Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LjL (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 25 November 2015 (→‎British English or American?: Via edit conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions


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

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

Ah well, I guess that means that despites Fuzheado's best efforts, I will actually leave this article. I find it pretty questionable to enforce 1RR on a piece of still fast-changing news like this, where there's even still a "current event" template acknowledging the high traffic. LjL (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find the whole Syrian War thing questionable. That's not to say I disagree, I just can't understand why it exists at all. Something about Israel and Arabs? There are many controversial topics. Is there a short summary of why this one needs special protection, or related to the other one? I've tried following the links. Didn't help. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
As you will see at the page that I linked, a community discussion determined that such sanctions should be established. Therefore, they were. They are separate from the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. Users cannot be sanctioned unless they have been notified in line with the procedure specified at that page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Community" meaning "less than about 10 editors", as far as I can see from the discussion links above. As I said, oh well. LjL (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RGloucester, I get it, you're very set on having these sanctions applied (even though an admin boldly remove the notice before), and now because I'm objecting to them and pointing out you're the first among perhaps ten people who really wanted them to exist, you're making very sure I can be sanctioned at the first misdemeanor you spot. LjL (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Indeed, I was not involved in the drafting of the original sanctions from 2013. I have no reason to want anyone to get sanctioned. I'm just issuing informative notices, that's all. I gave them to those currently editing the article. That's the standard practice, specified at WP:AC/DS and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. They do not imply misconduct. No one gets sanctioned unless they do something to get sanctioned...they're just supposed to encourage good practice in dispute-prone articles...no need for bad faith. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What faith should I assume when the template and restrictions were boldly removed by an admin whose action was applauded by pretty much everyone on this talk page, then I find them reinstated and myself somewhat bullied after slightly objecting to them? LjL (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wondering what or how. That much is apparent. Just why. But that's a question for another talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

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

You can remove the template all you want, but the sanctions still apply. Volunteer Marek  16:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it remains off and doesn't scare away contributors, that's the most important immediate outcome. The next step would be to formally challenge the entire legitimacy of those "broadly constructed" sanctions. As @LjL: pointed out, it was a side discussion section on WP:AN with fewer than a dozen voices chiming in. It was not an RFC, and even had pushback from users, yet it was declared "consensus" that we're living with today. How can a small set of voices in an obscure corner of Wikipedia get to impose blanket 1RR sanctions, "broadly constructed," on entire categories, including the article that is the #2 most visited page this week [1]? I cannot recall seeing a dragnet this broad and punitive in the history of Wikipedia, and I've been around a long time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it means new contributors will be unaware that they can land in trouble really quick. Are we really doing them a service by withholding this info from them?
And the sanctions themselves were actually authorized by ArbCom. The idea that the Syria-related sanctions also cover ISIL was made at AN. The reason why participation was low was because it was pretty damn obvious. In fact, Syria related sanctions would still apply to any ISIL related article EVEN IF that AN discussion had not taken place. That discussion just spelled out what was already true. Volunteer Marek  16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What was true, "broadly construed" (hehe). I can probably count more members of the "community" here who showed an opposition to these sanctions, than members who supported them on AN to make them apply to an indefinite number of articles. LjL (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, AN is NOT where this decision was made. AN is where it was decided to clarify the wording of the DS notice template. Volunteer Marek  17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually let me be more precise. The idea that Syria related sanctions apply to ISIL related articles was NOT made at AN. It was made by ArbCom. In the AN discussion one user just asked for clarification and suggested making this fact explicit in the DS notice. Volunteer Marek  16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is incorrect, Marek. There are indeed "community-authorised discretionary sanctions", and these particular sanctions have nothing to do with ArbCom. They were originally authorised in a community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, and subsequently amended at that board. This is specified by the community-authorised discretionary sanctions procedure. Once again, ArbCom has nothing to do with this set of sanctions. Indeed, if editors here are so unsatisfied with their existence, they are free start on discussion at WP:AN on the revocation of the community authorisation.
As for the actions of Fuzheado, they make no difference. He has no authority to remove articles from the scope of the sanctions. Indeed, as is specified at WP:GS/SCW, "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions", and hence his removal of the template does nothing but make the process more opaque. If he wishes to challenge the sanctions, he can do so as I said above, by starting a community proposal for their revocation or clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For my information, RGloucester, can you please point me to this community-authorized discretionary sanctions procedure? LjL (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the page WP:GS. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this situation is a bit more complicated because the Syria/ISIS sanctions originally were an extension of the Israel/Palestine sanctions. This extension was made by ArbCom in this motion and this motion also specified that extending the sanctions from 30 days to indef would be decided at AN. However, you are correct in that this particular set of sanctions can be challenged at AN. Volunteer Marek  18:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed quite a mess. For that reason, I just wrote a history of and guide to the sanctions system in my userspace. It might be useful to anyone struggling to understand this mire. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the SCW&ISIL sanctions apply automatically to this article, as mentioned by RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. The purpose of the sanctions notification on the main page and on the talk page is to warn the editors to evade edit-warring - this is one of the that the sanctions had been initiated in the first place (to make a sufficient deterrence). User:Fuzheado is making a bad service for the community for removing the notice. In any case, i will issue a personal warning and/or file a case for any violation of the sanctions, whether the warning appears here or not.GreyShark (dibra) 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For any violation, meaning any (possibly partial) revert that comes after another (possibly partial and unrelated) revert in the span of 24 hours? Way to be WP:POINTY. LjL (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These 1RR sanctions are a joke. They were slapped on the Israel-Palestine conflict years ago. The end result is that Palestine is now nothing but a disambiguation page. That's not how you write an encyclopedia, by giving Point-Of-View pushers the weapons to carry out their agenda and to punish their "enemies" any time they step over some imaginary line. Those who have ears, ought to hear. -- Kendrick7talk 05:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not, actually

