Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

Number of deaths at the Bataclan

According to the plaque shown here, 90 people died at the Bataclan. "To the 90 lives fallen in these places" is the English translation. Yet, this article says that 89 died at the Bataclan. Is it known whether or not there was an additional death at the Bataclan which went unreported in the days immediately following the attacks?

Noseycjr (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Does this article contain mention of contemporaneous, extensive French bombing campaign directed at alleged perpetrators?

This is noted given that at the present time, mention of contemporaneous, extensive French bombing campaign directed at the alleged perpetrators is lacking.

In an article filled with mentions of Paris "attacks" there is at present no trace of any mention of the contemporaneous extensive French bombing campaigns that began the year before, covering a huge range of territory including parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia in the west (Operation Barkhane); and with the cooperation of the United States and the UK, Syria and Iraq in the east (Operation Chammal). Particularly when one considers that one the bombings in Paris apparently targeted a concert held by a musical group known as "Eagles of Death," it doesn't take much more than reading the writing on the wall to surmise that what have overwhelmingly been described as "attacks" throughout the article might be as plausibly described as "response." (I myself neglected to add above that France began its occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and Libya in March 2011.)

Note that this is not a request for a cosmetic change in word choice, but a reminder that as this article develops over time, it should not shield preexisting French military policy against the alleged perpetrators--and therefore of obvious relevance to the background of the event--from the view of a concerned reader. Alfred Nemours (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Enough already. We are not here to write a political blog based on your opinions. This is a rehash of the view that acts by western governments have helped to foster Islamic extremism. If reliable sources say this, fine, but it won't be added to the article otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

WP is not censored. Nor are WP talk pages a forum for peremptory bullying. These are not opinions, but the mere posing of a question obvious to any considered understanding of an event that includes motive and background. Recentism has been described as "imbalanced focus" without "an aim toward a long-term, historical view." It is precisely in order to avoid allowing an article about a historical event to slip into an impassioned political blog filled with kneejerk innuendo that this question is raised. Alfred Nemours (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please find reliable sources that make these points. From what I can see here, you are arguing that the actions of western governments either directly or indirectly caused the Paris attacks. To give another example, after the 7 July 2005 London bombings two of the bombers left behind video statements explaining why they had done it, which were predictable rants blaming the actions of western governments. After the murder of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolajo gave a videoed speech in which he said something very similar. These are reliably sourced statements from the attackers themselves, not personal analysis or commentary. Some eyewitnesses thought that the Paris attackers were on drugs, but this was rejected by toxicology reports.[1] The mind bending drug that they had taken was extremist Islam, and ISIL predictably claimed that the attacks were retaliation for air strikes in Syria.[2] This has become a standard theme for justifying attacks of this kind. The article mentions this, so it is giving due weight to the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to avoid characterizing questions raised by others in WP talk pages as arguments, particularly since it distracts from the matter at hand, and can read as a transparent apparent to close discussion in favor of a particular view. Please take that in the spirit that it is meant. As to the substantive issue we are talking about, the article you cited is a reliable source that underscores the question raised by this bulletpoint. I missed it entirely because I went right to the "Background" section and saw nothing. So you've already accomplished the task that at the start of your reply you delegated to me. Nice work. So Operation Chammal if not Operation Barkhane was explicitly cited as as a motive by the alleged perpetrators. In my opinion--and this really is an opinion--Operation Chammal and possibly Barkhane ought to be mentioned explicitly and by name in the Background section. Whatever our own views personal views of Operation Chammal may be, it goes directly to explicitly stated motive, as you have pointed out. For one thing, Wikipedia has work on Operations Chammal and Barkhane that deserves explicit mention, with the added consideration that explicit mention might encourages others with knowledge might take up the task of further developing it. For another, passing mention of "airstrikes" does not really do justice to these being vast military campaigns of considerable scope. The WP entry on Operation Chammal, for example, tells us that it had been ongoing for nearly 14 months at the time of the event. Alfred Nemours (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)