Talk:2015 Thalys train attack

Request for comment - section 'Actions of train crew'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Summary: The stable version of the article for 3 weeks included a controversy over train employees running away. The owners of the article, Pincrete and others, appear to hate Anglade and want to gut it. I propose a compromise medium length version. The controversy is real as it was widely reported worldwide. The gutted version doesn't convey the controversy that happened. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Version 1: Stable version for 3 weeks

Jean-Hugues Anglade, a French actor traveling with his partner and children in the No. 11 car (the last car before the rear engine), was critical of the train crew for locking themselves in the engine car and not coming to the aid of passengers. Anglade told Paris Match that they heard gunshots and screaming in the next car, after which several crew members rushed past them to the engine car, opened it with a special key and locked themselves inside. Anglade, who cut his hand when he broke the glass shielding the hammer used to break the train windows,[100] said he saw the gunman through the door between the cars. He described feeling that they were all going to die, and said:[59]

It was impossible to escape from this nightmare. We were trapped in a mousetrap! It's a terrifying feeling of helplessness.

Anglade stated that the dozen passengers in his car were pressed against the engine car door, banging on it and begging the crew to open it:

We shouted for staff to let us in, we were yelling, 'Open up!' in vain.... Nobody responded to us. Not a squeak. This abandonment — so much distress, loneliness — it was terrible and unbearable! For us it was inhuman. The minutes seemed like hours.

Anglade stated that Anthony Sadler came into their car searching for blankets and a first aid kit for the wounded, and told them the assailant had been subdued. Sadler also banged on the door of the engine car to no avail, said Anglade, who expressed his gratitude:[59]

We are shocked, but we are alive, and that's the point. We were in the wrong place, but with the right people. It's a miracle. We were incredibly lucky to have these American soldiers. I want to pay tribute to their heroic courage and thank them; without them we'd all be dead.

Anglade's claims of "abandonment" by the crew were denied by the Thalys corporation.[17][95] Agnès Ogier, director-general of Thalys, defended the train employees, who she said "have fulfilled their duty" and were unaware the terrorist had been subdued.[101] She also reported that a male employee took five or six passengers with him while seeking shelter in the baggage car.[38]

On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company. He added: "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behavior." The statement went on to say that Anglade's testimony would be taken into account in the internal investigation conducted by the train company, and that no further communication would be made on this particular topic.[102]

On 28 August, Alek Skarlatos recounted on Fox News, "There was one train employee that came up to us right as it was getting over and told Spencer to stop choking the guy, which was insane because he was not even fully unconscious, and told me to put the AK down, which again was insane because I hadn't even looked through the train to see if anybody else was there. I don't know what he was thinking, but I just told him that I was military and to calm down and get out of the way, and then Chris translated for us, and that was really it."[103][104]

On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company. He added: "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behavior." The statement went on to say that Anglade's testimony would be taken into account in the internal investigation conducted by the train company. [107]

Version 2: Current version

(renamed to remove inflammatory diction) Versus001 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Actions of train crew[edit]

The French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who was present in the train along with his children and partner, suffered a minor hand injury when he attempted to access the emergency hammer for breaking the train window.[104][105][106] In the hours that followed, he blamed the train crew for their attitude,[107] claiming that they had abandoned the passengers to the assailant.[108][109]

On 23 August, Anglade acknowledged that the crew members who "abandoned the passengers", by locking themselves in the engine car, were not Thalys staff, but employees of a catering company. He added, "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behavior."[110]

Version 3: Compromise version

Actions of train crew

Jean-Hugues Anglade, a French actor traveling with his partner and children in the No. 11 car (the last car before the rear engine), was critical of the train crew for locking themselves in the engine car and not coming to the aid of passengers. Anglade told Paris Match that they heard gunshots and screaming in the next car, after which several crew members rushed past them to the engine car, opened it with a special key and locked themselves inside. Anglade, who cut his hand when he broke the glass shielding the hammer used to break the train windows,[100] said he saw the gunman through the door between the cars.

Anglade stated that the dozen passengers in his car were pressed against the engine car door, banging on it and begging the crew to open it:

We shouted for staff to let us in, we were yelling, 'Open up!' in vain.... Nobody responded to us. Not a squeak. This abandonment — so much distress, loneliness — it was terrible and unbearable!

Anglade stated that Anthony Sadler came into their car searching for blankets and a first aid kit for the wounded, and told them the assailant had been subdued. Sadler also banged on the door of the engine car to no avail, said Anglade, who expressed his gratitude:[59]

Anglade's claims of "abandonment" by the crew were denied by the Thalys corporation.[17][95] On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company.