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

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

  • And... that's also your opinion. I don't see the template on this page, so go harass some other group of editors committed to WP:5P if that's how you like spending your time. I rather prefer writing an encyclopedia. :) -- Kendrick7talk 05:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the template is on this page or not, the sanctions apply. Also, will you please stop changing other people's comments or inserting sub-section headings into the middle of existing discussions? Volunteer Marek  06:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly entitled to your magical thinking, Marek, but some of us live in the real world. The ArbCom sanctions clearly don't apply here, and that is the actual consensus on this talk page. I've restored my sub header to where I would have put it, should I have known it was objectionable, in the first place. -- Kendrick7talk 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, nobody's "yelling". Second, I don't really care what you believe. You've been notified. That's all that's needed. Volunteer Marek  07:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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, November 21, 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, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

[2] 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Point taken. Jolly Ω Janner 23:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hasna Aït Boulahcen suicide bomber vs victim

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

There are now many News items indicating that she died when a male terrorist set off a bomb of some sort; not sure if it was a suicide vest. I think the current version covers that but will check. Peter K Burian 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
This article accurately describes the initial misidentification of Hasna Aitboulahcen as the suicide bomber, as well as the later correction, as does 2015 Saint-Denis raid. Her name has been removed from this article but appears at the article on the raid. General Ization Talk 17:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is far too soon to characterize Aitboulahcen as merely a "victim"; she may have been a combatant (there is evidence she had become radicalized, though probably not ideologically), but was not the one who was wearing and detonated a suicide vest. General Ization Talk 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that her name still appears in a different section of this article. (I removed it from the section Search for further attackers, since she did not play a notable role in the events covered in this article but did in the raid.) General Ization Talk 17:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe her name should be added. She was a significant player and police found the terrorists because they had her under surveillance. In about one hour, I will be adding a new paragraph based on this news report: ″Police watched the suspected mastermind of the Paris attacks being led by a woman - Hasna Aitboulahcen - into an apartment the evening before both died there in a raid by special forces, a police source said on Friday.″

