Jump to content

Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
PrimeBOT (talk | contribs)
m top: Task 30: banner adjustment following a discussion
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{talkheader|search=no|noarchives=yes}}
{{British English}}
{{ITN talk|13 November|2015}}
{{ITN talk|13 November|2015}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=y|collapsed=y|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Crime |class=C |B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=low}}
{{WikiProject Death |class=C |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject France|importance=Mid |paris=y}}
{{WikiProject France |class=C |importance=Mid |paris=y}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=y}}
{{WikiProject Islam |class=C |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|French=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history |class=C |B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|French=yes}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism |class=C |importance=High}}
}}
}}
{{Gs/talk notice|scwisil}}

{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-11-13|oldid1=868671750|date2=2021-11-13|oldid2=1054764280|date3=2023-11-13|oldid3=1184956114}}

{{Top 25 report|Nov 8 2015 (2nd)|Nov 15 2015 (5th)}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
| archive=Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive %(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2
| counter=5
| maxarchivesize=75K
|minthreadsleft = 0
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft=5
|algo = old(3d)
| minthreadstoarchive=2
|archive = Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{archives|search=no}}
{{Notice|Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by [[User:MiszaBot|MiszaBot]] after 3 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 150 kilobytes in size, a new one is automatically created.}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2
|headerlevel = 2
}}

== International response subsection ==
{{see also|#Reactions|#Reactions part 2}}
Should we include a section for international responses from world governments, first excerpt pasted below, more to follow:

::Immediately following the attacks, worldwide governments issued statements in response. United States President Barack Obama spoke via live stream from the White House at 5:45 PM ET, condemning the attacks and offering American aid, calling the event an "attack on all of humanity". <ref>{{cite web|title=President Obama delivers statement.|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-delivers-statement-4|website=The White House - President Barack Obama|publisher=White House|accessdate=November 13, 2011}}</ref> British Prime Minister [[David Cameron]] pledged similar support for France through a statement made on Twitter.<ref>{{cite news|title=Paris attacks: David Cameron offers condolences|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34816571|accessdate=November 13, 2015|agency=BBC|publisher=BBC|date=November 13, 2015}}</ref>

* This was discussed above - see the Response section earlier in the talk page. [[User:SkittishSloth|SkittishSloth]] ([[User talk:SkittishSloth|talk]]) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. The international community will obviously express sympathy, offer aid, etc., etc. I argue that this is not notable. It was suggested [[#Reactions|above]] that perhaps a running list be kept on this talk page, for addition at some point in the future. '''<font color='red'>[[User:Ignatzmice|Ignatz]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Ignatzmice|mice]]'''•[[User talk:Ignatzmice|talk]] 00:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Not all express sympathy. Swedish vice Prime Minister [[Åsa Romson]] has tweeted that her worry is that it will be more difficult for her to attend a conference in Paris next month. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Perhaps keep a running list here, add details to article if relevant? Responses may vary.

*I have new one: [[Secretary-General of the United Nations]] [[Ban Ki-moon]] and the [[United Nations Security Council]] have condemned these terrorist attacks in and around Paris and demanded the immediate release of the numerous individuals reportedly being held hostage in the Bataclan theatre.<ref>{{cite news|title=UN condemns ‘despicable’ terrorist attacks in Paris|url=http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52557#.VkaBsd-rRjQ|accessdate=November 13, 2015|agency=United Nations|publisher=UN News Centre|date=November 13, 2015}}</ref>

* Bilingual response from Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister: "I am shocked and saddened that so many people have been killed and injured in violent attacks in #Paris. Canada stands with France. Je suis bouleversé et attristé par le lourd bilan des victimes des violentes attaques de #Paris. Le Canada est solidaire de la France."

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thomas W. Wilson|Thomas W. Wilson]] ([[User talk:Thomas W. Wilson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thomas W. Wilson|contribs]]) 00:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

:Substantial reactions, as in providing monetary assistance, logistical support, etc. is worth including. Messages of condolences and solidarity are routine for tragedies such as this and not encyclopedic. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 00:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
::[[Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks#Reactions|This is being discussed above]]. [[User:Gareth E Kegg|Gareth E Kegg]] ([[User talk:Gareth E Kegg|talk]]) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - standard and should likely be its own article [[User:Wikimandia|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Мандичка'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Wikimandia|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]</sup> 😜 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - standard and should likely be its own article.--[[User:Oneiros|Oneiros]] ([[User talk:Oneiros|talk]]) 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - standard ''BUT'' should not be its own article yet. [[User:Epicgenius|epic genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*Absolutely not. These are just talking heads and generic statements of sympathy/solidarity/support. They add nothing to the reader's understanding; they're just filler, used by rolling news channels so that newsreaders don't keep repeating themselves. If anyone manages to sum it up in a nice, concise quote, that will become clear in the coming days; there's no emergency here. Obama's quote ''might'' gain that sort of traction, but most of the rest are the same obligatory condolences that politicians trot out every time there's an incident like this. No doubt they're sincere, but they add nothing. Please ask yourself, how is a readers' understanding developed by "talking head number one of country number two offered his condolences, while talking head number three of country number four offered her deepest sympathies". [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- responses/additions ABOVE here, please -->
{{reflist-talk}}
*'''Support''' - these are on all of the terrorism articles. Maybe keep the section small and have a link to the whole split article. [[Special:Contributions/97.73.126.72|97.73.126.72]] ([[User talk:97.73.126.72|talk]]) 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - but only for reactions that contain substantial content, rather than condolences and moral support. Similar to when the head of NATO said an attack on one was an attack on all of the alliance after 9/11.--[[User:Mongreilf|Mongreilf]] ([[User talk:Mongreilf|talk]]) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for reactions that contain substantial content. I'd also support having a paragraph that simply lists the states that gave condolences without going into too much detail. [[User:Spirit of Eagle|Spirit of Eagle]] ([[User talk:Spirit of Eagle|talk]]) 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:If they're added, it should be as paragraphs, preferably with NATO powers bundled together.

:What people really don't like with these sections is the list of bullet points with flags with single sentences. -- [[User:Callinus|Callinus]] ([[User talk:Callinus|talk]]) 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*No, no responses, no flags, no bullet points. Report on actions, on policy, on border closings--those are the only reactions of encyclopedic value. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - The other section discussing this seems to have the opposite opinion → [[Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks#Reactions|Here]] [[User:Snd0|Snd0]] ([[User talk:Snd0|talk]]) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Sorta...''' - If a major international figure says something meaningful other than "I condole you" or "we deplore this", if they announce actions they are taking, then yeah, I think it belongs in the article, but not in a special section. That just invites list-making, article-bloating, faces in the spotlight trivia. The Obama and Cameron examples, no. [[User:Dcs002|Dcs002]] ([[User talk:Dcs002|talk]]) 04:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
:: I guess this list making is my only issue. If you simply google "condolence paris" you'll find that the leaders of China, Malaysia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Ireland, Israel, Poland, Cambodia, New Zealand, and others have said the same thing... Yet currently we're only listing leaders from certain countries. Why the Philippines but not Cambodia? ... Sorry if this is pedantic. [[User:Snd0|Snd0]] ([[User talk:Snd0|talk]]) 06:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' absolutely pertinent in adjudging to students of IR how relations stand and who (and who did NOT respond). Armchair editors of WP may see otherwise, but encyclopedias are for students/education. To add, considering it is a political act, international reactions ARE necessary to adjudge both the relations and the consequences. [[Special:Contributions/94.187.2.221|94.187.2.221]] ([[User talk:94.187.2.221|talk]]) 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
**If a lack of response seems important perhaps that should be pointed out explicitly, but that would be malpractice for students to think that because something is missing that it important to IR.
*'''Oppose''' per HJ Miller's comment. It serves no purpose or aid to the reader to just list verbatim what leaders say. Include major examples with actual actions taken, but bullet pointed statements are repetitive and unconstructive. <font color="#1EC112">[[User:Reywas92|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Reywas92</span>]]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">[[User talk:Reywas92|'''Talk''']]</font></sup> 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - why not? - ''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]'' 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Seen it elsewhere. [[User:Hanyou23|Hanyou23]] ([[User talk:Hanyou23|talk]]) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - We had just yesterday reached a consensus to not include these... We also have this: [[International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks]]. Hollande's inclusion alone makes sense at all. Obama and other world leaders are just doing their duty, and their condolences are good for memorials and calming the shocked citizens, but do not belong to an encyclopedia. [[WP:NOTMEMORIAL]] In addition, it is sad that these lists are biased as nobody cares about some President of Togo's condolences while Obama from USA is seen as someone who can speak authoritatively about terrorism. [[User:Ceosad|Ceosad]] ([[User talk:Ceosad|talk]]) 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Notice|There is no consensus at this time, but there seems to be support for limited significant "responses" from leaders/countries. Note that an earlier consensus was reached to not list all the global condolences on the article. See: [[#International_response_subsection]] -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] &#124; [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 17:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)}}
*'''Oppose''' - We already reached consensus on this yesterday, there is no need to reopen the discussion. These sections are unencylopedic and add no value to the article. In five years, people reading the article aren't going to care about the long list of condolences. Unless something particularly notable happens (i.e. someone actually does something beyond offering an apology), there's little reason to make note of it here. [[user:Titanium Dragon|<span style="background-color:silver; color: ;">'''Titanium Dragon'''</span>]] ([[user talk:Titanium Dragon|talk]]) 06:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - Its a mandatory thing for anyone to say "We're sympathizing with France" or whichever nation was struck. This doesnt belong on a Wikipedia page unless this has directly resulted in a campaign for retaliation of sorts. Besides, the only valued opinions always seem to be the top 5 NATO countries, so who cares really. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.109.63.17|195.109.63.17]] ([[User talk:195.109.63.17|talk]]) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Motives are over-simplified ==