Discussion

• Compromise Version - I support It is the best of the 3 versions. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• I added another sig to top of section, so too many details won't appear in another page. Also, you are told to make the RFC post neutral and brief. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, best in what way? Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Current Version - I support The Compromise Version is still a bit blocky and could do without the quote and a couple of paragraphs (do remember that the information is disputed and mostly retracted later on). But for now, the so-called "gutted" version will do. Also, I will repeat, we do not hate Anglade, otherwise we would've done MUCH MORE than just remove certain details you perceive as major. In addition, the controversy has since been retracted. Versus001 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Current Version , if there are any additional pertinent facts they can be added, but devoting about a fifth of the article to a controversy which 'blew over' after a few days, which the man at the centre of withdrew all his accusations, and who was not even in the relevant part of the train, is WP:UNDUE. It goes without saying that the presentation of this RfC is neither brief, neutral nor accurate, nor is any case made for including so much material peripheral to the event. … … previous discussion on this subject is mainly here, and here, and here. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Also nb Almost the same topic is included in a (still open) RfC above, initiated by the same editor. Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The other RFC is to incorporate all of the events chronologically. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Since when? Versus001 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The other RfC is about 'Flags' and the same subject, ie Anglade's account. Though it is so ineptly phrased and presented, one would need to be a mind reader to know what the issue for comment actually was. Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Versus001 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The subsection Actions of train crew under section "Controversies" is an account of a famous French actor who scratched his hand breaking an emergency glass and used his fame to trumpet accusations about purported actions of train crew on board the Thalys which got wide coverage in newspapers and glossy French magazines. As it happens, he later retracted his accusations after meeting with train company executives; is Wikipedia to be a spinning weather vane reporting the latest version of the changing opinion of some non-participant in a current event?

So I vote delete section entirely as non-encyclopedic and mostly WP:PRIMARY. This is despite the fact that deleting it would nullify the significant time and effort I've spent on this article section trying to accommodate the Rfc originator's wishes, without success apparently. If there's an argument to be made for keeping the section at all, it would be due to the fact that the actor's fame gave him a wide public forum for a drumbeat of accusations of malfeasance such that the train company Thalys and the French national train service SNCF could no longer ignore him and were forced to issue public statements and ultimately meet with him, at which point he retracted his accusations, understanding his error. Other than that, this is all a tempest in a teapot about a non-participant with clout creating a media furor for a couple of days, before it died down. Nothing about his comments and opinions, before or after, do anything to improve the article. The section should be deleted. My "compromise" version is if the section is retained in any form, it should state that a famous French actor made accusations about train crew that achieved wide coverage in the French media, which were later retracted after he met with Thalys and SNCF. It could probably be done in one sentence, with two or three refs, perhaps something like this:

Among the passengers was well-known French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who made accusations widely quoted in the French media accusing the train crew of "abandoning" the passengers and saving themselves, but he later recanted aftermeeting with Thalys and SNCF officials and praised the crew for "heroism".

That would be my "compromise version". Anything more would be vastly WP:UNDUE. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC) edited by Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC) to add the one-sentence compromise version above

• Comment - I find it ironic to say the least, that the Rfc originator, an WP:SPA who is clearly highly invested in this article, provides three options for discussion including laying out for the rest of us what the "compromise" version is. Compromise is what is achieved by talking it out and arriving at a consensus with other editors on the Talk page, it is not dictated by one person. But then, this is an amusing microcosm of what has been going on here, so worthy of mention. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You may and have suggested a 4th option. Complete removal of the topic from the article. This is a really bad editorial choice. How about removing the Battle of Britain from World War II history because it is just a little part of it? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it is a personal attack to call me a SPA. I have edited many articles. Editing only one article is not forbidden, either. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

So removing Anglade cutting his hand, and being unable to hide in the engine car along with the caterers, and whingeing about it afterwards, is comparable to removing the Battle of Britain is it? Well I suppose it makes a nice change from 9/11 analogies. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am actually not in support of removing Anglade's account, even if it is disputed. I have seen a number of other articles that have mentioned facts from initial reports while addressing them as such, as well as addressing points of confusion regarding conflicting accounts, and I don't see why this article has to be any different. I think it's noteworthy to mention Anglade's account, albeit reduced to maybe a sentence or two given Mathglot's argument to delete it.

Onto more pressing matters, Sandra opposed to terrorism, you are setting up a poor analogy. Anglade's account and the Battle of Britain are two completely different things. Anglade's account is just an eyewitness account whose credibility was disputed and later disproved. The Battle of Britain, despite its "little part" of World War II history, was an event in a history-defining war, which has been cited as "a crucial turning point in the conflict" (see the article header for more info). As much as I am not in support of removing that account in its entirety, I will agree that you are making a bad case for yourself. Also, you have edited many articles. So? I have as well, and my edits are disputed every now and then and eventually sometimes do not make it in. The difference between us seems to be how we handle such decisions. Versus001 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I think the present (or slightly clipped) version is the proper weight, a frightened man said some slightly foolish things, they were widely reported for a few days then withdrawn, the 'story' died. Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Compromise version This talk page is so long, few will read it. The original version is long, which is not bad, but has details unrelated to the event, like Angle feeling like a mouse. The next version in way too condensed and does not adequately describe the controversy or event. The compromise version needs some work but is on the right track. It is the track we should pursue but nobody should think it is the final static version. In fact, the whole article could use some work. There seems to be a lot of disagreement. Consider asking editors who don't come here daily to inject inspiration.Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This RFC is improperly worded and should be withdrawn (and, optionally, rewritten properly).

