed digits into words inconsistently)

Please keep this in mind. LjL (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Firebrace (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

One reported Canadian injured.

Just wanted to bring awareness to this article. I don't want to break anything trying to edit myself. Adombom (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Curfew

There was no curfew in Paris following the attacks. It was not mentioned in the French media as far as I am aware. I live near to affected areas so I could also see what was going on. The police did advise people to stay indoors. Some people were blocked inside bars and other venues as directed by the police, but that was on a local case by case basis rather than city-wide. It is difficult to show this given that some news sources incorrectly reported that a curfew was in effect. I have not found any sources saying 'no curfew was in effect'. Can anyone suggest how one should establish the fact that there was no curfew, given the requirements of Wikipedia to reference sources. - Wgsimon (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't simply not saying there was a curfew good enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I just bothered to click the citation on that bit about what "some English sources" say about the curfew. A Huffington Post headline is not "some English sources". Fixed now. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like to straight-up deny the curfew, rather than just not mention it, the Malaysian Embassy can help. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an ongoing issue (check talk page archives, too). A Canadian news outlet (CTV) started saying there was a curfew and it was the first since WWII (probably misinterpreting the recommendation to stay home), and then other agencies started repeating it, each time making the claim sound more sensational. Wikipedia joined in, despite me and some other editors pointing out these news were most likely false, on the ground of what local French sources said. But oh well, it's not like Wikipedia posting false information ever causes them to be perpetuated in other publications, is it? LjL (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If reliable sources state there was/is a curfew, then it goes into the article. We can't just "not mention it" because it is notable. Unfortunately, even if a Wikipedia editor/user is right there and personally knows that there actually was not a curfew, we can not go by that as it's considered original research. - theWOLFchild 23:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Thewolfchild. What I am trying to do here is establish what is the suitable burden of proof (or rather, disproof).
How should one use this information in an appropriate manner on Wikipedia? - Wgsimon (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If reliable sources state something that was clearly disproven, they are not reliable about it. By definition. And breaking news are often not reliable in the first place. At the same time, we most certainly can just "not mention it": Wikipedia is not about mentioning just anything that sources may have said at some point. It is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which helps with not making the mistakes that newspapers do. It also doesn't mention WP:HOAXes unless they are themselves notable. The (lack of) curfew should not be mentioned. LjL (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The sources claiming a curfew (that have not since corrected their stories) are making an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. We either don't mention a curfew, or cite a story explicitly saying there was none. Or we somehow find exceptional sources backing the bullshit claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I strongly favor not mentioning it at all, because why should we pay homage to bullshitWP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that media outlet just started parroting from an unofficial originator (the authorities have stated nothing like that, and it can be checked in French sources and on the Elysee website) without any fact checking? It's a non-notable rushed-out hoax, nothing more, and Wikipedia is not here for that stuff. LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright then. Out it stays. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

More direct quotes from the ISIL?

In the section "ISIL responsibility", the article currently just says that the IS claimed responsibility. It doesn't say anything about what the IS said was why the attacks took place, or what France should expect in the future. (This could be different from what those who participated in the attacks themselves said.) The quotes that I remember that seemed important were that "Paris is the capital of prostitution" etc., and that "France is among the top" of the list of enemies. The Wikipedia article currently mentions the probable death of a famous IS personality, without explaining why it mentions this; some media organizations, such as The Sun, speculated that the attacks were in revenge. But, of course, why attack France when it was the UK and US that launched the missile strike? The IS's statements give a sense of "France is not our main enemy", which creates a situation that sort of excuses France from taking significant action. A lot of comments on a Yahoo news article about France's airstrikes expressed skepticism about them, wondering how a "headquarters" could have been identified but not destroyed before now. It may be able to convey this point without using direct quotes, but the Wikipedia article avoids addressing the topic entirely. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of those claimed motivations are mentioned in the infobox at the top of the article, under "Motives". LjL (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Just be careful pulling "direct" quotes from this translation. There's nothing in the French version that says "apostate" or "profligate prostitution party". It's "idolater" and "perversion party". And Paris is "the capital of abomination and perversion", not "obscenity and prostitution". Probably many other mistakes. The Arabic might be closer, but I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is helpful. The infobox gives two links; one just talks about those at the concert hall, the other only mentions some of the issues from the IS's statement (like other articles I had read). I was looking at the Guardian's live event and a transcript, but the Google translation isn't clear with the grammar. I agree that direct quotes are not as useful as I had suggested, given that the statements weren't in English. "Cursing/insulting our prophet" is not currently mentioned as a 'motive' in this Wikipedia article. Given the international reaction and Je suis Charlie, it seems significant that the IS maintains this as an issue. (Committing slander will earn you 80 lashes in the IS and possibly other countries like Saudi Arabia, I actually did not know that before.)
The point I originally intended to make though was that the attack may have more complex motives than it seems. The translation, by someone who is better at French grammar than Google Translate, seems to support this; it mentions situations having a certain state, not specific (or recent) actions, as the reason for why "the smell of death will never leave their noses". Was the smell of death in their noses before this attack, described as the first, or beginning of the storm?
My original edit before an edit conflict: I'm saying this because one such direct quote was removed from International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks on the grounds that it wasn't an "international reaction", but instead belonged in the main article. And to be a bit more clear: a famous French person released a graphic or something saying "those who were killed did not know that they were at war, but were enjoying themselves" etc. The IS's statement also suggests that it perceives that people in France did not feel it was a priority to drop more bombs on the IS (prostitution conflicts with dropping bombs). I didn't read the full statement; I read that the IS did say that France's airpower was ineffective in the streets of Paris, but I am not aware of the IS saying in its official statement that the attack was in retaliation for France's bombing of the IS. However, those were who were at the concert hall may have suggested, or said this. This may be too nuanced for an encyclopedia though. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is complicated, but on the whole, I'm certainly not opposed to explaining in the article what the claimed motives of ISIL were, as long as it's all properly sourced. Honestly though, I'm not going to do this research myself right now; why don't you make an edit request with the exact text you deem should be added? LjL (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, there is a mention of "insults to Islam's prophet" (though not where you would expect in the article). The issue, I guess, is that any 'properly sourced' statements about the IS's motives will be based either on those who participated in the attacks, or the media statement by the IS. If a media organization says the IS's statement says something that it doesn't, then they're wrong, no matter how good of a reputation that media organization has. (Another, somewhat related issue, is a story will say "an expert speculated that this was their motive", then Wikipedia says "this was their motive". This is a minor violation of Wikipedia's rules, quite common, and usually helpful and appropriate, but...) 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01: I don't get what the problem is though: don't we have properly sourced reports of what IS said that do not say something the IS didn't say? (And as a matter of fact, I believe we can use the IS's direct statement, with care, as WP:PRIMARY). LjL (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that is the primary sources are in French and Arabic. ISIS didn't offer its own English version. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In the infobox, under motive:

  • Islamic extremism (no reference, but to the extent it's an explanation, other references are sufficient... note that many other organizations seen as "Islamic extremists" denounced the attacks)
  • Ideological objection to Paris as a capital of "abomination and perversion".
  • What the reference says: 'Isis carefully listed its targets, couching its choice as one determined by its moral and theocratic superiority. Paris, it said, was a capital of “abominations and perversion”. ' (Couching: "To phrase in a particular style") This does not mean it was a motive. Yet Wikipedia says this was the motive. I do think the article should mention that the IS said this; but doesn't mean it was the motive.
  • Retaliation for French airstrikes in Syria and Iraq
  • Reference: "Attacks were retaliation for France’s bombing in Syria, Isis says". Straightforward from "reliable source" to Wikipedia article, but not supported by the actual statement. The body of the live event says the statement "goes on to call the attacks a response to" insults and airstrikes. The live event doesn't mention the "smell of death"; it skips that phrase. The statement actually says (depending on translation) that the "smell of death" would continue as long as France and others [...] are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their planes.
  • Foreign policy of François Hollande in relation to Muslims worldwide.
  • This is based on statements of the attackers at the concert hall. (Side note, in French, meaning not a war refugee, as authorities have noted.) The official IS statement actually called President François Hollande an imbecile or fool, and did not blame him for harming Muslims. Is it accurate to base an organization's motives on the words of a single, low-level operative who has died, instead of official statements from the organization? 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems a little odd that nobody has raised the possibility of this being related to the Charlie Hebdo incidents. That would seem like a distinctly possible motive for targeting France. 139.225.188.123 (talk)

France was the victim in that one, too. People retaliate to things done to them, not by them. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspect named

  1. Omar Ismail Mostefai, a 29-year-old French citizen of Algerian origin.http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Paris-attacks-Bath-mother-daughter-return/story-28174956-detail/story.html
  2. 2 French-born brothers of Algerian origin, singled out as suspects. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318083/France-s-year-terror-Charlie-Hebdo-massacre-sparked-series-extremist-attacks-brought-bloodshed-country-s-shell-shocked-people.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996678/Paris-terror-attacks-victims-isil-suspects-Syria-arrests-live.html?frame=3500718
  3. French citizen of Algerian origin, who had a criminal record and was accused.http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Paris-attacks-Derby-Telegraph-readers-use/story-28178266-detail/story.html92.16.213.2 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

some of mostefai's family members have been arrested

can someone put this ?

http://news.sky.com/story/1587901/paris-attacks-rifles-found-in-abandoned-car

--Stefvh96 (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

DOB removed for Omar Ismaël Mostefai?