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

Are those details really needed here? We have a separate article on the raid. Aitboulahcen is not known to have played any role in the November 13 attacks, and her role in the location and killing of Abaaoud is already briefly discussed here and and in detail (including the police surveillance of them entering the apartment building together on Tuesday evening) at 2015 Saint-Denis raid. General Ization Talk 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
her cell phone, found in the trash near one of the scenes, is what lead police to the apartment. Given this, it seems she was involved somehow. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering what your source is for that claim; I have not seen any source that states this. If she had lost her phone in a Parisian trash can in the vicinity of the November 13 attacks, how is it that authorities used her "tapped phone", as many sources state they did, to locate Abaaoud and the apartment in Saint-Denis where the raid was conducted on November 18? General Ization Talk 19:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I revised this section based on the most recent news reports: There are two citations along with the statement. The police were aware that Hasna Ait Boulahcen, a suspect in a drug ring investigation during which her telephone was tapped, also of Moroccan origin, was an associate of Abaaoud. They followed her to a Saint-Denis apartment building at 8 Rue Corbillon on 17 November and saw Abaaoud entering with her.[99][100]
And is this relevant to the story? (Are those details really needed here?) Yes, in my opinion. The senior editor is User:LjL. Let's see if he decides that the section should be revised. Peter K Burian 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There are really two parts to the question I asked: "Are those details really needed here" and "Are those details really needed here". In other words, I didn't say that she was totally irrelevant to the November 13 events, but her active involvement, and certainly the reasons (thus far known) for her notability, started days later and a mile away from the site of the attacks, in Saint-Denis. It seems to me discussing her at this level of detail in this article, when there have been literally hundreds of raids and many other suspected militants detained in connection with the Paris attacks, and will likely be more, is WP:UNDUE. General Ization Talk 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was she a victim as a few reports are now claiming? Not according to an exclusive interview published by the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34886971 Quote: In an exclusive interview with the BBC, a member of the police assault team involved in the raid said Hasna Ait Boulahcen, 26, was "trying to say she was not linked to the terrorists, that she had nothing to do with them and wanted to surrender". But he said that due to prior intelligence, "we knew that she was trying to manipulate us". Peter K Burian 19:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I wonder if much of the content re: Saint-Denis is relevant in an article about the Attacks. Yes, the article about the Raid is the logical spot for all of that. Perhaps the death of the ringleader, in a brief mention of the raid, is all that is really logical when the topic is strictly the Attacks. So, should a large section be deleted entirely? Hmmm.... Well, a Barnstar editor is the one who should make a decision of that magnitude, in my estimation. Peter K Burian 20:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
(Re: "a Barnstar editor".) Peter, please be aware that we don't have editorial ranks here on Wikipedia (other than service awards, which are tongue-in-cheek), nor does any single editor own any article (in fact, the lack of ownership is explicit). I'm as anxious as anyone to hear what LjL may have to say on this question, and I agree they will likely give use some useful advice, but chances are they earned their barnstar/s by collaborating effectively with other editors, not by serving as some kind of editorial dictator. General Ization Talk 23:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ cite web |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/21/uk-france-shooting-idUKKCN0T40DY20151121 |title=Tapped phone led Paris attack leader to his death |last1=Thomas |first1=Leigh |last2=Bon |first2=Gerard |date=21 November 2015 |website=Reuters UK |publisher=Thomson Reuters |access-date=21 November 2015}}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Poland's response and reactions in general

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

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

I note that Volunteer Marek has repeatedly tried to remove [3] [4] these reactions from the "Reactions" article itself, too (which to me suggests he just wants them to be suppressed, not simply placed in the "dedicated article"), and also posted a very similar message to the above on its talk page, seemingly due to mixing up the two articles.
Please see these archived talk page sections for previous consensus on the matter of inclusion of these (mainly the Polish) reactions: 1 2 3. I know consensus can change, but perhaps someone is beating a dead horse here. LjL (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to "suppress" anything. That kind of wording is indicative of your own WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. My reasoning is simple - this is the article about November 2015 PARIS attacks, not about Poland's attitude towards the Syrian refugee crisis.
I can see this being discussed with due weight on the Reactions article although even there it's somewhat off topic; it's about reactions to the attacks, not about .... Poland's attitude towards Syrian refugees.
And no there was no prior "consensus" for inclusion. There was a couple editors for inclusion and a couple editors against. Please don't make stuff up.
Now. Can you please address the substance of the issue - is it WP:UNDUE or not? - rather than engaging in personal attacks?  Volunteer Marek  19:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. There were several editors on several sections (I'm tired of chasing all these sections you end up bringing this on) which I've linked to above. People can count, you know? You were the only one against it apart, IIRC, from some drive-by editor. Several others thought this was obviously suited for inclusion. The fact that you don't even want it on the "Reactions" article pretty much makes it obvious that there's something you want to suppress about Poland in particular. Give it a cut. You're still flogging the dead horse, and in the most annoying ways possible. LjL (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, while there were some editors who wanted it included others - and dismissing them as "drive by" just betrays your bias - did not think it belonged. Now you are just trying to shut down the discussion. Can you PLEASE address the issue at hand and explain why the topic of Polish politics should get such prominence in the reaction section? Why it shouldn't be covered in the Reactions article instead? Please explain why this info is not WP:UNDUE.
And relatedly, please stop misrepresenting my position in regard to the Reactions article. It's not true that I want it absent from that article (hence your claim that I want it "suppressed" is just a figment of your imagination). All I want there is for the issue to be presented in a reasonable and appropriate manner. That means that editors shouldn't cherry pick the statements they like and remove and ignore sourced statements which don't fit their POV. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored deleted information by Volunteer Marek, along with sources he deleted. It doesn't seem consensus has changed, and besides VM I don't recall any editors opposed to this, I believe overwhelming majority was for inclusion.For the record,Eastern European reaction to this has been noted in mainstream publications.

