Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Section on Muslim response is unnecessary

Some Muslim reactions were on Twitter, so they can be characterized as "Popular reactions". Other reactions come from countries, and they should be listed alongside those countries.

Rather, I think there should be a section on "religious response", especially since there's been a response from Pope Francis (who is a global religious leader).VR _talk 16:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the section, it doesn't seem accurate to me that most of the reactions "come from countries", unless you mean that they originated in a country, which is true for pretty much anything outside of Antarctica, international waters and space. At the same time, changing the section header into "Religious response" might be a good idea, as more inclusive and less POV-specific. LjL (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There are responses form Muslim groups. These are not necessarily religious responses. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC).

They are certainly "religion-related". Do you have a better term? "Responses from religious groups"? LjL (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this attack was perpetrated by Islamic extremists trying to hijack a religion and start a Holy War, I believe this is a valid section. The reaction of Muslim groups is notable by the dedicated press coverage. Plus besides the Pope, there is no other religious response. It's not like Shinto or Amish groups are issuing statements. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Мандичка's viewpoint, I think that the section is relevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's also supposed to be a section dedicated to the reactions regarding their religion as a whole. The section should stay. Kiwifist (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

List of cities that stood in solidarity with paris

The following section was deleted by Sitush in their cleanup of the article:

Following the attacks, multiple landmark structures around the world were lit in the colours of the French flag, including the spire of One World Trade Center in New York City, the London Eye and Tower Bridge in London, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus in Mumbai (one of the targets of the 2008 Mumbai attacks), the CN Tower in Toronto, the Sky Tower in Auckland, the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, the Sydney Opera House in Sydney, the Space Needle and CenturyLink Field in Seattle, Presidential Administration of Georgia, Tbilisi City Assembly and The Bridge of Peace in Tbilisi, the Ángel de la Independencia in Mexico City, the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai, the Kuala Lumpur Tower, the Wembley Stadium arch in London, Petřín Lookout Tower in Prague, Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw, Matenadaran in Yerevan, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Zagreb, National Music Academy in Kiev, the Acropolis of Athens, the Peristeri City Hall, the Tower of Belém in Lisbon, the Castle of the Moors, the Sintra City Hall and the Rivoli Theatre in Porto, Portugal, the city hall in Tel Aviv, the Old City walls and the Knesset in Jerusalem, the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro, Belfast City Hall,, the Torre Colpatria in Bogotá, the Brussels Town Hall, Ghelamco Arena the Arctic Cathedral in Tromsø, Telenor Arena in Bærum, the Bratislava Castle in Bratislava, Three Crosses in Vilnius and the Ostankino Tower in Moscow. In Montreal, a sister city of Paris and the second-largest French-speaking city in the world, numerous buildings and landmarks were illuminated including the Olympic Stadium, city hall, the former Saint-Jacques Cathedral building of the Université du Québec à Montréal, the Grande Bibliothèque, the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal and Place Émilie-Gamelin., and the High Roller ferris wheel in Las Vegas, Nevada, next to the Paris Las Vegas Casino that had dimmed the lights on their Eiffel Tower replica to honor victims.

