Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

Reactions

See also: § Reactions part 2, and § International response subsection

Can we possibly, as a mark of respect for the seriousness of these events, refrain from adding the anodyne condolences of every world leader as they come in over the next 24 hours? I know there is a natural tendency to add every single one in full, with little flag icons sometimes, but our mission as an encyclopedia is to report the facts as soberly as we can. We are not a collection of quotations or a book of condolence. Please let's remember this. --John (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll be doing what I can to curb that. I fully agree that these message of condolences are not worth listing and have tried numerous times to stop them on various articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support these memorials are invariably edited into a condensed version. Perhaps we can use the talk page to maintain them with the aim to facilitate future editing? Rklawton (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support but @HJ Mitchell: if that's what the "NO QUOTES PLEASE" comment meant, then it should be clartified, because it's after Hollande statements, and quotes from him would be fine. LjL (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Partial Support I like RKlawton's plan, there are inevitably dozens of these responses. John, everybody's voluntary hard work on this article is the ultimate mark of respect. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Change this to an RFC, agreed with reactions. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as was the case back when I was active and around for the Boston Marathon bombings and the 777 that crashed on landing at KSFO. I was planning on WP:BOLDly removing that section just now, and came to the talk page for consensus; given the supports above, I think I'm just going to go do it (and then take a hands-off approach if anyone feels like reverting). Ignatzmice•talk 00:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ...beaten to the punch. Ignatzmice•talk 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: The little flags are pretty, but ultimately harmful, as these lists of quotes tend to cause certain types of biases, clutter the page, are questionable in context of WP:NOTNEWS, and overall are related to multitude of other issues. Ceosad (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Only make specific note of particularly notable responses (i.e. military action, actual aid rendered, ect.). Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - of course, they are reactions from heads of state and international messages, and most importantly they receive significant news coverage. Should be its own article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - of course, reactions by e.g. NATO, EU, Germany and the USA should be mentioned here. And eventually they should be moved to their own article.--Oneiros (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support no, we can add them at a later date.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support These sections add nothing of value for readers: it can be taken for granted that national leaders, etc, condemn terrorist attacks. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Elsewhere I have seen such condolences and similar messages limited to world leaders who have some real connection to the event. That's difficult to establish in this case though, because we don't know who the shooters were, or their affiliations. If (for example) they are somehow related to ISIL, then the parties currently fighting against ISIL might be appropriate to quote, as well as any public statements or claims of responsibility made by ISIL, or whatever group it turns out to be. The determining factor is whether they are parties to the story. Any world leader that announces specific actions that will be taken (not intentions in general or nebulous proposals or vows to end terrorism) should be quoted too. Dcs002 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It makes sense to have a statement from Hollande, but beyond that, the quotes will be coming from people who aren't more informed than we are. How could that possibly add to the article. Maybe add a statement saying "Dozens of world leaders expressed their condolences on Twitter". Snd0 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Assuredly, the condolences are heart felt...but there is no need to mention or list them. Buster Seven Talk 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• No, as John says. 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) 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

First you cite not a memorial then you say "As a mark of respect".?

oppose At any rate, "world leaders" is not NPOV because everyone did not reply. While its well and good not to have flags if consensus deems so, prose can mention the leader/country that offered a message because WP readers are NOT editors alone. In IR, who said what and who didn't say is an important indicator of relations between states.Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering the soon-to-be expansive list of country leaders who have given their statement of support, it may be more efficient to list those who haven't made a statement. Snd0 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Conditional support. My support is a little conditional. I don't think that we need a listing of every single condolence out there, as this sort of thing is well, automatic. They will be heartfelt, for sure, but we don't need a blow by blow account of who said what. However there will need to be an international reaction section that summarizes the general reaction and highlights 1-3 of the major countries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• For the umpteenth time, Support Good to see this addressed quickly today. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
• Support for 24 hours only as mentioned in statement of section. 94.187.2.221 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinitely. It is unnecessary to individually list every source's statements that are all just the same sentiment in different words. Actions taken can be included but multiple "international reactions" are excessive, redundant, and unconstructive. Reywas92^Talk 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - why? - ^theWOLFchild 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protection?