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

Please don't misrepresent the situation. The problems are as follows:
1. You are cherry picking some responses and removing others. For example you have removed the official statement in which the PM says that Poland will abide by the agreement it has made, but you have inserted the unofficial statement, made in just some internet chat, about maybe planning or thinking about asking EU to amend the agreement. This is a textbook case of cherry picking sources to push a POV. If you look up "cherry picking sources to push a POV" in the online encyclopedia there's a diff which has exactly that edit as an illustration.
2. You, and LjL, are both ignoring the issue of DUE WEIGHT. In fact, both of you are resorting to personal attacks or you focus on discussing editors rather discussing the actual issue. As I said, this article is about the November terrorist attacks IN PARIS. It is NOT about Polish internal politics in regard to the Syrian refugees. It makes no encyclopedic sense to use this article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for discussing the pro's and con's of Poland government's views on the refugees. And just from a moral standpoint that kind of purpose is... distasteful. What actually happened in Paris is far more important for this article than the political capital some Polish politicians are trying to make. Volunteer Marek  22:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

Could you not just Undo the change that person made? Or do you then get into a problem with the Revert Rule? (I had never heard of that Rule til today). Peter K Burian 23:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
First of all, once again LjL you are trying to WP:CANVASS people to edit war for you. You broke the 1RR rule so now you're trying to solicit others to revert on your behalf. That's a disruptive attempt at WP:GAMEing the system.
Second, that edit has already been undone, for better or worse. Without discussion.
Third, can you please address the issue of WP:WEIGHT? Why does any of this info belong in this article at all? You are in fact required to substantiate these changes. Volunteer Marek  23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as discussion, not canvassing actually. Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't address claims of canvassing or gaming the system as I find them entirely spurious. As to WP:WEIGHT, it can be discussed whether these reactions belong here or in the Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks article, but they quite obviously belong in at least one of the two, and you've been repeatedly trying to remove them from both, even making it hard to follow which section you're arguing in. I think given we're talking about EU countries, which are a tight pack with France, at least a summary of their reactions (including the ones about refugees, if spawned by these attacks) should be given in this article. In fact, a lot of the stuff from this article might need summarizing and transferring to the Reactions article, but that's as long as it's not just your per-peeves about Poland, and it doesn't result in removal from both articles. For now, while you threaten me with 1RR sanctions in both articles, I will insist for inclusion, and ask for consensus (which has been referred and linked to several times) to be implemented. LjL (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to discussing what belongs in the Reactions article. But most of this stuff, Poland or otherwise, doesn't belong in this one. This is the article on the attacks themselves and this info is basically off topic POV agenda-hijacking. Volunteer Marek  04:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, I've noticed a tendency in your comments to fail AGF and flirt with NPA. Please take any behavior complaints to ANI and refrain on this page. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice this discussion until now. My question: Is any discussion about accepting refugees valuable in this article? Yes, it is, in my view. And if a long section about the governors of the US states refusing refugees is relevant, why is the section about Poland not relevant? In fact, I have added to it for more balanced coverage, and also added a section about the reactions of Canada and the United Nations. One of the aftermath aspects of the Attacks is how it has changed public opinion in some countries while not changing in others, such as Canada re: accepting refugees. There is a Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks page too, and it lists numerous countries and their sadness for France about the attacks and their solidarity with France. But it does not cover the other significant reaction: how countries are now feeling and acting re: allowing refugees, in light of the attacks in Paris. If an Admin moves ALL of the reactions sections from here to that article, (dealing with the refugee situation), fine. That is not up to me. But until then, why would Wikipedia ignore such an important cause/effect? (My own problem is someone deleting the content that I added re: Poland, as discussed under other