Please read WP:RFC on how to formulate an RFC; see especially point 3. Please also see WP:RFCQ#Neutrality about how to write a neutral request, especially avoid rhetorical constructions and wording choices that indicate preference towards a particular outcome, and the "Rule of thumb", both of which are massively violated by this Rfc. I'd write an alternative unbiased statement myself, only the current one is so long and fatally flawed, that I fear that any attempt at moving toward concision and NPOV would be such a radical departure that it would be viewed by the originator as an attempt to "gut" the Rfc, and I have no wish to engage in yet another pointless discussion where an attempt to follow policy is seen as an attack. It would be better to simply withdraw this Rfc, write a new one (if still needed) following the recommendations, and publicize it properly.

Responders should also read about how to respond. Responses which simply say, in essence, "This one is best" without offering any reasoning based on WP guidelines or policy are not helpful, since an Rfc is not an opinion poll, or a voting system where you count up the "votes" to see who "won". Finally, we're spinning our wheels here; there isn't sufficient outside input. Consider publicizing it according to recommendations if/when you create a new one, properly formulated. Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, what is ref 59 in the 'compromise' version? Making judgements without access to the sources is 'dodgy', the other sources I am familiar with. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The way the "versions" as listed above in the Rfc by the originator are gives a misleading and self-serving impression to Rfc readers. In particular, the way the "current version" (the one originally called "Gutted version" by the originator) is displayed misleads because it appears to show a section far shorter than what was there before (roughly, Version 1, aka "stable"). However, in fact that's only true for the rendered article text, whereas if you include the refs, which include some long embedded quotations containing material previously found in the rendered section text, it's actually 291 bytes longer. That version was built up in steps following a Talk page discussion, with a few further changes resulting from ongoing discussion. By total byte/word count including refs and |quote= params included, the "current" version is longer than the previous one. Not that I approve of it at that length, but it was an attempt to compromise with the Rfc originator's objections in some fashion. A step-by-step discussion of how the "current" version was created out of the previous one can be found here (look for small blue-green font). Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Compromise version works for me, having regard to WP:UNDUE weight of the long "stable" version, and the too sparse "gutted" version. The article is full of information and I see no reason to remove a well-known part of the story. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Compromise version is good. Covers the controversy adequately, including what he retracted (which is not nearly as much as some anti-Anglade editors are suggesting; the only thing he seems to have corrected was his assumption about the exact employment status of the workers), but it does not ramble on and on like a move plot summary. The short version is both too short and inaccurate (for one thing, Anglade did not criticize their "attitude" but their direct actions), and reads like it was written by the company. But the long version reads like it was written by People magazine. The compromise version is encyclopedically informative, reports properly on Anglade's claims as claims, and the company's response, not narrating Anglade's claims like a story, and is sufficiently concise. I decline to look further into the inter-personality pissing match going on above, I'm just looking at the content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, among the claims which Anglade withdrew, was the claim that they were actually Thalys staff, in fact they were catering staff employed by an independent catering company. So the people who sell coffee on trains aren't heroes and hide away from danger in the broom cupboard, not much of a story, … … also, for the record, the same person drafted all three versions above without consultation. In fact, other witnesses 'closer to the action' than Anglade, contradict him. We omit those accounts too and also accounts criticising or satirising Anglade. Far from being 'anti-Anglade', most of the regular editors take the attitude that an upset man said some upset things which he withdrew within days. The story was big news for a few days in France, then got dropped. It was not reported at all virtually after the first day by 'Anglo' media. Devoting more than a short paragraph to it, in my opinion, is giving it undue weight. Last time I looked, French WP took the same attitude (and the story was much bigger there). Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An Rfc isn't about vote-counting, it's about assessing the merit of arguments based on WP policies. Comments like "I see no reason to [do X]" or "[it's] too short" should be expanded so they are based on policy, and not mere personal preference. Comments about "pissing matches" are uncivil and do not help further the aims of an Rfc, and comments such as "anti-Anglade editors" demonstrate a total lack of good faith and are needlessly antagonistic and disruptive; don't do it. Please refer to the suggestions for RPC responders for more ideas. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not version 2 That version is way too short and harms the quality of the article. The compromise version is probably best but the long version isn't so bad either. Hiwiki123 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References for Rfc - Actions of train crew

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper closure

Improper closure, per WP:RFC and WP:CLOSE.

• Rfc should have been closed as improperly formatted, with an invitation to try again, taking care next time to make the opening statement neutral and brief (the current one is neither).
• The closing editor acknowledged the multi-problematic nature of the Rfc in closure notes, but closed with consensus anyway.
• The closing editor identified a consensus which does not exist; Rfc discussions are not a vote. Well, they closed "for" a particular PoV; I guess actually typing the word "consensus" into the closure notes created too much cognitive dissonance for them to tolerate. Please see WP:CLOSE#How to determine the outcome, in particular:
  • Consensus is not determined by counting heads
  • The closer is there "to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." Most votes in this Rfc were unsupported personal opinion.
• Editors should take care with closures which "may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous"; see WP:NAC section Pitfalls to avoid.
• Editors who have over a dozen previous edits on the article Talk page including opinions stated on a previous Rfc should recuse themselves as too involved.

Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• GreenC, I am also baffled by the logic of your closure. Even 'counting heads' does not suggest a consensus or significant majority. One voter has made a total of 10 edits on WP. The presentation of the RfC is diabolically non-neutral and confusingly misrepresents essential pertinent facts. Very few editors have left 'policy based' edit reasons and, strangest of all, you are an involved editor with a clearly (and very recently) expressed antipathy to the proposer. You should re-open and/or request admin closure. The article is locked anyway, so there is no rush. Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I had some prior involvement but none with this content. The wording of the close is in-effect support of both Version 1 and Version 3 because it leaves open the possibility for normal editing, it doesn't lock in any particular text. Mathglot's single Delete vote the close implicitly rejects (and version 2 no one wanted). That leaves version 1 and version 3. Version 3 had 5 support and Version 1 had 2 (or 7 out of 8 !votes). I understand this is not a vote but opinions carry weight so long as they are justified in some way, for example saying "I like it" for no reason. Contrary to Mathglot's assertion, opinions supported with an explanation, regardless if they cite rules or not, do carry weight, unless it's a violation of policy or clearly wrong. The edit history of Hiwiki123 is brief but does show long-term editing of WP and not a SPA. -- GreenC 23:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Green Cardamom said,

"...but opinions carry weight so long as they are justified in some way, for example saying 'I like it' for no reason".

I've already quoted the reason why this is incorrect, perhaps you missed it. I'll bold it for you here: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious,... --source: WP:CLOSE. What this means is, you take all those votes which are solely personal opinion and ignore them, before you even begin to consider whether there is a WP:CONSENSUS among the remainder.

Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mathglot, and how is any version 'locked in?'. We don't require votes necessarily to cite rules, we ask them to be clear that their reasons are based on rules. 'I like' is wholly invalid unless attached to some reason. You ARE involved with the article, before I in fact. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hiwiki123 said "too short and harms the quality of the article" which is a WP:WEIGHT argument. SMcCandlish said "The short version is both too short and inaccurate" which is a WEIGHT and V argument. Pete gave a WEIGHT argument. Tough sailor ouch gave a WEIGHT argument. Sandra opposed to terrorism gave no argument at all, and would be discounted, however since she gave her argument in the RfC itself ("The gutted version doesn't convey the controversy that happened") I included her position as a WEIGHT argument. Look I'm sorry you disagree but I can't ignore these editors arguments. If you still disagree you can ask for a review. -- GreenC 14:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

GreenC when editors are making their assesments without access to the full facts (little details like these WEREN'T actually train crew, you have to look hard to find in the presentation). When the RfC is abysmally presented, with no attempt at neutrality. When no editors say WHAT is missing from the short version, which is pertinent. SMcCandlish claims it is inaccurate, how? His point seems to be based on him not realising 'all charges were dropped' with full withdrawal from the actor. I have no objection whatsoever to extending coverage of the 'controversy', (though there is little to say except it fizzled out after a week). But this isn't an attempt to cover the controversy, it's an attempt to 'tell a story', that throws in at the end that the actor withdrew the accusation (and omits to say that he then described the actual Thalys staff as 'heroes'), where is the coverage of the controversy?

I'm sorry, I have no reason to think you acted in bad faith, but you WERE closely involved in the article and should have seen it was improper for you to close this RfC. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Likewise definitely assuming good faith, I just think the closer was sucker-punched into a bad decision that was largely the result of the highly self-serving and extremely non-neutral point of view of the original Rfc, which should never have been allowed to run its ccourse.

Didn't know you can ask for a review of closed Rfc's but in any case I don't think it would be a good idea to ask for a review of the closure, because that would imply 1) that my main objection is to the closure, which it isn't, and 2) an acceptance of the terms of the Rfc as opened, which I do not accept.

As stated previously, the Rfc was fatally flawed, and if there's to be any review at all, it should not be about the closure but about the opening, which should have been shut down immediately for not adhering to WP:Rfc in its construction. But, it wasn't shut down. Instead, the voters and closing editor were faced with a biased proposal, and in good faith, did the best they could with an extremely biased jumping-off point. This is exactly why we have rules about Rfc construction and NPOV, that is, to avoid situations like this.

