Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

International response subsection

See also: § Reactions, and § Reactions part 2

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

Immediately following the attacks, worldwide governments issued statements in response. United States President Barack Obama spoke via live stream from the White House at 5:45 PM ET, condemning the attacks and offering American aid, calling the event an "attack on all of humanity". British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged similar support for France through a statement made on Twitter.

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

• Oppose. The international community will obviously express sympathy, offer aid, etc., etc. I argue that this is not notable. It was suggested above that perhaps a running list be kept on this talk page, for addition at some point in the future. Ignatzmice•talk 00:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• 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.

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

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

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

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

Substantial reactions, as in providing monetary assistance, logistical support, etc. is worth including. Messages of condolences and solidarity are routine for tragedies such as this and not encyclopedic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

References

• Support - these are on all of the terrorism articles. Maybe keep the section small and have a link to the whole split article. 97.73.126.72 (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - but only for reactions that contain substantial content, rather than condolences and moral support. Similar to when the head of NATO said an attack on one was an attack on all of the alliance after 9/11.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support for reactions that contain substantial content. I'd also support having a paragraph that simply lists the states that gave condolences without going into too much detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

What people really don't like with these sections is the list of bullet points with flags with single sentences. -- Callinus (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, no responses, no flags, no bullet points. Report on actions, on policy, on border closings--those are the only reactions of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The other section discussing this seems to have the opposite opinion → Here Snd0 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Sorta... - If a major international figure says something meaningful other than "I condole you" or "we deplore this", if they announce actions they are taking, then yeah, I think it belongs in the article, but not in a special section. That just invites list-making, article-bloating, faces in the spotlight trivia. The Obama and Cameron examples, no. Dcs002 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess this list making is my only issue. If you simply google "condolence paris" you'll find that the leaders of China, Malaysia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Ireland, Israel, Poland, Cambodia, New Zealand, and others have said the same thing... Yet currently we're only listing leaders from certain countries. Why the Philippines but not Cambodia? ... Sorry if this is pedantic. Snd0 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support absolutely pertinent in adjudging to students of IR how relations stand and who (and who did NOT respond). Armchair editors of WP may see otherwise, but encyclopedias are for students/education. To add, considering it is a political act, international reactions ARE necessary to adjudge both the relations and the consequences. 94.187.2.221 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If a lack of response seems important perhaps that should be pointed out explicitly, but that would be malpractice for students to think that because something is missing that it important to IR.
• Oppose per HJ Miller's comment. It serves no purpose or aid to the reader to just list verbatim what leaders say. Include major examples with actual actions taken, but bullet pointed statements are repetitive and unconstructive. Reywas92^Talk 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - why not? - ^theWOLFchild 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Seen it elsewhere. Hanyou23 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - We had just yesterday reached a consensus to not include these... We also have this: International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Hollande's inclusion alone makes sense at all. Obama and other world leaders are just doing their duty, and their condolences are good for memorials and calming the shocked citizens, but do not belong to an encyclopedia. WP:NOTMEMORIAL In addition, it is sad that these lists are biased as nobody cares about some President of Togo's condolences while Obama from USA is seen as someone who can speak authoritatively about terrorism. Ceosad (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - We already reached consensus on this yesterday, there is no need to reopen the discussion. These sections are unencylopedic and add no value to the article. In five years, people reading the article aren't going to care about the long list of condolences. Unless something particularly notable happens (i.e. someone actually does something beyond offering an apology), there's little reason to make note of it here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Its a mandatory thing for anyone to say "We're sympathizing with France" or whichever nation was struck. This doesnt belong on a Wikipedia page unless this has directly resulted in a campaign for retaliation of sorts. Besides, the only valued opinions always seem to be the top 5 NATO countries, so who cares really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing SCW&ISIL sanctions

I am going to be bold and get rid of the {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} template on this, to remove it from the status of being under the discretionary sanctions, for several reasons:

1. This article is related to ISIL but certainly not one of the ones in high contention from that arbcom case.
2. It is a new article that is being actively edited and is also a breaking news article, which means it is in high flux. It's unreasonable to think that people can be banned or blocked after one small mistake and reverting.
3. Heuristically and operationally, it has ruined the working dynamic here which I thought was developing quite nicely
4. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and WP:IAR and do this in the name of common sense.