headings. But in principle, I support retaining the section about countries' reactions, and how those affect their handling of tens of thousands of refugees. Peter K Burian 04:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither is particularly relevant to this article. This article is about attacks in Paris. It is NOT about Syrian refugees or individual countries' policies in regard to them. All of that needs to go into a different article. This article's getting too long already anyway. Volunteer Marek  07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that logic, Marek, why does the article have anything at all about the Aftermath? Significant aftermath issues include the greater security checks at European borders that were once open, the extension of the state of emergency in France AND how the Attacks have affected how countries are now feeling and acting re: accepting refugees, in light of the attacks in Paris. And I repeat: If an Admin moves the entire section about the aftermath from here to the Reactions article, (dealing with the refugee situation), fine. That is not a decision for you or for me to make.Peter K Burian 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And if you, or anyone else (except an Admin) starts deleting sentences from the Reactions section again, including the paragraph about Poland, I will definitely file for Dispute Resolution to ensure that the coverage remains balanced. And I just got an e-mail that Wikipedia will be starting an Arbitration process; great idea. Peter K Burian 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A short summary about the reactions plus a link to the Reactions article would suffice. That's how this usually handled on similar articles. And I think dispute resolution would be a great idea. Try WP:MEDIATION (btw, admins are subject to the same rules as everyone else when it comes to editing)
Also I think the email you received is about the ArbCom election. Volunteer Marek  16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter K Burian: you seem to be confused as to what WP:Administrators do. They don't take part in content dispute - at least not in their admin capacity: they can take part as simple editors like you or me, and when they do that, they become WP:INVOLVED and in fact mostly stop being able to take part as administrators. Where to put this content is a content issue, that people like "you or me" have to settle. As to the email you got, it's about electing a new set of arbitrators; there is already an arbitration committee, there are just new elections. LjL (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, LjL (talk) Well, I don't feel qualified to start removing pages and pages of content from Attacks and drop that into the Reactions article. And if I did that, I'll bet a dozen people would complain. But I have noticed that some editors are shown as admin while I am not (and don't want to be). Isn't there some very experienced editor who kind of oversees major articles like Attacks?
No, there isn't. Admins deal with administrative matters; dispute resolution can be used to resolve content disputes (but usually, people taking parts in dispute resolution are also "normal" editors like you and me, no one "special"); then there is the Arbitration Committee, which is an elected body, but they certainly won't get into details such as what content has to go where, at least unless/until things escalate very very much. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort: WP:EQUAL. LjL (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek: There are SO many revisions to the Attacks, that I simply cannot figure out who was deleting content that I had added about Poland and the Czech Republic. (I am absolutely convinced that those comments make for balanced coverage: i.e. some want no refugees admitted at all, while others believe there is a responsibility to the tens of thousands of families stuck outside European borders. My added content has included commentary on both aspects, and both are essential for balanced coverage. This has nothing to do with my own view of which side is right; I simply believe that both sides' comments need to be published. (Whether that section is left in Attacks or moved to Reactions.) Cheers! Peter K Burian 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be more constructive if Marek would in the face of an overwhelming majority just stop filibustering and drop the issue.Dorpater (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone reverted it to remove that link. Thanks, I am paranoid about reverting edits now that I heard about the Three Revert Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Peter K Burian 23:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
First, the revert rule doesn't make sense on this article. Bod (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter K Burian: people claim that on this article, a One Revert Rule applies, which means that two reverts in the span of 24h (even if partial and/or unrelated) could be grounds for a block. I'm certainly being burned by this. LjL (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