References

I think some of these mentions, however, may be marginally useful to the reader. Maybe this can be summarized in a shorter way? epic genius (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Weight becomes the problem. We'll get people from every damn country wanting to include their nation's tribute(s) - seen it happen somewhere before, and similar things happen repeatedly at caste articles. It is simpler to make the broad-brush statement and link to a source that gives some examples and won't rot any time soon. That's why I added the BBC source that I linked somewhere above a few hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We can mention a few of these, though. I think these sources[1][2] describe a few of the most prominent lightings. epic genius (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I say let's mention that it did happen in very many cities, without giving any names; leave that to the sources, and it's pretty obvious that it happened in most major world cities even if you don't name them (which invariably causes much-less-major ones to be added). LjL (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BBC source that is already in the article mentions a few. Sorry, but I do not understand your "though". I thought I'd already explained that as soon as we start mentioning some, we open the floodgates. The same, indeed, applies with the list of cities which, for example, got really silly at articles such as India Against Corruption. The need to give examples escapes me. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets mention those buildings which were mentioned by the BBC and then create and SHOW/HIDE list of every single city/country. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'd just like to say that after all the editing and pruning and removing and arguing, this article now does not have any reference to the fact that many landmarks and cities around the world lit up with the French tricolour at all. I think that this is a pretty important part of an international reactions article. I'm not going to add it back in because everyone seems to prefer to be arguing than do anything else, so I'm just raising it here. Ps, I agree with Itsyoungrapper. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  22:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should implement LjL's idea with the prose, then have a collapsible list as well per Itsyoungrapper. epic genius (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content" MOS:SCROLL LjL (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Could someone re-add at least some of the prominent buildings and images removed without consensus by Sitush AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Added section back in, see International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Landmarks_lit_with_Tricolour  Seagull123  Φ  22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is better but you didn't have consensus. I'm doped on morphine so I will leave it for now, safe in the knowledge that the clued-up will eventually get their point proven. Fed up of the cluelessness that AGF insists we accept. And fed up of the snide accusations of Auslondonder - one more of those and I'll see them at ANI. Dimwit. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't have consensus to remove. Not sure what snideness you are referring to. But please do file a case at Ani. Make sure you add repeatedly calling me a "dimwit" reverting my edits sourced to the German equivalent of the BBC with the edit summary of "stop being a twat" and writing on my talkpage without warning "don't be fucking stupid" AusLondonder (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "repeatedly" done any of those things. Perhaps we have a problem with the English language here? That would explain a lot. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: you aren't doing yourself a favor here. You have just been redacted by an administrator. Take a deep breath and read WP:NPA... LjL (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about admins right now. Particularly not ones who fail to recognise that I am reacting to numerous "civil" PAs and insinuations made here in the last few hours. Admins are not gods. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't all of this just be summarized in a sentence or two someplace? All of those footnotes lumped together like that doesn't look very appealing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm seeing some serious POV here. Why hasn't anyone added that Montgomery, Alabama, lit up the fountain on Court Square in the French colors? Isn't that a prominent edifice? Or do cities in the Southern US simply don't count? Here, it's verified. And verified, and verified again. If we're going to include things we're going to have to include all things. And please do not forget to include our flag, . Drmies (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: That's a good point. Maybe we should only add really major icons, like those in NYC (bias), London, Sydney, Rio (i.e. those covered by the major sources like Time and Newsweek). epic genius (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure. But if it's covered by Time and Newsweek one leaves out all those places not covered by Time or Newsweek, and every single list you come up with, except a complete list, is open to the charge of selection. Pick only the notable ones. How does one define notable? Well, it's notable if it has a Wikipedia article, so I just wrote Court Square Fountain. I'm sure you see the problem--I'm not sure others do. The long and short of it is that this is not encyclopedic writing; it's simply compiling facts. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I get what you are trying to say—WP:INDISCRIMINATE. So I am suggesting that we summarize it all in one sentence or two: "Following the attacks, multiple landmark structures around the world were lit in the colours of the French flag." That can have the Time/Newsweek/etc. sources. If anyone wants to know which cities, they can go to the sources. epic genius (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I know you do, Epic genius. I'm also agreeing with Sitush's edit, of course. BTW, Court Square Fountain is now up at DYK; feel free to review and send it on its way. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Fortunately, I, too, had a DYK nomination, so a QPQ opened up for me. Yay. epic genius (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me note that, spawned from the re-added short list of major places, now there is a long list of landmarks (bulleted, even!) again. I'm almost tempted to boldly remove the whole thing again myself this time. LjL (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don;t want to remove the mention altogether, but we should just remove all the names of all the landmarks. epic genius (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, @Epicgenius:, but my specific point is that if we mention any particular landmark, then a ton of others will be added back again: this is proven by the fact that it just did happen, after they were heavily pruned the first time. So we should mention the general fact that many landmarks were lit, without naming any. LjL (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Yeah, we should really remove the landmarks list. epic genius (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoopee. What did I tell you would happen? - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Letter from Damascus

I propose to include a short mention of a letter from residents of Damascus in Syria expressing solidarity with residents of Paris. Amongst many of the less poignant reactions (such as American TV shows) this is surely a notable reaction. The source is here, Deutsche Welle. I had inserted this prior but was reverted by another editor who stated "stop being a twat and find a reliable source - this one is useless" I propose text such as: A number of residents of the Syrian city of Damascus, caught in fierce fighting between the Syrian government, ISIS and Western air strikes wrote an open letter stating, "We extend our hands to all the people that love peace and freedom, most of all the French people" AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support inclusion (I deleted some American TV show-related reactions, by the way, as absolutely not notable). LjL (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, User:LjL - glad to see we agree on something! AusLondonder (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is notable. epic genius (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed it again before seeing the above. The problem is, the source doesn't actually make any sense. This sort of thing usually comes via a mayor's office or some similar representative body. That the source (which seems pretty poor anyway( ascribes it to the residents of the place is crap journalism. Did each resident write one letter in the document or what? Were the residents even consulted by whoever actually wrote it? It is maudlin BS at present, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