Removing the template now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Highly reasonable. Thanks. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I support this. (I'd rather support ArbCom not just slapping 1RR sanctions on things as a default, but when all you have is a hammer....) -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the removal of the template the Discretionary Sanctions still apply, but I would hope that they would not be used against editors making routine edits on a fast developing news story. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The sanctions for SCW&ISIL automatically apply and users should be aware of it. Any edit on pages related with ISIL - "As the result of a discussion at WP:AN, the scope of the Syrian Civil War general sanctions is amended to apply to all pages related to the Syrian Civil War or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed" [1].GreyShark (dibra) 12:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There has to be a logical limit to that blanket decision, and if the consensus in this editing community on this page is that the edict should be put on the back burner until there are specific parts of this article that touch on Islamic State or Syrian Civil War topics that breach that ARBCOM ruling, then we should have the liberty to do so. We should be able to stick to the explicit and implicit consensus seen above. I understand the desire to use Arbcom power to pre-emptively enforce civility, but articles like these about breaking news with information in flux, rapid iteration and high standards for WP:V show the great flaws in applying the sanctions indiscriminately. We have ways of dealing with this without a 1RR hammer. Please respect the original spirit of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Five_pillars points 1 and 5) and let thinking editors decide. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The statement "All articles related to ... the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is sufficiently vague to be almost meaningless. For example, the article No. 12 Squadron RAF mentions ISIL, so is it covered by 1RR? It's time a minority of editors treat others as adults and stop trying to micro-manage editing. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuzheado likes this.

Semiprotecting required.

Article needs protecting so only autoconfirmed users can edit: It is attracting numerous acts of vandalism.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kinda tired here anyway. :D 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also potentially numerous new editors to the project, though. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your observations, and am sorry for the contributors with noble intent, but the alternate is 2, 3 or 4 acts of vandalism per minute. They can still propose edits on the talk page though. Also, they can become autoconfirmed users.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do it, but at least for a little while we may have to keep it as semi so the vandals don't return. I'd like to try to get out of that status as soon as possible. 72.198.26.61 - do create an account and edit more if you can. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have an account, just choosing not to use it at this point (long story). But I understand. I'll make myself useful elsewhere. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not pending changes? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it still allows IPs to edit, and the object of the exercise at WP is to remove all IP editing, by stealth. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite SP now. This just goes to support what I said above. There is a massive push in WP to ban IP edits completely, hence any excuse for permanent SP. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that indefinite does not mean forever? It doesn't even mean a long time necessarily. It means "unprotection date to be determined". If you wish to discuss this conspiracy, please do it in a more appropriate venue such as WP:VPM. If you feel any discussion would be futile, why are you wasting your time and ours discussing it? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means someone has to do something to change it. And guess what? That nearly always doesn't happen. Why are you wasting your time responding to me? I didn't ask you to do so, so just move on, like you said you were going to, above. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll gladly move on from this waste of time. I will not move on from this talk page because you say so, regardless of what I said above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Victims

To add to the page :

• A Chilean among the victims. The niece of Ambassador Ricardo Nunez said Senator of the Chilean Socialist Party Isabel Allende.
• Two Algerians, a woman 40 years a man of 29, were killed in the attacks fl according to APS quoted Algerian diplomatic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.20.21 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Links to the sources please... you can't expect autoconfirmed editors to do the research for you! LjL (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a reputable link from 9 minutes ago re: Algeria. Can't find anything re: Chile.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The bombers are victims too. They should be included.

and we schold give they names. But no victims names?

The bombers are deceased, but per definition of wikt:victim, they are not "victims" of the attacks. LjL (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. victim is deceased. Her name is in the Washington Post. And people are objecting to her inclusion? All the names of the Charlie Hebdo massacre are included.

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 XavierItzm (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Time of second Explosion

Concering the the time of the second explosion around the Stade de France, it is stated: "...an explosion at a bar near the stadium at approximately 21:30, about 20 minutes after the start of an international friendly football match...". This is an impossible statement. As the game started at 21:00 CET . If you listen and watch the uninterrupted first half broadcast, you can clearly hear a scond explosion at game time 19:35. This would put the second attack arround 21:20 CET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.58.207 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Agreed and changed. The uploader of footage of the game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc9ITokfVFc) reports two blasts; the first time 21:17 matches various other reports; the second time 21:20 matches a statement (in e.g. the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995246/Paris-shooting-What-we-know-so-far.html) that the second blast was 3 minutes later. "live-text" reports of the game indicate that the game started on time Cathalwoods (talk)

Suppressing international reactions about refugees/Schengen

@Volunteer Marek: seems very intent on removing reactions by ministers in Poland and other countries from International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks (here is the relevant discussion) against multiple editors. Now he has moved on to doing the same on this article. His opinion on those statements not being worth repeating seems to be very much his own; but aside from that, he appears to be even removing things without realizing, since he gives the edit summary "uh, it's "countrY" not "countrIES" - did you even bother before hitting the revert button?" to my revert, and yet, text removed included sourced Czech Republic statement, not just Poland ones.