Why was the Date of Birth (DOB) removed by Firebrace (talk · contribs)? Nsaa (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why was it included? Firebrace (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Why would we care about the exact date of birth? It still mentions his age, which seems more than enough. LjL (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"who entered France posing as a Syrian refugee"

This is the current description for Ahmad Almuhammad, also spelled Ahmed Almuhamed. Here is a more recent or more informative article: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/greece-names-man-whose-syrian-passport-found-paris-181514380.html He was not labelled as suspicious and wasn't on any lists. "In an official statement the Serbian interior ministry said the Syrian passport was recently registered at the Presevo border crossing (between Macedonia and Serbia), where alMohammad formally sought asylum." Last recorded in Croatia. Does not list any evidence he was living in France. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking for any particular bit of information to be included in the article? Or amended? LjL (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems inaccurate. The referenced article says, "The men crossed into Europe through Greece and made their way through several other countries, including Hungary, before reaching France, according to reports." But a lot of information is indicating that some, and possibly all of those who participated in the event, came from Belgium, not France. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Surely they "reached France" eventually, though? It says "several other countries", so Belgium isn't ruled out. I'm still not sure I see the issue. LjL (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The refugee debate is partly about whether the EU should allow war refugees at all and if so how many, and partly about which countries should accept those refugees before, or after their applications are processed. After processing, they are free to travel anywhere, but processing can take some time, can cost the state money, and refugees might stay in the same place if their application is accepted. France has not been a primary destination for refugees, but it is participating in the plan to distribute refugees who are applying, instead of having them all stay in the first country they reach (the Dublin Regulation). If those who participated in the attack were living in Belgium instead of France, it will change whether some people approve of France accepting refugees. If they traveled from Belgium to France just before the attack, they likely did not represent themselves as refugees while doing so. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I herd he was a French born Algerian.92.16.213.2 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Salah Abdeslam

Salah Abdeslam's nationality is unclear. Some sources says he's Belgian while some others say French who lives in Belgium. By the way is he notable enough to have his own wikiarticle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.8.13 (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean citizenship. Nationality=ethnicity (as in, "nation-states")- he's Arabic. 98.67.190.14 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nationality can mean "Membership of a particular nation or state, by origin, birth, naturalization, ownership, allegiance or otherwise." (emphasis mine). No need to correct lack of errors. LjL (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nationality - as taught in any college history class - means ethnicity, not statehood or citizenship - that's just lazy journalism that never happened before the last 10 years or so. Hence the term "nation-state." 98.67.0.105 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably, since he commuted a heinous crime, then yes.92.16.213.2 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

All the known perps are set up as redirects here. If a decent BIO beyond "he blew himself up in Paris" can be set up, I don't see why not. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Almuhammad

The link cited as a source for the line about Ahmad Almuhammad (in the Perpetrators section) entering France by posing as a Syrian refugee (Ahmad Almuhammad, a 25-year-old who entered France posing as a Syrian refugee.[95]) contains no mention of Ahmad Almuhammad or any other suspected perpetrator having entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. The source should be updated if this is indeed true or the part about posing as a Syrian refugee should be removed if no source can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.96.50 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Probably somebody quoted Reuters selectively: Any identity documents and fingerprint records would have to be matched with the remains of the actual attackers to establish whether they passed through Greece posing as refugees, or perhaps bought or stole passports along the way. Jan Winnicki * 09:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrators infobox

  • Shouldn't the suspected perpetrators section on the infobox just say ISIS (or whatever the correct phrase is) and not list the suspected gunmen. The main body of the article is for lists/further development and the infobox should summarize the article/give the key points. Cantab12 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks#Perpetrators_in_the_info_box Erlbaeko (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep92.21.159.205 (talk)

"Victims" prose

I'm all for WP:PROSE, in general, but we have a referenced table of victims and their nationalities, while we also have a mostly equivalent prose section where, at this point, only a subset of the table's listed victims are indicated. This way, it's arbitrary; if they were all indicated, on the other hand, it would become overly long, and who exactly cares about which official or ministry communicated the information about how many people died in their country, anyway?

I propose to keep the victim count & countries in the table, to do away with that information as prose, and to keep the prose section for general information about victims that doesn't include country specifics. LjL (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

General information? Firebrace (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
How many victims there were in total (deaths and injuries), and where these took place - which is already part of it. I'm not sure there is much else to add, aside from any notable victims perhaps (no more cousins of football players though, please!); I'm just pretty sure the current list of "minister X said they were N dead in country Y" is redundant and silly when we already have the table. LjL (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The prose section is useless. Who cares which department of which govt said what. Like accounting, the numbers in a table are far easier to see then a written out paragraph. 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, good point. But the table is too long. Maybe it should only include deaths and not injuries? Firebrace (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, but I have a vague suspicion some people may take issue. The table can flow through other sections, though, that's not technically a problem. Try tentatively removing the injuries from the table if you want...? I've done the rest, for now. LjL (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the injuries column. We're never going to know the exact number of injured for every country. Firebrace (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If injuries are not going to be mentioned in the table, they must be mentioned in prose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
They are: the total number is. If you're claiming the individual countries "must" be listed, what is your rationale for it? LjL (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Consistency and comprehensiveness; countless sources are covering the nationalities of both killed and injured. Only listing the nationalities of those killed and briefly glossing over the large number injured goes against both of those. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
See my response to Epicgenius below: consistency is all well and good, but death and injury aren't comparable events, their noteworthiness is different, and we have no obligation to treat them identically. LjL (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Why did you do that? That is not a good idea. We already mention the total number injured. Do you want to remove that too? epic genius (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a pretty good idea to me. The table was probably destined to grow, and I'd say deaths are intrinsically more noteworthy than injuries, so if either should be specified by-country, and there are space concerns, deaths should be favored. LjL (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Injuries count as well. The table isn't that long yet, and I doubt that it would grow much longer. epic genius (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess the prose should stay, but only the part showing the total number dead and injured, as well as the numbers for each site. Remove the number of countries, as well as the people who are named there. epic genius (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You realize I already removed most of the prose, and added the number of countries to make up (it's a simple WP:CALC by the way)? The specific people mentioned are arguably noteworthy. I repeatedly removed the ones who weren't (despite other editors' best efforst to repeatedly include them). LjL (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
OK... but I think prose is still needed. Otherwise, we just have a table that just sits in the middle of the article with little explanation. epic genius (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I previously removed all the prose that you wanted removed (except the number of countries, which is a part I added), and added the "only" parts you wanted to keep, i.e. the numbers for each site (which were previously in the top sidebar). LjL (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, reasonable. epic genius (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Firebrace: How come you think injuries aren't important? They seemed noteworthy enough to be that they were reliably sourced. epic genius (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
More than 250 people have been released from hospital. We only know the citizenship of 40 of those people. The likelihood that we'll ever know the citizenship of the other 210 is pretty slim. Try to be logical about this. Firebrace (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The likelihood is that most of those are French, and at some point, we can find a source that states as much. Let's not edit war over this small issue... LjL (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It isn't a small issue; the table (in its current form) takes up too much space. If most of the injured are French, just say in the prose that most of the injured were French. As you say, injuries are less notable than deaths. Firebrace (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I find it a small issue. I'm afraid for the time being, you are alone in this war... LjL (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
A'ight, so should we restore the "injuries" listings? epic genius (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would propose removing the entire table, as it takes up too much space. Even with just the fatalities listed, that's 18 rows. There is no need for a table if the opening sentence states "The attacks killed 129 victims and injured 433...". If the nationality of a victim is notable, there will be some sort of reaction to it noted in "International reactions". We currently have a situation where prose is sandwiched between a table on the right and images on the left and it needs to be resolved. Jolly Ω Janner 06:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to agree, particularly in light of the cramping of the article text between images and tables. The table with the pretty flags can easily be replaced with prose with no detriment to the article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree too. These tables are horrible. Prose is better. --John (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep So instead of replacing the table with prose you've just deleted all of that relevant information and not included any of it in the main text? We now have nothing about the nationalities of those who died. How was removing the table useful? It allowed a succinct break down of those who were killed. The petty actions of deletionists make me despair with wikipedia at times. Cantab12 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The nationalities of the victims are not notable, hence why none of it was merged into the text. As I said previously "If the nationality of a victim is notable, there will be some sort of reaction to it noted in "International reactions"". I think there is a statement by Hollande where he said that victims came from 19 different nationalities. That could be used to summarise the table. Jolly Ω Janner 18:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

