Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
restore template. Please don't remove it. "Consensus" is neither here nor there. The sanctions apply and you're doing disservice to editors by failing to inform them. Feel free to ask ArbCom or AN for clarification
Line 9: Line 9:
{{WikiProject Terrorism |class=C |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism |class=C |importance=High}}
}}
}}
{{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}
{{Top25 | place = 2nd | week = [[Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/November 8 to 14, 2015|November 8 to 14, 2015]]}}
{{Top25 | place = 2nd | week = [[Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/November 8 to 14, 2015|November 8 to 14, 2015]]}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config

Revision as of 07:30, 21 November 2015

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions


"Victims" table

I propose deletion of the table, or deletion of the 'injured' column and merging of references with deaths, as the table is too big and looks unprofessional. For comparison, this is how it looked after it was cleaned up yesterday. Firebrace (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Tables like this with their decorative flags are symptomatic of the OCD tendency for completeness among some volunteers here. The main features should be summarised in text and the table deleted. It is grotesque. --John (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the table should stay with only the deaths. Not long, and I'm not sure what the presence of flags can harm other than bothering John... LjL (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abridged table now replaced previous version. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Victims table allows a succinct break down of those who were killed by nationality. Cantab12 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it so important to break them down by nationality? Why not age, gender, eye colour, or something else? John (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the majority killed in the theatre were Americans or Chinese the intensified bombing campaign against ISIS might be coming from the Americans or Chinese. Similarly, the Russians are increasing airstrikes against ISIS because a plane mostly carrying Russian citizens was bombed in Egypt. Maybe nationality is relevant to the national response. Snd0 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No question you're right. But surely saying that most of the casualties were French would accomplish that? I don't see why we need this grotesque table with its pretty flags to establish that most of those killed were French. You'd expect that, in Paris, wouldn't you? --John (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Maybe nationality is relevant to the national response." if it is relevant perhaps we should state that in the national response. e.g. "The US intensified its bombing because its citizens were killed". Jolly Ω Janner 23:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is a similar discussion at #"Victims" prose. Jolly Ω Janner 18:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has since been archived. I considered bring it back, but thought I'd just reinstate the main points that I made here and hope that more people will join in discussion so we can finally determine whether there is or isn't a consensus to remove the table. Jolly Ω Janner 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would propose deletion of the entire table, as it takes up too much space. Even with just the fatalities listed, that's 18 rows. There is no need for a table if the opening sentence states "The attacks killed 129 victims and injured 433...". If the nationality of a victim is notable, there will be some sort of reaction to it noted in "International reactions". The nationalities of the victims are not notable by themselves (the victims of nationalities simply reflect the typical nationalities of people in Paris), hence why none of it should be merged into the text. We currently have a situation where prose is sandwiched between a table on the right and images on the left and it needs to be resolved soon, especially as this is a highly visible article. Jolly Ω Janner 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Full listing of all Victims?

There are many news sites that list most/all the identified victims Daily Mail, Daily Mirror Sidney Morning Herald, BBC, and the Norwegian Verdens Gang has a database that seems to be updated, now at 102 identified, grouped at place, country, gender (62 men, 40 women) here. Should there be made a sub article listing? Why/Why not? Nsaa (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the names at Beltway sniper are a handy way to track the attacks that happened all over the US and then in the DC area over a period of years and days. In this case we have a defined list of locations all within a few minutes and all in the same city. Vic names does not help the story. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or maybe not, actually

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

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

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

Victims versus Attackers

First off, I should like to give praise to wikipedia and everyone who participated in the main article. I think overall, the article is good, has specific links to verify statements, and sufficient information and facts in a easy-to-read-manner. Now to the topic at hand here, the "Victim" section. This one is fine, obviously, for historical factual statements. I would however had also consider to add another link, the Attackers - it does not have to be on the same page, mind you - nobody wants to make them famous in any way, but a separate article about the attackers might be useful in particular because it was said that there might have been 9 involved in the attack (3x3 teams of hitmen), so not all of them were caught yet (and there were others who planned it). This may become quite long as time passes by, which is why I may suggest to perhaps gather this on a new page instead. Thanks for reading and considering. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the information about the attacks is in the article and fits there fine; there is no need for a sub-article, really. LjL (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"wp:undue / irrel"