This article has attracted several IPs intent on adding bad or unsourced information. Does everyone agree we're due for partial protection here? Rklawton (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It was semi-protected, then someone removed it. - DarkNITE (talk)

Already restored it. It got lost when the page was moved multiple times earlier. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No! Yet again a knee jerk response resulting in quick SP. All I see are loads of incorrect auto tagging of edits as "possible vandalism" followed up by inappropriate reverting by editors who haven't checked the edit. It doesn't take you protection warriors long to act, does it? 31.52.166.41 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely warranted. There's been a lot of subtle vandalism that gets lost quickly in the flurry of edits. Semi-protecting helps keep the article in check. There's always the option to create an account, you know... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit! I already have an account and can edit the article. The only thing you warriors keep in check is the pesky IPs that you'd like to remove completely anyway. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of eyes on the page right now, I'm not sure protection is warranted. -- Luk ^talk 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It's well known that articles lie this bring in loads of new editors, some of whom stick around - unless the warriors SP it of course, as they invariably do with this type of article. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Unprotect.

Support

1. As proposer All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC).
   
2. As per above. This type of article is ideal for recruiting new editors. The case for protection was weak and misguided. I suggest un-protection be tried. It can easily be re-protected - if real vandalism occurs as opposed to other reasons. 31.52.166.41 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
3. TOTALLY support. Sometimes those anon IP's who complain the most may be the most guilty? Anyway, I'm not signed in at the moment, but I support protection until things calm down somewhat. WIKI is not a newspaper, we can afford to wait. 68.19.1.154 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add a map!

Resolved

For somebody not familiar with the layout of Paris this would be a real help. In particular as the attacks seem to be spread across the complete city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.74.39 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Map has been included in article by another user. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Updates to be added

Theatre

15 dead and ~60 dead in the Bataclan theatre by 23.30. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203

Are you sure? Last I heard, it was 35 dead. I guess we'll need to see the dust settle. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think they meant 15 dead and ~60 held hostage. Anyway, that BBC link was in the article, but thanks anyway. --Kizor 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is very confused and possibly out of date.92.16.213.2 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fox News is reporting at least 40. Let's stand by. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

State of Emergency and borders closed. Paris authorities have asked people to stay indoors. Military personnel are being deployed across Paris. All by by 23.30. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.213.2 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

~100 people dead. Agence France Presse. -- Luk ^talk 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Seven shooting sites: Rue de Charonne had shootings, too

Over 100 shots at La Belle Équipe, a bar at the corner of rue Faudherbe and rue Charonne Liberation article: http://www.liberation.fr/france/2015/11/13/fusillades-a-paris-ce-que-l-on-sait_1413322

Cafe and a kebab restaurant had shootings, too. Europe 1 article: http://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/attaque-rue-de-charonne-ils-ont-tire-principalement-dans-des-restaurants-2620153

Liberaton has map of shooting sites and includes Rue de Charonne. Map:http://www.liberation.fr/france/2015/11/13/les-lieux-des-fusillades-a-paris_1413319 Updates: http://www.liberation.fr/france/2015/11/13/fusillade-dans-le-10e-arrondissement-de-paris_1413313

Please add the 9:50am phone call of a Bomb threat to kill Germany national squad

From Daily Mail article,

• Germany squad evacuated from Paris hotel ahead of France friendly due to bomb threat
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3317024/Germany-squad-evacuated-Paris-hotel-ahead-France-friendly-bomb-threat.html

Not certain if its related to attacks yet. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• That would need a better source. --John (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@John: Better source on the incident.. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• About 100 people have reportedly been taken hostage at Bataclan in the 11th arrondissement. Shootings and 2 bombs go off.http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live
• French president François Hollande has ordered the closing of the country’s borders to prevent the escape of the attackers, who have so far not been apprehended. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live

Hollande said there were “unprecedented terror attacks under way in Paris” and authorities have warned residents to stay inside. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live

• US president, Barack Obama, says America will do whatever it takes to “bring these terrorists to justice” and called the attacks an “outrageous attempt to terrorise innocent civilians”. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live#
• All done by them by 23.50.92.16.213.2 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• U.N. chief condemns 'despicable attacks' in Paris, demands release of hostages. As of 01.00.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/us-france-shooting-un-idUSKCN0T22S720151113#BxZAfrD8tLVeuvPA.99 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52552#.VkaI1L_fPIV http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/burundi/11993785/British-UN-envoy-warns-of-possible-genocide-in-Burundi.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/us-france-shooting-un-idUSKCN0T22S720151113#ls0Ov8tSXjRJS5a2.97 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/us-france-shooting-un-idUSKCN0T22S720151113#BxZAfrD8tLVeuvPA.99 92.16.213.2 (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Seven attacks