How is the day of the week relevant at all in a news item? Especially if it becomes a link to an article about superstition. Is there any relevance to that in a discussion of terrorist attacks?? Peter K Burian 23:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Off the top of my head: Friday... more people out on the streets partying. Bod (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying they chose the busiest time/day to attack. Day of the week adds nothing to the article. Nor does an attacker's birthday, the name of a dog, or the colour of a car. Just because the gutter press are trying make 13/11 a 'thing' doesn't mean we have to do the same and create a self-fulfilling prophecy where people think it's called that because Wikipedia says it is. Firebrace (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's already happened once today. The Guardian sort of says the City of Manchester Stadium is called the Liverpool Under-19 Training Ground. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, November 22, 2015 (UTC)
1RR only applies to reverts against logged in editors, not IPs. You are unlikely to get tagged unless you are acting like a jerk going against consensus. I've edited ISIL and related articles for more then a year and not been tagged with 1RR Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or unless you're trying to apply consensus on edits made by someone going against it, who can exploit the 1RR system. LjL (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 2 can't edit war against many editors and not violate 1RR. If they report you, boomerang it. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Completely concur with LjL. The world is already too full of superstition, some of which (IMO) fueled the very series of acts that this article describes. Let's not encourage it here. It is entirely unencyclopedic and inappropriate in an article on a serious (and tragic) topic. General Ization Talk 23:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match French and German articles. Both mention Friday evening in the lede. The former in the first sentence. Oppose linking to Friday the 13th but support mentioning it later in the article. Also, future opposers or supposers please distinguish between adding Friday to the lede section, mentioning Friday the 13th, and linking to it. Bod (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each Wikipedia project has its own rules, and we are under no obligation (nor is it often a good idea) to "match" articles from Wikipedias in other languages. LjL (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose the link per other opposition. Oppose mention of the day of the week unless RS overtly lends it relevance (more than a mere mention). Re the above comment, we don't even see a need for consistency across English-language articles on things like this; why would we across projects? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the inclusion of 'Friday evening' because that shows a time when many people are out at concerts, sporting events and dinner-a fact pointed out in several detailed anaysis pieces i read. They picked a time when maximum damage to civilians could be done. I don't support a link to or phrase 'Friday the 13th' because I've seen no evidence this was a factor in the timing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a reliable source that says this (that authorities have conclusively determined that the militants chose to act on a particular day of the week because of the prevalent activities unique to that day), by all means add it (with a citation) to the article. That is different than simply mentioning the day of the week, with or without an intent to link it to the superstition. General Ization Talk 00:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me, as long as we do not go back to a link to Friday the 13th as it relates to superstition. Peter K Burian 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
People don't plan bad things on Friday the 13th, bad things just happen. Bod (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right, Bod, as they do every other day of the week. General Ization Talk 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did anyone invent it? Bod (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because they were prone to magical thinking. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Magical thinking. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just deleted the word Friday again; I don't care one way or the other although another editor suggested it was valid because many more people are out partying than on a Monday for example. Peter K Burian 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Then you should vote here with your support for its inclusion. Bod (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! Someone deleted all reference to European government reactions

