Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

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". [1] British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged similar support for France through a statement made on Twitter.[2]
  • This was discussed above - see the Response section earlier in the talk page. SkittishSloth (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps keep a running list here, add details to article if relevent? Responses may vary.
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
This is being discussed above. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - standard and should likely be its own article —МандичкаYO 😜 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - standard and should likely be its own article.--Oneiros (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - standard BUT should not be its own article yet. epic genius (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "President Obama delivers statement". The White House - President Barack Obama. White House. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
  2. ^ "Paris attacks: David Cameron offers condolences". BBC. BBC. November 13, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  3. ^ "UN condemns 'despicable' terrorist attacks in Paris". UN News Centre. United Nations. November 13, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - The other section discussing this seems to have the opposite opinion → Here Snd0 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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. Reywas92Talk 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - why not? - theWOLFchild 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seen it elsewhere. Hanyou23 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Reactions part 2

See also: § Reactions, and § International response subsection

With respect, lets keep the reactions sections from getting bloated. A lot of celebrities have been tweeting and otherwise posting to social media about these events. Mark Dacascos and Amy Schumer, just to name two, have been posting their reactions on Twitter, as has Justin Bieber, who was performing at the time and had recently been in Paris. I'm sure many other famous people are voicing their reactions as well. While their words are well intended, I believe the reactions section should be limited to world leaders, and attention should be paid to how relevant the reaction is to the article. Just offering some forward thinking here. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What might be simplest would be to just summarize it as "The attacks were met with international comndemnation, with leaders from numerous countries expressing their shock and solidarity with the Frence people." and source that to either or both of the BBC and Guardian live feeds. No need for names or quotes. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why even bother with that? What else will they be doing, supporting the attacks?--Loomspicker (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. France has no official enemies, as France, but as a NATO member, it does. No politician worth his or her salt is going to cheer out loud, but it's sort of informative to read which states are absent from the standard condolences list. No point reading their entire quotes, but listing leaders who did send thoughts and prayers is better than just "numerous countries". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
These reactions to this sort of tragedy are by now, alas, formulaic. But while we don't necessarily need a massive block of quotations, they are still significant political statements. The detail of the statements can be spun off into its own mini-article. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Sigh. As usual in such cases, people respond and express their sympathies. This is run of the mill, to be expected, of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Ignatzmice, seems to me that consensus here is against that one line. "Responses" ought to be actions taken by governments and institutions, not words. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have three different sections on this page discussing the same thing now... oy. I was basing my opinion on more later comments, but it could be taken either way. I'm off to bed now, no hard feelings either way. Sad night all around. Ignatzmice•talk 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have renamed this section #Reactions part 2 as there is already a section called #Reactions earlier. And another on the same topic of another hdg, as Ignatzmice said. 220 of Borg 06:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

The fact that this article has now been placed under the same umbrella as other Syria-related articles and WP:1RR is enforced makes it basically impossible to correct repeated mistakes, as this article moves too quickly and edit summaries are too scant to keep track of who changed what and when. It's exceedingly easy to revert more than once (note that revert rules aren't about the same revert, it can be unrelated reverts), including logged-in users since there is no semi-protection anymore, meaning anyone can make an account and edit.

I've edited this article a lot and, for the little it matters, been "Thanked" a lot for it, but I will virtually stop editing now unless this is lifted. I've just been threatened with blocking (see above - by a user with a history of multiple blocks, ironically) for a pretty legitimate concern. LjL (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen at least two inappropriate edits by user (talk). XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen one by you where you actually claimed I had vandalized the article (have you read what WP:Vandalism means?) over a dispute on whether we should say "ISIL" or "Islamic State" just because the source used the latter, even though the whole Wikipedia article used the former. Claims of vandalism aren't taken lightly, and you should be careful about making them. LjL (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add that there is little difference between using ISIL and Islamic State. If there is a big difference, User:XavierItzm, then you should have pointed it out somewhere on the talk page so a discussion could have been started. Additionally, the infobox at the top of the page uses the expanded abbreviation of ISIL and the section that was edited had the acronym next to the full name of ISIL to show what it referred to. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps worth noting that a search for "islamic state" gives Islamic state, and a search for "Islamic State" gives Islamic state (disambiguation). Neither gives Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. Right now, there is abuse because the voice of the WSJ is being used to read "ISIL", when the referred WSJ article never at all mentions ISIL. It uses "Islamic State." XavierItzm (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
XavierItzm seems to be exhibiting a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, in light of his talk page discussion. LjL (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xaviertzm, are you saying that WSJ is referring to something other than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Perhaps worth noting that a search for "isil" or "ISIL" gives Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, so Wikipedia currently considers them synonymous. Not so for "Islamic State", as demonstrated above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We paraphrase sources routinely. We don't have to use the exact words they use, provided we don't alter their meaning. I don't think using ISIL alters WSJ's meaning, and it's less ambiguous than Islamic State, as shown above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the lede, "Hollande also said the attacks were organised from abroad "by Daesh," the Arabic acronym for ISIL," which should make it obvious that this is referring to ISIL which is used everywhere else in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that direct quotations are an exception, so if Hollande said Daesh, we should quote Daesh - but only if we're actually quoting him verbatim, we can always rephrase as long as we don't pretend it's a direct quote. LjL (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually best thing to do would be to fully protect the article for the near future. Volunteer Marek  23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice joke. Now back to the topic, okay? LjL (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a joke. Dead serious. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble and sending out an invite to various POV pushers everywhere who are going to try to hitch their agenda to this. And we've already seen some of this. Volunteer Marek  23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: So, you are requesting that we restore discretionary sanctions to the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we have full protection, we won't need DS. Volunteer Marek  01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has my standing vote for a one-month delay on all major breaking news stories. Plane crashes, mass murders, terrorist attacks, and so on. Per NOTNEWS. Would make more sense than allowing creation of an article and then prohibiting it from being developed. Can't seem to get much traction for the concept. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Highly reasonable. Thanks. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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....) -- Kendrick7talk 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
👍 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)[reply]