Europe 1 reports seven attacks. http://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/attentats-a-paris-des-attaques-menees-sur-sept-points-differents-2620171

Locations

• au Stade de France,à Saint-Denis
• 50 boulevard Voltaire, dans la salle de spectacle du Bataclan où une prise d'otages était en cours dans la nuit (three suspects killed by security forces)
• 231 boulevard Voltaire (Japan Eat, at the corner of boulevard Voltaire and rue du Chemin Vert)
• au coin de de la rue Bichat et de la rue Alibert (Le Carillon bar at 18 rue Alibert, and Le Petit Cambodge restaurant at 20 rue Alibert)
• 46 rue de La Fontaine au Roi (near Domino's Pizza and Aux Comptoirs des Indes which are near the corner of avenue Parmentier and rue de La Fontaine au Roi)
• 40 boulevard Beaumarchais (Le Barbier de Bastille, between rue du Chemin Vert and rue du Pas de La Mule)
• 92 rue de Charonne (over 100 shots at La Belle Équipe, a bar at corner of rue Faidherbe and rue de Charonne).

BFMTV has updated map: http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/carte-ou-ont-eu-lieu-les-attaques-terroristes-930010.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.241.108 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Guns

Paris shooting: Scores killed and injured after 'Kalashnikov and grenade attacks' across French capital with dozens of hostages taken. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995227/Paris-shooting-Many-feared-dead-live.html 92.16.213.2 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bataclan Death count

Over one hundred dead inside Bataclan following police raid. https://twitter.com/AFP/status/665321462442528768 (talk)

New

1. At least 60 dead in series of Paris terror attacks.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w
2. Kalashnikov-wielding gunman opens fire in restaurant. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w
3. 100 hostages are taken at theatre. 2 suicide bombs detonate near entrance E of the the Stade de France. Gunfire at shopping centre http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w
4. At least 60 people have been killed and several wounded in a series of terror attacks in the heart of Paris tonighthttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w
5. 11 were killed in restaurant shootout on Rue Bichat, close to where Charlie Hebdo shootings occurred in January.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w
6. Another 15  killed in the Bataclan concert hall where terrorists are said to be holding around 100 people hostage.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w
7. The terrorists shouted 'Allah Akbar' and 'this is for Syria' as they burst in and opened fire, witnesses have said.
8. French President Francois Hollande declared state of emergency for whole country and shut all of its borders. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w

As of 23.0092.16.213.2 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Metro lines closed: 3, 5, 8, 9, 11

The lines 3, 5, 8, 9, 11 pass through arr 10, 11. Europe 1 article: http://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/attaques-a-paris-cinq-lignes-de-metro-coupees-2620161

I added that. epic genius (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead

‘It’s a horror’: Hollande orders French borders closed after Paris terror attack leaves at least 140 dead. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/shootout-at-paris-restaurant-leaves-several-dead-police As of 01.00. 92.16.213.2 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Current attack

There is a current operation ongoing, the paris police said it already finished; 3 terrorists were dead but also possibly some hostages. Can someone add this subsection? 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The operation's covered under November 2015 Paris attacks#Bataclan theatre shooting and hostage-taking. --Kizor 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Les Halles attack

This one does not seem to have happened, there are no confirmations or even hints on it on any major French online medias (at 01:00). Hervegirod (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been reports of a Media Blackout, as that is allowed within French Law, so it may have occured. 68.194.210.70 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

mm, there were no blackout on every other attacks tonight, so IMO this information is not sufficiently verified/ sourced Hervegirod (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, all the Les Halles info was a false report. "Shootings were reported in Les Halles in the centre of Paris and at Le Pompidou and Louvre, but they are believed now to be false alarms." [1] We should probably add that to the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Targets

• Other attacks hit Le Petit Cambodge restaurant in the 11th district. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203
• 10 people lying on the road, either dead or seriously injured. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203
• Another hit Le Carillon bar not too far away.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203
• An eyewitness told Liberation he had heard more than 100 rounds being fired at a cafe in rue de Charonne. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203