... and I see you removed it again. How about you wait for consensus to change to your side due to your argument above, instead of single-handedly going against the opinion the other editors have expressed on this talk page? LjL (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm, I apologised. Did you not read my opening sentence? I am on and off here today. However, I'll add something else: I've now found out that my local council has expressed the usual sentiments, as per Damascus. If Damascus is to go in then should I add my town also? Where does this end? In this specific regard, it is exactly the same problem as the illuminated buildings. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, it looks like I will be adding my local council's reaction etc. The standard of writing and selection in this article is absolutely appalling. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk about chilling effects! Help please

Any issues to do with the scope and implementation of editing restrictions need to be dealt with at some other forum because they apply to a range of articles and not just this one. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pinging in particular @Fuzheado and John: I just got an 1RR warning from User:Volunteer Marek "blackmailing" me to revert an edit, which I assume is this one, where I had actually restored sourced content that he had just deleted (I did it without deleting his own content, so a very partial revert if there ever was any). Consensus is against him on the matter, as innumerable talk page sections, both here and at November 2015 Paris attacks, keep showing (see this section which links to more) - but he keeps creating more, and beating the dead horse. Of course, I consider a 1RR threat entirely spurious on this article, which is about international reactions and not even at all about ISIL (the topic with sanctions that we had previously debated on), and which does not currently even have a sanctions template on its talk page (because obviously no one but someone clearly acting maliciously - no, enough WP:AGF from me at this point - thought to apply it). I am going to self-revert as "kindly asked", but I'm not caving in to this blatant blackmail. There is a motion to give these silly sanctions a break (you can have your say there by the way! few people are participating, seemingly only those already familiar with administrator noticeboards) where I was repeatedly reassured that they would be applied with common sense only (I was assured of the same in other places too), and even User:Volunteer Marek countered that there can't be chilling effects, and yet, he's most certainly causing them right now. @RGloucester: you too, you wanted there to be no ill feelings? Then please oppose this nonsensical attempt to enforce rules in the face of any WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:CONSENSUS on the specific issue. LjL (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC) @Sitush: thank you for undoing my forced self-revert, although it was undone by yet another user who thought they had to have a say in this, even though, as I explained to them, they don't seem to understand the concept of "status quo" that they described. LjL (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Look. You really need to cut it out with the personal attacks and hyperbolic rhetoric. 1. I am not "blackmailing" you. This is a personal attack. All I did was WARN you that you broke 1RR on this article, in contravention of the 1RR restriction. I *could* have REPORTED you, instead I tried to be nice about it. Apparently, my thanks for that is you posting these personal attacks to the article talk page. 2. Your "ping"ing other users who have also complained about the 1RR restriction is a blatant attempt at WP:CANVASSing. You're trying to rally the troops to win your battles, which is also a blatant display of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. 3. There is no well established consensus. You are only claiming there is. Big difference. 4. To claim that this article "is about international reactions and not even at all about ISIL" is patently absurd. The fact that you even make that claim illustrates that you are willing to engage in any kind of rhetoric just to win an argument, rather than that you are interested in improving the article. 5. Whether the talk page has the 1RR warning template or not is irrelevant. The 1RR warning template is a courtesy, not a necessity. You can get blocked for 1RR even without the template. As you well know. In fact, you know ALL of this since you are the one who just filed a motion to remove the 1RR restriction from these articles. I simply cannot understand how you can pretend that you are not aware of the 1RR restriction after you've already filed a motion to remove the 1RR restriction! WP:GAME? 6. All I'm asking is for you to abide by rules which apply to everyone else. You seem to think that you are somehow exempt from them because... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...? Not clear on that exactly.  Volunteer Marek  22:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Length

