Jump to content

Talk:2016 Brussels bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jim Michael (talk | contribs) at 14:31, 18 April 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

Template:Active editnotice

New suspects

Khalid and Brahim el-Bakraoui are officaly blamed by Belgian cops [1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ "Brussels attacks: Two brothers behind Belgium bombings". BBC News.
  2. ^ "Brussels attacks: 'If I give myself up I'll end up in a cell', airport bomber wrote before blowing himself up - live". Telegraph.co.uk. 23 March 2016.
  3. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12201893/Brussels-bombing-Belgium-terrorist-attacks-Isil-live.html
  4. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/belgian-broadcaster-identifies-2-suspects-072741350.html
  5. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/22/europe/brussels-explosions/
  6. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/21/europe/belgium-terror-fight-molenbeek/

Street celebrations following bombing

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/31/belgian-minister-reveals-that-after-brussels-attacks-there-were-street-celebrations-in-belgium/

Why is there no section on this? We shouldn't be keeping people in the dark on anything happening, even if political correctness is hurt in the process. This article needs to acknowlege that many Muslims in Belgium celebrated the terror attacks. This isn't to be anti muslim, but to reveal how divided of a society Belgium is. We can only make sense of these attrocities if we look at the mindset of some Islamic Belgians. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the comment was removed: Avoid personal attacks & This is not a forum for general discussion about 2016 Brussels bombings. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. 107.77.218.169 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is such little detail on the matter, that I think one should question how valid the claim is. By the way, the Blaze is reporting it from this article by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, which again lacks any detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 20:00, April 7, 2016‎
Agreed. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Since The Blaze is just re-reporting on what JTA said, we basically have only one source making this claim. We need more than that. clpo13(talk) 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2][3][4]
Celebration by muslim Belgian Schoolchildren is mentioned in this article, and this is NPR, a very VERY reliable source. We need to let people know about this. This reveals part of the problem in Belgium. It's a very divided nation. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another example of you pushing a particular narrative over anything else. Again, the latter part of your post betrays you. Shah massoud (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, same issues. It doesn't matter how many sources you throw at it. We need something descriptive on these celebrations. Jolly Ω Janner 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sense an anti-Islam motive at play here... Parsley Man (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't surprise me considering the sources. Jolly Ω Janner 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that this user is an unsigned IP (and the fact that most vandals I've seen are unsigned IPs), I wouldn't be surprised either. Parsley Man (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on this as an interview of Minister Jan Jambon is published 16..18 April,

[1]

citing Interview  Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Jan Jambon to De Standaard ‘Dansen na de aanslagen. Stenen gooien naar de politie. Dát is het echte probleem’ / 16 APRIL 2016 OM 03:00 UUR | Bart Brinckman, Marjan Justaert /

References

  1. ^ Caroline Mortimer (17 April 2016). "Muslims in Belgium 'dance in the street' following terrorist attacks, claims Interior Minister". The Independent. The politican says there is a 'cancer' of extremism running through Belgian society. 'They threw stones and bottles at police and press during the arrest of Salah Abdeslam. This is the real problem,' he said.

I too believe it's important to add this piece. 2015.ww (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Jan Jambon did not specifically refer to the attacks on Brussels Airport and a metro station last month" from the Independent that you linked. How many more reasons does one need that this is not important to the attacks? Jolly Ω Janner 05:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post merger discussion