As of 23.30.92.16.213.2 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Curfew

Aside from the cited CTV News, I don't see any source mentioning a curfew in effect. Other sources say that police have recommended that citizens stay home: that's not a curfew. The claim it's the first time since 1944 adds to the drama of it, but I'd rather remove it if uncomfirmed by other sources. Anybody has any? --LjL (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no curfew, just a strong recommendation from the authorities, which seems rather sensible considering the situation. Hervegirod (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to reflect this. epic genius (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A State of Emergency.92.16.213.2 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

More sources stating that a curfew is in effect: Telegraph, Bangkok Post, New York Daily News. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph is just reporting what CTV says, so it's null. The other two also make sure to mention it's the first time since WW2, so they look like they copycatted too. --LjL (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No curfew would be shocking given the situation. We need strong sources to say no curfew Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, this is not America. Curfews aren't declared willy-nilly. --LjL (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

See: "Attaques terroristes à Paris : une centaine de morts, l'état d'urgence décrété". Le Figaro. La Mairie de Paris appelle les habitants de la capitale à rester chez eux

These are not French medias informations. I'm French, and it seems that they did not understand correctly what was said by the French officials. The state of emergency was officially announced by the French President, but no curfew. Just a strong recommendation, and not by the police, but by the Paris Mayor First Deputy.Hervegirod (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. This is American-style nonsense. --LjL (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Reuters seems to be confirming that a curfew is in effect. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet everyone is now just echoing the original CTV claim (and quite possibly Wikipedia's). Look at the local sources, and what the authorities actually said. LjL (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The French TV said there was a curfew. I don't know if it's throughout the city or just the north. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK it seems like even the French don't all know what's going on what "State of emergency" means since the current legislation regarding this was only established 10 years ago. Looks like they are describing a "curfew" at Orly. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"State of emergency" (état d'urgence) allows the possibility of curfew but doesn't declare curfew. Otherwise, the entire country would be under curfew, since the state of emergency was declared country-wide. See French Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, it says all over the place that certain (but just half a dozen) metro lines were closed. Surely, if there city-wide curfew, all lines would be closed, as people would simply not be allowed to be outside? LjL (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I see the "first mandatory curfew in Paris since WW2" claim is back. Will someone kindly provide a government/police source that declares this curfew, instead of reports of reports of associated reports and so on? Otherwise, I still find it incredibly dubious. LjL (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

France closing borders for the first time since?

I read in one of the references that Hollande's decision to closing the country's borders is the first time since the second world war. However now I read elsewhere it is the first time since the 70s. // Psemmler (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be total confusion within the French Government; only a few minutes ago the Foreign Ministry (or someone at it acting on their own initiative) issued a statement saying that "Airports continue to function. Airline flights and train services will be assured". (Via Reuters) Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Liberation aritcle: http://www.liberation.fr/france/2015/11/14/que-signifie-la-fermeture-des-frontieres_1413339

OK92.16.213.2 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• What I heard was the curfew in Paris was the first since WWII —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, added.

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Current death-toll

The Death-toll should be edited to reflect the current reports (100+ Dead at theatre + 43-60 elsewhere) https://twitter.com/AFP/status/665321462442528768 68.194.210.70 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure we cannot use Twitter. Do you have anything in a reliable source? I also saw a report of 100+ dead in the theatre on live news but we can't use that as a source. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is AFP that posted on twitter, Ill see if theres a Article with that amount 68.194.210.70 (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo News has those figures in an Article http://news.yahoo.com/around-100-dead-attack-paris-concert-venue-police-001919765.html;_ylt=AwrC0CbWf0ZWjj8AvTPQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- 68.194.210.70 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sky News in the UK is reporting provisional total of 118 dead at the Bataclan. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

‘It’s a horror’: Hollande orders French borders closed after Paris terror attack leaves at least 140 dead. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/shootout-at-paris-restaurant-leaves-several-dead-police As of 01.0092.16.213.2 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Beirut attacks

Please can links stop being added to the page linking these attacks with the 2015 Beirut bombings. no group has claimed responsibility for the Parisian attacks, and though the attacks appear to be similar in nature, it appears they have occurred coincidentally. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed it from there too till a claimant.