The article is becoming really silly now. It currently stands at 134,000 characters and is likely to rise as rather more pertinent reactions than mere quotes begin to surface (eg: restrictions on immigration etc). I am already having occasional trouble loading it, which is most evident in the slow population of the flag icons. We're going to have to take a knife to this before much more time passes. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My preference still leans towards "packing together" all the comments that are effectively the same; so, something like Most heads of state expressed their condolences; X, Y, and Z said that France has a right to wage war against ISIL; but A, B and C actually said that ISIL had good reasons to inflict this attack on France. In particular, the president of Foo's statement stood out for claiming "France smells like brie", and the prime minister of Bar distanced himself from other Euranian statements. LjL (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you both. The article suffers from the common problem of articles like this which is the need to be comprehensive, to list and quote every single statement of condolence, to show a picture of every single pile of bouquets, to have fifteen pictures of skyscrapers with red-white-and-blue stripes projected on them. The time is approaching for the big trim where this starts to look more like an encyclopedia article. One place to start would be to remove anything sourced only to Twitter and other social media. Anything that is only sourced to self-facilitating media nodes inherently does not belong here. --John (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I am actually astounded at the cheek of John and Sitush. No consensus exists to do this, as the rejected deletion nominations for several similar articles prove. AusLondonder (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11 attacks, in the exact same style as this, has just been kept. AusLondonder (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Reaction to a reaction

@AusLondonder: I agree there isn't really a need to specify what the Republican thought of Sanders' comments, but in this edit, I believe you also removed the entire source for the entire claim. Could you please re-add it? (I appear to be under watch for 1RR breaches, you know). LjL (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that User:LjL, I have re-added the source. AusLondonder (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Poland's response

Re [3]

How about we stop being ridiculous and stop making this page - which is about the November attacks in PARIS - about Polish politics? Starting with the Szymanski quote all the way through this whole thing violates WP:UNDUE. We have a dedicated article for the reactions and these kinds of details belong there if anywhere. Not here. Volunteer Marek  16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm, this is the Reactions article. I'm confused. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: and as well you might be. This is an old diatribe, and you might want to check the archives of Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks to understand what's going on. Volunteer Marek has repeatedly tried to remove the response by Polish government officials from both articles against consensus to keep them, a consensus that could be found in more than one talk page section. He claims that the fact that it's not "official" but just stated by "one politician" (except that one politician was a minister of the government, and now the actual prime minister) makes it not suitable for inclusion, and that it's parochial to include Polish politics like this. Virtually everyone else disagreed, but there you have it. Volunteer Marek also repeatedly accused me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude (didn't help that I reported him for 3RR beach about this, I guess), but he appears to be so blinded by his POV that he can't even tell one article from the other. LjL (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making stuff up. Your "repeatedly tried to remove" involves me removing it a couple of times. No, "virtually" not everyone disagreed. Yes, you do have a BATTLEGROUND attitude. Your 3RR report was a revenge tactic for me having warned you to stop reverting people like crazy on this article. Volunteer Marek  01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ay, sorry, I did get confused. The same issue was present on the original article. My apologies. I stand by the view that this material does not belong in the main article.

LjL, you reported me for 3RR in a pre-preemptive revenge move after I warned you about edit warring, after you've been involved in four different edit wars in 24 hours. Your report got closed with no action.

And please keep your personal attacks out of it. Volunteer Marek  17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The report was closed as "stale". It wasn't preemptive, as in fact you had "warned" me as a reaction to me warning you. You might want to check your previous posts for personal attacks yourself. LjL (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I recall there was overwhelming consensus to include this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make stuff up. There was no "overwhelming consensus" (really? overwhelming? No) to include this. Maybe your recollection is erroneous. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No stuff being made up. There was consensus, and there still is, aside from you. You keep opening new sections about this as if you had never read WP:DROPTHESTICK before. End it. LjL (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I have opened ONE new section about it here. It's worth discussing, particularly since somebody's 1) removing well sourced content that they don't like and 2) there was no clear consensus, whatever your claims about it before, 3) this is an ongoing recent event so any kind of "consensus" about one thing really is irrelevant, 4) you continue to address the main issue at hand, which is WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek  01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There must be something I am not understanding here. The comments appear to have been made by a senior government member in some sort of official capacity, even if (?) later rescinded. That is the very definition of a notable reaction, surely? - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This was already discussed in main article about the attacks

[4] There were 4 editors supporting inclusion of this information, 1 editor against(VM).

• After attempts to remove this information by VM, second discussion was opened up

[5] 4 editors were in support of this information being included, 1 against(VM).

• Finally we had discussion here after reactions were moved to separate article

[6] 5 editors were supporting this information, 2 against(VM included).