Somehow the very short, sourced, sentence "ISIL referred to the Paris attacks as a "ghazwa" (raid)" was termed WP:UNDUE in this edit summary, and removed. I'm not sure how a ten words sentence can be giving anything undue weight. As to relevance, I'd say motives and views of the perpetrators are relevant, and I guess the source agreed, uh?

If I had to revert all these little, seemingly gratuitous edits, I'd most certainly run afoul of the aforementioned WP:1RR discretionary sanctions, so I guess I'll keep nagging y'all on this talk page instead. LjL (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the part about Jihadi John is also irrelevant... Firebrace (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Firebrace: but who dare revert stuff like this at this point, when showing skepticism about the discretionary sanction earns you a notice that you could be sanctioned? This is despite an administrator previously deeming scaring editors from this high-traffic article with the sanctions unwarranted (which was applauded by several). Do we have a "Wikipedia is not a police state" guideline? LjL (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This guy dared. Good for him. Or her, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
And now this guy dares to be different. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
Now that old man here is me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, November 18, 2015 (UTC)'
@InedibleHulk and Snd0: For the record, I'd rather keep the Jihadi John thing out, unless there is something very well-established linking it to the attacks... I'm pretty sure he was more of a Western antihero than someone the ISIS cared much about. LjL (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also pretty sure of that. Comes with the alliterative stage name. The actual fighters have lost many, many friends and family members. Their lack of fame on this side of the world doesn't make them less likely to be avenged. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
I did not see the prior removal, however, administrators do not have the power to remove articles from the scope of sanctions. Furthermore, that administrator was mistaken regarding the procedure, as there was no Arbitration Committee involvement. Regardless, please don't take the notice as an insult. It is a standardised message issued to editors across Syrian Civil War and ISIL-related articles on a regular basis, and can be used by any editor. The purpose of the sanctions is to slow down editing, so that talk page discussions can determine appropriate information to include. This avoids conflicts and mass changes to the article. Please relax. RGloucester — ☎ 02:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On such a high-traffic article, it also means that someone can do a really bad edit, I can revert it, they can stubbornly revert it back, and... that will often be all until someone notices it a whole lot of time later, because in the meanwhile, other intervening edits had clouded it. I have also made talk page requests in the past that went unanswered, presumably because the talk page is also long and busy and nobody noticed them.
Of course, from now on I will make a talk page section for every little problem I notice, since just making edits (unless I ensure the edits don't constitute a revert, which can be harder than it seems) would now make me liable to a block without any further warning.
But since this is also true for any other editor who has previously made any revert on this short-lived article and has received the 1RR warning, I wonder who can make edits without potentially risking a block. LjL (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are not stupid. Common sense applies, as always, in the application of any policy, guideline, sanction, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about others here, but I'm not about to risk my edit privileges on the assumption that a large group of people who've shown there's enough lack of vetting among them (see: Neelix) won't block me over a narrow interpretation of sanctions. If common sense applies, then why did the sanctions template have to be reinstated (in removing it, Fuzheado actually invoked WP:IAR which also has the alias WP:COMMONSENSE) and why did I have to receive 1RR warning (which, regardless of how standard it is, factually enables blocks without further warning)? My common sense sure tells me to stay the hell away from editing this article now, and I don't think it is because I did anything bad to it. LjL (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of constructive editors to articles with 1RR (of which there are many) manage to continue editing without being sanctioned. This isn't any different. There are a few editors here used to editing SCW and ISIL, and they've been editing regardless of the notifications they'd got in the past. Regardless, I will disengage from here, as my presence is clearly not desired. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm new.) Is there another way to direct people to the talk page outside of reverting their edit? Snd0 (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Snd0: make a new section and use {{ping|EditorName}} to notify them, like I just did with you now. LjL (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks LjL, that works. I'll do that from now on so I don't get in trouble. Snd0 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More raids