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Connection to ISIS

How should we approach the gunmens' purported recruitment by ISIS? There is secondhand coverage from twitter accounts and on live news.

I believe it should go in a separate section once there's enough sources to support it The war on shrugs (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable published sources as ever. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wait until an RS publishes something, won't be long if there is any link whatsoever. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Right now the article mentions that an 'eye witness' told journalists that the attackers at Bataclan said something about Syria. Julien Pierce, a journalist who was actually present says they said nothing at all. Considering that the 'eye witness' in question, also mentioned five to six attackers (the French Police claims there were three.) could we either maybe remove the 'said something about Syria' thing or else add that Julien Pierce contradicted this? Robrecht (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Around 100 dead in attack on Paris concert hall: Police source

Around 100 dead in attack on Paris concert hall: Police source. http://www.france24.com/en/breaking/20151114-around-100-dead-attack-paris-concert-hall-police-source

New- "It’s a horror", Hollande orders French borders closed after Paris terror attack leaves at least 140 dead. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/shootout-at-paris-restaurant-leaves-several-dead-police As of 01.0092.16.213.2 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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". British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged similar support for France through a statement made on Twitter.

• This was discussed above - see the Response section earlier in the talk page. SkittishSloth (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Comment Perhaps keep a running list here, add details to article if relevent? Responses may vary.

• I have new one: Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Security Council have condemned these terrorist attacks in and around Paris and demanded the immediate release of the numerous individuals reportedly being held hostage in the Bataclan theatre.

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

This is being discussed above. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - standard and should likely be its own article —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - standard and should likely be its own article.--Oneiros (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - standard BUT should not be its own article yet. epic genius (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

References

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Oppose - The other section discussing this seems to have the opposite opinion → Here Snd0 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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. Reywas92^Talk 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - why not? - ^theWOLFchild 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Seen it elsewhere. Hanyou23 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Football

It should be mentioned that you could hear the detonations in the stadium (and in the live broadcast) while the match took place. And in German media I heared that the Islamists tried to enter the stadium. Also, there was a bomb threat for the German hotel, but no bomb was found. Also, the German national team (I don't know about the French one) had to wait for more than three hours until they finally could leave the stadium.

From Daily Mail article,

• Germany squad evacuated from Paris hotel ahead of France friendly due to bomb threat:
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3317024/Germany-squad-evacuated-Paris-hotel-ahead-France-friendly-bomb-threat.html

Obviously the football match was the reason for these attacks in the first place, so it definitely should have a more prominent position in the article.--31.17.155.184 (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the OP is trolling. epic genius (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Trolling? Don't you have any argument or is your sole purpose in Wikipedia to insult people?--31.17.155.184 (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, see above Terror threat to German futbol squad

Migrant camps on fire?

According to "unconfirmed reports", the Calais jungle migrant camps have been set on fire. Perhaps it's worth a mention? http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619361/Calais-Jungle-migrant-camp-fire-Paris-terror-attacks Xwejnusgozo (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's worth it. Damn this is depressing. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Should wait on this. The source says that it's uncertain whether or not it took place this week or last week. Not our place to make connections. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, timing is important. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC News Channel says this is a hoax—the reports were based on old photos. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Friend there said it was tents that caught fire due to high winds from fires used to keep warm. Around 40 tents/shelters lost, now under control. People then used old pics of fires, and passed on rumours of a revenge arson attack. --Mongreilf (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Would people kindly edit individual sections whenever possible rather than the whole article? It's exceedingly hard to make a single edit without a conflict, even when I'm editing a section unrelated to other edits. LjL (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I HATE when that happens. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing individual sections (not the whole article) should always be the way to go, not only on this article Hervegirod (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that. - ^theWOLFchild 10:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Change of border status from closed to severely restricted