Please add this stuff back to either article or both, it pretty obviously matters. LjL (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I removed it because it it's not an official response - as the text pretended it was - but just what a politician said online. And since we have JUST STARTED discussing this saying that this view is "very much his own" (i.e. mine) is disingenuous. There's two people who disagree. You and MyMoloboaccount. Ok fine. Let's have a wider discussion. Start an RfC. But per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact its off topic, let's keep it out until then. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That is incorrect. From the section above, User:MyMoloboaccount started the discussion and it continued until your posts. At one point, MyMoloboaccount said the following, "It wasn't "one politician" but Minister for European Affairs. As to the rest of your personal views, they are not supported by RS.Please kindly present them.True they clarified what they meant, but the stance remains the same.", to which you replied very aggressively as with the three edits you made to the article. If anything, the only one who disagrees is yourself, with everyone else discussing. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it was there before, and you aggressively removed and removed it again from articles (check WP:Edit warring), and it's well-sourced, and you're the only one so far claiming the sources are wrong about it, I'd very much say keep it in until then. LjL (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Right... so I "aggressively" removed it, but you "reinserted it back into the article in the most pacifist way possible"? Did I get that correct? And I'm the one who "edit warred" but you just ... "reinserted it back into the article in the most pacifist way possible"? Gimme a break and cut out the weaseling. And NO, I did not say "sources are wrong". I said "sources are being MISREPRESENTED". It's not that hard of a difference to understand if you pay attention, or if your interest is anything but reflexive blind reverting. Volunteer Marek  22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If what sources say is not that "Poland" said something, but a Polish minister said something, then amend the article to state so. It's still very much relevant. See WP:PRESERVE: you almost deleted entire section of sourced, relevant material that came from involved countries' ministers. That's just short of inexcusable. LjL (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making stop up. This "entire section" that I deleted was ... a sentence or two. You're trying to make it seem like I gutted the article. Nice rhetorical move, but dishonest (although I guess you do give yourself a bit of wiggle room with that "almost" thrown in there). And I made my position clear - it's not official policy, it's a statement in an online op-ed. And the burden for inclusion is on you, not me. Volunteer Marek  23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the history of the article, you have removed 3,345 characters from the article in three edits. For the edit in discussion, the article was left with a single three word sentence and a single reference after your edit. Prior to your edit, it was three sentences with a combined word count of fifty-eight words (24, 17, 17) and with three references. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, if there was an article like Poland's reaction to the European refugee crisis then maybe that statement would belong there. But it's way too parochial, Poland-centric and off topic for this article. Volunteer Marek  23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with LjL, edits by VM do not seem to be justified and removed well sourced and relevant material covered by Reliable Sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know you agree with LjL. This isn't a vote. What you're suppose to do is substantiate and give a reason for your view.

And IF we do include this then we MUST include the response by Human Rights Watch and other sources which condemned this joker's statements by saying that "Gold medal to #Poland for the most ridiculous&ignorant response to #ParisAttacks #Refugees flee war and persecution " This has also been covered in sources. Probably should also include the opinion of Henry Foy "#Poland says #Paris proves EU migrant policy flawed. Known position, but I'm astonished @ speed of criticism. Still blood on the streets". Maybe we should have an article on the Reactions to the reactions to the November Paris attacks?