A reminder that a bot and various editors are archiving this very busy talk page, so if you can't see something and wonder about it, check the archive first. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Note I have disabled the automatic archiver for the time being, due to people repeatedly attempting to set it to 1 day archiving. I would just as soon manually archiving, because automatic archiving at that speed will indiscriminately remove threads that have not been resolved. A human, rather than a bot, should be making decisions of what to archive when a talk page is exceptionally busy. Safiel (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - good call. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - assuming said human is good at such decisions. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone can look at the archives and revive a thread they want to do more with. Page at 40 sections right now. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Time of first and second explosion near the Stade de France

Der Spiegel relies on these information (http://m.spiegel.de/kickerticker/liveticker-details.html?wId=fr1&saison=2015&spieltag=6&spielId=2856069). Other reliable sources are http://www.abendblatt.de/sport/article206572757/Deutschland-verliert-gegen-Frankreich-mit-0-2.html and http://www.sportschau.de/fussball/nationalmannschaft/nachbericht-frankreich-deutschland-100.html. What about writing "According to the French public prosecutor the explosions happened at 21:20, 21:30 and 21:53.[references] Several media report explosions at 21:17, 21:20 and 21:53.[references]"? As there are different reports, it would be solid to write about these differences. One could argue, that the non-official (but reliable) reports are irrelevant, but I think they aren't because only these information can help the reader to get a plausibel impression of the timeline of the events. Greetings, --Qaswed (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that generally. A while back I updated to the 21:20 and 21:30 times in the "timeline" and then rationalised elsewhere in the article checking against the references being used there. If it's sufficiently important (and it might be) then the article could indeed discuss this. The tabulated timeline would be best with single times, however. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you, Thincat (or everyone else), update the time points in the article (I can't because I have to few edits in the English Wikipedia). For the tabulated timeline i would suggest to use 20:17 and 21:21 (because, after watching the relevant parts of the soccer match, common sense says that 21:20 and 21:30 are wrong). Thanks and greetings, --Qaswed (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

International response subsection

See also: § Reactions, and § Reactions part 2

Should we include a section for international responses from world governments, first excerpt pasted below, more to follow:

Immediately following the attacks, worldwide governments issued statements in response. United States President Barack Obama spoke via live stream from the White House at 5:45 PM ET, condemning the attacks and offering American aid, calling the event an "attack on all of humanity". [1] British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged similar support for France through a statement made on Twitter.[2]
  • This was discussed above - see the Response section earlier in the talk page. SkittishSloth (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The international community will obviously express sympathy, offer aid, etc., etc. I argue that this is not notable. It was suggested above that perhaps a running list be kept on this talk page, for addition at some point in the future. Ignatzmice•talk 00:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not all express sympathy. Swedish vice Prime Minister Åsa Romson has tweeted that her worry is that it will be more difficult for her to attend a conference in Paris next month. Jeppiz (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps keep a running list here, add details to article if relevant? Responses may vary.
  • Bilingual response from Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister: "I am shocked and saddened that so many people have been killed and injured in violent attacks in #Paris. Canada stands with France. Je suis bouleversé et attristé par le lourd bilan des victimes des violentes attaques de #Paris. Le Canada est solidaire de la France."

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas W. Wilson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support This is one of the worst terrorist attacks in the West since 9/11, and no section for responses? Really?--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you agree this quote?--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Substantial reactions, as in providing monetary assistance, logistical support, etc. is worth including. Messages of condolences and solidarity are routine for tragedies such as this and not encyclopedic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This is being discussed above. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - standard and should likely be its own article —МандичкаYO 😜 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - standard and should likely be its own article.--Oneiros (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - standard BUT should not be its own article yet. epic genius (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. These are just talking heads and generic statements of sympathy/solidarity/support. They add nothing to the reader's understanding; they're just filler, used by rolling news channels so that newsreaders don't keep repeating themselves. If anyone manages to sum it up in a nice, concise quote, that will become clear in the coming days; there's no emergency here. Obama's quote might gain that sort of traction, but most of the rest are the same obligatory condolences that politicians trot out every time there's an incident like this. No doubt they're sincere, but they add nothing. Please ask yourself, how is a readers' understanding developed by "talking head number one of country number two offered his condolences, while talking head number three of country number four offered her deepest sympathies". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "President Obama delivers statement". The White House - President Barack Obama. White House. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
  2. ^ "Paris attacks: David Cameron offers condolences". BBC. BBC. November 13, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  3. ^ "UN condemns 'despicable' terrorist attacks in Paris". UN News Centre. United Nations. November 13, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  • Support - these are on all of the terrorism articles. Maybe keep the section small and have a link to the whole split article. 97.73.126.72 (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - but only for reactions that contain substantial content, rather than condolences and moral support. Similar to when the head of NATO said an attack on one was an attack on all of the alliance after 9/11.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for reactions that contain substantial content. I'd also support having a paragraph that simply lists the states that gave condolences without going into too much detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
If they're added, it should be as paragraphs, preferably with NATO powers bundled together.
What people really don't like with these sections is the list of bullet points with flags with single sentences. -- Callinus (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, no responses, no flags, no bullet points. Report on actions, on policy, on border closings--those are the only reactions of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The other section discussing this seems to have the opposite opinion → Here Snd0 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorta... - If a major international figure says something meaningful other than "I condole you" or "we deplore this", if they announce actions they are taking, then yeah, I think it belongs in the article, but not in a special section. That just invites list-making, article-bloating, faces in the spotlight trivia. The Obama and Cameron examples, no. Dcs002 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess this list making is my only issue. If you simply google "condolence paris" you'll find that the leaders of China, Malaysia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Ireland, Israel, Poland, Cambodia, New Zealand, and others have said the same thing... Yet currently we're only listing leaders from certain countries. Why the Philippines but not Cambodia? ... Sorry if this is pedantic. Snd0 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support absolutely pertinent in adjudging to students of IR how relations stand and who (and who did NOT respond). Armchair editors of WP may see otherwise, but encyclopedias are for students/education. To add, considering it is a political act, international reactions ARE necessary to adjudge both the relations and the consequences. 94.187.2.221 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • If a lack of response seems important perhaps that should be pointed out explicitly, but that would be malpractice for students to think that because something is missing that it important to IR.
  • Oppose per HJ Miller's comment. It serves no purpose or aid to the reader to just list verbatim what leaders say. Include major examples with actual actions taken, but bullet pointed statements are repetitive and unconstructive. Reywas92Talk 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - why not? - theWOLFchild 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Seen it elsewhere. Hanyou23 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We had just yesterday reached a consensus to not include these... We also have this: International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Hollande's inclusion alone makes sense at all. Obama and other world leaders are just doing their duty, and their condolences are good for memorials and calming the shocked citizens, but do not belong to an encyclopedia. WP:NOTMEMORIAL In addition, it is sad that these lists are biased as nobody cares about some President of Togo's condolences while Obama from USA is seen as someone who can speak authoritatively about terrorism. Ceosad (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We already reached consensus on this yesterday, there is no need to reopen the discussion. These sections are unencylopedic and add no value to the article. In five years, people reading the article aren't going to care about the long list of condolences. Unless something particularly notable happens (i.e. someone actually does something beyond offering an apology), there's little reason to make note of it here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Its a mandatory thing for anyone to say "We're sympathizing with France" or whichever nation was struck. This doesnt belong on a Wikipedia page unless this has directly resulted in a campaign for retaliation of sorts. Besides, the only valued opinions always seem to be the top 5 NATO countries, so who cares really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support use of national flags It is the usual custom that Obama MUST be mentioned, so do so here.Vegasperson1 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Change all mentions of Militants to Terrorists