There is no consensus to remove this information, there is one to include it. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: I have a headache, and I think if I go click on the links for the various sections and try to count editors again my head will explode. Are you able to tell us how many editors in total were in favor of keeping it (I assume only 2 were against, VM and that other one)? LjL (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, and doubtless teaching you all to suck eggs, WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote. That said, without actually having paid much attention to the sources etc regarding this issue, it certainly seems like a reaction to me and to be one by someone worth noting. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but I wouldn't say numbers don't matter either. When this keeps being brought up by the same editor, and we keep needing to rehash old and archived talk page section, at some point it needs to be shown a clear majority of editors is in agreement. LjL (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes if the majority are policy-compliant. In that situation, the objector would be in IDHT mode if they were repeatedly and regularly trying to rehash the issue. I really haven't looked deep enough into this specific issue to make my mind up but AGF'ing that others have checked the sources etc, inclusion here seems fine to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes if the majority are policy-compliant. In that situation, the objector would be in IDHT mode if they were repeatedly and regularly trying to rehash the issue. I really haven't looked deep enough into this specific issue to make my mind up but AGF'ing that others have checked the sources etc, inclusion here seems fine to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush and MyMoloboaccount: I've now actually tried to make a full count with the relevant statements at the bottom of this talk page. See also what I replied to Volunteer Marek below for context. LjL (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, MyMolobboaccount, EVEN IF you guys were right about previous consensus - which you're not, you're making shit up - my last edition concerned an official statement made by the Polish PM AFTER that discussion took place. In my original objection I pointed out that Szymanski's statement was just one politician blowing smoke without any kind of hard substance, and hence didn't belong in a Wikipedia article, since encyclopedias are not in the business of spreading gossip. You two (not consensus, you two) objected and edit warred (breaking 1RR, or even 3RR) to get that material back in. As it turned out, I was right and a day or two later the Polish PM explicitly stated that Poland was still committed to observing the agreement it had made. I added that part in. Then MyMoloboaccount came in, removed that information and replaced it with some off handed comment the PM made in an online chat.

Now, does that look legit to you? Does that look like you can really claim "consensus"?

For funky's sake. Even if you guys did have "consensus" (you didn't) to include Szymanski's statement at the time he made it, because this is an article on a developing event, the situation has changed and there's no "consensus" now. Szymanski said X. You guys pretended to have consensus and edit warred to have X in the article. Then a few days later the Polish Prime Minister said "well, not X, Y". I put Y in since that's more up to date. MyMoloboaccount shows up and removes it. I undo. LjL jumps in to edit war just because. And then you claim consensus for that too. Please stop being ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  01:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying including so many details about Poland's response - which isn't even a response to the attacks but rather statements about Syrian refugees made after the attacks - is WP:UNDUE. Rather than making personal attacks, I would very much appreciate it if you addressed the question. Why is it not UNDUE? Volunteer Marek  01:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We can include what they said in succession. The fact someone has said something later doesn't negate them, or someone else, having said something earlier. If there was consensus to include that - and there was, as I just showed (see above) - then there still is consensus. But instead, you recently removed some of those statements to replace them with your preferred ones; and when I restored the ones with consensus (without deleting yours), you asked me to self-revert or I'd face 1RR sanctions. It was all pretty inappropriate, really. LjL (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to do that, how about just starting a dedicated page of Polish reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks?  Volunteer Marek  01:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that won't be needed, but if we're going to report the statements you find important and not the others... do you know who the author of the following quote is? All I want there is for the issue to be presented in a reasonable and appropriate manner. That means that editors shouldn't cherry pick the statements they like and remove and ignore sourced statements which don't fit their POV. LjL (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Reason for overlink template

@ToonLucas22: I know that the template doesn't technically have a "reason" parameter, but why does that matter? Using such a parameter is a pretty standard way to explain why a template is there, which is generally useful, and doesn't break anything. People looking at the wikitext can read it and know what it's about. Originally, I had also included a "discuss" parameter with a link to the relevant section on this talk page. Now, instead, you and conceivably other people were at a loss as to the reasons the template was put there. It's not my fault if those parameters aren't explicitly supported by that particular template, is it? LjL (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Should've probably posted that at my talk page. Anyways, I wasn't aware of the discussion. Oops. --TL22 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm posting objections about reverts and other edits to this article here, even if it might seem too verbose, as I'm trying to avoid actually reverting myself, given there are certain editors on this article and on November 2015 Paris attacks who are intent on enforcing 1RR sanctions. LjL (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkish fans' boo