See Paris attacks: Suicide bomber among two dead in raid targeting terror plot mastermind, police say. 3 persons dead. 220 of Borg 08:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added this to the article. I've held off on stating how many people have died or been injured, since the event is ongoing and there isn't clear consensus between sources on the matter yet. Jolly Ω Janner 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! One suicided with a vest, 3 arrested. Includes the person they were chasing according to Radio news report (2GB Sydney). 220 of Borg 09:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes seems a good edit with existing information. 220 of Borg 09:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

Restored from premature archive. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{coord}} templates for the various locations, should anyone care to add them to the infobox or body. Decimal degrees format to 3 or 4 decimal positions depending on the rough size of the area represented, per WP:COORDPREC. The article currently specifies one coordinates pair (Comptoir Voltaire) as a ref, which I believe is improper usage of coord. Footnotes using {{efn}} could be used to save space, as at the end of this sentence.[note 1]

72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.92.16.213.2 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these to the infobox, except for the Boulevard Voltaire. I presume it's not listed on the infobox because it isn't on the map (perhaps because no civilians were killed). Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I see someone removed the Comptoir Voltaire ref, which is good. As for the infobox, the map is simply incorrect, the article is about all the attacks, not only the fatal ones. The map caption says "Locations of the attacks", not "Locations of the fatal attacks". I'd be strongly inclined to add Boulevard Voltaire (Comptoir Voltaire) as item 6 in the infobox, and perhaps the map will be corrected later. Less optimally, an efn could be inserted following "Comptoir Voltaire cafe" in the body. After re-reading the text, I'm tweaking the coords for that to better reflect in the cafe (per Google Maps, at least). Additionally, Bichat/Alibert could be tweaked to 48°52′18″N 2°22′05″E / 48.8717°N 2.3680°E / 48.8717; 2.3680 as it appears all of the shooting occurred south of rue Alibert. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been pointed out that Comptoir Voltaire is on the map, as an "explosion" symbol without a number or arrow, in the lower-right corner of the map. Even more justification for adding an item 6, in my opinion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now the number and arrow have been added, and the item 6 is conspicuously missing. Trust me, I'd bold-edit this if I could. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added it. Jolly Ω Janner 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Tweaking Bichat/Alibert per above is low priority, this can archive now. Thanks. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Coordinates: 48°55′26″N 2°21′43″E / 48.924°N 2.362°E / 48.924; 2.362

Categorization

Why is this article put in the category January 2015 Île-de-France attacks? If appears to me a huge mis-categorization. If this incident, the terrorist raid in Belgium, the Copenhagen shootings (in Denmark), Curtis Culwell Center attack (in the U.S.), all have the same thing to do with the religion of peace and its "tiny" proportion of extreme adherents, then why are the bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268, and the Beirut bombings not in this category? Is it because Russia, Lebanon share a different, so presumably twisted, deviant (in the eyes of the West), value (of life, freedom, democracy, etc.), so that the West would feel at least uneasy to align those tragedies along with theirs, even though they are of the same nature, from the same ideology, and committed by the same assailants, and caused the same invaluable human lives? 222.187.96.28 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not in the category Category:2015 Île-de-France attacks. However, this article is linked from the navbox Template:January 2015 France attacks buy the virtue of being included in its "Related" events section. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did not notice the difference between category and template. OK, but why is it in that template while other similar incidents are not? Put in another way, if Metrojet Flight 9268 is "UNrelated", then why is Curtis Culwell Center attack "Related" anyway? 222.187.96.28 (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should discuss this on the talk page of that template: Template talk:January 2015 France attacks. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the discussion there. 222.187.96.28 (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it really makes no sense for that template to be transcluded into this article, since it lets you navigate within a different topic, which is not what navboxes are for, but I couldn't successfully get rid of it. I think whether it's included in this article is a valid matter of discussion for this talk page, though. LjL (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was second on the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report for the week November 8 to 14, 2015, with 1,237,935 views. Thank you to the editors of this article for your hard work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Fuzheado likes this. - thanks for the cooperative spirit on this article
I don't want to toot my own horn, but it looks like Firebrace and I are the top editors.[2] epic genius (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm third OMG...! LjL (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And all this without an IP editor in sight. Fannnntastic! 141.6.11.23 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you have not attracted those Discretionary Sanctions LjL :) Good job peoples :) Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least 27 governors...