I propose to change all mentions of Militants to Terrorists many of the sourced news article call them terrorists so why don't we use this term on Wikipedia? Do you agree? --Ntb613 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:EUPHEMISM: it's quite clear what we're dealing with, and it's not merely "militants". Of course, this should apply to mentions of people committing actual acts of terrorism, not (for instance) Islamist militants in general. LjL (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no civil war in France, this is terrorism. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Caution - I'm not sure what this accomplishes, since there is only one mention of "militant" in the entire article that is not in quotes. Also, look at other similar articles and they do not go as far as to use the term "terrorist" within Wikipedia's own prose. Rather, they use assailant mostly and perhaps militants. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Example articles include the following. Just keep the balance in mind:
  • Oppose Terrorist is a contentious (and vague) term that can be more neutrally replaced by attacker, assailant, or perpetrators. -- Veggies (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I associate the word militant with political activism and violent revolutionaries. These people are neither of those things. Firebrace (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a contentious WP:LABEL that helps them inflict their terror, so why use it at all? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Which label, "ISIL/ISIS" or "terrorists"? I'm guessing "terrorists" - Well, it's only "contentious" on Wikipedia talk pages, really. Reliable sources don't have a problem routinely calling this terrorism, and the perpetrators terrorists. LjL (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "terrorists" as contentious. ISIL/ISIS is the WP:COMMONNAME unless Hollande's attempt to use Daesh sticks. The reliable sources can sensationalize a bit and I'd rather not follow them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Is pretty standard for articles like this. See September 11 attacks. Islamic State is classified as a terrorist group by most countries, and this was undoubtedly a terrorist attack, so there's little reason not to call them terrorists in the text. Note that in any quotes, we should use the word that whoever we're quoting used. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And on the subject of language, any reference anywhere to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be preceded by "so-called" or "self-styled." This entity's name is technically incorrect (it is not a "state") and self-delusional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.72.143 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose That's an absurd misdirection for the reader. The group calls itself that. It's silly to pretend that it doesn't. -- Veggies (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree. The terrorists call themselves "Islamic State" just as much as Bruce Jenner calls himself Caitlyn Jenner. Wikipedia, in all cases but one, goes by what people call themselves. XavierItzm (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If I call myself the King of Europe does that make it true? Firebrace (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You are (to the best of my knowledge) not notable, so it doesn't matter what you call yourself. LjL (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, but say Shia LaBeouf, who is notable, starts calling himself the King of California, is that to be taken literally? Firebrace (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily, because if the rest of us still just call him Shia LaBeouf, that's his WP:COMMONNAME, whether or not he likes it. But I'm afraid the ISIL's common name is ISIL or ISIS, whether or not their being a state is "technically accurate" (we don't generally go by "technically accurate" for names). LjL (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Shia LaBouef is not made of beef either, but that's what his name implies. Names are quite literally nominal, not essential. 107.179.137.47 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are notable enough to have an article and change your name to King O. Europe—yes, that will be your title. It's stupid to demand that common names make literal sense. -- Veggies (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, it can be argued that the Islamic State does meet all the basic requirements for being classified as a self-governing state, apart from that of (official) diplomatic recognition. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is true that a number of sources describe the assailants as terrorists; however, many also describe them using the word "gunmen", "attackers" and (the word I used) "assailants". The question is, which word best reflects the purpose of Wikipedia? Which is the most neutral? "Terrorist" certainly is not. It is value laden and inherently political. The word we use ought to be strictly descriptive. SomePseudonym (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • When it comes to ISIL, it checks almost entire sourced row at List of designated terrorist groups. As long the majority of states designates ISIL as a "terrorist" and as long as it conducts the classical terrorist activity, then it's not a problem to call it as such. We call cat a cat and not a dog, although it can't talk. Otherwise what's the purpose of the word "terrorism"? Brandmeistertalk 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is an easy call per the reasons already stated.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, just weakly. This is contentious. "Terrorist" is widely stated but could be considered POV. "Militant" is more neutral but does not reflect popular opinion. I suggest "assailant" or "perpetrator." epic genius (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NEUTRAL as a term which defines motive when more accurate descriptions of the behavior are available (and more precisely describe the actions "shooter" "attacker"). Bod (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - go with whatever the sources say - theWOLFchild 23:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Our goal is WP:NPOV meaning that we would need to be alert for POV phrasing or wording in the source material and to recast that in the NPOV way as possible while being factually accurate. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Map

Whoever made the map did a great job, but could the sites be renumbered by chronology instead of just north to south? Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That would require changing of the attributes across many wikis, since this is a global file hosted on Commons. I'm sure we'd want to avoid that. We could upload a new, similar map, or just use {{Location map}}. epic genius (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Abductive and Epicgenius: I created it. Do you mean just switching 4 & 5 (rue de Charonne with Bataclan) or is there something more complex you have in mind? -- Veggies (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Veggies: I personally think it's fine, but I think Abductive was saying to upload a derivative of the existing map, with the sites numbered by the order in which they were attacked. P.S. It's hard to tell. epic genius (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a good map. I wouldn't rush to change the order of 4 and 5 right now. The times being used are those given officially by the public prosecutor and people here are complaining below (with evidence) that he was "wrong" in some cases. Where different attacking groups were involved the exact order of events may never be clear (or important). Thincat (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And any map should include Comptoir Voltaire. The fact that no victims died is not reason to omit it. It was a suicide bomb and very easily could have killed. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The Comptoir Voltaire is on the map. It's the suicide bombing in the lower right-hand corner. -- Veggies (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, without a number or arrow. Ok. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

The "Timeline of attacks" (right side) has to be changed as follows:

"21:17:32 – First suicide bombing near the Stade de France.

[Footnote:] The football match France v Germany at Stade de France began at 21:01:08 CET (UTC+1). The first explosion is audible at 16:23 play time. A Reference for the right time is the television broadcasting of the game at the German TV channel „Das Erste“ containing a digital clock at halftime at the beginning of the news program „tagesthemen“ at 21:50:45 CET (UTC+1).

21:20:43 – Second suicide bombing near the Stade de France.

[Footnote:] The football match France v Germany at Stade de France began at 21:01:08 CET (UTC+1). The second explosion is audible at 19:34 play time. A Reference for the right time is the television broadcasting of the game at the German TV channel „Das Erste“ containing a digital clock at halftime at the beginning of the news program „tagesthemen“ at 21:50:45 CET (UTC+1)."

"21:53 – Third suicide bombing near the Stade de France."

This includes a change in the timeline. The position of the second stadium bombing is now 2nd.

Under "Stade de France explosions" the following changes has to be made:

"The explosions happened at 21:17, 21:20, and 21:53. The first explosion near the stadium was in the 17th minute of an international friendly football match between France and Germany" ...

"Three minutes after the first bombing, the second bomber blew himself up near the stadium."

The difference between 2nd and 3rd bombing was false and is now right. The footnotes may have here too be included.

Thanks in advance. Meklenburg.

PS: The difference from one second is according to my data no error! It depends on the interval of (every) second. Meklenburg (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The times you suggest are not supported by the references in the article and the proposed text does not propose alternative references. Thincat (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
However, I have changed "at" to "near" because that is what the reference states. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting. I have evidence on hand and foot … You have to decide witch references are good enough for wikipedia. But after reading this you will know I'm right anyway.

The first source will be away sometimes. It's a video on youtube (Asia?) witch contains all the facts I had discribed it in my edit request above. Here you can find the evidence in one source only. But you have to check it in reverse from halftime (means from the time of the „tagesthemen“ news digital clock at 21:50:45 CET) with the video time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuAm_ceQ9Co

You can check it faster with this table below.