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

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

If you've done a revert or partial revert within the past 24 hours, you leave yourself open to a sanction if you revert now. It's not days per se, but hours. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, if you "don't understand the revert rule", I strongly advise you not to revert anything anywhere until you do. General Ization Talk 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, anyone can delete as many paragraphs as he wants to, and get away with it because everyone is terrified to Revert? Does this make sense? (I don't recall doing an Undo in the past 24 hours.) What type of Sanction is given for breaking the rule? Peter K Burian 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't make sense, but that's what you get when some people champion overzealous application of 1RR rule on an article where a majority of editors don't even thing it should apply at all. Welcome to arbitrary sanctions. Feel free to express your opinion on the motion, too, since few are doing it. LjL (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think reverts of clear vandalism are counted. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Content deletion is not often/always considered "clear vandalism". If an editor is removing content because of a strong WP:POV but still in good faith, it's not vandalism: vandalism has a narrow definition. LjL (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Just saying, if someone adds "your a butt" in the infobox, you can revert it without violating 1RR. That's for Peter's benefit. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter K Burian: you are allowed one revert per day. But... I still see the reactions you are probably referring to at November 2015 Paris attacks#European Council? Note that User:John is quite intent in removing verbatim quotations, but the rest is still there. Not sure that was one of those cases. Extensive inclusion of reactions is currently under contention, anyway: keep in mind that if you see them disappear from this article, they might have been moved to Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks instead. LjL (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you do know how to review the article's entire history? I can't help but wonder, since you say "someone deleted" and "what happened to the text". If you know how to review the history, these are questions you can readily answer for yourself, as well as see the edit summaries that accompanied the removal (assuming any removal occurred). General Ization Talk 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the guy some slack: this article is so involved and (at least previously) fast-paced, I very often have difficulty tracing stuff and changes both on the article and the talk page (I keep thinking some "archived" things are just... gone... but I'm not sure). And I've used this thing for about 10 years, on and off. LjL (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really wasn't criticizing Peter, just concerned since he seems to have had this experience several times now. General Ization Talk 00:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with informing a relatively new editor at the risk of informing them about something they already know. He doesn't seem the type to get his feelings hurt easily. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, everyone. I do appreciate the advice as part of the learning experience and my feelings are only hurt when someone deletes important aspects of a topic, including the valid citations from highly-respected News sources, for no apparent reason. If I ever delete something (like the ridiculous Friday the 13th link to superstition), my Edit Summary makes it very clear why I had done so. Cheers! Peter K Burian 16:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
actually only parts of the content about European reactions is missing: anything that suggests that allowing refugees to enter their countries might be OK even now. Editing bias? I cannot tell. Peter K Burian 03:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Not really true. Anyway, the actual issue is that most of this text is WP:UNDUE in this article and if it's going to be anywhere that would be in the reactions article. Volunteer Marek  04:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent edit still includes (in Reactions) comments from the same countries as to their plans to admit any refugees, after the Paris attacks. Someone merely deleted any comments that indicated the countries would continue accepting refuges in spite of the attacks in Paris (because not all refugees are terrorists.) That is why I wonder if there has been some bias. I will continue this discussion in the new topic I created, below this topic. Peter K Burian 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure enough, someone - and I cannot figure out who - again deleted the ection I had added about Poland's agreement to honour the commitment to accept thousands of refugees. I have again added it. The mystery editor only kept the section where Poland initially refused to accept any, claiming they are all terrorists. That is not balanced coverage. Because subsequently, the Prime Minister of Poland agreed to allow the refugees, though perhaps not Syrians, if the process would ensure the security of Poles. This is balanced coverage.Peter K Burian 02:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: no one reverted anything "in a sneaky manner" as you said in your edit summary where you re-added it: the edit is here, with the somewhat terse explanation that your content was sourced from tabloids. The Daily Mail is usually not considered a reliable source - I don't know about the other one. LjL (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I have modified the Attack article with the additional information (with citations from respected news organizations) re: Poland and the Czech Republic. If anyone artbitrarily deletes or Reverts that, I will figure out how to file a Dispute resolution request, (WP:DRR). Peter K Burian 19:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure enough, someone - and I cannot figure out who - again deleted the ection I had added about Poland's agreement to honour the commitment to accept thousands of refugees. I have again added it. The mystery editor only kept the section where Poland initially refused to accept any, claiming they are all terrorists. That is not balanced coverage. Because subsequently, the Prime Minister of Poland agreed to allow the refugees, though perhaps not Syrians, if the process would ensure the security of Poles. This is balanced coverage.Peter K Burian 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Peter, there is no such thing as a "mystery editor" here on Wikipedia. Every edit (unless redacted, and none have been here) is plainly in public view, along with who made it. I, and everyone else, can readily see by reviewing the article revision history which editors (there were several) removed portions of content that you added earlier today, and the reasons they stated for doing so. I am once again not pointing this out to be critical of you, nor critical or supportive of them, but to encourage you to use the tools we have at hand to see what changes were made, when and why, and to work directly with any other editor(s) with whom you have a disagreement, rather than referring to "mystery editors" who operate in a "sneaky manner". General Ization Talk 02:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you General Ization for finding the revision and the stated reason. I had not been able to find it. I set Watch this page and I reviewed the revisions history (as always), but I did not notice that one. I did not know that Daily Mail is not considered a highly respected source. Of course my citations also included Reuters and other news agencies. To delete an entire paragraph, filled with citations - because he did not like one of the newspapers - seems disingenuous to me; a ploy to remove information the person does not agree with. I plan to file for dispute resolution. But first, I will find other sources for the information that currently cites Daily Mail. Kind regards, Peter K Burian 02:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I had no difficulty finding other sources for the fact that Poland will honour its commitment to accept 9000 refugees, from Agence France Press, a highly respected news agency in Paris, France. Peter K Burian 03:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, I noticed another Talk section == Poland's response and reactions in general == ; comments there give me a good idea as to who has been deleting reactions sections. Interesting discussion in that thread! Peter K Burian 16:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest since...