Paris was attacked by a sophisticated terrorist group that is clearly very strategic in its actions. Claiming that this attack was merely done out of hatred for the culture of Paris or the French king's behavior in the Middle East is clearly just a childish excuse that is clearly wrong. Yeah, ISIS may say they're doing it for that reason but since when did was any powerful adversarial force so simplistic in its strategy? Are we to say that German Unification under Bismark was done in the name of higher ideals? Are we to say that Russian theft of much of Ukraine was actually done to protect Russian Ukrainians? Are we seriously to believe that Julius Caesar just wanted to make Rome better? Face it, these are terrorists and they do terrorist attacks in order to get a reaction that benefits their overall objectives. If they wanted to kill people over degeneracy, then they wouldn't have lasted very long as a terrorist group before an Otto Von Bismark came along and used actual strategy. [[Special:Contributions/63.152.96.23|63.152.96.23]] ([[User talk:63.152.96.23|talk]]) 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:The French... king?!
:Anyway, this is all well and good, but do you have [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to improve the "motives" coverage, or is this just your own [[WP:OR|original research]]? If the latter, it won't be used. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

: agree ; the same as 911 they did itbecouse they hate our freedom. Perhaps a word 'blowback' if be any chance it is back and not blow-forward.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:70.195.65.120|70.195.65.120]] ([[User talk:70.195.65.120|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.195.65.120|contribs]]) 01:20, 15 November 2015‎ </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:: All are over-simplifications but unless you have a reliable source talking about it you can't change it in the article until they do. --[[User:Cookie Nguyen|Cookie Nguyen]] ([[User talk:Cookie Nguyen|talk]]) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== some of mostefai's family members have been arrested ==

can someone put this ?

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

--[[User:Stefvh96|Stefvh96]] ([[User talk:Stefvh96|talk]]) 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Broken page with VisualEditor ==
(Also posted at [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback]], posting here for information.) This article is currently broken when opened in the [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor]]. To reproduce, try opening [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&oldid=690743638 this revision] of this article with the VisualEditor. The page looks fine until the "Attacks" subsection, at which point raw wikitext becomes visible, starting with the text

<pre><nowiki>
{{quote box↵|title=Timeline of attacks↵|align=left↵|width=25%↵|quote=↵13 November
</nowiki></pre>

and then most of the rest of the page following that is lost. It's been some time since I've seen the VE break on a high-profile page like this. Browser: Firefox 42 on Debian Linux. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Rifles used in the attack? ==

Looking at the article now, someone has typed in that the rifles used by the terrorists were "AK-47s." Somehow I doubt these guys got their hands on 50s era Soviet rifles. They likely used AKM type rifles in this attack. Does anyone have any pics of the weapons used by the terrorists so that we can confirm what they are? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:FR4NCH3K|FR4NCH3K]] ([[User talk:FR4NCH3K|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FR4NCH3K|contribs]]) 11:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: AK-47 rifles, despite being largely supplanted by smaller caliber AKs, are still not uncommon as there are many in circulation and knock-offs from other manufacturers. However, you're right that the mainstream media is typically lazy and uninformed about specific firearms, so this does merit some more research. -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] &#124; [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:: Going by my experience, and also by our own [[AK-47]], I'd say the term now is used generically for all variants of the rifle. It's the Kleenex of automatic weapons. Anyways, we should probably follow sources, not interpret images. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 12:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::: We shouldn't use AK-47 then, we should use "a Kalashnikov-style rifle" or "a Kalashnikov." Though, here's an article in the Daily Beast that says that since Russia has just upgraded their AKs, there is a glut of the older model. But I'm not sure if that's a glut of AK-47s or AK-74s. -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] &#124; [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 12:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::: <blockquote>“One of the reasons we see a lot of Kalashnikovs and AK-47s on the black market is because Russia has just upgraded the Kalashnikov,” Kathie Lynn Austin, an expert on arms trafficking with the Conflict Awareness Project, told Al Jazeera, “and that has created massive stockpiles of the older models.”[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/13/this-is-how-ak-47s-get-to-paris.html]</blockquote>
:::: Numerous sources mention 7.62mm cartidges found on site, ruling out AK-74s. [[User:Rama|Rama]] ([[User talk:Rama|talk]]) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, that would do it for me then, in terms of keeping AK-47s. I only found one source, though. AP: [http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/in-a-half-hour-3-synchronized-teams-leave-paris-awash-in-blood-with-129-dead-and-350-wounded-1.2111584] -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] &#124; [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 14:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Stade de France bombings timeline ==

The times given for the first two of the Stade de France bombings in the "Timeline of Events" box are different from the given source:
*page: 21:16 (first explosion), 21:20 (second explosion)
*Reuters: 21:20 (first explosion), 21:30 (second explosion)
This needs review. --[[User:Vachovec1|Vachovec1]] ([[User talk:Vachovec1|talk]]) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

HI. That's right, its neither in line with the French not the German interwiki chronology.

* (French and german) À 21 h 20, une première explosion retentit rue Jules-Rimet près de la porte D du Stade de France. À 21 h 30, toujours rue Jules-Rimet, porte H, un autre kamikaze porteur d'un dispositif similaire se fait sauter. Une troisième et dernière explosion aux abords du Stade de France, avec le même mode opératoire, a lieu à 21 h 53, rue de la Cokerie, devant un établissement de restauration rapide, McDonald's. À nouveau le corps d’un kamikaze est retrouvé25. Quatre personnes sont mortes, dont trois terroristes26.
* 21:16 – First suicide bombing near the Stade de France.[43] 21:20 – Second suicide bombing at the Stade de France.[43] 21:53 – Third suicide bombing at the Stade de France.[43]

Cordialement Serten [[User_talk:Serten|Talk]] 15:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

==Updates==
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html [[Special:Contributions/92.16.213.2|92.16.213.2]] ([[User talk:92.16.213.2|talk]]) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

#Forensic police search for evidences outside the La Belle Equipe cafe, rue de Charonne. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
#From there, the militants drove around a mile south-east – apparently past the area of the Bataclan concert venue – to then launch another attack, this time on La Belle Equipe bar in Rue de Charonne. #At least 19 people died after the terrace was sprayed with bullets at around 9.35pm. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
#The unit drove about 500 yards to the Casa Nostra pizzeria in Rue de la Fontaine au Roi. A young woman told Le Monde she spotted a “very young” man – 18 to 20 years old – in the front seat of the car. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
#At around 9.50pm, an hour after the band took to the stage, black-clad gunmen wielding AK-47s and wearing suicide vests stormed into the hall and fired calmly and methodically at hundreds of screaming concert-goers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
#At around 9.50pm a third blast took place near the Stade de France, this time by a McDonald’s restaurant on the fringes of the stadium. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
#At least 89 people were killed in the concert hall. Three assailants were also killed after police stormed in - two by activating their suicide vests and a third shot dead. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
#A little further east at least 19 people died when the terrace of the La Belle Equipe in Rue de Charonne was sprayed with gunfire, while 15 people were killed at Le Carillon bar-cafe in Rues Bichat. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
#Five people at the Casa Nostra pizzeria and a nearby bar were killed by attackers wielding rifles. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html
[[Special:Contributions/92.16.213.2|92.16.213.2]] ([[User talk:92.16.213.2|talk]]) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== At least 129 people were killed ==