Really, how is one supposed to vote, or to think about different voting options, when they are given as the "gutted version" and the "compromise version"? (The originator even provided a "long version" which just makes the "compromise version" look even more reasonable of a "compromise", doesn't it?) The closing party fell victim to this as well partly for the same reason and partly for a lack of initiative in actually looking into arguments, rather than merely accepting that "too short" was a valid weight argument just by dint of typing the words. Claims of WP:WEIGHT do not hold up, if you look into them. Count the words in even the "compromise" version, and measure them against the ones in the "Attack" section which actually recounts the events of the gunman attack and subduing, and you will see that the former, dealing with the retracted testimony of a famous actor who did not see the attack, is slightly above 50% of the 'entire attack story including train identification and trajectory, gunman, weapons, Damien, Moogalian, conductor, Stone, Skarlatos, Sadler, and Norman—i.e, the actual events that newspapers reported on around the world. If that's wasn't enough, the closer could also examine the proportion of space given to Anglade in the French article (1 paragraph, 79 words) compared to the main Attack section (79/688 words, or 11%). That is the proper weight for this section, not over 50% as the "compromise" version would have it. The only gripe I have with the closer is in allowing themself to be manipulated, but that can happen to any of us, and thus burned we merely have to learn from that and look more carefully the next time, and to be wary of attempting to close Rfc's on consensus that are that flawed in the first place. This Rfc was problematic from the very beginning, and does not further the aims of the project, rather it hinders it by wasting all of our time.

If the Rfc can be reviewed post-closure not for its closure consensus result, but for its very permissibility as a valid Rfc in the first place, then in theory, that is what ought to be done here. However, at this late point in the game I think that would just be throwing more good words and time after bad to no good end. I can live with this article section being wildly out of proportion to its weight, I have other fish to fry. Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I endorse almost everything Mathglot is saying, if information is not presented within a RfC in a reasonably complete and neutral fashion, how can a response to it be meaningful? Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of Rfc

Although I don't agree with it, I will not interfere with editors wishing to apply the Rfc result to the article. However, you still need to comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines in doing so, and removing reliable sources from the text without explanation is not permitted, and no explanation was given. Therefore, I have reverted the article to the version of 1 November.

I am not arguing against the good faith of the edit attempted by User:Tough sailor ouch to comply with the Rfc but only that it was improper due to wholesale removal of References that were previously in the article for the agreed-upon text. User:Green Cardamom already tried to explain this to you here but you reverted to the version with references removed from the source, thus doubling-down on the mistake. Please listen to what Green Cardamom is trying to tell you. A longer explanation, which wouldn't fit in his edit summary, is this:

In attempting to follow the Rfc results, you removed all the sources and citations that previously were present in earlier versions of the article, by copying the Rfc source including the literal bracketed numbers like '[59]' instead of the source references that used to appear there. This is very probably because you copied text out of the Rfc page itself, rather than from the wikitext of the earlier version which contains the references intact. The Rfc text was copied not from the wikisource, but from the rendered page, which both removes all sources, as well as removes all wikilinks. You must copy not from the Rfc, but from the article wikitext containing the version agreed to.

If you wish to apply the "agreed upon" source from the Rfc, do not copy the Rfc text with the obliterated references. Instead, use the History, to find the version of the article from which the Rfc text was originally copied. Edit that version, and copy the wikitext corresponding to the agreed-upon text. This will now include all wikilinks and sources into your copied snippet. Then exit that version, edit the current version of the article, and apply the copied wikitext to that version in the proper location in that section. Preview it, to ensure you've done it correctly and that all the source references are appearing, and then hit Save.

Please try your change again. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tough sailor ouch: Hm. With no edit summary, and no explanation on the talk page, you simply reinstalled your version again, wiping out all the references once again. I undid your change and restored the Nov 1 version of that one section (Actions of train crew) for now, but I have no objection to your implementing the results of the Rfc. However, you may not wipe out pre-existing references when you do so.

Please feel free to try your changes again in a proper manner. If you don't understand, or if you need help implementing the Rfc results, please ask for help from other editors here, or from an administrator. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, I understand what you're trying to do. Some information to be aware of: 1) Anything unsourced can be removed by anyone at any time per WP:V. The RfC can not override Wikipedia policy. 2) Two of the most vocal participants in the RfC have been blocked so are no longer involved. 3) The RfC close states: Therefore as noted by Tough sailor ouch, "nobody should think it is the final static version", the section remains open to normal editing procedures and talk page consensus. So there is as always room to continue refining the text, it is not "static". -- GreenC 16:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, we're on the same page; my point was more the converse—namely that things that are sourced already should not be removed (except by consensus) but in fact multiple source refs were wiped in the attempt to implement the Rfc because the wikitext was not used (as you already pointed out in your edit summary). Of course, going forward, anyone can make whatever changes are needed per V and RS; my point was simply about not going backwards by wiping out existing sources for material that has not been challenged. Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the error by painstakingly fixing the references. Therefore, the rfc should be deemed as closed and repaired. Happy New Year. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bottle of petrol

In the infobox in the list of weapons, we have "bottle of petrol". Anyone object if we change this to "bottle of gasoline"? Elsewhere in the article we have made minor changes to AE per MOS:RETAIN. As it is, petrol is a redirect to gasoline anyway. Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources use petrol, and petrol is the local term for gasoline last time I heard. Versus001 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, though. Articles need to show a consistency in which kind of English is used in the article, except for quotations within quotation marks which are copied verbatim from the source. So how the source uses the term is irrelevant; what matters is which variety of English is used throughout the article, and then we stick with that. So far, we've been following the convention of AE, probably because that's how it started out. Sometimes there's a reason to switch mid-stream, for example if it were a British train, that would be considered strong national ties to a topic which would militate for a switch to BE. Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would gladly do something about this if the article weren't still locked. Versus001 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In view of developments, suggesting peace for two weeks, perhaps an unblock request would work? Have no feelings about gas/petrol, Mathglot is probably right.