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

There are multiple sources stating that it's the deadliest attack since WWII, including the president of France. Beyond that, what you are referring to was not an attack. Could you cite some outside sources that back up your position? --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article says 300 people were injured, but there were no deaths: May 1968: The revolution that never was --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There you are, you figured it out yourself. I think you should self-revert now. --John (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain? Zero deaths is less than 120. Also, could you cite a source that makes a similar claim? --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to say 1961? Specifically the Algerian massacre? If so, I think changing "in" to "on" was the product of that discussion in the Archive. I'm not sure how that got changed back. --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "on" to "in" because it seemed the more clearly defined quality. But then I changed it back, after noticing both sources use "on". The Algerians were killed in (de facto) France, but by French police. An attack by France isn't quite an attack on France, even if it occured in the dead center of the country, to full-fledged French citizens. The papers aim to focus on external threats, it seems. Some of the perps here were French, but not officially acting on behalf of France. In general, I find "deadliest in" and "deadliest since" bits silly in the lead. Only something that's the deadliest ever should get that sort of prominence. But many other Wikipedians like doing it, so as they say in English Canada, c'est la vie. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
«This is the highest casualty count in the city since the Paris massacre of 1961.» But this was during the Algerian war which finished 53 years ago. So it might be better to write «This is the highest casualty count in the city since the Algerian war during which occured the Paris massacre of 1961.» And you also have one accident which killed 130/132 persons in 1962 (See www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1962/f-sm620603/pdf/f-sm620603.pdf ) So, we might also write «This is the highest casualty count in the city since the Paris-Orly accident of 1962.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.21 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But no one outside Wikipedia has claimed this was the deadliest attack since the massacre of 1961, or the biggest loss of life since the plane crash of 1962. For us to write it would be original research. You need someone—a journalist, politician, author, etc.—on record as saying those exact words. Firebrace (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems unlikely, as homicides and accidents are apples and oranges (suicide is a lemon and natural causes are cherries). While we're mixing and matching sources, though, I'll note that that accident killed just shy of 24 times the daily average for Paris proper (or over 19 times, by 1962 standards). So it was still a big deal (but slightly less so at the time). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
So comparing what occurs during peace (2015) and what occurs during war (1962) is comparing apples and oranges?
Anyway, it looks like there were less people killed by police in 1962, than people killed by terrorists in 2015 (see www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2012/10/18/01002-20121018ARTFIG00772-17-octobre- 1961-la-tension-etait-extreme.php ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.21 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, accidents are oranges. I was talking about the one in that PDF link. 130 people. The PDF doesn't work for me, I assume it was Air France Flight 007, which is an orange. Wartime homicide and peacetime homicide are like green apples and red apples. Close enough to compare, but a source still needs to, not us. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind, while this isn't the traditional sort of war, it's still war enough for the President to say "guerre", and for The Daily Express to CAPITALIZE (or CAPITALISE). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

Stade de France explosions

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

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

A rumor about the Stade de France

According to snopes.com, there is talk around the social media blogosphere that a security guard named Zouheir saved thousands of people by turning away the attacker. That is simply not true,[1] and the source, which is linked here, never says anything of the sort.[2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.snopes.com/zouheir/
  2. ^ http://www.wsj.com/articles/attacker-tried-to-enter-paris-stadium-but-was-turned-away-1447520571

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

I say enough with the social media nonsense, but that might just be me. LjL (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say that too. I found out about this particular nonsense when a friend posted this on my Facebook feed, so I searched and found more of this nonsense on Twitter and across Facebook. Anyway, people from Twitter and Facebook are going to search for this article and wonder "why isn't Zouheir's heroism depicted here?" I just want to see if readers actually care about this kind of stuff, though. epic genius (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not totally out of the blue, according to that WSJ source. It says Zouheir says he heard that a suicide bomber was deterred from entering the stadium by other security personnel before self-detonating. It sounds like social media took that and played Gossip with it until it morphed into what was stated above. But I don't think there's enough there for inclusion, anyway. It's still just Zouheir's uncorroborated claim. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do talk sections about the reactions article keep ending up here? Isn't that why that one was made? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:05, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

British English or American?

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

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

  • Nay. What the sources use has no bearing, unless it somehow establishes WP:TIES. Otherwise, WP:ENGVAR applies: the article should be internally consistent, but it doesn't matter which variety is being used (and American is certainly not the "default"). In case of disagreements, we MOS:RETAIN the existing variety, and I've always seen this article use British English. Policy aside, anyway, are you quite sure "in sheer numbers" more readers will be used to American English? India has the most English speakers, and they certainly don't use American spelling; in Europe and other parts of the world, "international English" is taught, which is often based on British spelling. LjL (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure. There are indeed more English speakers in India than in the US, but the US media machine is a relative juggernaut, and their ESL program is nothing to sneeze at (according to a quick Google). I feel sure. This deal seems to be an offshoot of the American-led ISIS kerfuffle. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, November 25, 2015 (UTC)
Cough I bet you are American... England, though, had much more of a continent-spanning empire than the United States in the past, resulting in several countries who still speak "their" English or a closely related variant, and as ESL goes, in Europe in particular students are more likely to visit the UK than the US (and so are teachers), meaning that the British variety is often favo(u)red, even though, at least in my experience, the main differences between British and American English are simply presented to students without mandating a choice. But that's also the thing, really: most of the spelling differences are inconsequential, and people, including ESL speakers, will understand either way; when it comes to markedly different words, WP:ENGVAR tells us to try to find a "neutral" synonym for everyone's benefit (though if there isn't one, tough luck: we stick to the article's main style). LjL (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks&oldid=692422195"