Actually it's 136, according to the numbers in the article itself: 129 victims and 7 perpetrators.-[[Special:Contributions/79.219.181.249|79.219.181.249]] ([[User talk:79.219.181.249|talk]]) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:Per other articles we don't count the perpetrators among the victims. We should always show apart. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::Nor am I'm asking that we do. I said that they very clearly should be counted among "people" that were "killed". Just use another term for people, one that would exclude the killers.-[[Special:Contributions/79.219.181.249|79.219.181.249]] ([[User talk:79.219.181.249|talk]]) 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Innocent people? Innocent: "a person involved by chance in a situation, especially a victim of crime or war." [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 20:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::That's awkward. Why not just "victim" then, since the very definition you gave would give "innocent people" as a superset of "victims", whereas everyone except the perpetrators are "victims" here? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::"Suicide victims" are a thing. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 06:36, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

::::The word for that is "civilian". [[User:Epicgenius|epic genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 20:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::The perpetrators were also civilians (a person not in the armed services or the police force). [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 20:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Except for the one shot, the perpetrators were not killed by anyone but themselves here. They committed suicide. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 05:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Deaths: 129 civilians ==

The sidebar calls the victims "civilians". Chances are that some are military or police, so that should be changed to something neutral.-[[Special:Contributions/79.219.181.249|79.219.181.249]] ([[User talk:79.219.181.249|talk]]) 15:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:Agreed. Changed to "victims". [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. They are not victims but French and intl martyrs or killed. Agree that the use of the term civilians birders on slight propaganda.

More neutral is to call them 129 dead or 129 deceased. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AIS59000750002015|AIS59000750002015]] ([[User talk:AIS59000750002015|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AIS59000750002015|contribs]]) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:"Victims" is pretty neutral, "martyrs" would obviously not be. They are already being called "dead" or "deceased", the issue here is to distinguish them from the perpetrators, who are also dead, in the infobox. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
: More neutral and wrong. They are 136 dead, and 136 deceased, not 129.-[[Special:Contributions/79.219.181.249|79.219.181.249]] ([[User talk:79.219.181.249|talk]]) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:: It says so in the infobox (129 +7). This section is about the infobox ("sidebar"). I don't care about elsewhere. Raise it elsewhere. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::: It says 129 + 7, but if it would say "129 dead" as AIS59000750002015 suggested, it would be wrong.
::: Is this the talk page of the sidebar only? I don't quite understand where you send me and why.-[[Special:Contributions/79.219.181.249|79.219.181.249]] ([[User talk:79.219.181.249|talk]]) 16:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree. Civilians sounds a bit too general and broad, "victims" may also be a bit problematic if you include the attackers in that, for instance. Perhaps a better term would be "deaths", or to, rather than use an abbreviation, word it slightly longer such as "136 individuals were killed during the attack" or something like that. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2|2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2]] ([[User talk:2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2|talk]]) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm saying you can make another section about the issue with the article body, but this particular section starts with "The sidebar", so let's not confuse issues. The article body says "at least", by the way. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: I did make another section, and I wasn't mentioning it here.-[[Special:Contributions/62.155.206.143|62.155.206.143]] ([[User talk:62.155.206.143|talk]]) 21:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Hashtags ==

Do we need a whole section about a "#portesouvertes" hashtag, when this is already mentioned in the proper "Social media reactions" section on the linked article (except the hashtag is "#porteouverte" there, seems sources cannot agree)? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:That [[November_2015_Paris_attacks#Local_response|Local response]] section is now expanding and dangerously getting close in concept to the separate, linked [[International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Popular_reactions|Popular reactions]] section. There is now even a Mass that is "due to" being celebrated, which makes me want to link [[WP:FUTURE]]. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|EP111}} the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690773148&oldid=690772890 edit] you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690773989&oldid=690773847 reverted] clearly indicated in the summary that I had started a discussion about the issue here. Why did you not take part and instead just reverted? Now see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690774852&oldid=690774439 my rationale] for keeping it please. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&oldid=690773148 Your edit] did no such thing. Regards, [[User:EP111|EP111]] ([[User talk:EP111|talk]]) 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|EP111}} uhm, what do you think that {{tq|"see talk"}} in that edit summary, with "talk" being a link to the relevant talk page section here, meant, then? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::As to your reason for reverting, please see [[Talk:International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Requested_move_14_November_2015|this talk page]] for wide support towards moving the article from "International reactions ..." to just "Reactions ...", even though the move hasn't taken place yet. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== "First United States death is listed under Mexico" ==

This comment is found within the [[November_2015_Paris_attacks#Casualties|casualties table]], even though the article body talks about a United States death. Is there a valid reason why the victim should be listed under Mexico and not (additionally) under United States, since the comment says they had dual citizenship? Why does the Mexican citizenship take precedence, and why can't we list a victim in two places? (This shows all the problems with a naive interpretation of [[WP:CALC]], by the way.) [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:This now appears to have been changed (the United States are now listed with 1 victim). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::Appears there was only one US citizen who was killed - a Californian college student who had dual Mexican nationality. I can't find any references to a second American death. [[User:Cantab12|Cantab12]] ([[User talk:Cantab12|talk]]) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::That's what the article says, isn't it? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Not until I edited it. It said 2. [[User:Cantab12|Cantab12]] ([[User talk:Cantab12|talk]]) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Oh, okay. Anyway my point with this section was merely that if someone has US citizenship, they should be listed under US (as well as any other country they have citizenship of). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Change all mentions of Militants to Terrorists ==

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

*'''Support''' per [[WP:EUPHEMISM]]: it's quite clear what we're dealing with, and it's not merely "militants". Of course, this should apply to mentions of people committing actual acts of terrorism, not (for instance) Islamist militants in general. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. There is no civil war in France, this is terrorism. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Caution''' - I'm not sure what this accomplishes, since there is only one mention of "militant" in the entire article that is not in quotes. Also, look at other similar articles and they do not go as far as to use the term "terrorist" within Wikipedia's own prose. Rather, they use assailant mostly and perhaps militants. -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] &#124; [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
** Example articles include the following. Just keep the balance in mind:
*** [[7 July 2005 London bombings]] - "terrorist" used as an adjective except in one case, addressing generic "terrorists"
*** [[January_2015_Île-de-France_attacks]] - "assailants" and "perpetrators" mostly. "Terrorists" used twice.
*** [[Charlie_Hebdo_shooting]] - "assailants" and "perpetrators" used in standard features like infoboxes and TOC, "terrorists" used as well.
*'''Oppose''' ''Terrorist'' is [[WP:LABEL|a contentious]] (and vague) term that can be more neutrally replaced by ''attacker'', ''assailant'', or ''perpetrators''. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] ('''''[[User talk:Veggies|<font color="blue" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I associate the word militant with political activism and violent revolutionaries. These people are neither of those things. [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It's a contentious [[WP:LABEL]] that helps them inflict their terror, so why use it at all? &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::Which label, "ISIL/ISIS" or "terrorists"? I'm guessing "terrorists" - Well, it's only "contentious" on Wikipedia talk pages, really. Reliable sources don't have a problem routinely calling this terrorism, and the perpetrators terrorists. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, I meant "terrorists" as contentious. ISIL/ISIS is the WP:COMMONNAME unless Hollande's attempt to use Daesh sticks. The reliable sources can sensationalize a bit and I'd rather not follow them. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Is pretty standard for articles like this. See [[September 11 attacks]]. [[Islamic State]] is classified as a terrorist group by most countries, and this was undoubtedly a terrorist attack, so there's little reason not to call them terrorists in the text. Note that in any quotes, we should use the word that whoever we're quoting used. [[user:Titanium Dragon|<span style="background-color:silver; color: ;">'''Titanium Dragon'''</span>]] ([[user talk:Titanium Dragon|talk]]) 06:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