  • Occurrence/ Time@ video above/ difference inbetween/ Play Time/ CET
  • Kick-off/ 1:00:00/ 00:00/ 00:00/ 21:01:08
  • Explosion 1/ 1:16:24/ 16:24/ 16:23/ 21:17:32
  • Explosion 2/ 1:19:35/ 03:11/ 19:34/ 21:20:43
  • TV News clock/ 1:49:37/ 30:02/ [45:00+]/ 21:50:45

If that's not reference-worthy enough … then you should check it the other way around from the kick-off with two sources. You can hear and see it in every video from the first half: The explosions are always at 16:23 and 19:34 play time. Btw the first link is offical from German TV „Das Erste“: http://www.sportschau.de/fussball/nationalmannschaft/videofrankreichgegendeutschlanddieerstehalbzeit102.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfGg-HQpXQ

Second we have to go to twitter. When was the kick-off? At 21:01 CET (= 12:01 PST twitter-time from California, minus 9 hours) wrote the German team: „Anpfiff!“, means „Kick-off!“ https://twitter.com/DFB_Team/status/665258187197652993

In „source“ one you have it with the seconds – the evidence for me: Explosion 1: 21:17:32 CET; Explosion 2: 21:20:43 CET

With way two you have the proof and all in minutes for sure (21:01:00 + 16:23 or 19:34): Explosion 1: 21:17 CET; Explosion 2: 21:20 CET

Thanks in advance.

PS: The difference from one second is according to my data and proof no error! It depends on the interval of (every) second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meklenburg (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Blood and sand

This is not directly related to the article, but I thought I'd bring the image File:Blood and sand on the ground in front of Le Petit Cambodge the day after November 2015 Paris attacks (22998462382).jpg to your attention. It eloquently sums up the whole wretched affair -- people pointlessly and sordidly reduced to blood splashes on a pavement, with everything that made them human discarded without thought. -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It has no context. I like File:Paris Shootings - The day after (22593523647).jpg better. Firebrace (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, that's a better image. The fact that the blood is still there amidst the flowers is additionally poignant.-- The Anome (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
These splashes weren't made pointlessly and without thought. This was a well-planned attack intended to coerce France into changing its policies. Much thought has also been given to the whole thing posthumously by the media. This image would better illustrate one of those truly irrational mass murders psychotics sometimes cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators/suspects?

Pending some sort of verdict, I think we have to refer to these named living people as suspected perpetrators. --John (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Aye. WP:BLPCRIME is clear about the presumption of innocence. Doesn't matter if the court of public opinion has found them vile. That's not a real court. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
They are innocents stitched up by the French secret service.

Bad bomb-makers

Has any source discussed the fact that this group seems to have been poor bombmakers. The four bombs not in the theater seem to have resulted in only one death excepting the attackers themselves? Are there any reports of the bombs ion the Bataclan killing anyone or where all the deaths from gunshots? Rmhermen (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Typically, the people who detonate the bombs aren't the people who make them. If this was genocide or an assassination, rather than terrorism, they'd be poor bombs. But as far as causing fear goes, these made loud noises, bright lights and bloody messes. Many who saw a person explode that day hadn't before, and that'll stick with them. Those who were close enough to be wounded will not only carry their scars, but wear them for others to see, long after the dead have been buried. The bombs also prevented the bombers' capture, which is handy for ISIS, because police have ways of making people talk. A would-be bomber in Beirut is spilling his guts (figuratively) over that plot today.
The guy who hooked up Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a bad bombmaker. Plenty of sources focusing on failure there, but not in this one, as far as I see yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sporting & Cultural events cancelled

Is there a page that shows sporting & cultural events cancelled or postponed? Mobile mundo (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A soccer match was scrapped. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3322608/Germany-fears-repeat-Paris-attacks-national-team-s-football-match-Holland-cancelled-90-minutes-kick-rock-concert-evacuated.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.159.205 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

One was recently cancelled, in germany I believe. It is however had secondary to the main article, more the "Aftermath and Impact". 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes it mentions that sports events were cancelled that weekend without going into detail. Spain v Belgium was also cancelled & in the rugby Stade François v Munster is postponed. It was due this weekend. Mobile mundo (talk)

"Victims" table

I propose deletion of the table, or deletion of the 'injured' column and merging of references with deaths, as the table is too big and looks unprofessional. For comparison, this is how it looked after it was cleaned up yesterday. Firebrace (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Tables like this with their decorative flags are symptomatic of the OCD tendency for completeness among some volunteers here. The main features should be summarised in text and the table deleted. It is grotesque. --John (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the table should stay with only the deaths. Not long, and I'm not sure what the presence of flags can harm other than bothering John... LjL (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Abridged table now replaced previous version. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Victims table allows a succinct break down of those who were killed by nationality. Cantab12 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Why is it so important to break them down by nationality? Why not age, gender, eye colour, or something else? John (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If the majority killed in the theatre were Americans or Chinese the intensified bombing campaign against ISIS might be coming from the Americans or Chinese. Similarly, the Russians are increasing airstrikes against ISIS because a plane mostly carrying Russian citizens was bombed in Egypt. Maybe nationality is relevant to the national response. Snd0 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
        • No question you're right. But surely saying that most of the casualties were French would accomplish that? I don't see why we need this grotesque table with its pretty flags to establish that most of those killed were French. You'd expect that, in Paris, wouldn't you? --John (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
          • "Maybe nationality is relevant to the national response." if it is relevant perhaps we should state that in the national response. e.g. "The US intensified its bombing because its citizens were killed". Jolly Ω Janner 23:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Note, there is a similar discussion at #"Victims" prose. Jolly Ω Janner 18:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That discussion has since been archived. I considered bring it back, but thought I'd just reinstate the main points that I made here and hope that more people will join in discussion so we can finally determine whether there is or isn't a consensus to remove the table. Jolly Ω Janner 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would propose deletion of the entire table, as it takes up too much space. Even with just the fatalities listed, that's 18 rows. There is no need for a table if the opening sentence states "The attacks killed 129 victims and injured 433...". If the nationality of a victim is notable, there will be some sort of reaction to it noted in "International reactions". The nationalities of the victims are not notable by themselves (the victims of nationalities simply reflect the typical nationalities of people in Paris), hence why none of it should be merged into the text. We currently have a situation where prose is sandwiched between a table on the right and images on the left and it needs to be resolved soon, especially as this is a highly visible article. Jolly Ω Janner 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A Full listing of all Victims?

There are many news sites that list most/all the identified victims Daily Mail, Daily Mirror Sidney Morning Herald, BBC, and the Norwegian Verdens Gang has a database that seems to be updated, now at 102 identified, grouped at place, country, gender (62 men, 40 women) here. Should there be made a sub article listing? Why/Why not? Nsaa (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the names at Beltway sniper are a handy way to track the attacks that happened all over the US and then in the DC area over a period of years and days. In this case we have a defined list of locations all within a few minutes and all in the same city. Vic names does not help the story. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Victims versus Attackers

First off, I should like to give praise to wikipedia and everyone who participated in the main article. I think overall, the article is good, has specific links to verify statements, and sufficient information and facts in a easy-to-read-manner. Now to the topic at hand here, the "Victim" section. This one is fine, obviously, for historical factual statements. I would however had also consider to add another link, the Attackers - it does not have to be on the same page, mind you - nobody wants to make them famous in any way, but a separate article about the attackers might be useful in particular because it was said that there might have been 9 involved in the attack (3x3 teams of hitmen), so not all of them were caught yet (and there were others who planned it). This may become quite long as time passes by, which is why I may suggest to perhaps gather this on a new page instead. Thanks for reading and considering. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

For now, the information about the attacks is in the article and fits there fine; there is no need for a sub-article, really. LjL (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"wp:undue / irrel"

Somehow the very short, sourced, sentence "ISIL referred to the Paris attacks as a "ghazwa" (raid)" was termed WP:UNDUE in this edit summary, and removed. I'm not sure how a ten words sentence can be giving anything undue weight. As to relevance, I'd say motives and views of the perpetrators are relevant, and I guess the source agreed, uh?