Yeah, that'll work. Things have settled down now so I think an unblock request would work too. Versus001 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

An unblock request is not the way to go. The admins locked this for a reason, and also spelled out how to make changes during the block, namely, an edit-request. That is, we work out a consensus here, and when everybody is agreed, we give a very specific request (word-for-word instructions, or before and after images). For example, we might say:

Edit request:

In the Infobox, under section Weapons where it currently says:

* Bottle of [[petrol]]<ref name=BBC.Prepared/>

Please change this to

* Bottle of [[gasoline]]<ref name=BBC.Prepared/>

If all agree, we just pass that to an admin, and they will perform the edit per instructions. Is everyone happy with the above? Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree? Disagree? @Pincrete and Versus001: Otherwise, we can just wait out the block, and anyone can place it. Feel free to ping other editors, if you think it would help. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Since we don't have other responses, let's just wait out the block, and then make the change ourselves. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Government reactions

    Edited by Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC) to add H2 hdr above to separate this topic from previous one, and outdent.
Suggest also amend 'Government reactions', removing out of date info, moving any other info.Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Versus001 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to implement this before the block expires, please post at least the 'after image' of your proposed change, so we can agree (or not) and then submit to an admin as a proposed "edit request". Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit: ... 1) Remove entirely from Govt reactions 'Stone, Skarlatos, Sadler, and Norman were each made Knights of the Legion of Honour on 24 August. Moogalian, an off-duty French train crew member, and a French passenger who wished to remain anonymous are to receive the honor later.[79][80]' .... 2) ... incorporate into 'involved passengers' 'an off-duty French train crew member, is to receive the honor later'. Or if somebody can update this, the updated text OR no mention if the matter has been dropped.Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stone has been stabbed and in critical condition

• Hero in French train attack reportedly stabbed, -- GreenC 16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let us be very careful with this. Further developments in the lives of all these people are only noteworthy in this article if there is a known connection with the Thalys attack. Mezigue (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Video Reportedly Shows Spencer Stone Getting Stabbed Outside of Gay Nightclub

It seems to be a random gay-bashing incident unrelated to terrorism. He was apparently leaving a gay nightclub located deep inside Sacramento’s “Lavender Heights” gay quarter. FivePillarPurist (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(Of course gay-bashing could be called terrorism itself; I just meant unrelated to the train attack). FivePillarPurist (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Moogalian

All medias state he teaches at the Sorbonne but

1. It's been 40 years "the Sorbonne" doesn't exist anymore, having been divided into a dozen of universities ;
2. I couldn't find any reference about him on the website of Paris I-Panthéon Sorbonne, except on the Faceboo page « Formation continue Panthéon Sorbonne » (the continuing education branch of this university) ; it seems Mr Moogalian must be « vacataire », that is an part-time instructor employed on a short-term contract to teach a few hours a week, not a faculty member. Encolpe (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So? Mezigue (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's partly why we say 'teaches English at the Sorbonne', to avoid any problems of his 'rank'. Early coverage described him as 'a professor' (small p), which you probably realise has a different meaning in European/Anglo countries.Pincrete (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 October 2015 because blockd

A train employee told Spencer Stone to stop choking the terrorist and told Alek Skarlatos to put the AK down. Alek Skarlatos told him to get out of the way.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/08/28/thwarting-terror-on-tracks-in-1-american-hero-own-words/ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Attentat_du_train_Thalys_le_21_ao%C3%BBt_2015#Article_de_Fox_News

Roger Mumok (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find this information on the wikipage in English. It was discussed at the radio and at the television on Belgium. The French train employee tried to stop the American heros. I can't add the information because it is blocked. This is not cool. The reason to add the information is that it is not nice that the train employee did not help.

Roger

Roger Mumok, the full version of that story is that the train employee spoke no English, the Americans no French. Once the Englishman translated, for them and the 'train man' understood who was who, he helped them tie up the alleged gunman. You can hardly be expected to help 'the good guys' until you understand who the gunman IS (not the man holding the gun, he's a US soldier, but the guy on the floor who they are hitting). Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) … … ps Skarlatos does not EXPLICITLY, make any accusation, (he simply says 'it was insane'), therefore we could not make such an accusation.Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus for the change before using this template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible that the train employee spoke no English on Thalys which is an international train that I take often for my international work. The train employees all speak fluent English. You cannot be hired by Thalys if you do not speak fluent English very good. The Flemish and the Dutch train drivers all speak at least Dutch, English, French and German fluent, eventually more langages. Last but not least «insane» means «gek/fou». The gunman was a marokkan with no shirt, whereas the American GIs look very nice with a Bayern and Barca football Champion shirt. I never said there is an accusation, I said that a train employee told Spencer Stone to stop choking the terrorist and told Alek Skarlatos to put the AK down and that Alek Skarlatos told him to get out of the way. This is true because I heard it at Flemish radio in Belgium and I researched thoroughly the internet and found the best reference. You can look. See you! Roger Mumok (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Roger