--------------------------------------

And on the subject of language, any reference anywhere to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be preceded by "so-called" or "self-styled." This entity's name is technically incorrect (it is not a "state") and self-delusional. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.184.72.143|71.184.72.143]] ([[User talk:71.184.72.143|talk]]) 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Strongly oppose''' That's an absurd [[WP:ALLEGED|misdirection]] for the reader. The group calls itself that. It's silly to pretend that it doesn't. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] ('''''[[User talk:Veggies|<font color="blue" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:** '''Agree'''. The terrorists call themselves "Islamic State" just as much as Bruce Jenner calls himself Caitlyn Jenner. Wikipedia, in all cases but one, goes by what people call themselves. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:If I call myself the King of Europe does that make it true? [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::You are (to the best of my knowledge) not [[WP:N|notable]], so it doesn't matter what you call yourself. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:::OK, but say [[Shia LaBeouf]], who is notable, starts calling himself the King of California, is that to be taken literally? [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Not necessarily, because if the rest of us still just call him Shia LaBeouf, that's his [[WP:COMMONNAME]], whether or not he likes it. But I'm afraid the ISIL's common name is ISIL or ISIS, whether or not their being a state is "technically accurate" (we don't generally go by "technically accurate" for names). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Shia LaBouef is not made of beef either, but that's what his name implies. Names are quite literally ''nominal'', not ''essential''. [[Special:Contributions/107.179.137.47|107.179.137.47]] ([[User talk:107.179.137.47|talk]]) 18:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::If you are notable enough to have an article and change your name to King O. Europe&mdash;yes, that will be your title. It's stupid to demand that common names make ''literal'' sense. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] ('''''[[User talk:Veggies|<font color="blue" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 18:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Unfortunately, it can be argued that the Islamic State does meet all the basic requirements for being classified as a self-governing state, apart from that of (official) diplomatic recognition. [[User:Ceannlann gorm|Ceannlann gorm]] ([[User talk:Ceannlann gorm|talk]]) 19:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It is true that a number of sources describe the assailants as terrorists; however, many also describe them using the word "gunmen", "attackers" and (the word I used) "assailants". The question is, which word best reflects the purpose of Wikipedia? Which is the most neutral? "Terrorist" certainly is not. It is value laden and inherently political. The word we use ought to be strictly descriptive. [[User:SomePseudonym|SomePseudonym]] ([[User talk:SomePseudonym|talk]]) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
**When it comes to ISIL, it checks almost entire sourced row at [[List of designated terrorist groups]]. As long the majority of states designates ISIL as a "terrorist" and as long as it conducts the classical terrorist activity, then it's not a problem to call it as such. We call cat a cat and not a dog, although it can't talk. Otherwise what's the purpose of the word "terrorism"? [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]<sup>[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]</sup> 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is an easy call per the reasons already stated.[[User:VictoriaGrayson|VictoriaGrayson]]<sup>[[User talk:VictoriaGrayson|<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b>]]</sup> 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', just weakly. This is contentious. "Terrorist" is widely stated but could be considered POV. "Militant" is more neutral but does not reflect popular opinion. I suggest "assailant" or "perpetrator." [[User:Epicgenius|epic genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NEUTRAL]] as a term which defines motive when more accurate descriptions of the behavior are available (and more precisely describe the actions "shooter" "attacker"). [[User:Bodhi Peace|Bod]] ([[User talk:Bodhi Peace|talk]]) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Rue de Charonne - Restaurant name ==

The name of the restaurant on Rue de Charonne is "la Belle Epoque"....not "La Belle Equipe"
<ref>http://www.liberation.fr/france/2015/11/14/rue-de-charonne-des-balles-partaient-dans-tous-les-sens_1413328</ref>

:No, it's not, see [http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g187147-d7179350-Reviews-La_Belle_Equipe-Paris_Ile_de_France.html] [http://www.parisbouge.com/mag/articles/la-belle-equipe-un-bistrot-made-in-girls-1662] [http://www.yelp.com/biz/la-belle-%C3%A9quipe-paris] (all mentioning it's in Rue de Charonne), as well, of course, as very many sources about the attacks. Liberation here is wrong, as [https://www.google.com/search?q=la+belle+epoque+rue+de+charonne&oq=la+belle+epoque+rue+de+charonne Google] can hint (first hit Liberation, later hits are "La Belle Equipe"). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}

::Presumably "La Belle Équipe" ("The Beautiful Team") is a deliberate pun on the part of the owners. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 18:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Names and personal details of victims, again ==

{{ping|‎XavierItzm}} is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&curid=48545523&diff=690783483&oldid=690783261 insisting] on adding the full name and personal/educational details about a victim from the US.
We had [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks/Archive_2#Names_and_surnames_of_victims previous agreement] that should be avoided.
The rationale for the edit seems to be that [[WP:BLP]] doesn't apply since the person is deceased; however, if you have a look at what [[WP:BLP]] actually says, it mentions {{tq|"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased)"}}. In any case, [[WP:BLP]] is not even the main concern here (see previous discussion). Let's discuss it further, but no single-handed consensus overthrowing, please. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:: Absurd. Person is deceased, gone, dead. Name, occupation, photo of the parents on the Washington Post. Any objections to publishing name are utterly capricious.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/among-the-victims-in-paris-a-american-exchange-student/2015/11/14/6dc2d9fa-8afc-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_tick-tock-430pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Are you going to post all the 129 names? And what they did for a living or study? This is not like the [[Charlie Hebdo attack]] that you mentioned in another section above. There are not a small number of well-known dead people. Just because something is sourced we don't have to include it. And you're almost giving credence to the sometimes-advanced concept that some people only want to highlight American victims, by the way, hence [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 18:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::WP is not a newspaper. [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Nor is it a [[WP:MEMORIAL]]. We established that after 9/11, with the spin-off into the separate sep11 memorial wiki as a one-off. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]])

::: Heh, all the responses use some excuse other than the original "BLP" excuse. Sad, really. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Although WP:NOT (in terms of "memorials") [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_Web_hosting_service.2C_social_networking_service.2C_or_memorial_site refers to actual articles] per se, and NOT lists/names contained within an article, it should be noted it encourages meandering sentiment-laden stories as to victims' personal lives in a mass casualty attack.--[[User:Kieronoldham|Kieronoldham]] ([[User talk:Kieronoldham|talk]]) 21:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: That wasn't the original "excuse"; but I have already pointed that out. And as various other people also pointed out, [[WP:BLP]] ''is'' relevant in what it says about recently deceased people. I suggest you accept that your opinion is the lone dissenting one, and that you overlooked some parts of policy. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyone with a Wikipedia page that died should be named and linked (ie notable). The rest should not, because the event will not be known by their names, unlike a kidnapping or something. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== November 2015 Paris attacks and Template:Saint-Denis ==

I notice a user [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Saint-Denis&action=history keeps removing this incident from] [[Template:Saint-Denis]] from the history section. I don't understand what the problem is. This is history, isn't it?
{{ping|User:Debresser}}
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|WhisperToMe}} I don't see a problem with your addition: it's in the right place, and it's appropriate. [[WP:CRYSTAL]] seems unrelated here. I have reinstated it. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Age mention ==

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

== Sourcing ==

Just a reminder that this article needs to follow [[WP:BLPSOURCES]]. Specifically, it cannot make any contentious claims about living or recently-deceased people based on tabloid journalism. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

==Suspect named==
#Omar Ismail Mostefai, a 29-year-old French citizen of Algerian origin.http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Paris-attacks-Bath-mother-daughter-return/story-28174956-detail/story.html
#2 French-born brothers of Algerian origin, singled out as suspects. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318083/France-s-year-terror-Charlie-Hebdo-massacre-sparked-series-extremist-attacks-brought-bloodshed-country-s-shell-shocked-people.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996678/Paris-terror-attacks-victims-isil-suspects-Syria-arrests-live.html?frame=3500718
#French citizen of Algerian origin, who had a criminal record and was accused.http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Paris-attacks-Derby-Telegraph-readers-use/story-28178266-detail/story.html[[Special:Contributions/92.16.213.2|92.16.213.2]] ([[User talk:92.16.213.2|talk]]) 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