In the article it mentions that at before the match between Turkey and Greece, during the one-min silence, the Turkish fans booed and chanted "Allahu Akbar", and it provided 11 links (astonishing). But Turkish netizens disputed that they were not chanting "Allahu Akbar", instead, they were chanting "Sehitler olmez, vatan bolunmez" (Martyrs never die, the nation won't be divided), a common slogan. Also, it is said that in Turkey, it is rare for any one minute of silence not to be disrupted by that slogan. Here is one link; here is a clear video from the stand. I do not know Turkish, but I can see that they were booing and clearly they were not chanting "Allahu Akbar". I highly doubt the English media such as Daily Mail. None of the links provided is tangibly reliable. Sofeshue (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You posted a video from a month ago, not to the event in discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That video was quoted from the reddit link I provided. I misread the message and thought it was from the scene... Sofeshue (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes people WP:BOMBARD very dubious assertions with (very dubious) citations. I hope there is a more reliable source disproving this. LjL (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read that Turks have different symbols of mourning, according to some sources they sing a song or something like that. Also they were angry because none of soccer teams after Turkish terrorist attacks paid tribute (unconfirmed news). Itsyoungrapper (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Reuters is reporting that the fans booed. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As is USA Today Sports, with video. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Huriyet confirms it: "During the subsequent moment of silence, supporters also whistled their disapproval while a section of the crowed also reportedly shouted “Allah-u Akbar” and “Martyrs don’t die, the homeland will not be divided” – a common nationalist slogan." Gre regiment (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This should be added to the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I won't object. Hürriyet seems more than reliable enough for this. To put things in perspective, though, perhaps "One month ago, Turkish supporters in the Central Anatolian province of Konya also booed a minute of silence for the victims of the Oct. 10 Ankara Massacre, in which 100 peace activists were killed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" should be mentioned. LjL (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We could mention this, but it has more to do with 2015 Ankara bombings and the conflicts (2015 PKK rebellion) between PKK and Turkey, than with the Paris attacks. Gre regiment (talk), 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think if we're mentioning that Turkish hooligans booed an international recent terrorist attack mourning, we should mention that they had just done the same even with a domestic one. LjL (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support mentioning and I've added it (after it was removed due to being in the "wrong place" and unreliably sourced) using Hürriyet as the source. LjL (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, Hürriyet article claims based on reports of "Allahu Akbar", not anything recorded. Like most of the news articles mentioned above, they are based on one source, this Reuters reporter. Apparently Reuters don't trust her so much, even they ignored her twitter posts. Nonetheless, If you want to include this to article, you should include counter argument as well. Which is, this wasn't disrespect againt victims of Paris attacks but, news agencies continously ignoring Turkish losts in Ankara and Suruç [1]. [2]. Another counter argument to this, even if there were people in that stadium that were chanting "Allahu Akbar", numbers were insignificant, current mention in this article only mentions people that are chanting "Allahu Akbar". Majority of them were chanting "Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez" (Martyrs don't die, nation don't separate). That would make this edit a nitpick. Why they were chanting "Martyrs don't die, nation don't separate" is out of scope of this article. --Bluetogreens (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be a lot of WP:OR to add. I've summarized what Hürriyet says, including that the same happened during the minute of silence for Ankara, and that "a section" of the crowd (not all) chanted. I didn't make an "argument", so I see no particular need to include a "counter-argument": I stated what reportedly happened. LjL (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of what I said was an observation of course. I wouldn't possibly want you to add all of them. But only the clear quote like "Turkish supporters are unhappy that a silence wan’t held for the 100 people killed during the Ankara terror attack in October when two bomb explosions were set off outside the Ankara Central railway station." should be included. And addition to that keep in your mind, only one Turkish source mentions "Allahu Akbar" chanting. Rest of them don't even mention anything remotely similar. Of course I am not counting foreign sources, seems to have only one source, which I mentioned above. And please watch and tell me where it is heard "Allahu Akbar". This whole thing going to blow your hand really bad. --Bluetogreens (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what's heard, as with many recordings like that, it's a mess for a layman to hear, especially one who doesn't speak Turkish or Arabic. Anyway, if the "Allahu Akbar" thing really is dubious, we can do without it, but the booing is pretty clear, no matter the background there might be to it. What's that quote from? Hürriyet actually says they also booed an Ankara minute of silence, so... LjL (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote was from metro.co.uk. It seems there are news reports concerning Iceland-Turkey football match which took place in Konya, mentions "Allahu Akbar" chanting, but that was a lot before Paris. In worst case it only proves there are people in Turkey that support ISIS. Which wasn't even open the discussion, it was already a known fact. Number of their supporters and how this is represented in this article is our issue. For your information, Turkish news already reporting "Allahu Akbar" chanting claims as a lie [1] --Bluetogreens (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Not only is that dubious currently, but this may not also be notable. Maybe there's another reason why they yelled "Allahu Akbar." Is it because they sarcastically also claim to like ISIS, when in fact they hate them with all their guts? That doesn't really matter, because it's a relatively minor incident. epic genius (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, this article is basically a collection of "relatively minor" reactions that weren't important enough to fit into November 2015 Paris attacks. Why should this one be singled out? Just because it doesn't appear to align with the rest? LjL (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Include Multiple RS refs, notable worldwide coverage. No policy-based reason for excluding. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@BernardZ: after reading all of the above, how exactly can you find it tenable to simply claim that "you can hear it in the video" that they shouted Allahu Akbar? Your hearing is not a source. The sound is definitely confused. The Turkish newspaper itself says "reports", they don't confirm it, even though I'm sure they have the ability to watch a video. I also note that you removed the above-discussed reference to Ankara bombings, citing the lack of a source, but the source I gave covered both things. You must have skipped that bit when you read it. Finally, YouTube is not generally considered a reliable source for pretty much anything, so no need to add it. LjL (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is silly, the source of the Youtube is clearly listed as http://www.sdna.gr/ which is a news channel which makes it okay. The screams of Allahu Akbar are clearly audible. I do not know where you get the idea that the sound is definitely confused. Maybe you need a hearing aid?