Announced by Francois Hollande, please include this..--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stefvh96: do you have a link to a source handy? LjL (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"President François Hollande called an unprecedented terrorist attack on France. He announced sharply increased border controls ..." "he convened an emergency cabinet meeting and announced that France was placing severe restrictions on its border crossings." "Despite the increased border security, air travel in and out of Paris appeared to be unaffected". [2]. Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to confirm that he announced downgrading the border controls from "closed" to "severely restricted". If the status changed that way, it needs to be stated. LjL (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't seem to indicate a downgrade explicitly, though. It just says "severely restricted". I'd opt to wait until more reports come out backing this up. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It does, though, back up what the television media are reporting that though the borders may have been closed they are not now closed and this in the lead " François Hollande declared a state of emergency and closed the borders for all of France". gives the wrong impression. Just Chilling (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Can you believe that users Rklawton and Firebrace think this isn't actually an Islamic terrorist attack? Mindless wiki-bureaucracy.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Jinx. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not a personal attack. Not calling an obvious terrorist attack as such when it has has been labelled as such by heads of state and mainstream media is reminiscent of refusing to call the winner of a US presidential election "the president-elect" until the electoral college has voted. Wikipedia sometimes suffers from a mindless adherence to some idealized standard of proof before stating things which are reliably sourced. Edison (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that say any heads of state or the media have labeled this an Islamic attack. That's what I'm waiting for - a reliable source. So far I've seen one report from one unidentified witness that one gunman shouted allahu akbar. That's not particularly impressive. Wikipedia, on the other hand, IS impressive - and it's our diligence that makes it so. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We cause enough misreports in the media by stating unsourced things that turn out to be incorrect and which the media repeat. Let's stick to reliable sources, not guesses. If it's so obvious that it's Islamic terrorism, anyway, people will know without reading it. LjL (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Trolling, or just speculation? epic genius (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Uh, that's not how it works. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian government, Egyptian government, President Assad, ISIS, ETA or Catalan separatists?92.16.213.2 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

After the Oklahoma City attacks, some public figures rushed to blame Islamic terrorists. Turns out they had nothing to do with it. Hence, erring on the side of caution, when no reliable, verifiable source has linked the attack to any group at all, whether religiously motivated, political, etc., is wise. 71.162.213.68 (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading this page is the first time I am hearing about this incident and it makes me so happy to see that editors like Rklawton, Firebrace and LjL exists. Your work is so important. There is a flood of editors, that has no clue about what an encyclopaedia is all about and your work to keep Wikipedia free of speculation, unproven claims and conspirational ideas is excellent. Especially in a case like this. When I go here, I want to read about the solid facts and nothing else. There are so many other fora on-line (and off-line) for discussions, speculation, accusations, bickering and arguments. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a place for information, it is so crucial to keep these things out and in their right place. Thank you! RhinoMind (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Category islamic terrorism

I added it then deleted it in favor of Category:November 2015 Paris attacks which is in Cat:Islamic terrorism in France. Same thing. But let's substantiate it with links, not just with common sense. [3] Ding. There it is. Sorry to be blunt but there are people dying it's horrible and lets not equivocate. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science. We don't get to guess or crystal ball. We just write up what we find in reliable sources. When reliable sources say that this is an Islamic attack or an ISIS attack, then we get to add it. Until then, we don't. That's how Wikipedia works. If you'd like to write a blog filled with your personal opinions and assumptions (more likely correct), then please do so, but don't do it here - not in the article and not through Categories. Rklawton (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it's not rocket science. The attackers shouted allahu akbar. Real obscure.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm being bitchy but it's hard not to be in this situation. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Must be the Scientologists then, we'd better add the article to Category:Scientologist terrorism in France.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That video is not of today/yesterday's attacks, as evidenced by the date. Also evident at a glance from the fact that today's attacks all happened after sundown, not the middle of the day. Robrecht (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I think I meant this. [4] --Monochrome_Monitor 01:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody has yet claimed responsibility, and the attackers have not been identified. We simply don't know what their motives were, so even calling it terrorism is arguably original research (because it implies political motivation, which we don't know yet, but common parlance these days is to label every large attack "terrorism"). If they're identified tomorrow and it turns out they were ISIS, we can add that then—the article is not set in stone; if they're identified as being an independent band of nutters, we can add that; if they turn out to be something completely different, we'll look pretty silly (and Islamophobic) if we call it Islamic extremism. It's always possible (unlikely, but at this point we simply don't know anything) that it's somebody trying to make it look like Islamist terrorism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism doesn't imply political motivation, our article about it says "Terrorism is any act designed to cause terror". It's pretty much built into the word. This is patently terrorism. LjL (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else know of non-Islamic people that go round killing people shouting Allahu akbar? We can then search for reliable sources that describe these unicorns people.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The "logic" is much simpler: to call it an Islamist attack would be racist and media calling it an Islamist attack would be racist media, which are not considered reliable resources. Only the establishment media has the right to choose that label –- if and when they do, Wikipedia will, too. 91.4.70.229 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What if the one witness was wrong? What if the reporter or the witness were racists and just made it up? What if the witness was just reporting a rumor he or she heard and lied about hearing it him or herself? What if this is a bunch of neo-Nazis trying to start a race war by running a false flag operation? What if we just wait for something more reliable than what we currently have? Rklawton (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Either a false flag operation by neo-Nazis who want to start a race war or by liberal terrorists who want to give religion a bad name. 91.4.70.229 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since Julien Pierce, a reporter who was actually present when the Bataclan attack started, claims the attackers didn't say a word.[5]. Until we have actual confirmation witness reports, even those of journalists in reliable sources, are all just hearsay. Robrecht (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a deep breath Loomspicker, keep calm, and stick to the guidelines. They are sound, and don't get thrown out because you are feeling hyped up.--Mongreilf (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How could you not be "hyped up"? More than a hundred fifty people were murdered. Saying it could be a "false-flag" operation just reveals your own biases.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Anders Breivik - a word to the wise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC).