If I had to revert all these little, seemingly gratuitous edits, I'd most certainly run afoul of the aforementioned WP:1RR discretionary sanctions, so I guess I'll keep nagging y'all on this talk page instead. LjL (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems the part about Jihadi John is also irrelevant... Firebrace (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Firebrace: but who dare revert stuff like this at this point, when showing skepticism about the discretionary sanction earns you a notice that you could be sanctioned? This is despite an administrator previously deeming scaring editors from this high-traffic article with the sanctions unwarranted (which was applauded by several). Do we have a "Wikipedia is not a police state" guideline? LjL (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This guy dared. Good for him. Or her, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And now this guy dares to be different. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that old man here is me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)'
@InedibleHulk and Snd0: For the record, I'd rather keep the Jihadi John thing out, unless there is something very well-established linking it to the attacks... I'm pretty sure he was more of a Western antihero than someone the ISIS cared much about. LjL (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm also pretty sure of that. Comes with the alliterative stage name. The actual fighters have lost many, many friends and family members. Their lack of fame on this side of the world doesn't make them less likely to be avenged. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not see the prior removal, however, administrators do not have the power to remove articles from the scope of sanctions. Furthermore, that administrator was mistaken regarding the procedure, as there was no Arbitration Committee involvement. Regardless, please don't take the notice as an insult. It is a standardised message issued to editors across Syrian Civil War and ISIL-related articles on a regular basis, and can be used by any editor. The purpose of the sanctions is to slow down editing, so that talk page discussions can determine appropriate information to include. This avoids conflicts and mass changes to the article. Please relax. RGloucester — ☎ 02:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
On such a high-traffic article, it also means that someone can do a really bad edit, I can revert it, they can stubbornly revert it back, and... that will often be all until someone notices it a whole lot of time later, because in the meanwhile, other intervening edits had clouded it. I have also made talk page requests in the past that went unanswered, presumably because the talk page is also long and busy and nobody noticed them.
Of course, from now on I will make a talk page section for every little problem I notice, since just making edits (unless I ensure the edits don't constitute a revert, which can be harder than it seems) would now make me liable to a block without any further warning.
But since this is also true for any other editor who has previously made any revert on this short-lived article and has received the 1RR warning, I wonder who can make edits without potentially risking a block. LjL (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Administrators are not stupid. Common sense applies, as always, in the application of any policy, guideline, sanction, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't know about others here, but I'm not about to risk my edit privileges on the assumption that a large group of people who've shown there's enough lack of vetting among them (see: Neelix) won't block me over a narrow interpretation of sanctions. If common sense applies, then why did the sanctions template have to be reinstated (in removing it, Fuzheado actually invoked WP:IAR which also has the alias WP:COMMONSENSE) and why did I have to receive 1RR warning (which, regardless of how standard it is, factually enables blocks without further warning)? My common sense sure tells me to stay the hell away from editing this article now, and I don't think it is because I did anything bad to it. LjL (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of constructive editors to articles with 1RR (of which there are many) manage to continue editing without being sanctioned. This isn't any different. There are a few editors here used to editing SCW and ISIL, and they've been editing regardless of the notifications they'd got in the past. Regardless, I will disengage from here, as my presence is clearly not desired. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(I'm new.) Is there another way to direct people to the talk page outside of reverting their edit? Snd0 (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Snd0: make a new section and use {{ping|EditorName}} to notify them, like I just did with you now. LjL (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks LjL, that works. I'll do that from now on so I don't get in trouble. Snd0 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

More raids

See Paris attacks: Suicide bomber among two dead in raid targeting terror plot mastermind, police say. 3 persons dead. 220 of Borg 08:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added this to the article. I've held off on stating how many people have died or been injured, since the event is ongoing and there isn't clear consensus between sources on the matter yet. Jolly Ω Janner 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! One suicided with a vest, 3 arrested. Includes the person they were chasing according to Radio news report (2GB Sydney). 220 of Borg 09:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes seems a good edit with existing information. 220 of Borg 09:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates

Restored from premature archive. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

{{coord}} templates for the various locations, should anyone care to add them to the infobox or body. Decimal degrees format to 3 or 4 decimal positions depending on the rough size of the area represented, per WP:COORDPREC. The article currently specifies one coordinates pair (Comptoir Voltaire) as a ref, which I believe is improper usage of coord. Footnotes using {{efn}} could be used to save space, as at the end of this sentence.[note 1]

72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Good work.92.16.213.2 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added these to the infobox, except for the Boulevard Voltaire. I presume it's not listed on the infobox because it isn't on the map (perhaps because no civilians were killed). Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. I see someone removed the Comptoir Voltaire ref, which is good. As for the infobox, the map is simply incorrect, the article is about all the attacks, not only the fatal ones. The map caption says "Locations of the attacks", not "Locations of the fatal attacks". I'd be strongly inclined to add Boulevard Voltaire (Comptoir Voltaire) as item 6 in the infobox, and perhaps the map will be corrected later. Less optimally, an efn could be inserted following "Comptoir Voltaire cafe" in the body. After re-reading the text, I'm tweaking the coords for that to better reflect in the cafe (per Google Maps, at least). Additionally, Bichat/Alibert could be tweaked to 48°52′18″N 2°22′05″E / 48.8717°N 2.3680°E / 48.8717; 2.3680 as it appears all of the shooting occurred south of rue Alibert. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been pointed out that Comptoir Voltaire is on the map, as an "explosion" symbol without a number or arrow, in the lower-right corner of the map. Even more justification for adding an item 6, in my opinion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And now the number and arrow have been added, and the item 6 is conspicuously missing. Trust me, I'd bold-edit this if I could. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have now added it. Jolly Ω Janner 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Tweaking Bichat/Alibert per above is low priority, this can archive now. Thanks. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Coordinates: 48°55′26″N 2°21′43″E / 48.924°N 2.362°E / 48.924; 2.362

Categorization

Why is this article put in the category January 2015 Île-de-France attacks? If appears to me a huge mis-categorization. If this incident, the terrorist raid in Belgium, the Copenhagen shootings (in Denmark), Curtis Culwell Center attack (in the U.S.), all have the same thing to do with the religion of peace and its "tiny" proportion of extreme adherents, then why are the bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268, and the Beirut bombings not in this category? Is it because Russia, Lebanon share a different, so presumably twisted, deviant (in the eyes of the West), value (of life, freedom, democracy, etc.), so that the West would feel at least uneasy to align those tragedies along with theirs, even though they are of the same nature, from the same ideology, and committed by the same assailants, and caused the same invaluable human lives? 222.187.96.28 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is not in the category Category:2015 Île-de-France attacks. However, this article is linked from the navbox Template:January 2015 France attacks buy the virtue of being included in its "Related" events section. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I did not notice the difference between category and template. OK, but why is it in that template while other similar incidents are not? Put in another way, if Metrojet Flight 9268 is "UNrelated", then why is Curtis Culwell Center attack "Related" anyway? 222.187.96.28 (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You should discuss this on the talk page of that template: Template talk:January 2015 France attacks. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I moved the discussion there. 222.187.96.28 (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it really makes no sense for that template to be transcluded into this article, since it lets you navigate within a different topic, which is not what navboxes are for, but I couldn't successfully get rid of it. I think whether it's included in this article is a valid matter of discussion for this talk page, though. LjL (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was second on the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report for the week November 8 to 14, 2015, with 1,237,935 views. Thank you to the editors of this article for your hard work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

👍 Fuzheado likes this. - thanks for the cooperative spirit on this article
I don't want to toot my own horn, but it looks like Firebrace and I are the top editors.[2] epic genius (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm third OMG...! LjL (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And all this without an IP editor in sight. Fannnntastic! 141.6.11.23 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And you have not attracted those Discretionary Sanctions LjL :) Good job peoples :) Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

At least 27 governors...

Currently the article states:

"At least 27 governors of US states declared they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees, as they believe it to be too dangerous following the Paris attacks."

Based on this source

This is wrong. What the source actually says is "More than half the nation's governors say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.".