And if this is the standard we're going to have for inclusion might as well include the fact that Russian media is blaming... Americans (who else!) for the attack. Volunteer Marek  23:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically, can someone please just add the Polish and Czech declarations back into the article, without having me do more reverts? This as well as the above discussion show overwhelming agreement to include them, with only Volunteer Marek opposed, and really on the sole ground that unless a government minister's word is made "more official", it shouldn't be included here (which seems, uh). LjL (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You've been here since 2005. More or less. You should know better than to WP:CANVASS other people to edit war for you because you've ran out of reverts. Volunteer Marek  23:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "run out of reverts". I believe I've effectively only reverted you once (per article). I was asking others to implement the clear consensus (which you are the lone opposer of) to avoid edit warring. But anyway, I've now boldly gone and re-added the information anyway. Everybody who said anything about it except you wants it there. (Asking people in the relevant talk page to implement consensus isn't canvassing, it almost looks like you haven't actually read the page.) LjL (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You are asking others to edit war for you. That's a blatant demonstration of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude rather than a desire to resolve the dispute. The fact that you immediately claim "consensus! consensus!" after the discussion HAD JUST started also shows you're not here to work on an encyclopedia but to do "battleground". Volunteer Marek  23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You reverted me again, with the edit summary "it's ridiculous to claim "consensus" when the discussion just started". It looks likve you've neglected again to consider the linked discussion above that shows blatant consensus and that the discussion did not just start. Just because you just joined it, after coming in and starting aggressively removing content, doesn't mean there wasn't consensus before. I am running out of good faith for you: you are ignoring the obvious. LjL (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you stop being dishonest? There is NO "overwhelming consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. There is NO "clear consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. The discussion you link to [2] DOES NOT establish clear consensus. It's basically just you and MyMoloboaccount. It's really bad form to try and claim consensus when you don't have it.

And please stop. it. with. the. battle. ground. attitude. Stop trying to get others to edit war for you. Volunteer Marek  23:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to stop being aggressive with everyone. Also, I believe it is silly for you to have removed so much content from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with LjL, MyMoloboaccount and Super Goku V. It's Warsaw's official policy. Poland's conservative Law and Justice party is strongly anti-immigration, anti-Muslim. – "Anti-immigrant party sweeps to power in Poland". The Times. 26 October 2015., "Poland's Duda Blasts EU `Dictate of the Strong' on Migrants". Bloomberg. 8 September 2015., "Polish PM candidate backs closer ties with neighbors on refugee crisis". Reuters. 5 October 2015., "Refugee crisis stokes anti-Muslim fervor in Poland, Eastern Europe". Fox News. 29 September 2015. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's NOT "Warsaw's official policy" - and you have no source to back that claim up. Again, don't make stuff up. Volunteer Marek  03:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Ministries of Poland, there is no Minister of European Affairs. Not anymore. You might be confusing the Polish government with the European government. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

It is the common name used for Secretary of State for European Affairs in Poland Minister do spraw europejskich--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Boulevard Beaumarchais

• 40 boulevard Beaumarchais (Le Barbier de Bastille, between rue du Chemin Vert and rue du Pas de La Mule)

I cannot find reference to the importance of this street in the sources. It will be deleted if someone cannot substantiate what events occurred there in this article. Bod (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Europe1, which previously included this location, has now removed it: http://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/attentats-a-paris-des-attaques-menees-sur-sept-points-differents-2620171 Cathalwoods (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Casualty section (citizenships)

The Spanish and the U.S. citizen killed also held Mexican citizenship. I think the Mexican citizenship should be mentioned, too. I just don't know how we should do it. Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I did some changes to the infobox with the nationalities. I'd welcome some feedback on it. Thanks again, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sydney Opera House French Tricolour.jpg

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

I've gone ahead and removed it. Kelly ^hi! 00:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly: FYI, I have commented at the deletion discussion that I contacted the photographer via his website about this issue,

Unfortunately the (abridged) answer is  :

"That text is for Instagram use only. None of my images are license free. Thank you for deleting it from Wikipedia and for bringing this matter to my attention. Matt Weller."

- 220 of ^Borg 08:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal ("International Reactions to...")

There is a currently a suggestion on the page to merge a section of this article into another, "International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks." This page is being considered for deletion.

I propose that that page be merged here. You are encouraged to debate this topic in this thread. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 00:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• No way. There was previous solid consensus that we shouldn't have that here. Whether we should have it at all is a matter for the International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks deletion discussion. LjL (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• nein - perhaps each atack site nedd separate article to list all woonded victims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.120 (talk • contribs)

flag

Could you change the flag to French? The one is Russian (or rotated?) and thus false flag of course. 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which flag? LjL (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

the flase flag 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that helps a lot understanding what you mean... not. LjL (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

But i do not understand why now is only the black flag with the word 'jews' in center of cippa. and other words barelly readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean the ISIL flag? Next to the "Perpetrators" entry of the infobox? LjL (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015 - remove political propaganda related to Missouri protests

These 4 paragraphs should be removed as they are not directly relevant to the page, and they are clearly added for the purposes of political propaganda:

Protestors at the University of Missouri, who have been complaining about unfounded racial attacks and slurs were shocked the Paris Terror Attacks, where at least 129 innocent people were murdered on 14-15 November 2015, were taking headlines in the US news media away from their cause.