I note that both the articles that were proposed to be merged have seen the merge reverted. One by an editor claiming no consensus. I see no discussion here about why they feel that way. Given the 1RR restrction we really should talk this out. Legacypac (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merge proposal is discussed above. Here: Proposal to merge Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem articles. I see no consensus in that discussion to merge the pages, so why did you? Btw, I am fine with having an article about the ISIL Brussels terror cell. That article should be about, well, the ISIL Brussels terror cell. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was about merging it to the Brussels bombings article. Myself, Parsley Man, Legacypac and Lordtobi all agreed on merging them to ISIL terror cell. The only opposition came from werldway, who now supports it. The definition of consensus is a group of editors coming to a point that we can all agree on. I'm willing to hear out your reason for not merging them, but please don't revert a consensus without giving a reason! Jolly Ω Janner 19:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, specifically Mohamed Abrini (I haven't researched Osama Krayem yet), subject has received ongoing coverage for multiple attacks. He has also been the center piece dubbed "Man in the Hat" by media. I am reverting the Mohamed Abrini merge per lack of consensus. During merge discussions, pages should not be merged until consensus is reach. There is clearly no consensus here, which defaults to keep in that case. Further discussion necessary also this is a current event much too soon to merge. Valoem talk contrib 02:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mohamed Abrini only has three short paragraphs of content. All of which (aside from his previous "petty" crimes) is related to the Brussels terror cell and its coordinated attacks, so is suitable for merging. Jolly Ω Janner 02:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid rationale for merge, AfD is better for determining consensus in this type of merge. The individual is clearly notable and accused of involvement in multiple attacks. Expand the article there is a ton of information out there on him not included. Valoem talk contrib 02:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale is based on WP:SINGLEEVENT, although in this case the single event is the terror cell as the two attacks are closely related. AfD is just going to overload us with more burecracy and our deletion policy specifically lists merging as an alternative to deletion reviews. It's also not needed, since the redirects will likely be used. WP:BURO suggests "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Jolly Ω Janner 03:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not an appropriate place to debate a merge. No one wants to delete any of the articles and all names need to redirect to Brussels ISIL terror cell so there is nothing to delete. We can always split of an individual later and leave a summary in the terror cell article if one person's info grows too big for a section. We can discuss that if required. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only opposition did NOT come from werldway. Both Rmhermen and I disagreed to the "Proposal to merge Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem articles". So did werldwayd, even if he later accepted a compromise. And today Valoem have disagreed to the merge proposal too, so it is still no consensus to merge the pages. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup we all found a good solution that was not to merge the short articles into the main bombing article (making it too long) but create a spinout terror cell article. If ISIL Brussels terror cell does not cover the people in it, it will be a pretty short article. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. (Still against merging the pages). Of course the article must cover the people in the group, but that can be done with focus on their role in the group. A main article can point the reader to more information about the individuals. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Updated per Erlbaeko (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*No merge (don't vote twice) merging is a violation of WP:GNG as this pass guideline with flying colors. There is too much information on Mohamed Abrini to be merge. That article can be expanded massively. Also application of WP:BLP1E does not apply to ongoing political or extended violent struggles. Abrini is known for more than 1E. Valoem talk contrib 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are working against consensus established above. You can't go against concensus just by incorrectly claiming it does not exist. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG says "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". Consensus overrules bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to get zero hits on google news when searching "Brussels ISIL terror cell", there are 1,070 hits for "Brussels ISIS terror cell" vastly less than the individuals mentioned alone. Valoem talk contrib 22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are few google hits for the new title - we made it up on this page as a merge-spin out article. There is no established common name for this group yet but if one emerges we'll move the page. There are TONS of news coverage of the topic usually discussing these people as a group, rarely individually. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the current name is WP:NEO or WP:SYNTH? I am seeing the mention of these people as a group ("Brussels terror group") currently yield approximately 15,000 results other variations of the search such as replacing or adding ISIL or ISIS yields 1,000 to 5,000 on average, compared to the individual names yielding over 100,000 results. Valoem talk contrib 22:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Google hits is a great arguement for current events. Coverage among news sources is very different to coverage among encyclopedic sources. Anyway, the merge is more about organising content than notability. No one's suggesting AfD (suitable for notability concerns) or preventing someone from splitting off individual articles if they become too large. Jolly Ω Janner 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Counting hits for the individual names is pointless. They are fairly common names so you will get a lot of noise. I agree they are being talked about as a group - which is why we have an article about this terror cell of a terrorist group. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a consensus. All of the people involved (except you, but you came in right after the merge happened) came to an agreement to create a new article and merge Abrini and Krayem's articles into it. Also, you seem to have missed what I said. You said Abrini was involved in both the Paris and Brussels attacks and therefore warrants his own article, and I said that the terror cell article covers people involved in the Paris and/or Brussels attacks. Abrini was clearly involved with both, and given the amount of info we have on him, it's much better if there is just a section of him on a larger article. Parsley Man (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lordtobi I see the merge is complete, do you see consensus so close as merge complete but no consensus to merge? Valoem talk contrib 18:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem, I did not do the merging, and the consensus seeked for in this discussion is if Abrini and Krayem should receive one merged article, as both fail WP:BLP1E and just slightly pass WP:SIGCOV due to the popularity of the even in a whole and all media thorwing themselves onto the available media. I see the redirect was now undone by you, but feel that it is not worth it, especially for WP:BLP1E, to have one article per person if there is no SIGCOV on each individual. Lordtobi (✉) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus they fail BLP1E. In fact I have highlighted reason why they do not. Valoem talk contrib 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update, "Osama Krayem" yields (132,000 results) also vastly more then the mention of "Brussels ISIL terror cell". This may be a neologism. Valoem talk contrib 22:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources dedicated to the terrorist cell: Guardian, NDTV, Sputnik and more... Jolly Ω Janner 01:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Valoem your continued posting nonsense about there being no consensus before the merger or after is disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to continue with this, I certainly don't see any agreement if Rmhermen, Erlbaeko and Werldwayd have agreed with the merge then merge is fine, I did not see this from my reading of the discussion. Legacypac, Jolly Janner and Parsley Man if there was an agreement then carry on. Valoem talk contrib 02:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what people were expecting when we decided to create a spin-out article during a merger discussion, but thank God it's over, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I find your continued posting of nonsense about there being a consensus for a merge to be disruptive. I have NOT agreed with the merge, nor have Rmhermen, and both Valoem and Theslimefish (ref. diff) are against it. So is werldwayd, ref. diff, even if he later accepted a compromise, ref. diff. For the record, I think it is ok to have an article about the "Brussels terror cell", with a short description of the group’s members. I do not agree to merge the Osama Krayem page or the Mohamed Abrini page to that article. Nor should we merge the Salah Abdeslam or the Abdelhamid Abaaoud page to the article about the terror cell, but yes, a short description of them and their role in the group should be included. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You lost my faith in your ability to interpret other editor's comments when you said someone that posted "I find this arrangement just magnificent" is opposed to this. Reading about this terror cell in one place with links amd roles all noted is way better then a bunch of seperate short articles. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You lost my faith in your ability to determine consensus. 4 users (or 5 if you count werldwayd) are against the merge. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erlbaeko, we would currently be duplicating content if we had separate articles on Osama Krayem and Mohamed Abrini. I guess it depends on how long you consider a short summary to be, but at the moment we do have summaries of them on here. I think everyone is open to splitting them off if they become considerably larger sections. 09:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jolly Janner. We will be duplicating some content. I am thinking something like this. As I said above, a short description of Salah Abdeslam and Abdelhamid Abaaoud should also be included. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone suggest we merge Abdelhamid Abaaoud in - that page is too long and includes activities outside this cell. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there was no discussions to merge Abaaoud and even Abdeslam into the terror cell article. There was discussions about just putting short summaries of them in their sections, though. I think this guy is just being ignorant now. Parsley Man (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abrini seems to be stand-alone enough. No warrant (yet) to merge, in my opinion. Redzemp (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victims (again)