I have read the original interview, many times, Skarlatos says quite clearly that Norman translated for them, whether this was literally because neither spoke the other's language or because accents/idiomatic English prevented understanding, I don't know, but Skarlatos quite clearly says everything was OK AFTER Norman had translated, so there obviously was briefly SOME failure to understand what exactly was happening. If it isn't an accusation what is it that you want included and why? Our reading of this is it was no more than a momentary failure of understanding. What 'insane' means doesn't matter, how it is used is 'it was crazy, the situation', them trying to beat the gunman unconscious, having over-powered him and a train man saying 'stop','put the gun down'. That it happened is probably not in much doubt, but how should we represent it, taking into account other's testimony? No one, inc. Skarlatos suggests that the 'train man' was somehow trying to stop them, maybe he did mean them to stop beating the gunman with the rifle, 'enough is enough', we don't know, but maybe that was good advice. Skarlatos also says in that interview that they tried to shoot the gunman with his own weapons (which didn't work), we also don't bother to include those details. Why is the 'train man' incident important? As far as I know it has not been picked up by any 'Anglo' media. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Princrete for the nice answer. I don't know how you should represent it. If the train man did not understand English, then he should not work for Thalys. I speak fluent English for my international work and also German and French and Japanese. But the Walloons and the French they don't speak English and they don't make the difference between a terrorist without shirt and an American hero with a Barca shirt! A kid 5 years old can do that. I think Skarlatos said that it is insane that the train man does not understand English. Is this international train or what? I did not know that Skarlatos tried to shoot the gunman, this is very interesting. The Anglo media have not picked up but the Flemish media have picked up. The Flemish radio think it is highly insane. Next time the terrorist attacks me on the Thalys I want the train man to understand English other wise I don't have my calm. Roger Mumok (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Roger

I've just re-read the interview, Skarlatos says 'nobody spoke English on that train.', in context he probably means no more than 'we couldn't make ourselves understood'. As you probably realise there can be all the difference in the world between the sort of 'standard English', normally used to answer passenger enquiries and the heated, accented, idiosyncratic English that these three young men may have been using. There is another incident, which I had forgotten, and which is also not referred to by other witnesses. Skarlatos claims of the initial fight between Damian A and the gunman (the first thing to happen):- 'apparently, a train employee, I don't know if it was the same one that ran past me or not. But a train employee came and broke them up thinking it was just a regular fight'. This is also 'insane' once you know the full story, but Alec Sk himself is attributing it to the employee's misunderstanding of what was happening. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Skarlatos does clearly say he tried to shoot the gunman with the hand gun, but also says Then I grabbed the AK-47 which was at his feet. I don't remember this, but I apparently tried to shoot him with that as well. So even he couldn't remember whether he tried to use the AK-47 on the gunman! Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The main reason from a WP point of view that we don't include the 'train man's' involvement, is because it is a single source, not verified by others, and because it isn't clear what Skarlatos is saying, is he criticising the 'train man', or is he describing the 'chaos of the situation'? We interpreted it as being more the latter. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN did the right thing in rejecting the edit request, as there is no consensus for it. (In addition, there is some history about the topic that you may not have seen that is available on the Archive page of a previous discussion about this which failed to reach consensus when the page was not locked.)

All the speculation about who does, or doesn't, or should, speak this or that language, or whether the train man should work for Thalys is just that—speculation. Reliable sources are required about what happened, regardless of private knowledge about the qualifications for Thalys personnel or their likely language competence. Any proposal for including it should start with some independent, reliable sources, preferably not primary sources, and then we can take up the discussion based on that. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source you are missing: the train man himself, I did the translation from the French for you because I am bilingual as well in French: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/tirs-dans-un-thalys-le-controleur-du-train-temoigne-23-08-2015-5029283.php. "We heard some noise. I went to see. At the toilet I saw two men bickering . At first I did not really reacted, fights happen on the train. I thought it was a drug problem.". So the train man said himself that he did nothing. He was thinking that the guy with no shirt and with an AK was only dealing drug and the fights on the train they are normal. This is a primary source on more than what Skarlatos said. I think you could add the information that because of langage problems the train man could not understand that the man with the AK was a terrorist and not a drug dealer. He was lost in translation :-) I think we all have a consensus on that, not true? Greetings and have a nice evening Roger Mumok (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Roger