According to breitbart.com; "Campus activists in America showed their true faces during an international tragedy last night: they are the selfish, spoiled children we always knew they were. Black Lives Matter and Mizzou protesters responded to the murder of scores of people in Paris at the hands of Islamic extremists by complaining about losing the spotlight and saying their “struggles” were being “erased.” Their struggles, remember, consist of a poop swastika of unknown provenance and unsubstantiated claims of racially-charged remarks somewhere near Missouri’s campus." [167]

Many of the Mizzou activists took to twitter and sent hateful and racist tweets because the news media was no longer paying the attention they demanded. Black Lives Matter and Mizzou tweets fell broadly into two categories of stupidity last night:

Paris and Mizzou are equivalent: both represent “terrorism.” (This is the message from Black Lives Matter.) White people are “erasing black lives” by focusing on Paris. (This is the language of the racial grievance-fuelled campus social justice movement.[168]

Andrewnwilliams (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see these paragraphs in the article. LjL (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

...Er, those references do not seem to exist as quoted. Mind if you add the url from the page you are on or the section of the page you are on? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewnwilliams: request has been answered so 'pinging' them. 220 of ^Borg 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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. 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 reliable sources to improve the "motives" coverage, or is this just your own original research? If the latter, it won't be used. 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.120 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 November 2015‎

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. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

table detailing number of casualties somewhere in the article

I think to make it simpler, there should be somewhere detailing the number of killed and injured in each location where the strikes took place.--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry--just noticed that there is one in the description. though i suggest expanding it to include those who were injured -- in one attack, 15 were injured and 0 killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The infobox already details that for those who have died and could be modified for those who are injured. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

french version

In the french version of the article they included the arrondissements in the headings under each attack, i think it should be done here too.--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There can be a reasonable assumption that (some) French Wikipedia readers will be familiar with them, while the same assumption doesn't generally hold true for English-speaking readers. LjL (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that all readers of the French Wikipedia are French and all of the English Wikipedia are English; the majority of first language speakers of those languages lie outside of those countries, for the sake of accuracy and completeness they should be included. Mtaylor848 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think all Parisians are fluent in English, either. The current format is okay. epic genius (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

French victims 'non applicable'??

At the moment we are listing French victims as 'non applicable'. Why? They may be unconfirmed, uncertain, unverifiable but they are most certainly not 'non-applicable'. Mtaylor848 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bad choice of terminology. LjL (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mtaylor848: N/A also stands for not available, which was the intended use here but it seems General Ization went ahead and changed it. We have no known details on the number of French nationals killed/injured, which is why there's an "unspecified" row. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We should make a note of that next to France then. Kiwifist (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been changed again to note TBC (to be counted) so I think that suffices for the time being. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The actual meaning of TBC (as explained at its linked article) is To be confirmed and agree it is appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 03:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's also a streetcar in Bordeaux. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

Locations needs to be updated

Updated list of locations

The address of the Brasserie Le Comtoir Voltaire is 253 boulevard Voltaire.

In the section Boulevard Voltaire, the statements, Another attacker detonated his suicide vest on the boulevard Voltaire near the Bataclan theatre. At about 21:40, he sat down in the cafe Comptoir Voltaire ... are incorrect.

• It is not a "cafe", it is a "brasserie".
• The brasserie in not "near the Bataclan theatre", it is near Place de la Nation

The listed source L'Express calls Comtoir Voltaire a brasserie, and lists the attack as close to Place de la Nation at 253 boulevard Voltaire, which is not close to the Bataclan theatre.

• source: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/fait-divers/a-nation-le-kamikaze-s-est-fait-sauter-en-passant-la-commande_1735885.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.241.108 (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A better section would be:

Another attacker detonated his suicide vest at 253 boulevard Voltaire near the Place de la Nation. At about 21:40, he sat down in the brasserie Comptoir Voltaire and placed an order before detonating his suicide vest and killing himself. About 15 people were injured.

Toll include or exclude the attackers?