Currently the article states:

"At least 27 governors of US states declared they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees, as they believe it to be too dangerous following the Paris attacks."

Based on this source

This is wrong. What the source actually says is "More than half the nation's governors say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.".

"They oppose" and "they would refuse" are two different things. They're politicians. They can have their own personal opinions but they are also required to serve their constituents and to follow the law. And then even a number of these did not actually say that. At least half of these said they "oppose" UNLESS a thorough screening process is carried out. Volunteer Marek  16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this [3]. This possibly belongs to another page, "International reactions...". My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian passport

"A gunman[who?] was found with a passport of a Syrian man who had been born in 1980. The man on the passport was not previously known to French police"

Probably should note that passport was a fake [4] [5] [6]. Volunteer Marek  17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the "who?" tag makes me scratch my head. Surely, it's not meant to be used when the identity of someone is factually unknown? LjL (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text in question makes no attempt to say whether it was one of the terrorists named elsewhere in this article, or at which venue they died. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The passport thing is also repeated like three different times in a very confusing way. Volunteer Marek  21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Born on 22 January 1995"

What's with the insistence on including this suspect's exact date of birth in the article (and the name of the procurator who identified him)? I've removed this before, but I'll now leave it to others. I think it's not at all relevant. LjL (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging discretionary sanctions

Courtesy notifications (Fuzheado—RGloucester—InedibleHulk—Legacypac—WWGB—Kendrick7—Greyshark09—Super Goku V—Firebrace—Epicgenius) I have created a motion to tone down the sanctions about ISIL, partly about this article and similar situations specifically, and partly in general. Feel free to ping anyone involved in the related discussions I may have forgotten. LjL (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bureaucratic for my taste, but good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: you don't necessarily have to do anything more than expressing your support or opposition to the changes with a very brief rationale to participate, mind. LjL (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it starts, yeah. But then it's a slippery slope. My support is the moral sort. Take it or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
There's very little nastiness that I can see, compared with other articles, so I feel that the warnings are a tad overzealous. But there's no real harm to remind everyone where we all stand. -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to follow the links but did not see a place where I could comment about the sanctions stuff. As far as this article goes, the main point of contention seems to be if the sanctions rules should be invoked. There's been very little squabble about the article content. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Kupper: the place to comment would be there at the motion, directly below other people's comments. LjL (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dog's name

We don't mention people who died by name unless they are notable, this has been reiterated a number of times on this talk page before. At the same time, I've recently had to remove the name of a police dog that died, but that was no use, because it was re-added together with its exact breed.

I find this... silly, and borderline offensive. Can we do away with it please? LjL (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be included. As much as I love dogs, they shouldn't get more recognition than humans. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I have reverted and let's hope it doesn't come back or else we might need to look at other options. Jolly Ω Janner 00:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This again, eh? Seriously though, barring substantial coverage, a dead dog's name is just as important as a dead human's. Some dead dogs really are honoured. But they're not inherently special, one way or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be more appropriate when this becomes a spin out article. But the dog is definitely significant to today's action. (#JeSuisChien for example) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
And probably meets GNG - though BLP1E may apply to dogs too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Today's action itself is barely notable and I doubt it should deserve a spin-out article, nevermind the dog. LjL (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of police dogs killed in the line of duty 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't exist, however there are some lists of dogs around. They almost all contain dogs with their own articles. Jolly Ω Janner 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List of New Zealand police officers killed in the line of duty lists 46 humans by name and circumstances for each and mentions "In addition to the human officers, 23 police dogs have died in the line of duty; notably the drowning of Enzo in 2007, and Gage, a six-year-old German Shepherd, in 2010." List of individual dogs#Police dogs has two dogs both of which have their own articles though I'm surprised that list did not include the fictional Inky (police dog). --Marc Kupper|talk 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
McGruff the Crime Dog is also conspicuous by his absence. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
In this case, I agree that there is no valid reason to include information about the breed and name of the dog in November 2015 Paris attacks. There are so many people who died; we cannot name all of them, but we name those who are significant to the history of what has happened. Perhaps a magazine for dog owners might want to discuss the dog in detail ... or even the Wikipedia article about that breed of dog. But I don't feel it belongs in this article. Peter K Burian 00:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