== Wounded (not injured) ==

They're called "bullet wounds" and "shrapnel wounds". They are not "injuries". These people were not playing a game of football.--[[Special:Contributions/99.232.1.160|99.232.1.160]] ([[User talk:99.232.1.160|talk]]) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:Injury and wound are synonymous, doesn't matter which is used. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::If someone was not wounded but, for example, suffered an internal organ injury due to explosions, do they not count? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Injury is damage to the body. This maybe caused by accidents, falls, hits, '''''weapons''''', and other causes. Major trauma is injury that has the potential to cause prolonged disability or death. In 2013 4.8 million people died from injuries up from 4.3 million in 1990. [[User:Bodhi Peace|Bod]] ([[User talk:Bodhi Peace|talk]]) 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Of course we're free to use poor English on Wikipedia. We're also free to raise the standard if we choose.--[[Special:Contributions/99.232.1.160|99.232.1.160]] ([[User talk:99.232.1.160|talk]]) 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::Except it's perfectly proper English, more proper than "wounded" in fact, which may not cover all the injured, as mentioned above. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::Right. Never mind all the bullet and shrapnel wounds. One of them may have fallen over. Therefore paint them all as injured. Brilliant.--[[Special:Contributions/99.232.1.160|99.232.1.160]] ([[User talk:99.232.1.160|talk]]) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::You are wounded by an implement - gun or knife - designed for the task. Anything else is an injury. Isn't that how it works? [[Special:Contributions/86.185.30.207|86.185.30.207]] ([[User talk:86.185.30.207|talk]]) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::[[Wound|A wound is a type of injury which happens relatively quickly in which skin is torn, cut, or punctured (an open wound), or where blunt force trauma causes a contusion (a closed wound). In pathology, it specifically refers to a sharp injury which damages the dermis of the skin]]. [[Injury| Injury is damage to the body.This maybe caused by accidents, falls, hits, weapons, and other causes]]. I've certainly been both injured and wounded by falling over the handlebar of a mountain bike and hitting the gravel road. One might argue that a mountain bike is "an implement designed for the task", but the road almost certainly is designed for another task. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::No, it's not. Check the definitions. And again for the third time, wound is external, while injury can be internal, and it's perfectly conceivable that some people affected by the attacks had internal injuries (there were explosions) rather than wounds. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::Couldn't we get the neutral word casualty in?[[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:It is [[November_2015_Paris_attacks#Casualties|already there]] and mainly used for ''deaths'', not injuries. The word "injuries" is perfectly neutral, and I don't think we should cave in to some editor's weird interpretation of English. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

M. Hollande has said these attacks were an act of war. In war, there are specific usages. My memory needs checking, but I think in the US military, soldiers (combatants) are wounded, and civilians (non-combatants) are injured. Is that a standard in other English-speaking countries? (US vets, have I got that right?) [[User:Dcs002|Dcs002]] ([[User talk:Dcs002|talk]]) 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:The only distinction I can find (e.g., [http://www.dailywritingtips.com/wound-vs-injury/ here]) is that a ''wound'' is a ''deliberately inflicted'' injury that tears the flesh, while an injury can be the result of something not intended, i.e., an accident &ndash; but wounds are injuries, i.e., those wounded are injured, but those injured may or may not be wounded. In this case, however, I think the distinction is entirely semantic (and rather crass); clearly all of the wounds or other injuries that occurred here were intended (by the attackers), and even if the injuries did not involve broken flesh (such as broken bones from falling from the window of a concert hall or blunt force injuries from an explosion), they were certainly injuries. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 05:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Number of Perpetrators (more than 8) ==

The number of attackers dead during the events turned out to be 7, not 8. But the total number must be at least 11.
* 3 self-killed at Stade
* 3 dead at Bataclan
* 1 dead on boulevard Voltaire
* PLUS all the shooters at the restaurants
* even if the same 2 attackers were at sites 2 and 3
* add 2 attackers at site 5
Equals 11 conservatively. There must be sources. [[User:Bodhi Peace|Bod]] ([[User talk:Bodhi Peace|talk]]) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::Hadn't the seven dead men been at other sites before? There were three teams and six sites right? So they had moved around I cannot see eleven. [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 22:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::If you look at the map and timeline, I think you might rethink the plausibility of travel. There were three teams, the Stade team, and the Bataclan team were all killed (6). One of the shooter team died (1). [[User:Bodhi Peace|Bod]] ([[User talk:Bodhi Peace|talk]]) 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Media is saying three teams. They had cars and accomplices, we know. And they were extraordinarily well organised. I don't find it implausible at all. [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::Even if the same 3 guys (somehow) moved from the rue Bichat to the rue de la Fontaine-au-roi (7 minutes later) to the Bataclan (8 minutes later), there were still 2 attackers at the rue Charonne, making the total 9. [[User:Bodhi Peace|Bod]] ([[User talk:Bodhi Peace|talk]]) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::That's just the ones we know. It get be more than 11. [[User:Kiwifist|Kiwifist]] ([[User talk:Kiwifist|talk]]) 02:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
One paper points out that bomb makers don't go on suicide missions since their skills are to important to the group. SO that is at least one suspect at large [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

==129/132==

All the news sites are saying 129 and the numbers add up to that; why does this page insist on 132 victims?

:State that they died in Hospital then - but couldn't we manage to separate the deaths of the victims and the attackers a little more? I don't think I'd want my death listed together with theirs. [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 22:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::Because [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996678/Paris-terror-attacks-victims-isil-suspects-Syria-arrests-live.html the source linked] to the 132 figure (which, I see, has been taken back to 129 now, without changing the source) repeatedly states 132. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Note this quote from them: {{tq|"18:25 - Death toll now 132 - AFP reports the death toll in Paris attacks rises to 132 after three die"}}, so they didn't dream it up. AFP is [[Agence France-Presse]]. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::I've fixed the bar to state explicitly that three died afterwards - and separate then from the immediate casualties. [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::: Do the sources change or is the article updated? I think then that we should try to make an archived version of the page like https://archive.is/bEco9 (or webcitation.org or webcitation.org) for the source that stated 132 deaths (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996678/Paris-terror-attacks-victims-isil-suspects-Syria-arrests-live.html) [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa]] ([[User talk:Nsaa|talk]]) 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{reply to|Nsaa}}It turns out the three victims died in hospital afterwards. Do you want to check how I've arraigned the infobar accordingly? [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Why? If (or sadly, when) the death count changes, the sources will changes, and so will our article have to change. Surely we aren't going to keep saying 132 when it's no longer true? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 23:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::129 fell on the night; that number should be kept. As three more have since died, and that number may as you say rise, a separate total should be placed beside 129. Currently, 132. I've already clarified this on the page. [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::I don't like the current infobox version. It's a detail, but last time I had checked it, the "in hospital" death were as indented as the other death location; now that's been de-indented, and is at the same level as the 129 "victims" and the 7 "perpetrators", making it look like it's neither victims nor perpetrators, and making the sum look like it's wrong. I favor the older version. We shouldn't give the impression the victims who died later are "just" "futher persons" who died in the hospital. Their status is basically the same as all the other victims. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Then why can't it be as I've just put it? [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 23:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Just seen this at [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-34825270 BBC News]: "Paris hospitals have said that the official death toll remains at 129 people, and not the 132 as had been earlier reported by AFP news agency." [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::OK how's that? [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:The 352 injury non-fatalities must also change if true.[[User:Bodhi Peace|Bod]] ([[User talk:Bodhi Peace|talk]]) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't change it yet - the reports are still very confused with some media saying the original 129 included the three later deaths. [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:The numbers will come in when they come in. I'm not rushing to change anything. [[User:Bodhi Peace|Bod]] ([[User talk:Bodhi Peace|talk]]) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::I agree, the reporting is all over the place. BBC reports 352 injured, 99 critically, but on the same page it says 415 were admitted to hospital, 80 of whom were critically injured. [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Other where it says some were removed from critical care. Many were naturally discharged. I don't see a reason to have all the numbers now. [[User:De la Marck|''Le Sanglier des Ardennes'']] ([[User talk:De la Marck|talk]]) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

::::I think it's cliche that so many of our articles about mass casualty events say "at least XXX" were killed. It's as if we always want to give the maximum number possible, and then suggest there are even more, even when all deaths have been accounted for. Our sources now say 129 are dead, not at least 129 dead. (Well, that's what the BBC says.) Can we just give the most reliable number in our sources? More might die as a result of their injuries, but they're not dead yet. Let's not write them off. Our statement is present or past tense, not [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]]. [[User:Dcs002|Dcs002]] ([[User talk:Dcs002|talk]]) 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::The "at least" stems from a time when the numbers weren't clear at all and it was virtually obvious that there were more casualties than the ones accounted for. Perhaps it's time to get rid of it now (but mind [[WP:NUMERAL]]). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::Done. I added the BBC as a second source. Is it redundant to say the attacks ''killed'' 129 ''victims''? If it is, feel free to clean that up - anyone. [[User:Dcs002|Dcs002]] ([[User talk:Dcs002|talk]]) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You would either say 129 were killed ''in the attacks'', or that the ''attackers'' killed 129. The ''attacks'' did not kill anyone, the ''attackers'' did. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup>
::::::Good point. I'll fix that - if you haven't already. I prefer the latter option, per [[WP:NUMERAL]], as [[User:LjL|LjL]] pointed out. [[User:Dcs002|Dcs002]] ([[User talk:Dcs002|talk]]) 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Done - "The attackers ''killed'' 129 ''victims'',..." Still, it feels redundant to say ''killed'' and ''victims''. They couldn't really kill non-victims. Still struggling with that. [[User:Dcs002|Dcs002]] ([[User talk:Dcs002|talk]]) 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::But there can be "victims" that weren't "killed" (injuries). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::You could just say that the attackers killed 129 ''people''. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 02:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::But they also killed themselves. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:09, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