Just to make sure: does the death toll 129 include or exclude the eight attackers?

--140.180.248.47 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the current infobox, it includes them. Kiwifist (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That isn't how I read the notation "129 (+8 perpetrators)", and I think the IP was looking for a more definitive answer based on something other than our infobox. General Ization ^Talk 05:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the 129 excludes them (or should, if it doesn't), from how I'm reading media reports. I had it formatted last night to more clearly differentiate the two—[number] civilians<br>[number] attackers—but it was changed to the current style while I was offline. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I read the "+" as "including". Maybe we should clarify by saying "excluding 8 perpetrators" instead. Kiwifist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The notation is already clear. "+" is the plus symbol, and it means exactly that: "plus", not "including". 129 victims plus 8 perpetrators. —Lowellian (reply) 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the symbol is plenty clear. Whether it reflects reliable sources, I don't know. LjL (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Only seven attackers killed now?

Recent reports (like [3], [4]) are only mentioning 7 attackers killed - including some sources we are using to show eight. I think some updating is required but which attack location has one less attacker? Rmhermen (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most articles speak about seven attackers but there might have been one more who escaped. Or at the least, it should be mentioned as to what area this eight one could have been included; there also were other activities in Belgium, which should perhaps be in a separate article that connects to the article here. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please fix the translation in reference

"Երեւանը սգում է Փարիզի հետ" [Yerevan is trying to come to Paris.]. Yerkir.am (in Armenian). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.

"Yerevan is mourning with Paris" is the proper translation. "Trying to come to Paris" -- who came up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C43C:E460:183F:3FC9:B74:41F6 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the work of Google Translate, I've corrected the translation accordingly. Thanks for letting us know! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Worst terrorist attack in France

These terrorist attacks are the worst ever in France (not since Second World War). I don't know how to edit sources, but here it is (in French): http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/article/2015/11/15/pendant-que-l-enquete-se-poursuit-la-france-se-recueille_4810269_4809495.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkestra (talk • contribs) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Worst" doesn't always mean "deadliest". Our article says these are the deadliest since then. These scared more people, because news travelled slow then. So this was worse than then, like that. No clear contradiction here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

Our article also doesn't specify deadliest terrorist attacks. If this is called the deadliest terrorist attack in France somewhere, that might be worth noting, but wouldn't change the fact that deadlier general attacks happened in the old war. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

Or even earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That was in Paris, but Paris wasn't in France yet. The Battle of Octodurus seems pretty nasty, if we're playing loose. 10,000 suspected terrorists killed. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

Time says they are the deadliest terror attacks in France in many decades. Whether they distinguish between terror and terrorism, I don't know. I know CTV treats them as the same word. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

some of mostefai's family members have been arrested

can someone put this ?

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

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

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 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

{{quote box↵|title=Timeline of attacks↵|align=left↵|width=25%↵|quote=↵13 November

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. -- 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FR4NCH3K (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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. -- 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. --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. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

“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.”[5]

Numerous sources mention 7.62mm cartidges found on site, ruling out AK-74s. 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: [6] -- 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. --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 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 92.16.213.2 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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

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.-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. 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.-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." 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? LjL (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Suicide victims" are a thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

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

The perpetrators were also civilians (a person not in the armed services or the police force). 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. 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.-79.219.181.249 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed to "victims". 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIS59000750002015 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"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. LjL (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

More neutral and wrong. They are 136 dead, and 136 deceased, not 129.-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. 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.-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. 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. LjL (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I did make another section, and I wasn't mentioning it here.-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)? LjL (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

@EP111: the edit you 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 my rationale for keeping it please. LjL (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit did no such thing. Regards, EP111 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@EP111: uhm, what do you think that "see talk" in that edit summary, with "talk" being a link to the relevant talk page section here, meant, then? LjL (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As to your reason for reverting, please see 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. LjL (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"First United States death is listed under Mexico"

This comment is found within the 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.) LjL (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This now appears to have been changed (the United States are now listed with 1 victim). LjL (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Change all mentions of Militants to Terrorists