Please change: "The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II"

Change to: "The attacks were the deadliest in France since the Paris massacre of 1961"

The article purports that the 11/13/2015 attacks were the deadliest incidence of mass murder/violence/terrorism on french soil since WWII. This is incorrect, on 10/17/1961 upwards of 200 unarmed Algerian civil rights demonstrators were shot, drowned, and beaten to death by police and security forces during a march protesting discriminatory curfews placed on muslims. It was an incident understood as political violence, state terrorism, and mass murder. Accounts of lesser death tolls (as low as 5 immediately following the incident, rising to 40) were due to state suppression and media complicity in the massacre; the figure of 200-250 is widely acknowledged contemporarily.

This egregious inaccuracy is highly relevant to the article in question and damaging the to readers' understanding as it directly relates to the issues of media bias, state terrorism, political violence, and islamophobia that have all been the focus of conversations following the 11/13/2015 attacks.

It is disheartening to see wikipedia as a forum for disinformation discounting and devaluing the lives of Arabs/Muslims, I very much hope this is a result of simple human error. Wikipedia is a source for knowledge not opinion, please correct this immediately. I have linked multiple reputable sources below including the corresponding wikipedia article.

Thank you.

Kknyoike (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. None of the sources you provide seem to actually state that the present attacks were the deadliest terrorist attacks in France since 1961; they just talk about the latter and say they were pretty deadly (but the number of victims is unknown, and our article gives the lowest estimate as 40, even though the highest is 200+), but would it not be original research to claim they were terrorist attacks in the first place? Our article never speaks of them as state terrorism. LjL (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LjL. None of the sources directly connect the 1961 attacks as being deadlier than the 2015 attacks, so it is not added for now. epic genius (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're not required to repeat errors perpetrated by others. I've added a foot note (feel free to edit that in the normal manner), rather than making the requested change, but this needs to be mentioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR? Sources have to be "directly related to the topic of the article". Firebrace (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, find a source that doesn't "repeat this error", and we can include it. Otherwise, we can't fix alleged errors through our own original research. LjL (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with opposition to the efn per LjL. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also acquiesce with the two editors above. Not only is this unsourced, but this is also dubious. epic genius (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed 'in France' to 'on France' to clarify that they were the deadliest attacks from outside France since WWII. Although the attackers were French, the attacks were planned and coordinated by ISIL from their base in Syria. Firebrace (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Were they? Do we have a source? That's a particuarly interesting bit of information, because it's often claimed that attacks such as these are "inspired" by organizations such as ISIL or Al-Qaeda, but without any serious involvement. LjL (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The attacks [...] were "an act of war committed by Daesh that was prepared, organized and planned from outside (of France)" with help from inside France, Hollande said, using the Arabic acronym for Islamic State." [7] Firebrace (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that's just what Hollande said immediately after the attack. How could he already have the intelligence to say that with certainty? Or at least, with enough certainty for our standards? He's a politician, not a reliable source. He can only be relied upon about the fact he said something, not its veracity. LjL (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think he said that after ISIL had claimed responsibility for the attack. [8] Firebrace (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is sourced; not only in this article, but also in our article on the events of 1961. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NOR doesn't require us to repeat errors perpetrated by others, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says "the attacks were the deadliest on France" (with reliable sources to that effect), not in France; as the massacre of 1961 originated from inside the country, it was not an attack on France. It is unfortunate that I'm explaining this to an editor with more than 155,000 edits under his belt. Firebrace (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
originated from inside the country More to the point, it was an attack by the French National Police. They presumably represent France, so they cannot carry out an attack on France. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD - Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. We're violating that, in my opinion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead shouldn't be littered with citations, either, which should instead mostly appear in the article body. I think for now we can safely overlook these aspects, as the article is still in a state of flux. Better concentrate on whether or not we should mention things in the first place, than on whether the position we're placing them at is violating anything... LjL (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, a footnote about the 1961 incident has been removed. It's very PoV to exclude it; doubly so to make changes to the article's wording to justify doing so. I object most strongly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the change from "in" to "on" was made to justify that removal; rather, that that wording just makes more sense than comparing a police attack to a terrorist attack. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No one is saying the 1961 incident wasn't despicable, but comparing it to an outside terrorist attack is captious. LjL (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter terrorist operations