==Quick Restaurant==

According to [http://news.sky.com/story/1588121/moment-hollande-learns-paris-is-under-attack this report] at Sky News, when Hollande was first informed of the situation in Paris, it was by saying that "The Quick has blown up", referring to one of several fast-food outlets in Paris. Sky says "The Quick fast food restaurant, just outside one of the stadium's main gates, had just been attacked by a suicide bomber." This would seem to be the Quick St Denis Grand Stade located at Quartier Stade de France rue, 1 Avenue Jules Rimet, 93210 Saint-Denis. I don't see the Quick identified as one of the targets in the article. Does anyone have any info on this? <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 23:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:: I was just about to ask this as well, because I have heard some news sources say there were two bombers at Gate J (where there was most likely only the attacker who got flagged down by the security guard) but some say it was a pub near by, and some say it was the Quick. Wondering if there is any one agreement as to which one of these claims is right. [[User:YingBlanc|YingBlanc]] ([[User talk:YingBlanc|talk]]) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Quick+St+Denis+Grand+Stade/@48.9259341,2.362422,3a,40.7y,222.31h,89.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdhsDuj2xvXoY6xs84G7ezQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x4c340ed08333593d!6m1!1e1 Google Street View] shows that the Quick is located directly across avenue Jules Rimet from Gates H and J of the Stade. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Perhaps the suicide detonation at the Quick was the terrorist who was turned away from the gate to the Stade (though we would need a source that says so). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: I don't think this bomber was the one who got turned away. There was only 1 bomber with a ticket to the game and he got turned away at Gate J at which point he detonated his vest. The third attacker past Gate J and the McDonalds haven't been given as much details which is where this confusion of where the bombing happened is taking place. [[User:YingBlanc|YingBlanc]] ([[User talk:YingBlanc|talk]]) 10:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== bolding and including the article title in the article ==

What is the wiki policy on this? I have seen both done. My rationale for excluding is that our article title is not the commonly used term for the attack. For example, the frontpage does not use our article title. What are some other thoughts? --'''''[[User:jumplike23|JumpLike23]]''''' [[User talk:jumplike23|(talk)]] 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:[[WP:BOLDTITLE]] completely supports your position (see the Mississippi River example there). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Is it called "Paris massacre"? ==

If so, a disambig hatnote at [[Paris massacre of 1961]] may be created. Or we could make [[Paris massacre]] a disambig. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 06:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:It's [https://www.google.ca/search?q=paris+massacre sometimes] called that. A disambig hatnote seems fine, but a whole page seems like something we'd only do ''after'' this becomes this one's article name (if that happens). [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 07:04, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

== Perpetrators in the info box ==

At the moment the info box states that the perpetrators are the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". While that may be the case, I have not seen any proof of it. Nor have I seen any reliable sources stating that as a fact. Most articles states that "ISIS claims responsibility of the attacks".

Should we change it ''from'': "'''Perpetrators: ''' [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]" ''to'' "'''Perpetrators: ''' Unknown. However, [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|ISIS]] claims responsibility."? [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 07:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:NO, they claimed they did it, some of the individuals came back from Syria, and there is no credible suggestion it was anyone else. In fact France bombed ISIL in retaliation. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::Or just because that's what France, as a NATO member, [[Opération Chammal|does]]. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 08:58, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

:Earlier, I'd put "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants". I was told this [[Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 1#ISIS? Yes or No?|didn't suck]] and still agree it doesn't. We know the general shadowy organization, but not who actually perpetrated (or planned) the attacks. It's a [[known unknown]] of sorts. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 08:30, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
::I am ok with, "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants" or something like that. I just don't like to state, with Wikipedias voice, that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" did it. We don't know that. [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 08:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::There's tons of stuff we don't know about this, and ISIS is general. All we can do is follow the sources. Wikipedia doesn't presume to be certain, just accurately reflective of the majority of those. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 08:56, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
::::The [http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/14/world/paris-attacks/ referenced article] states that "ISIS claims responsibility". And it is more than one jihadi group in Syria (if any group in Syria is behind this). [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 09:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Agree with Erlbaeko on this. Sources don't state that ISIS was responsible but that ISIS claimed responsibility. Not the same thing.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Volunteer Marek&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span> 09:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::"Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants (alleged)"? It's not just claimed to be claimed by ISIS, but also widely ''blamed'' on ISIS. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:06, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
::::::For that reason I would skip the "Unknown" part. It is... sort of "known" but not with certainty and there are some grounds to be skeptical (it'd sort of be the first for ISIS). Maybe just "(claimed)" or something like that. I'm too tired right now to think of the proper way to do it.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Volunteer Marek&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span> 09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::That the perpetrators were aligned with ISIS is what is sort of known. Who they were (names, ages, birthplaces, motives) is virtually entirely unknown. The "alleged" part would cover the first slight uncertainty. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:17, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
:::::::Wait, apparently I'm out of the loop and we have four IDs now. That's not "virtually entirely". [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:20, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

:I tried [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&diff=690890494&oldid=690889737 this.] Simpler than having perpetrators, assailants and suspected perpetrators, and the "suspected" part covers our asses regarding the people and the group. Does it suck? [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:31, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
::Works for me, however I prefer a small change to: (allegedly working for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 09:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I figured "allegedly" was implied by "suspected", but that would make it clearer, I suppose. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:56, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I think it is ok for now, but this is likely to change rapidly. [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::Of course. I'd bet there are five hundred edits here [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beirut-lebanon-attacks-paris.html?_r=0 before] there are five on the Beirut one. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 10:38, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
::: All that is certain so far, is that, through its channels, ISIS has claimed responsibility. Maybe that is all that should stay there. --[[Special:Contributions/109.69.249.37|109.69.249.37]] ([[User talk:109.69.249.37|talk]]) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::ISIS is not a person. It can't perpetrate anything without actual people. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:56, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
::::: That is true. An official "spokesperson" has yet to make a claim... --[[Special:Contributions/109.69.249.37|109.69.249.37]] ([[User talk:109.69.249.37|talk]]) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::Beware wording such as "The claim could not be independently verified but it was similar to other IS claims." Because the other claims were fishy, too. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 10:36, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

== Curfew ==

There was no curfew in Paris following the attacks. It was not mentioned in the French media as far as I am aware. I live near to affected areas so I could also see what was going on. The police did advise people to stay indoors. Some people were blocked inside bars and other venues as directed by the police, but that was on a local case by case basis rather than city-wide. It is difficult to show this given that some news sources incorrectly reported that a curfew was in effect. I have not found any sources saying 'no curfew was in effect'. Can anyone suggest how one should establish the fact that there was no curfew, given the requirements of Wikipedia to reference sources. - [[User:Wgsimon|Wgsimon]] ([[User talk:Wgsimon|talk]]) 09:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:Isn't simply ''not'' saying there ''was'' a curfew good enough? [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 10:40, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

:I just bothered to click the citation on that bit about what "some English sources" say about the curfew. A ''Huffington Post'' headline is not "some English sources". Fixed now. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 12:43, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

:If you'd like to straight-up deny the curfew, rather than just not mention it, [http://english.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/paris-attacks-no-curfew-imposed-french-authorities-wisma-putra-80990 the Malaysian Embassy can help.] [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 12:48, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

::This is an ongoing issue (check talk page archives, too). A Canadian news outlet (CTV) started saying there was a curfew and it was the first since WWII (probably misinterpreting the recommendation to stay home), and then other agencies started repeating it, each time making the claim sound more sensational. Wikipedia joined in, despite me and some other editors pointing out these news were most likely false, on the ground of what local French sources said. But oh well, it's not like Wikipedia posting false information ever causes them to be perpetuated in ''other'' publications, is it? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Better source than Taheri? ==
I searched briefly but couldn't find other news articles to backup the statement that 'Islamic State has referred to the Paris attacks as a "ghazwa" (religious raid)'.
The [[Amir Taheri#Controversies_and_Alleged_fabrications|Wikipedia entry for the author]] raises concerns about reliability. [[User:Meticulo|Meticulo]] ([[User talk:Meticulo|talk]]) 09:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:Well as Wikipedia isn't a news site I'd say it would be best for us after "the smoke has cleared" to see if any other news agencies will use the term, and especially agencies of more prestige. The problem with these types of articles and the news sites reporting on them is that when you insert the wrong sources it might fall under [[WP:CRYSTAL]] and [[WP:TOOSOON]]. --[[User:Cookie Nguyen|Cookie Nguyen]] ([[User talk:Cookie Nguyen|talk]]) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Statistical point ==

As the article reads: ''The attacks were the deadliest in France since the Second World War, and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.''