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

• Support per WP:EUPHEMISM: it's quite clear what we're dealing with, and it's not merely "militants". Of course, this should apply to mentions of people committing actual acts of terrorism, not (for instance) Islamist militants in general. LjL (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There is no civil war in France, this is terrorism. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Caution - I'm not sure what this accomplishes, since there is only one mention of "militant" in the entire article that is not in quotes. Also, look at other similar articles and they do not go as far as to use the term "terrorist" within Wikipedia's own prose. Rather, they use assailant mostly and perhaps militants. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Example articles include the following. Just keep the balance in mind:
    • 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 a contentious (and vague) term that can be more neutrally replaced by attacker, assailant, or perpetrators. -- Veggies (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I associate the word militant with political activism and violent revolutionaries. These people are neither of those things. Firebrace (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a contentious WP:LABEL that helps them inflict their terror, so why use it at all? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which label, "ISIL/ISIS" or "terrorists"? I'm guessing "terrorists" - Well, it's only "contentious" on Wikipedia talk pages, really. Reliable sources don't have a problem routinely calling this terrorism, and the perpetrators terrorists. LjL (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "terrorists" as contentious. ISIL/ISIS is the WP:COMMONNAME unless Hollande's attempt to use Daesh sticks. The reliable sources can sensationalize a bit and I'd rather not follow them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Is pretty standard for articles like this. See September 11 attacks. Islamic State is classified as a terrorist group by most countries, and this was undoubtedly a terrorist attack, so there's little reason not to call them terrorists in the text. Note that in any quotes, we should use the word that whoever we're quoting used. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

• Strongly oppose That's an absurd misdirection for the reader. The group calls itself that. It's silly to pretend that it doesn't. -- Veggies (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Agree. The terrorists call themselves "Islamic State" just as much as Bruce Jenner calls himself Caitlyn Jenner. Wikipedia, in all cases but one, goes by what people call themselves. XavierItzm (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If I call myself the King of Europe does that make it true? Firebrace (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You are (to the best of my knowledge) not notable, so it doesn't matter what you call yourself. LjL (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, but say Shia LaBeouf, who is notable, starts calling himself the King of California, is that to be taken literally? Firebrace (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because if the rest of us still just call him Shia LaBeouf, that's his WP:COMMONNAME, whether or not he likes it. But I'm afraid the ISIL's common name is ISIL or ISIS, whether or not their being a state is "technically accurate" (we don't generally go by "technically accurate" for names). LjL (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Shia LaBouef is not made of beef either, but that's what his name implies. Names are quite literally nominal, not essential. 107.179.137.47 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are notable enough to have an article and change your name to King O. Europe—yes, that will be your title. It's stupid to demand that common names make literal sense. -- Veggies (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Unfortunately, it can be argued that the Islamic State does meet all the basic requirements for being classified as a self-governing state, apart from that of (official) diplomatic recognition. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It is true that a number of sources describe the assailants as terrorists; however, many also describe them using the word "gunmen", "attackers" and (the word I used) "assailants". The question is, which word best reflects the purpose of Wikipedia? Which is the most neutral? "Terrorist" certainly is not. It is value laden and inherently political. The word we use ought to be strictly descriptive. SomePseudonym (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • When it comes to ISIL, it checks almost entire sourced row at List of designated terrorist groups. As long the majority of states designates ISIL as a "terrorist" and as long as it conducts the classical terrorist activity, then it's not a problem to call it as such. We call cat a cat and not a dog, although it can't talk. Otherwise what's the purpose of the word "terrorism"? Brandmeister^talk 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is an easy call per the reasons already stated.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, just weakly. This is contentious. "Terrorist" is widely stated but could be considered POV. "Militant" is more neutral but does not reflect popular opinion. I suggest "assailant" or "perpetrator." epic genius (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NEUTRAL as a term which defines motive when more accurate descriptions of the behavior are available (and more precisely describe the actions "shooter" "attacker"). Bod (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rue de Charonne - Restaurant name

The name of the restaurant on Rue de Charonne is "la Belle Epoque"....not "La Belle Equipe"

No, it's not, see [7] [8] [9] (all mentioning it's in Rue de Charonne), as well, of course, as very many sources about the attacks. Liberation here is wrong, as Google can hint (first hit Liberation, later hits are "La Belle Equipe"). LjL (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

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

Names and personal details of victims, again

@XavierItzm: is insisting on adding the full name and personal/educational details about a victim from the US. We had 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 "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. 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 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. LjL (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper. 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. -- The Anome (talk)

Heh, all the responses use some excuse other than the original "BLP" excuse. Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Although WP:NOT (in terms of "memorials") 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.--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. 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. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-adding "current" template

I've just re-added the {{current}} template to the top of this article. The attack is still relatively recent, and is still the top breaking-news story throughout Europe, and new facts are constantly emerging. -- The Anome (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

These templates should be used sparingly and are not needed simply because an article is in the news. The breaking phase went some time ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It was removed from the International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks spinout as well, maybe it should be re-added. International reactions are still coming, aren't they? LjL (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Does the article meet this threshold from the template doc?