There is enough events and informations online for a specific section to grow. Such content currently goes to the #Search_for_further_attackers section. Thanks Yug (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Suspected) perpetrators: affiliates?

I would like to bring attention to this edit (which is, in turn, a counter-revert of a previous edit). I don't yet have a particularly strong opinion about whether we should still consider the perpetrators "suspected", and whether it's important to indicate that they are ISIL "affiliates" as opposed to ISIL itself; however, that edit summary worries me as a possible admission of flying in the face of consensus, which should, instead, be built here, and not by ultimatums like "do not revert".

What do you think the article should say? LjL (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, any "do not revert" command should be automatically reverted, just out of principle. Undecided as to the rest. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safar?

The article says:

The Paris attacks happened on the first day of the Islamic lunar month of Safar. Since the Islamic lunar calendar year is 11 to 12 days shorter than the solar year, Safar migrates through the seasons.

There's no apparent reason for mentioning this, and as such it appears to be totally irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it was unsourced. I removed it. It can be readded with a source that posits a link to the attacks. LjL (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were sourced, that relevance would need to be proven. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a WP:RS makes a conjecture, we can report on the conjecture. Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUE. The article has contained a number of things that weren't definitely proven. LjL (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was sourced to the New York Post, originally (diff). The section has been removed more than once, including by me a couple of days ago. It was restored, along with the accompanying bit about ISIS' use of the word "ghazwa". The article currently claims that this word means "religious raid", for some reason. It is now sourced to a Washington Post editorial, "4 ways ISIS grounds its actions in religion, and why it should matter (COMMENTARY)", which contains various other speculations. It is unclear why this particular bit has been selected as "Background", in any case. zzz (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The attacks were on the unlucky Friday the 13th too. Not important. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction has inaccuracy

The introduction states that the attacks in Paris were "the deadliest in Europe since the Madrid train bombings in 2004." Unfortunately the New York Times is wrong on that point - the 386 people killed in Beslan, Russia (in Europe) by Islamic extremist terror, half of which were children, was the deadliest attack in Europe since 2001. It was also after the Madrid train bombing.[1][2]Something1962 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)something1962[reply]

Relevant articles: Beslan school siege, 2004 Madrid train bombings. General Ization Talk 16:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may be why the article used to state "in the European Union", despite the source claiming differently... But then, some people object to the EU being treated as a thing in this regard. LjL (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back to EU. Firebrace (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-video-of-beslan-school-terror/
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/arts/television/the-horror-of-beslan-through-its-youngest-survivors.html

Social Media claims - 72 hours prior to attacks

At the end of the background section, it is stated that ...

"ISIL social media outlets shared images of weapons, the Eiffel Tower and blessings to the perpetrators 72 hours prior to the attacks.[50]"

The link goes to a website which in turn mentions a report on Fox News. There is no link in that article to the original Fox News claim. Accordingly, this claim should be removed as it is non-verifiable. Please let me have your thoughts. Unless someone indicates a reason to keep this line, I shall remove it 24 hours from now. Leor klier (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Times for the First and Second Explosions

The French article lists multiple sources (conflicting) with regards to the bombings.