As this is about coordinated attacks against a country directly involved in military action against ISIS (not as part of a wider organisation), is there really the need to highlight that this ranks worst within EU since 2004? I cannot help but think there is some pan-EU connotation here whereby its proponents view it as more than just a politico-economic union, but instead as a superstate. In my honest opinion, if we are discussing multi-state groups then NATO is more more significant - but this would need a revision as to member states and you'd have to take 9/11 into account. I know my tone here may sound insensitive and I have no intention of downplaying the atrocitites, it is just that I fail to see their significance within the EU. Supposing this didn't happen in France but in Switzerland (non-EU), it would still be some type of "worst attack since Madrid 2004" perhaps on European soil but the concept of what is truly only a member's club - the EU - should not be projected into hyper-significance here. Furthermore, it was not the EU that was attacked, the target was specifically France and not Finland. --[[User:Oranges Juicy|OJ]] ([[User talk:Oranges Juicy|talk]]) 12:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. The list of organisations that France is signatory to, major or minor, is extremely long. --[[User:Oranges Juicy|OJ]] ([[User talk:Oranges Juicy|talk]]) 12:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:Where does this rank among the [[Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds]] nations? Yes, it does seem a peculiarly arbitrary factoid. Wikipedia has a thing about noting when things are the deadliest. If there were deadlier, it becomes "deadliest in" or "deadliest since". But the France part alone should be enough to satisfy that weird need. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 12:58, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

:: The phrase "deadliest in France since the Second World War" is tendentious, as it selectively takes criterias in or out of consideration for a sensational statement. The [[Paris massacre of 1961]] probably outweights the recent attacks, and depending on what you consider to be France, the [[Sétif and Guelma massacre]] is far higher. I call for a complete removal of such language in the name of the [[WP:NPOV]] policy. [[User:Rama|Rama]] ([[User talk:Rama|talk]]) 13:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Somewhere between 1,020 and 45,000 people? That's an amazing range of guesswork, nevermind the deadliness. Seems like where there's French police, that'd be France. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 13:56, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
:::: Not quite exactly: you would have had French police in Indochina, for instance, even though the country was a colony; Algeria, however, had the same status as Corsica has today, it was litterally a part of France. The implicit argument that because it gained independance the massacres that occurred there when is was a part of France somehow do not count does not attract my sympathy. [[User:Rama|Rama]] ([[User talk:Rama|talk]]) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm explicitly saying I ''do'' count it, if you're implying that I'm implying the other thing. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 17:44, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

:Whether or not the "deadliest in" claims are justified (I'd probably remove them), I will point out that the EU is pretty much a "superstate" in many respects, and when you call it "just a politico-economic union", well, what do you think a state generally is? Pretty much a politico-economic union. It's not comparable to a ''military alliance'' like NATO. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::<small>Doesn't have an Olympic team, not a real state. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 13:50, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC) </small>
:::LjL, I know ''exactly'' what the EU is, but the superstate that its proponents wish to make it is precisely what it purports not to be, instead it is billed as a union of "free" and "independent" states. If you are asking what I think a state generally is then my answer is a sovereign entity. Most of my family live in Croatia and as all of them oppose Croatia being in the union, they all consider Croatia the sovereign entity regardless of how much has been centralised and devolved to Brussels. In the end of the day, the EU is a member's club and if a leader arbitrarily pulls the plug on his own membership, the implications may be drastic but it is not the same as the authorities of Friuli unilaterally declaring independence from Italy. In the end of the day, it is neither the EU nor NATO that is at war with ISIS, it is a set of countries from inside and outside the EU who have entered a conflict by their own choosing. As such, no matter what the event, deadly attack or erection of fifth highest traffic lights, there is no special reason to tell the reader where this ranks within the sovereign territories of 28 contemporary states. --[[User:Oranges Juicy|OJ]] ([[User talk:Oranges Juicy|talk]]) 14:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Actually, there is no process for a country to leave the EU (there would have been if countries/people had accepted the EU Constitution at the time it was proposed), and the EU treaties are binding, so in effect, countries have given up part of their sovereignty without an option to gain it back. What would happen if one country tried to forcibly/unilaterally "pull the plug" is anybody's guess. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 14:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::Look just because a trade bloc has exceeded itself to the point it is the only one of its kind, there is no grey area on this issue. The EU is not a member of NATO, but France is while Sweden isn't. The EU does not have a seat on the UN, but its members occupy 28 seats, one per state. There really is no discussion here. The argument is whether the EU is something so vital that we need to specify a "second worst within random time frame" incident, and my opinion is that it is not. Your argument rests on how powerful the organisation has become, but to me if something happens one day in Portugal, the next day in Austria and the day after that in Greece, it is completely irrelevant since these three countries do not border, have nothing in common culturally or historically, speak unrelated languages and don't all use the same script. In other words, I doubt anything needs to be stated as "biggest in EU" or "longest in EU", as such "worst since 2004" is hyperbole. --[[User:Oranges Juicy|OJ]] ([[User talk:Oranges Juicy|talk]]) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::The EU does [[European Union and the United Nations|have a seat as an observer state in the UN]]. You may be right or wrong (probably right) about the fact that we don't need to make boasting claims in the article, but you're stating some inaccuracies. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 14:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


:The [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/world/europe/paris-terrorist-attacks.html?_r=0 source] for that claim says "Friday's attacks were the deadliest in Europe", so I'm going to change it to Europe. [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::Still seems a bit extra to the "in France" part. Why not include the whole world next? Deadliest there since 2015, I think. But yeah, it's a ''bit'' better. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 17:22, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

P.S. As for what would happen if all treaties are in place and a country broke away, well my guess is as good as yours, it hasn't happened so I am none the wiser. However I'll tell you what will not happen, that is you won't have the militaries of 27 states invading the breakaway to oust the secessionist government and replace it with a pro-EU regime that will be loyal to Brussels. Such measures just cannot be considered internationally lawful because a state has breached membership terms. --[[User:Oranges Juicy|OJ]] ([[User talk:Oranges Juicy|talk]]) 14:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Hoaxes ==

{{edit semi-protected|November 2015 Paris attacks|answered=yes}}
A Skith man was falsely labeled by Spanish and Italian news organisations of being one of the terrorists in the attack

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/canadian-pictured-as-paris-terrorist-in-suspected-gamergate-smear

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/sikh-man-at-centre-of-storm-after-being-depicted-as-paris-attacker/story-7FYafLuavIvYJRdUf91f3O.html

[[Special:Contributions/31.17.1.71|31.17.1.71]] ([[User talk:31.17.1.71|talk]]) 12:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:And? [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 13:02, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)

needs to be put in aftermath with title "hoaxes" [[Special:Contributions/31.17.1.71|31.17.1.71]] ([[User talk:31.17.1.71|talk]]) 13:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:Does it really? Many pieces of wrong information have been / will be circulated. Is it important? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:'''Strongly oppose''' Has nothing to do with the attacks and the subject is [[WP:NPF|not a public figure]] and should not be harassed. -- [[User:Veggies|Veggies]] ('''''[[User talk:Veggies|<font color="blue" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 13:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Not relevant. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup> 13:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mosque-peterborough-fire-1.3320013 Mosque arson] is bad enough for Canada's image today. Don't need other idiots getting angry. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 13:46, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
:::Not Wiki's responsibility - nor the news outlets' - articles are to cite RS's and written per the guidelines, and that's all. [[Special:Contributions/98.67.190.14|98.67.190.14]] ([[User talk:98.67.190.14|talk]]) 15:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::No, that's far from "all". We include or don't include things not just based on [[WP:RS]] treatment of them, but also [[WP:N]], [[WP:UNDUE]] and a number of other policies. Specifically, {{tq|"Like everything else, hoaxes must be [[WP:Notability|notable]] to be covered in Wikipedia—for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years."}} (from [[WP:HOAX]]). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Otherwise known as GUIDELINES. But I wasn't referring to any of that - read who I was replying to and what I replied about. It isn't Wiki's responsibility to prevent crimes in the outside world, just to write an encyclopedia. [[Special:Contributions/98.67.190.14|98.67.190.14]] ([[User talk:98.67.190.14|talk]]) 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::An encyclopedia written per the guidelines (and policies, which technically are distinct here). I'm not opposed to potentially putting a target on man's back because it's my responsibility as a Wikipedian, it just seems like a dick move. If it added any value to the topic, I might consider it. Seems like it could be relevant in [[GamerGate]]. But since we know there's no actual connection to this, we'd look foolish connecting it here. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 17:02, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> As other editors have said, this may not be relevant and the statement not correct. [[User:Epicgenius|epic genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Les Fédérations Musulmanes ==