As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.

72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's still breaking news as the details of the attack start to emerge. The article is still on the front page, and we have about an edit per minute at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is breaking. A few editors a day does not warrant the template. A few editors a minute does. That's a hundred or more a day. epic genius (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Paris attacks and Template:Saint-Denis

I notice a user 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? @Debresser: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@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. 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. 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. --John (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspect named

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

Wounded (not injured)

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

Injury and wound are synonymous, doesn't matter which is used. ~ 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? 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. Bod (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.--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. 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.--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? 86.185.30.207 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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 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. --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. LjL (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't we get the neutral word casualty in?Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It is 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. 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?) Dcs002 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The only distinction I can find (e.g., 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 – 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. General Ization ^Talk 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. Bod (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. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (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). Bod (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. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (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. Bod (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's just the ones we know. It get be more than 11. 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 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. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the source linked to the 132 figure (which, I see, has been taken back to 129 now, without changing the source) repeatedly states 132. LjL (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note this quote from them: "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. 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. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (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) Nsaa (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nsaa:It turns out the three victims died in hospital afterwards. Do you want to check how I've arraigned the infobar accordingly? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (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? 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. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (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. LjL (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Just seen this at 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." Firebrace (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK how's that? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The 352 injury non-fatalities must also change if true.Bod (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. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The numbers will come in when they come in. I'm not rushing to change anything. Bod (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. 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. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (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. 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). 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. 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. General Ization ^Talk

Good point. I'll fix that - if you haven't already. I prefer the latter option, per WP:NUMERAL, as LjL pointed out. 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. Dcs002 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But there can be "victims" that weren't "killed" (injuries). LjL (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You could just say that the attackers killed 129 people. General Ization ^Talk 02:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But they also killed themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

Quick Restaurant

According to 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? General Ization ^Talk 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. YingBlanc (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Street View shows that the Quick is located directly across avenue Jules Rimet from Gates H and J of the Stade. General Ization ^Talk 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). General Ization ^Talk 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. 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? --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLDTITLE completely supports your position (see the Mississippi River example there). General Ization ^Talk 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? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's 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). 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, ISIS claims responsibility."? 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. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Or just because that's what France, as a NATO member, does. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

Earlier, I'd put "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants". I was told this 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. 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. 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. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

The 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). 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. Volunteer Marek  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. 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. Volunteer Marek  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. 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". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

I tried 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? 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) Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I figured "allegedly" was implied by "suspected", but that would make it clearer, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is ok for now, but this is likely to change rapidly. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I'd bet there are five hundred edits here before there are five on the Beirut one. 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. --109.69.249.37 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is not a person. It can't perpetrate anything without actual people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

That is true. An official "spokesperson" has yet to make a claim... --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. 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. - Wgsimon (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't simply not saying there was a curfew good enough? 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. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to straight-up deny the curfew, rather than just not mention it, the Malaysian Embassy can help. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 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? 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 Wikipedia entry for the author raises concerns about reliability. Meticulo (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well as Wikipedia isn't a news site I'd say it would be best for us after "the smoke has cleared" to see if any other news agencies will use the term, and especially agencies of more prestige. The problem with these types of articles and the news sites reporting on them is that when you insert the wrong sources it might fall under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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. --OJ (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. The list of organisations that France is signatory to, major or minor, is extremely long. --OJ (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. 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. 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. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 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. LjL (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't have an Olympic team, not a real state. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

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. --OJ (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. 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. --OJ (talk) 14:22, 16 November 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. --OJ (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxes

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

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

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

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

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

Does it really? Many pieces of wrong information have been / will be circulated. Is it important? LjL (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Has nothing to do with the attacks and the subject is not a public figure and should not be harassed. -- Veggies (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Not relevant. General Ization ^Talk 13:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Mosque arson is bad enough for Canada's image today. Don't need other idiots getting angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:46, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

Les Fédérations Musulmanes

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

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

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

Agreed. I'll remove it. LjL (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quotes from concert hall

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/paris-attacks-dont-move-well-kill-201441393.html 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)