  • 1st = 21:17 or 21:20
  • 2nd = 21:19 or 21:21 or 21:30

From previously on the talk page, hadn't we decided the second was at 21:19? Bod (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reliable sources report various times. In my view the most authoritative sources say 21:20 for the first explosion and 21:17 is probably correct. I think the issue is should the article discuss this? I tend to think it's not that important for almost all readers. If anyone changes the times they should go through the entire article making sure each changed time is being reported in the reference supporting it. Thincat (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

not ISIL its ISIS 69.92.89.27 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant abbreviates to ISIL. ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all in common use; the most important factor here is consistency, and this article consistently tries to use ISIL. LjL ( talk) 16:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We try to use ISIL Wikipedia wide as per a few votes held and to match the group name we selected from its' many names. It does not always happen but regular editors mostly use ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombmaker

I notice the article contains no mention of the supposed bombmaker who was said to have turned himself in. Was this more misinformation/mistaken identity? Rmhermen (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Added back" section

@Peter K Burian: in this edit, you claim to have "added back a section that had been deleted for no apparent reason", but in fact, you merely changed back a section that had been tweaked (partly or mostly by me) to fix some problems the original had. The section had not been deleted.

In fact, Abdelhamid Abaaoud became again a "mastermind" after being an "alleged leader", which is much more neutral especially when it's not yet fully proven; his being "a Moroccan who had become a Belgian national" is simply false (he only has Moroccan ancestry), and anyway, it shouldn't be mentioned, because the same thing is mentioned in a paragraph just above that one; the rest seems unchanged, except that you broke a paragraph into two even though they're logically one thing. LjL (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Peter K Burian: I see you now also re-added a whole section that I had removed on the basis that it was plagiarism, i.e. a potential copyright violation. Please use your own words, do not copy and paste from newspapers! That is not okay on Wikipedia. In addition, you re-introduced a part that was still there, but heavily edited by me and User:John (for good reasons, such as excessive quotin), so now there is something that looks like French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said that he would be meeting with EU ministers on 20 November in Brussels to discuss how to deal with terrorism across the European Union. Cazeneuve said that he would be meeting with EU ministers on 20 November in Brussels to discuss how to deal with terrorism across the territory. Can you see the repetition? Please stop messing up the article in such ways. LjL (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter K Burian: NO, please do not "add it again in 90 seconds": stop and check what you're doing and take some time to copyedit. Modifications to your sections were performed with care, please try to exercise the same care. LjL (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the last two paragraphs of International reactions (before "Muslim officials") are still broken, plagiarized, and repeating some things that were mentioned in other sections, such as that the attackers were all "EU nationals". I'm not going to change this again just so it constitutes a revert. I did it properly once. LjL (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you say it is plagiarized. I made it clear that it's from the source in the citation. Do you want me to put it all in quotation marks? Or extensively re-word it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs)
@Peter K Burian: you should, indeed, extensively re-word it (and also try not to re-add it verbatim after other people modify it, when they have their reasons...). This is per several policies, but you can read a comprehensive rationale at WP:PARAPHRASE. You should neither directly copy and paste pieces of articles from newspapers (unless they are short quotations the newspaper cited in turn) nor make an extremely close paraphrasing of what they say. You should use your own words. And again, note that some things are redundant, as they are stated in other places of our article. LjL (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes when a change is made, the reason for the change is explained and I understand it. Often I click on thank in such cases. At other times, I don't understand why someone changed a section that I had added, or removed it entirely. Be assured that any content I add or revise is done in good faith. Peter K Burian 21:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, paraphrase. I get it now. I need to spend more time doing so, and not assume that it's OK because it's fully cited. But if someone simply removes content that I wrote, and I don't understand at all why he did so, I am tempted to add it again. I still struggle with some aspects of Wikipedia; they are quite different than what I do when writing magazine articles on entirely different types of topics. But I am willing to take advice, and appreciate yours. Peter K Burian 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: I've never thought you were acting in bad faith (and I've received a few "thanks" from you), but you messed up the article by re-adding sections that you thought had been removed but mostly hadn't, so things ended up being duplicated and generally in a bad state; in the meanwhile, I was trying to reach you on this talk page, but to no effect. That was a bit frustrating.