"They oppose" and "they would refuse" are two different things. They're politicians. They can have their own personal opinions but they are also required to serve their constituents and to follow the law. And then even a number of these did not actually say that. At least half of these said they "oppose" UNLESS a thorough screening process is carried out. Volunteer Marek  16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed this [3]. This possibly belongs to another page, "International reactions...". My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian passport

"A gunman[who?] was found with a passport of a Syrian man who had been born in 1980. The man on the passport was not previously known to French police"

Probably should note that passport was a fake [4] [5] [6]. Volunteer Marek  17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the "who?" tag makes me scratch my head. Surely, it's not meant to be used when the identity of someone is factually unknown? LjL (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The text in question makes no attempt to say whether it was one of the terrorists named elsewhere in this article, or at which venue they died. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The passport thing is also repeated like three different times in a very confusing way. Volunteer Marek  21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"Born on 22 January 1995"

What's with the insistence on including this suspect's exact date of birth in the article (and the name of the procurator who identified him)? I've removed this before, but I'll now leave it to others. I think it's not at all relevant. LjL (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenging discretionary sanctions

Courtesy notifications (Fuzheado—RGloucester—InedibleHulk—Legacypac—WWGB—Kendrick7—Greyshark09—Super Goku V—Firebrace—Epicgenius) I have created a motion to tone down the sanctions about ISIL, partly about this article and similar situations specifically, and partly in general. Feel free to ping anyone involved in the related discussions I may have forgotten. LjL (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Too bureaucratic for my taste, but good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: you don't necessarily have to do anything more than expressing your support or opposition to the changes with a very brief rationale to participate, mind. LjL (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That's how it starts, yeah. But then it's a slippery slope. My support is the moral sort. Take it or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's very little nastiness that I can see, compared with other articles, so I feel that the warnings are a tad overzealous. But there's no real harm to remind everyone where we all stand. -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to follow the links but did not see a place where I could comment about the sanctions stuff. As far as this article goes, the main point of contention seems to be if the sanctions rules should be invoked. There's been very little squabble about the article content. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Marc Kupper: the place to comment would be there at the motion, directly below other people's comments. LjL (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The dog's name

We don't mention people who died by name unless they are notable, this has been reiterated a number of times on this talk page before. At the same time, I've recently had to remove the name of a police dog that died, but that was no use, because it was re-added together with its exact breed.

I find this... silly, and borderline offensive. Can we do away with it please? LjL (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included. As much as I love dogs, they shouldn't get more recognition than humans. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I have reverted and let's hope it doesn't come back or else we might need to look at other options. Jolly Ω Janner 00:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This again, eh? Seriously though, barring substantial coverage, a dead dog's name is just as important as a dead human's. Some dead dogs really are honoured. But they're not inherently special, one way or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be more appropriate when this becomes a spin out article. But the dog is definitely significant to today's action. (#JeSuisChien for example) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
And probably meets GNG - though BLP1E may apply to dogs too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
Today's action itself is barely notable and I doubt it should deserve a spin-out article, nevermind the dog. LjL (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
List of police dogs killed in the line of duty 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This article doesn't exist, however there are some lists of dogs around. They almost all contain dogs with their own articles. Jolly Ω Janner 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: List of New Zealand police officers killed in the line of duty lists 46 humans by name and circumstances for each and mentions "In addition to the human officers, 23 police dogs have died in the line of duty; notably the drowning of Enzo in 2007, and Gage, a six-year-old German Shepherd, in 2010." List of individual dogs#Police dogs has two dogs both of which have their own articles though I'm surprised that list did not include the fictional Inky (police dog). --Marc Kupper|talk 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
McGruff the Crime Dog is also conspicuous by his absence. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In this case, I agree that there is no valid reason to include information about the breed and name of the dog in November 2015 Paris attacks. There are so many people who died; we cannot name all of them, but we name those who are significant to the history of what has happened. Perhaps a magazine for dog owners might want to discuss the dog in detail ... or even the Wikipedia article about that breed of dog. But I don't feel it belongs in this article. Peter K Burian 00:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

Please change: "The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II"

Change to: "The attacks were the deadliest in France since the Paris massacre of 1961"

The article purports that the 11/13/2015 attacks were the deadliest incidence of mass murder/violence/terrorism on french soil since WWII. This is incorrect, on 10/17/1961 upwards of 200 unarmed Algerian civil rights demonstrators were shot, drowned, and beaten to death by police and security forces during a march protesting discriminatory curfews placed on muslims. It was an incident understood as political violence, state terrorism, and mass murder. Accounts of lesser death tolls (as low as 5 immediately following the incident, rising to 40) were due to state suppression and media complicity in the massacre; the figure of 200-250 is widely acknowledged contemporarily.

This egregious inaccuracy is highly relevant to the article in question and damaging the to readers' understanding as it directly relates to the issues of media bias, state terrorism, political violence, and islamophobia that have all been the focus of conversations following the 11/13/2015 attacks.

It is disheartening to see wikipedia as a forum for disinformation discounting and devaluing the lives of Arabs/Muslims, I very much hope this is a result of simple human error. Wikipedia is a source for knowledge not opinion, please correct this immediately. I have linked multiple reputable sources below including the corresponding wikipedia article.

Thank you.

Kknyoike (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. None of the sources you provide seem to actually state that the present attacks were the deadliest terrorist attacks in France since 1961; they just talk about the latter and say they were pretty deadly (but the number of victims is unknown, and our article gives the lowest estimate as 40, even though the highest is 200+), but would it not be original research to claim they were terrorist attacks in the first place? Our article never speaks of them as state terrorism. LjL (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with LjL. None of the sources directly connect the 1961 attacks as being deadlier than the 2015 attacks, so it is not added for now. epic genius (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We're not required to repeat errors perpetrated by others. I've added a foot note (feel free to edit that in the normal manner), rather than making the requested change, but this needs to be mentioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOR? Sources have to be "directly related to the topic of the article". Firebrace (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, find a source that doesn't "repeat this error", and we can include it. Otherwise, we can't fix alleged errors through our own original research. LjL (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur with opposition to the efn per LjL. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Also acquiesce with the two editors above. Not only is this unsourced, but this is also dubious. epic genius (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've changed 'in France' to 'on France' to clarify that they were the deadliest attacks from outside France since WWII. Although the attackers were French, the attacks were planned and coordinated by ISIL from their base in Syria. Firebrace (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Were they? Do we have a source? That's a particuarly interesting bit of information, because it's often claimed that attacks such as these are "inspired" by organizations such as ISIL or Al-Qaeda, but without any serious involvement. LjL (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
"The attacks [...] were "an act of war committed by Daesh that was prepared, organized and planned from outside (of France)" with help from inside France, Hollande said, using the Arabic acronym for Islamic State." [7] Firebrace (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Eh, that's just what Hollande said immediately after the attack. How could he already have the intelligence to say that with certainty? Or at least, with enough certainty for our standards? He's a politician, not a reliable source. He can only be relied upon about the fact he said something, not its veracity. LjL (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think he said that after ISIL had claimed responsibility for the attack. [8] Firebrace (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course this is sourced; not only in this article, but also in our article on the events of 1961. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No, WP:NOR doesn't require us to repeat errors perpetrated by others, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Our article says "the attacks were the deadliest on France" (with reliable sources to that effect), not in France; as the massacre of 1961 originated from inside the country, it was not an attack on France. It is unfortunate that I'm explaining this to an editor with more than 155,000 edits under his belt. Firebrace (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
originated from inside the country More to the point, it was an attack by the French National Police. They presumably represent France, so they cannot carry out an attack on France. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:LEAD - Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. We're violating that, in my opinion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The lead shouldn't be littered with citations, either, which should instead mostly appear in the article body. I think for now we can safely overlook these aspects, as the article is still in a state of flux. Better concentrate on whether or not we should mention things in the first place, than on whether the position we're placing them at is violating anything... LjL (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For the second time, a footnote about the 1961 incident has been removed. It's very PoV to exclude it; doubly so to make changes to the article's wording to justify doing so. I object most strongly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the change from "in" to "on" was made to justify that removal; rather, that that wording just makes more sense than comparing a police attack to a terrorist attack. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. No one is saying the 1961 incident wasn't despicable, but comparing it to an outside terrorist attack is captious. LjL (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Counter terrorist operations

There is enough events and informations online for a specific section to grow. Such content currently goes to the #Search_for_further_attackers section. Thanks Yug (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(Suspected) perpetrators: affiliates?