If you had kept up with the events, you would know that the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has in a speech condemned the boos and the cries of “allahu akbar” from Turkish fans at this soccer game. So he accepts that it happened.

Here are some other news reports of the incident.

http://soccerly.com/article/soccerly/turkey-to-take-action-after-fans-disrupt-paris-silence

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/20/erdogan-rebukes-fans-booing-greek-anthem-not-moment-of-silence-for-paris/

http://wwntradio.com/2015/11/21/turkey-soccer-fans-boo-chant-allahu-akbar-during-moment-of.html

http://billsinsider.com/2015/11/20/17177-turkish-football-fans-boo-during-minutes-silence-for-paris/

Also I did removed the above-discussed reference to Ankara bombings, but your source was I thought not good enough. I have no objection to you putting it back if you come up with a better source although I confess the relevance here is slight. I suggest putting it into the Ankara bombing article. BernardZ (talk)

Please keep your "get a hearing aid" snide remarks to yourself. I'm not replying to the rest as I'd be going over stuff I have already covered. LjL (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why you need one based on your comments, "my ear..." and you clearly did not know about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speech but you still felt a need to write about something you knew little about. Support for the ISIS in Turkey is about 8%

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ft_15-11-17_isis_views/

BernardZ (talk)

Your point? LjL (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelming that many of the Turks booed and yelled "Allahu Akbar" during the silence. BernardZ (talk)

Maybe, but a speech by the Turkish president and that support for ISIS is 8% have nothing to do with such evidence (and of course, neither do your personal snide remarks about me) LjL (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This is silly I gave many more references then that and the fact is that looking at information the Turkish president accepted that it did occur. Plus we have the youtube posted by a news channel really.. BernardZ (talk)

So now, after saying I need to get a hearing aid because I claim a Youtube video isn't an acceptable source, in this edit summary you call me an "apologist". Are you done with personal remarks? Please read WP:NPA. LjL (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

User:Ashton 29 linked a few well-known cities (after they had been repeatedly de-linked by others with WP:OVERLINK as rationale) calling it "ridiculous" that some cities were linked and others weren't, so I reverted pointing to policy, but my edit was undone by User:Castncoot who then went on to link even more cities, simply claiming that I "was misinterpreting" the policy.

The policy states: The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions. France should not normally be linked; the republic of Tuva should. This implies that very big or well-known cities should not be linked, while obscure ones should. I'm at a loss as to what I would have misinterpreting here. Of course, there is also the fact that there newly re-added links created multiple links, which is also discouraged by policy: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article".

Additionally, WP:SPECIFICLINK would suggest that if we're already linking to a specific structure in a city (whose article, surely, would link to the city) we would have no need to additionally link to the city name right next to it.

So again, @Castncoot: would you care to elaborate on what I am "misinterpreting", and if I'm really not, undo your edits? LjL (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you pretty much said it yourself: "Generally, a link should appear only once (not zero times) in an article." (Captions have their own count.) Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You're joking, right? That can't be a serious reply. LjL (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No more joking than User:Ashton 29's remark. Castncoot (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To say that NYC or London can never be linked is ridiculous. Castncoot (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

These are the relevant edits, should someone elect to restore sanity and policy later: [7] [8] [9] [10]. LjL (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

THey are unnecessary links. We are not a kid's colouring book. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A little exaggerated assessment of innocuous single text links, don't you think? Castncoot (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• These links are ridiculous and should be removed. --John (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's a few issues. The CN Tower in Toronto is different to the CN Tower in Edmonton, so the phrase "CN Tower in Toronto" needs to include the word "Toronto".