Yeah, I'm kinda tired here anyway. :D 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also potentially numerous new editors to the project, though. -- Kendrick7talk 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why not pending changes? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Nationwide" state of emergency

@Zziccardi: why remove the fact that the state of emergency is nationwide, though? Many, if not all, of the past times it's been declared, it was only for certain territories, but this times multiple sources reported it as actually being nationwide ("sur l'ensemble du territoire", on the whole of the territory). LjL (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LjL. Thanks for the ping. I was responding to this edit by Biwom. I can't read French, so I apologize if I'm wrong, but the NY Times article that was cited doesn't specifically mention that it's a nationwide state of emergency. As far as I could tell, the 1961 state of emergency wasn't statewide either. —zziccardi (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the 1961 one. But if this one is nationwide (I'll try to find a source in English), it's either the first since 1961, or the first since the state of emergency law was instated, both of which would be relatively prominent facts, no? LjL (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the BBC is saying it's a nationwide state of emergency, but many other reliable sources just say "state of emergency". I think it's best not to use terms like "statewide" for now since it's not clear whether that's actually the case. Time says the following: Previously, the country had imposed a state of emergency only in Algeria, a former French colony, in 1955, 1958 and 1961. —zziccardi (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The French sources were routinely saying it was nationwide, though, using terms that perhaps the English sources may not have picked up properly. Let's read the original government announcement: "un décret déclarant l’Etat d’urgence a été adopté. Il prend effet immédiatement sur l’ensemble du territoire métropolitain et en Corse." [2] ("a decree declaring the state of emergency has been adopted. It takes effect immediately on the whole of the metropolitan territory and in Corsica."). Note that "territoire métropolitain" (metropolitan territory) doesn't mean the territory of a city or anything like that in French, but it simply contrasts with offshore territories like colonies the overseas territories (see Metropolitan France to confirm). LjL (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These three sources (in French) say 1961 was nationwide: 1 2 and 3. 1 and 2 say clearly it's the first nationwide state of emergency since 1961, 3 says it less explicitly. My feeling is the French medias today were more focused on this "first since 1961" than "first since 2005" thing, so we should do the same. Regards, Biwom (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reflecting the fact that France declares a state of emergency quite rarely, mentioning the 2005 occurrence seems just as relevant to me, and reliable English-language sources have given it plenty of coverage. —zziccardi (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification—I was absolutely interpreting territoire métropolitain as just the metropolitan area, unaware of the term's specific use in France. Personally, I'd prefer to reference an English-language source, seeing as this is the English Wikipedia and most readers presumably can't read French sources to verify any information stated within the article for themselves. How about we cite both the government's announcement (providing a quote in the citation) and the BBC's assertion that the state of emergency is nationwide? I think that would be most useful for our readers. —zziccardi (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English sources are generally preferred, although non-English ones are acceptable (especially to clarify a situation like here). As long as the sources now given in French convince you, I'm fine with giving BBC as the primary source for "nationwide" within the article. LjL (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the gesture, but it's not about convincing me, specifically. Using both the BBC and the French government's announcement as sources would probably be in the interest of readers. :) —zziccardi (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]. If you listen and watch [2] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dfb.de/die-mannschaft/spiele-termine/?spieledb_path=%2Fmatches%2F2223178
  2. ^ https://www.sportschau.de/fussball/videofrankreichgegendeutschlanddieerstehalbzeit102.html

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)

is "piano man" playing the Lennon song really noteworthy?