I suggest you slow down and, when you find that some text you added seems to no longer be there, you check the history (although it's tricky to pinpoint at times) and first try to see if there is an edit summary justifying it (your content wasn't "simply removed": everything was justified by edit summaries), and also, whether your text is actually still there but extensively tweaked (which is what naturally happens all the time on Wikipedia). Then, also check the talk page and inquire there as to what's going on. Otherwise if you keep re-adding stuff without understanding why it was removed/changed/tweaked/whatever, you'll be WP:Edit warring for no reason.
About paraphrasing, do you realize it's obvious you copyed and pasted from the newspaper even starting from the quotation marks you used, which weren't Wikipedia's straight " quotation marks, but curled ones? LjL (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter K Burian: please check my latest two edits, [9] and [10]. Look at the edit summaries at the top, which indicate what I have done. I removed neither of your paragraph, but simply reworded them and merged them together to form one coherent paragraph written using my own words. LjL (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rats; I write a reply, click on Save, and I get a note re: Conflict Edit; then everything I had just written seems to disappear. Peter K Burian 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: it doesn't disappear. That message meant that someone else (in this case, likely me) was editing the same page as you were. The software can't "merge" our two edits. At Help:Edit conflict you'll find more information about it. What you write is not lost: there are two windows with text, one at the top with the other person's text, and one at the bottom with yours. You are then supposed to "fix" the situation manually, by putting your changes back into the top window. LjL (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the solution re: Conflict. I was saying that I did not realize there is a difference in two types of quotation marks. I guess I should use the ones from the template, not from my keyboard. I removed neither of your paragraph, but simply reworded them and merged them together to form one coherent paragraph written using my own words. yes, I see how you did that. Thanks again. Peter K Burian 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This was a disagreement at first because I simply did not understand what was happening and why; well, I understood some, and did a thank for those. After User:LjL helped to educate me, there was no disagreement at all. 174.95.156.151 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A fast moving current event article is very hard to learn editing on. We all get edit conflicts and find stuff we added deleted or duplicated. easier to pick an article without many edits a minute to practice on. There are pages here that don't get touched for years and need help. Keep learning - you have a great attitude. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflicts are the devil. Why can't MediaWiki employ some decent merge algorithm instead of causing this amount of headache? LjL (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, there are more edits on this article than any other I have worked on before. Until I got to this one, I doubt I had seen an edit conflict more than twice. ... Sure, other pages need help. And I have done a lot of work on some exactly like that, one was a stub and now it's a full article. Danby (appliances) But the Paris attacks, and especially the aftermath, and how it will affect Syrian refugees, is of much greater interest to me. I apologize for giving LjL a headache for a few hours, and I really appreciate the education he has provided. (I have never seen editors of his caliber on other topics I have worked on.) But I also hope that the content that I have added is of value to readers. Peter K Burian 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. The information you added is valuable, and the EU decisions about borders will be talked about a lot in the near future. LjL (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by all means carry on, it's just a different experience here :) Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)≠[reply]

Victim numbers

@AllSportsfan16 and Firebrace: please stop edit warring with one another over the amount of dead people. Can't we let the sources converge? It can be presumed that both sources may be partly mistaken by defect, i.e. some victims are not accounted for. So, the bigger numbers could be used for each country. Using the smaller number makes no sense. The CNN source lists names, but that should be a matter of WP:CALC and I don't personally see a problem adding that up to numbers. LjL (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The attacks/ The attackers

Can we please not use the phrase, "the attacks killed X number of people"? You are distancing the perpetrators from their actions. Better to say that the attackers/militants/terrorists killed ______. Bod (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=691648469

Leave a Reply