It doesn't say he did nothing, it says he went to find out what was happening and initially misunderstood, but I'll let others judge whether this should be included in the 'story' part of the article. It is not useful for 'criticism', because there is no criticism in the source, that's speculation on your part, that he OUGHT TO have immediately understood. It doesn't say anything about 'language problems'. We have several 'native' French editors btw, though not me. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Roger, first of all, I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia works. When people speak about "reliable sources" here, they do not mean an eyewitness account. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia sit at the top of a series of policies and guidelines which govern what should be included in an article and how to support it. One of these pillars is the concept of neutral point of view, and eyewitness accounts are notoriously not neutral (and also not accurate, but that's a separate issue). Part of NPoV are two core principles of Wikipedia, which include verifiable accuracy and citing reliable, authoritative sources. In fact, a direct quotation of an eyewitness is generally not a reliable source because it is considered WP:PRIMARY. To avoid original research, which is forbidden, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, although one can, in some cases, included a primary source in an article, but only inside quotation marks, and only when quoted by a reliable source. Read the cautions against using primary sources.

For the record, here's my translation:

We heard some noise. I went to have a look. I saw two guys quarreling up by the toilet. (Editor's note: likely the 28-y.o. Frenchman and the shooter, if one believes the accepted version of events.) At first, I didn't react much, fights on trains happen. I just figured it was a drug problem.

Then I saw one of them holding a handgun, and what seemed like a machine gun around his neck. They were fighting. "I tried to move, I was knocked down" said the conductor, who admits not having had a good view of what happened next.

"The one who opened the WC door (Ed. note: the French man) went off in the direction of car 13, and I stayed opposite the guy. He aimed his revolver at me. Then he walked into car 12. It all happened very fast. Having a quick peek inside, I saw some guys jumping him," apparently the French-American man, the three Americans, and the Brit who disarmed him.

Now, as to the meat of your comment:

• The comment you quoted in translation is WP:PRIMARY and not the best source; see cautions above.
• "So the train man said himself that he did nothing. He was thinking that the guy with no shirt and with an AK was only dealing drug and the fights on the train they are normal." - This is original research thus forbidden; i.e., it is your interpretation of what he said, rather than the interpretation of a published, reliable source and you cannot use it to support your argument.
• "This is a primary source on more than what Skarlatos said." Yes, it is. And that's another reason not to use it; you're arguing against yourself here.
• "I think you could add the information that because of lang[u]age problems the train man could not understand that the man with the AK was a terrorist and not a drug dealer." Do you have a printed, reliable source that makes that claim? If yes, please supply it. Otherwise you cannot use it, as it is original research on your part—i.e., it's your theory of how events went down.
• "He was lost in translation :-) I think we all have a consensus on that, not true?" - I bet you know by now what I'm going to say next. Yep, find a reliable source that said he was lost in translation. And no, we do not have a consensus on that. WP editors do not form consensus about what happened—they find reliable sources for that—they find consensus on what to include and how to word it. Only the reliable sources count as far as determining consensus on what happened; my opinion, your opinion, Pincrete's opinion are all irrelevant on this score even if we all agree it's still irrelevant: only the reliable sources count.

That doesn't leave much intact, I'm afraid, from your last comment. That doesn't mean you are wrong, it only means you haven't supplied any support for your thesis. I would be happy to support you, if you follow WP guidelines and assure that your point of view is verifiable by showing us some reliable sources for them. They can be French or English, the latter is preferred of course. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and you'll make a better argument to support your PoV. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible involvement of Abaaoud in Thalys attack

I've flagged the statement in #French and Spanish investigations claiming "In November 2015, French authorities implicated Abdelhamid Abaaoud in the attempted attack" as disputed, because I haven't been able to find a news source that has reported that Abaaoud is 'implicated' in the Thalys attack. Having scanned the betterFrench MSM (Le Monde, Figaro, NouvelObs, France24) the most anyone will say, is that Abaaoud is "strongly suspected" of involvement, or that they are "investigating" a possible connection. I removed the comment, but it was immediately reinstated by another editor.

Imho, we should wait until the investigations stabilize and the purported link is either borne out or refuted before reporting it here. Police investigations routinely go through an evolution in which all sorts of people are "investigated" or "strongly suspected" of something; Wikipedia is not a news source, and we don't have to report every shift in the wind, every breaking bit of news, or change of opinion on the part of one bureau or another, as the investigation continues. My preference would be to remove this statement, but if it is kept, it should be toned down to use words like "suspected of" or "investigated", and not "implicated" as no official source has claimed that.

The remainder of the paragraph includes factual information about Abaaoud's involvement in the November 2015 Paris attacks which however seems irrelevant or confusing in an article about the August train attack; I don't know what this information is doing here. Wikilinking his name, if consensus supports including him at all, would be sufficient to find out his involvement in other events. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't the one who put in that implication info in the Abdelhamid Abaaoud article in the first place, and I didn't look over the source, so I just merely took its word for it. You're probably going to have to ask one of the users who developed the article in its first days, or Antrangelos/Aikiangelos, who has been extremely active in the article. Parsley Man (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mathglot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=697417445 Antrangelos (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That works for me; I'll remove the disputed tag. Thanks, all. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, this slightly understated text, works better. Pincrete (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)