I would like to bring attention to this edit (which is, in turn, a counter-revert of a previous edit). I don't yet have a particularly strong opinion about whether we should still consider the perpetrators "suspected", and whether it's important to indicate that they are ISIL "affiliates" as opposed to ISIL itself; however, that edit summary worries me as a possible admission of flying in the face of consensus, which should, instead, be built here, and not by ultimatums like "do not revert".

What do you think the article should say? LjL (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, any "do not revert" command should be automatically reverted, just out of principle. Undecided as to the rest. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Safar?

The article says:

The Paris attacks happened on the first day of the Islamic lunar month of Safar. Since the Islamic lunar calendar year is 11 to 12 days shorter than the solar year, Safar migrates through the seasons.

There's no apparent reason for mentioning this, and as such it appears to be totally irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And it was unsourced. I removed it. It can be readded with a source that posits a link to the attacks. LjL (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if it were sourced, that relevance would need to be proven. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
If a WP:RS makes a conjecture, we can report on the conjecture. Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUE. The article has contained a number of things that weren't definitely proven. LjL (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It was sourced to the New York Post, originally (diff). The section has been removed more than once, including by me a couple of days ago. It was restored, along with the accompanying bit about ISIS' use of the word "ghazwa". The article currently claims that this word means "religious raid", for some reason. It is now sourced to a Washington Post editorial, "4 ways ISIS grounds its actions in religion, and why it should matter (COMMENTARY)", which contains various other speculations. It is unclear why this particular bit has been selected as "Background", in any case. zzz (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The attacks were on the unlucky Friday the 13th too. Not important. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction has inaccuracy

The introduction states that the attacks in Paris were "the deadliest in Europe since the Madrid train bombings in 2004." Unfortunately the New York Times is wrong on that point - the 386 people killed in Beslan, Russia (in Europe) by Islamic extremist terror, half of which were children, was the deadliest attack in Europe since 2001. It was also after the Madrid train bombing.[1][2]Something1962 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)something1962

Relevant articles: Beslan school siege, 2004 Madrid train bombings. General Ization Talk 16:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This may be why the article used to state "in the European Union", despite the source claiming differently... But then, some people object to the EU being treated as a thing in this regard. LjL (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it back to EU. Firebrace (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-video-of-beslan-school-terror/
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/arts/television/the-horror-of-beslan-through-its-youngest-survivors.html

Social Media claims - 72 hours prior to attacks

At the end of the background section, it is stated that ...

"ISIL social media outlets shared images of weapons, the Eiffel Tower and blessings to the perpetrators 72 hours prior to the attacks.[50]"

The link goes to a website which in turn mentions a report on Fox News. There is no link in that article to the original Fox News claim. Accordingly, this claim should be removed as it is non-verifiable. Please let me have your thoughts. Unless someone indicates a reason to keep this line, I shall remove it 24 hours from now. Leor klier (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Times for the First and Second Explosions

The French article lists multiple sources (conflicting) with regards to the bombings.

  • 1st = 21:17 or 21:20
  • 2nd = 21:19 or 21:21 or 21:30

From previously on the talk page, hadn't we decided the second was at 21:19? Bod (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Reliable sources report various times. In my view the most authoritative sources say 21:20 for the first explosion and 21:17 is probably correct. I think the issue is should the article discuss this? I tend to think it's not that important for almost all readers. If anyone changes the times they should go through the entire article making sure each changed time is being reported in the reference supporting it. Thincat (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

not ISIL its ISIS 69.92.89.27 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant abbreviates to ISIL. ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all in common use; the most important factor here is consistency, and this article consistently tries to use ISIL. LjL ( talk) 16:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We try to use ISIL Wikipedia wide as per a few votes held and to match the group name we selected from its' many names. It does not always happen but regular editors mostly use ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Victim numbers

@AllSportsfan16 and Firebrace: please stop edit warring with one another over the amount of dead people. Can't we let the sources converge? It can be presumed that both sources may be partly mistaken by defect, i.e. some victims are not accounted for. So, the bigger numbers could be used for each country. Using the smaller number makes no sense. The CNN source lists names, but that should be a matter of WP:CALC and I don't personally see a problem adding that up to numbers. LjL (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh, this requires too much effort. Firebrace (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not in Category:Crime in Paris

Why not in Category:Crime in Paris Category:Crime in Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.21 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it's already in "Terrorist incidents in Paris", which is a child category of the one you mentioned. LjL (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Repetition

@Peter K Burian: the talk page is the best place to ask questions like that, instead of placing "HELP" in the edit summary ;-) Anyway, I think the two paragraphs are acceptably different: they both start by saying there was a raid, which makes them look a bit like a repetition, but then the one under "Perpetrators" focuses on who was arrested/killed (the supposed perpetrators), while the one under "Search" focuses on the raid itself and the police casualties. I suppose one of them could be changed so it refers to the previous one instead of looking like two different people wrote independent paragraphs (on Wikipedia?! no!), though. LjL (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this issue, LjL. Not sure I agree that a discussion of a raid that had been done earlier is relevant in a section about searching for other terrorists, but I'll leave that decision to you. (And thanks for the reminder about the Talk page.) Peter K Burian 16:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think the raid is relevant to the "Search" and investigations sections. What else would be relevant, if not that sort of thing? On the other hand, the "Perpetrators" section could potentially just list the known perpetrators without giving context as to how they were identified, but I see no particular harm in describing it a little. LjL (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Bombmaker

I notice the article contains no mention of the supposed bombmaker who was said to have turned himself in. Was this more misinformation/mistaken identity? Rmhermen (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

His name only seems to appear in the tabloids of Google News. Not proof that it's untrue, but possibly why it's not in the article. Can't cite those. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well there seem to be several articles about this but someone would need to determine whether the reports are adequately credible. https://www.google.ca/#q=Paris+attacks+bomb+maker+surrendered+Mohammed+Khoualed%2C+++from+Roubaix+ Peter K Burian 20:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The closest thing I see to a reliable source there is The Telegraph, and despite the SEO, it doesn't actually mention a bombmaker. Just lawmakers. The whole idea that he turned himself in seems to come from one local France 3 affiliate. I have no idea who runs it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[9] is the best source I can find in English. Need to look for French sources. Most of the other hits at UK tabloids. Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone here afford to read what that paper says? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The attacks/ The attackers

Can we please not use the phrase, "the attacks killed X number of people"? You are distancing the perpetrators from their actions. Better to say that the attackers/militants/terrorists killed ______. Bod (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The name of the article is November 2015 Paris attacks, so should be the subject of discussion unless other reasons prevail (see my last point). What you're suggesting might be better suited on articles about the perpetrators or this article's own section on them. Jolly Ω Janner 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Images of public buildings lit up in red white and blue

I wouldn't want this article to become as bad as the Reactions one. Can we agree that one image is enough to illustrate the fact that some public buildings were lit up in red white and blue after this event? There is a terrible literalism in some volunteers here that leads us from mentioning this, to listing every single one, to showing a picture of every single one. We have the other article to function as a holding tank for guff like this so we can keep this one as a serious encyclopedia article, and that has been working well. Let's keep it that way. --John (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I was going to suggest we don't need any images at all but after looking at the section I think the one image (and the section itself) are OK. So I agree with you. The Rio photograph was telling in that it is from a distant and different culture but I think the strongly Christian imagery is unfortunate. Do we have a picture of some sort of activity in a Muslim country? I've had a quick look but couldn't find anything. Thincat (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We now have a CC image of the Sydney Opera House in File:Sydney Opéra House (tricolore flag) 14 & 15 & 16 November 2015.jpg, which is a) very striking, and b) not Christian, but rather c) a potential symbol of culture and civilisation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the reactions article is beyond saving at this point. I only just noticed that the image used in the top right is my only awfully blurred camera picture. I agree that we should have a sentence explaining the buildings being lit up. As it currently stands, we have a photo of the Sydney Opera House and no prose to explain it. It could be taken the wrong way and suggest that only the Sydney Opera House did this. Also, the Sydney Opera House is probably the best photo we have. It's one of the most recognisable and is of good quality. The Brandenburg gate and Statue of Christ in Rio are not bad either. Jolly Ω Janner 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Please no statue of Christ, there is enough religion in this - we certainly don't want to imply this is Islam against Christianity. LjL (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. Jolly Ω Janner 23:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks/Archive_3&oldid=1140214486"