{{ping|Firebrace}} ... what? I'm not sure if [[Les Fédérations Musulmanes]] is [[WP:N|notable]] enough to have its own article on the English Wikipedia, but surely, it makes no sense to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&curid=48545523&diff=690912447&oldid=690912200 claim] that "if it had its own article, it would be in French".
What's the rationale for that claim? That their ''name'' is in French? Surely that means nothing. An organization with a name in any language can be covered on the English Wikipedia (random example: [[Accademia della Crusca]]). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Much more importantly, I'm seeing that the sources given make no mention of an organization called "Les Fédérations Musulmanes": the English source doesn't mention it at all, while the French sources simply talk about "les fédérations musulmanes" (meaning "the Muslim organizations") generically. Dare I suspect that someone just mistook that for a specific organization? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:I can't find any reference to Les Fédérations Musulmanes on Google. It translates as 'Muslim federations' and appears to be a generic term, rather than a proper noun. [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 13:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::Agreed. I'll remove it. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== Quotes from concert hall ==

*https://sg.news.yahoo.com/paris-attacks-dont-move-well-kill-201441393.html
::"What's happening to you, is your fault. We are avenging our brothers in Syria."
*https://sg.news.yahoo.com/survivor-paris-concert-massacre-recounts-moment-doom-133230092.html
::"For five minutes, the gunmen next to us tried to boost our confidence."
[[Special:Contributions/2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01|2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01]] ([[User talk:2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01|talk]]) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== "who entered France posing as a Syrian refugee" ==

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

:Are you asking for any particular bit of information to be included in the article? Or amended? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::It seems inaccurate. The referenced article says, "The men crossed into Europe through Greece and made their way through several other countries, including Hungary, before reaching France, according to reports." But a lot of information is indicating that some, and possibly all of those who participated in the event, came from Belgium, not France. [[Special:Contributions/2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01|2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01]] ([[User talk:2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01|talk]]) 17:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Surely they "reached France" eventually, though? It says "several other countries", so Belgium isn't ruled out. I'm still not sure I see the issue. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== More direct quotes from the IS? ==


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


:Some of those claimed motivations are mentioned in the infobox at the top of the article, under "Motives". [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
the Paris Massacre of 1961 killed up to 300 people, the november 2015 terrorist attacks killed 137 people, they are the second deadliest attacks since WW2 [[User:The basque savior|The basque savior]] ([[User talk:The basque savior|talk]]) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


:The statement "deadliest attacks since WW2" is sourced to two newspaper articles. I guess the [[Paris Massacre of 1961]] death toll is disputed or something? I'd be inclined to leave this as-is since it is well sourced. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 16:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
:Just be careful pulling "direct" quotes from [http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-first-of-the-storm-translation-of-islamic-state-statement-after-paris-attacks/ this translation.] There's nothing in the French version that says "apostate" or "profligate prostitution party". It's "idolater" and "perversion party". And Paris is "the capital of abomination and perversion", not "obscenity and prostitution". Probably many other mistakes. The Arabic ''might'' be closer, but I doubt it. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 17:36, [[November 16]], [[2015]] (UTC)
::The death toll of the 1961 massacre is disputed but there are scholarly sources giving a higher death toll:
::This is helpful. The infobox gives two links; one just talks about those at the concert hall, the other only mentions some of the issues from the IS's statement (like other articles I had read). I was looking at [http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates#block-56471333e4b0ced428cb289a the Guardian's live event] and [http://afriqueeducation.com/politique/attentats_terroristes_daesh_condamne_l_intervention_militaire_fran_aise_en_syrie a transcript], but the Google translation isn't clear with the grammar. I agree that direct quotes are not as useful as I had suggested, given that the statements weren't in English. "Cursing/insulting our prophet" is not currently mentioned as a 'motive' in this Wikipedia article. Given the international reaction and [[Je suis Charlie]], it seems significant that the IS maintains this as an issue. (Committing slander will earn you [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937217/Killed-gay-Man-blindfolded-thrown-tower-block-Syria-stoned-death-SURVIVED-fall.html 80 lashes] in the IS and possibly other countries like Saudi Arabia, I actually did not know that before.)
::[https://books.google.com/books?id=CnNvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22the+actual+death+toll+among+Algerians%22&source=bl&ots=26aylDyf5g&sig=ACfU3U2R2qoTzpxlQ7a4YLkFr99GW4VIpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN3qGbvOH_AhUsAjQIHbawA00Q6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=%22the%20actual%20death%20toll%20among%20Algerians%22&f=false 200 deaths] per this 2020 book (pp. 2-3)
::The point I originally intended to make though was that the attack may have more complex motives than it seems. The translation, by someone who is better at French grammar than Google Translate, seems to support this; it mentions situations having a certain state, not specific (or recent) actions, as the reason for why "the smell of death will never leave their noses". Was the smell of death in their noses before this attack, described as the first, or beginning of the storm?
::Furthermore, there were other, far larger, massacres that took place during the France Algeria war which was legally an integral part of France, such as the [[Sétif and Guelma massacre]].
::My original edit before an edit conflict: I'm saying this because one such direct quote was removed from [[International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks]] on the grounds that it wasn't an "international reaction", but instead belonged in the main article. And to be a bit more clear: a famous French person released a graphic or something saying "those who were killed did not know that they were at war, but were enjoying themselves" etc. The IS's statement also suggests that it perceives that people in France did not feel it was a priority to drop more bombs on the IS (prostitution conflicts with dropping bombs). I didn't read the full statement; I read that the IS did say that France's airpower was ineffective in the streets of Paris, but I am not aware of the IS saying in its official statement that the attack was in ''retaliation'' for France's bombing of the IS. However, those were who were at the concert hall may have suggested, or said this. This may be too nuanced for an encyclopedia though. [[Special:Contributions/2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01|2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01]] ([[User talk:2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::I would not consider two news articles "well sourced". Usually journalists are not experts in history so they might not know about other massacre incidents and their death toll.
::A wording such as "one of the largest" would ensure we are not putting a disputable claim in wikivoice and make sure to clarify it refers to "metropolitan France" only. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 17:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
:::Works for me. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 18:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


== Islamic attack or not ==
== DOB removed for Omar Ismaël Mostefai? ==


Verses (Q5:32–33) have been quoted to denounce killing, by using an abbreviated form such as, "If anyone kills a person, it would be as if he killed the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people".
Why was the Date of Birth (DOB) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690844410&oldid=690842706 removed] by {{user|Firebrace}}? [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa]] ([[User talk:Nsaa|talk]]) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


:Why was it included? [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace]] ([[User talk:Firebrace|talk]]) 18:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
these verses denounce killing. killing is prohibited. [[Special:Contributions/109.69.161.178|109.69.161.178]] ([[User talk:109.69.161.178|talk]]) 14:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


:The attacks were the work of the [[Brussels Islamic State terror cell]]. There is a difference between sensible Muslims and people who misuse religion to pursue their own extremist agendas.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 16:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
:Why would we care about the exact date of birth? It still mentions his age, which seems more than enough. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:36, 21 October 2024

It was not the bloodiest attacks in France since World War Two

[edit]

the Paris Massacre of 1961 killed up to 300 people, the november 2015 terrorist attacks killed 137 people, they are the second deadliest attacks since WW2 The basque savior (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "deadliest attacks since WW2" is sourced to two newspaper articles. I guess the Paris Massacre of 1961 death toll is disputed or something? I'd be inclined to leave this as-is since it is well sourced. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll of the 1961 massacre is disputed but there are scholarly sources giving a higher death toll:
200 deaths per this 2020 book (pp. 2-3)
Furthermore, there were other, far larger, massacres that took place during the France Algeria war which was legally an integral part of France, such as the Sétif and Guelma massacre.
I would not consider two news articles "well sourced". Usually journalists are not experts in history so they might not know about other massacre incidents and their death toll.
A wording such as "one of the largest" would ensure we are not putting a disputable claim in wikivoice and make sure to clarify it refers to "metropolitan France" only. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic attack or not

[edit]

Verses (Q5:32–33) have been quoted to denounce killing, by using an abbreviated form such as, "If anyone kills a person, it would be as if he killed the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people".

these verses denounce killing. killing is prohibited. 109.69.161.178 (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks were the work of the Brussels Islamic State terror cell. There is a difference between sensible Muslims and people who misuse religion to pursue their own extremist agendas.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]