I would vote to remove it. There will be lots of these sort of stunts in the coming days. 68.19.1.154 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it. It's been widely reported on, and just because it didn't happen "online" that doesn't make it less important than the various hashtags and Facebook stunts... LjL (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't keep those, either. 68.19.1.154 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but good luck with that. LjL (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what he played. It sounded only remotely like "Imagine". No need to keep that in the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err, your WP:OR on what it sounded like isn't really relevant, to be fair, what sources reported him as playing is. LjL (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of the voice of the WSJ

Right now, the article reads "According to The Wall Street Journal, the attacks were motivated by ISIL as "retaliation" for the French role."
This is an abuse of the use of the voice of the WSJ, which never mentions ISIL at all in the ref. The WSJ only discusses the Islamic State.
Words are being put in the mouth of the WSJ which the WSJ never expressed in the ref. XavierItzm (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same thing according to our very article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (as well as just about everyone). Therefore, consistency within our article prevails over verbatim quoting of the source. See WP:NOR about using "own words". LjL (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree with Abductive's rephrasing. This needs attribution. As currently written, we're just inviting an "According to whom?" tag. The previous language was fine imo. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: This subject is being discussed above at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks#Discretionary sanctions. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find this debate perplexing - what could the WSJ piece refer to when it says "Islamic State" other than ISIL? I was the one who originally put in "According to the Wall Street Journal" because someone had put in that line without attribution, which I found irresponsible. If you look at the full quote, you can see why you need attribution because it's a lot of speculation even on the WSJ's part: "Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks on a social media account but didn’t provide specific information that would allow the claim to be verified. It said the attacks were retaliation for French airstrikes against the group in Syria and Iraq." [3] Can you see now that you cannot simply write that sentence without attribution? It is even short of being "verified" by WSJ's standards. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another source that says that the IS might have committed the attacks for that reason. Also, IS = ISIS = ISIL, so I don't know what the OP is talking about. epic genius (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

were motivated by ISIL as "retaliation" for the French role."???

why not reoword to French position The midleestern folks are very sensitive to sex. :also explain what was the (imo somehow marginal) French role. They did say they will send aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, but they did not. So do this 'abkar' suiciders realy want France to commit those role?
logic in reverse, perhaps u geting this form mas media 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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 Thumbs down icon :
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Which flag? LjL (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the flase flag 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that helps a lot understanding what you mean... not. LjL (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You mean the ISIL flag? Next to the "Perpetrators" entry of the infobox? LjL (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrewnwilliams (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: the change needs to be specified exactly and all there is here is some vague allegations in the section header. Tell us what needs to be changed into what and where. LjL (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why? if propaganda is well sourced it should be included. Anyway those people get kiled for somebody propaganda. U cant just dismis it.

qui bono

This should be standard section in any crime related article. Terrorism is hig crime and is good to point wchich district of criminals may bono. or qui bono.

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)[reply]

I don't see these paragraphs in the article. LjL (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...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)[reply]
@Andrewnwilliams: request has been answered so 'pinging' them. 220 of Borg 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Islamic state Wall street connection.

WSJ's part: "Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks on a social media account but didn’t provide specific information that would allow the claim to be verified.

the quote from above suggest WSJ cover up ISIL. Is it right? 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that? Kiwifist (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Suicide bombings" and "bombings"

"Suicide bombings" and "bombings" are both mentioned in the second sentence. Aren't they both the same thing? Why is it being differentiated here? Kiwifist (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

due proces is only possible in absentia for sucide bombing. Do It explain somehow? (legality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like it's already been fixed now. Kiwifist (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

the killed people of Jewish ancestry

how many generation back it count. If somebody has grand granmather roots could be added to victim section ? 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Nowhere does it talk about Jewish victims in the article. Stop posting nonsense to this talk page. See what I told you on my talk page. Thank you. LjL (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, that's a bad choice of terminology. LjL (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
We should make a note of that next to France then. Kiwifist (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.


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.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

The following were omitted from a list of items enumerating similar tributes throughout the world and should be included with them:

Israel: Flags ordered to half mast; Tel-Aviv buildings illuminate as the Tri-color (La place Rubin)

Sources: seen on i24 streaming broadcasts; likely available at their website: i24news.tv

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/92455-151114-buildings-around-the-world-light-up-in-solidarity-with-paris

24.186.9.183 (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page November 2015 Paris attacks. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. epic genius (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the page you need to post to is Talk: International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. epic genius (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ayad of Mercury Records dead

I noticed that Thomas Ayad, executive of Mercury Records, was killed in the Bataclan attacks. Somebody needs to update the article to include this one. [5] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with general practice in Wikipedia articles concerning mass disasters, we are not naming individual victims among the 129 dead and more than 300 injured in the article at this time. If and when this is mentioned in a significant number of prominent news sources (not just an entertainment industry site), it may be mentioned here. Also, meaning no disrespect to Mr. Ayad or his family, but he was not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines before his death, and his being a victim of this incident does not make him so (and they are still entitled to privacy). General Ization Talk 04:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Thomas Ayad wouldn't be notable just out of the 129 victims. We need to wait for more information before listing too many people. Kiwifist (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that if Mr. Ayad is a US citizen (which can't be determined from Universal Music Group chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge's note quoted at the source cited above – he could just as easily be French, or otherwise), this may require a change in the table of casualties by nationality. We must wait for a better source. General Ization Talk 04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to the current infobox, it includes them. Kiwifist (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I read the "+" as "including". Maybe we should clarify by saying "excluding 8 perpetrators" instead. Kiwifist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Only seven attackers killed now?

Recent reports (like [6], [7]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

“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.”[8]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks&oldid=690750937

Leave a Reply