• London, Berlin, Taipei, New York City and Toronto are all large cities that would be known to virtually all English speaking readers - and this should be fine for people who speak English as a second language. I'd say remove the links. -- Callinus (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus about Polish reactions

I'm summing up what people have said about this seemingly contentious topic of whether to include reactions from government officials of Poland (which has tangentially extended to some other countries). I am including the user names, their statement I found most relevant, and the support or opposition to inclusion I infer from it (since explicit "support" stances were not clearly requested).

The statements are taken from the sections listed by User:MyMoloboaccount at this section, plus the section itself, which I think probably covers everything.

Some statements are about including at November 2015 Paris attacks, while some are about Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, but given we are talking about reactions to the attacks, I suppose if people were in favor of adding them to the former, they'd be even more compellingly in favor of adding them to the latter.

• User:MyMoloboaccount: Poland offered condolences but noted that due to these attacks Poland will renounce EU refugee relocation scheme. Is this notable to be included in international reactions? (proposer)
• User:Jeppiz: I think it could be [notable], but lets hear what others have to say (conditional support)
• User:XavierItzm: I think it is very notable! (support)
• User:Fuzheado: Notable view if backed up, but not sure about the reliable sourcing. I'm not familiar with that Polish publication, so it's not clear we can do anything with it at this time. A quick Google News search brings up nothing similar in English. (conditional support)
• User:Volunteer Marek: He can say whatever he wants but until this becomes official policy it's just blowing smoke - which politicians do all the time. Until this becomes official, there is no reason for it to be in the article. (oppose)
• User:LjL: Please add this stuff back to either article or both, it pretty obviously matters. (support)
• User:78.127.34.25: Here about NaTemat.pl. They are sometimes called: the Polish Huffington Post. "Who" exactly however is that Poland person they are referring to ? (unspecified)
• User:Tobby72 Agree with LjL, MyMoloboaccount and Super Goku V. It's Warsaw's official policy. Poland's conservative Law and Justice party is strongly anti-immigration, anti-Muslim. (support)
• User:AusLondonder Right, User:Volunteer Marek. Let me get this clear. It is "utilising a tragedy" for editors to insert well-sourced and highly notable comments by senior politicians utilising a tragedy? Irony bypass? Or letting your own obvious POV show? (support)
• User:Hollth I agree with Marek on this. Until an official statement is made it ought to be covered under wp:recentism. (oppose)
• User:Dorpater I agree with MyMoloboaccount. This information is relevant and should stay in the article. (support)
• User:98.67.190.14 Agree with the consensus that it is noteworthy and should stay. Volunteer Marek is out of line here. (support)
• User:Sitush I really haven't looked deep enough into this specific issue to make my mind up but AGF'ing that others have checked the sources etc, inclusion here seems fine to me. (conditional support)

To pretend it's a vote, I count: 4 "conditional support" (I include the proposer given their wording), 5 "support", 2 "oppose". Given the "conditional support" was either based on reliability of sources (and opposers haven't seemed to put that into question) or on whether others found the statements notable (and they did), I'd say it's safe to call this 9 support, 2 oppose.

LjL (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The two IPs are throw away accounts that have been following me lately. You're also ignoring the editors who objected to the text by also removing the text (but who were probably driven off by your edit warring).

And like I've already pointed out that was the discussion about the original statement. You still have not explained why removing well sourced statement by the Polish PM which was made later is ok.

Also, "consensus" is not a vote, which you appear to think it is. Expressed opinions only count only in so far as they're well grounded in actual policy. None of these - not yours, not MyMolobo's not others - actually address the main issue here, which is WP:WEIGHT.

Can you please explain how this text does not violate WP:WEIGHT? This is like the fourth or fifth time I've asked you. Volunteer Marek  01:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have. Check the relevant section. I've had enough of playing your games of chasing what people (me included) have said in the relevant sections which keep coming up: find it yourself, I'm not repeating myself on it. Drop the stick. LjL (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No you actually haven't. There's nothing in the "relevant section". Volunteer Marek  06:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Also, "consensus" is not a vote, which you appear to think it is. ... the main issue here, which is WP:WEIGHT." ... Sadly obvious double standard here. —- diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's actually the same issue. Volunteer Marek  06:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, there are issues with refugee acceptance in other countries (eg Canada has just announced they will not take single males into the country as refugees) -- Callinus (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)