Help from editors would be welcomed in finding RS that confirm details of the number and location of the US victims. This is needed to complete the draft table with proper citations, and to avoid suggestions of WP:Synthesis - see previous discussion here and the following 'Victims' section. Even the total numbers is difficult - the article currently states or implies different numbers. Leaving aside the three perpetrators, 28 (15+13) bodies were recovered from the scenes (airport, metro respectively). Initially the Belgian authorities gave a total of victims' deaths as 35, but reduced that to 32 on 29-30/3 after removing double counting of victims who died at the scenes and at hospital.

There are reliable sources for 15 names who died from the bombs at the airport, and for 16 from the metro bomb and for the nationalities of 32 victims. There are reliable sources for there being 4 United States victims though only three have been named (these three all at the airport), but I have not seen a confirmed location for the un-named one nor any RS confirming any US deaths at the metro. Also, I cannot find any RS suggesting that there are any other unnamed victims. Perhaps I have missed some more recent sources that would help. Davidships (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. From an NPR source, I see that the four American victims that are in question have the names. Stephanie Shults and Justin Shults. Gail Minglana Martinez. Andre Adam. The link for that information, and more details regarding them, is http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/26/471982262/what-we-know-about-the-victims-of-the-brussels-attack. Not sure if this helps. But I agree that the article should deal more so with the dead victims than it currently does. Redzemp (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
André Adam was not American, but a Belgian diplomat who is also referred to as French. Davidships (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really. Davidships. ok. Redzemp (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Starting today ([5]), La Libre Belgique and Le Monde are going to publish individual "portraits" of the 32 victims. That will probably help, although "certaines familles n’ont pas souhaité y participer". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The names of the 32 victims are here. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth American victim: Bruce Baldwin. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Sixteen of the deceased were Belgian nationals, while the remaining twelve were from eight different nations.". With 32 victims, that sentence leaves out four. Fences&Windows 12:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For us, the problem is that the NATO staff members were killedNATO Stab Securite Officer (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Zou het kunnen er een plaats delict Mujahideen? Maar wat deden ze gewroken? Het is niet duidelijk. Verbessern sie bitte der artikel via verklaringen. (Om het meer uniek!) Dank u.WikipediaUser54323456786543 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen merge discussion as AfD

  • Comment, I see my interpretation of consensus was correct (no consensus). When merge discussion get so heated AfD is generally preferred to make clear and stronger outcomes (no consensus defaults to keep). These terrorists are unfortunately notable particularly Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem, both are still alive and receiving continual international media coverage. As per out GNG principles, this passes. It is especially important that these articles be expanded while they are current events. Valoem talk contrib 03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think with this issue, a RfC could be used first and closed by an uninvolved administrator, since it's likely to garner plenty of opinions. I myself have had troubles with such procedures by trying to redirect Syed Hamid Hussain. I've tried talk page, third opinion, and RfC. I'm currently at RfC, which seems to be going nowhere, so AfD is probably the last option. Jolly Ω Janner 03:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The rate of anti-Semitism in Europe is so high that for the first time in its history the UN General Assembly had to hold a special session on anti-Semitism in January 2015.

Having been persecuted for centuries, burnt in the furnaces of the concentration camps, Jews feel the threat at the genetic level. But the problem here is more than just anti-Semitism. The attitude to Jews is the barometer of a society's health, of its socio-economic and political sustainability and the social contract." /Speech by EJC President Moshe Kantor at the Annual European Commission Colloquium on Fundamental Rights in Brussels, 1 October 2015/A mina233 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Brussels_bombings&oldid=776024236"