I am hyped up. I said guidelines don't change when people are hyped up. And saying we don't know what it is, to the level required by Wikipedia, is not bias. It is a fact. A fact that will change soon, so be patient.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is off-topic and personal. Stick to WP:RS and don't waste talk page space, it's tight enough here. LjL (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha! It's finally sourced. We have a reliable source that definitively states that it's not clear who is responsible. [6] Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies are there for when we get worked up. We can all be reasonable under calm, more academic circumstances, but when emotions run high, these guidelines and policies are our friends. They protect us from our own well-intentioned carelessness. I'll echo what's been said: This can wait for proper sourcing. WP is not in a race to be the first to draw conclusions. Even if those conclusions are correct, they give the appearance of disregarding the need to verify information. Only poor quality encyclopedias do that. Dcs002 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It does seem smart to simply wait a few (or more?) hours. History and the singular account of "Allah akbar" suggest it probably is, but it won't take that long for police to properly ID the guys/shooters/terrorist. Snd0 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read French sources

Liberation Le Parisien Le Monde BFMTV Europe 1

Would most people in France call these acts terrorism?

Yes. Can we close this? This is most likely a troll. epic genius (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism? Yes. Islamic? Not without clearer evidence. LjL (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Info

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/us-france-shooting-un-idUSKCN0T22S720151113#BxZAfrD8tLVeuvPA.99
2. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52552#.VkaI1L_fPIV
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/burundi/11993785/British-UN-envoy-warns-of-possible-genocide-in-Burundi.html
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/us-france-shooting-un-idUSKCN0T22S720151113#ls0Ov8tSXjRJS5a2.97
5. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/shootout-at-paris-restaurant-leaves-several-dead-police
6. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/us-france-shooting-un-idUSKCN0T22S720151113#ls0Ov8tSXjRJS5a2.97
7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203
8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995227/Paris-shooting-Many-feared-dead-live.html
9. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html#ixzz3rQ9iYG1w
10. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203
11. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live

92.16.213.2 (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Prime Minister has a statement on the attack,please add it

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/13/statement-prime-minister-canada-terrorist-attacks-paris

Who doesn't have a statement? We actually have a comment in the article asking not to add these statements. LjL (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet Iran, Germany and the U.S. have had their specific, individual comments added. Hmmm... - ^theWOLFchild 10:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Why even bother with that? What else will they be doing, supporting the attacks?--Loomspicker (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

"Siege" vs. "massacre"

Given the scale and indiscriminate nature of the shooting, the word "massacre" succintly describes the events at the Bataclan theatre, and we should use it instead of "siege". -- Impsswoon (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We should also try and get the words "carnage" and "bloodbath" in. Srsly though, mass killing would be my preferred term, though the BBC have used massacre.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word "massacre" is a topic that's visited very often on this site. I haven't been paying attention to it lately, but I believe the popular option (or the one that gets the bickering to stop) is to wait until the press settles on a term and then use that. --Kizor 02:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Carnage" and "bloodbath" are emotive tabloid terms. "Massacre" is descriptive. We should at the very least use "mass shooting". -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Siege" is neutral and shorter. The gunmen shot people and held them hostages. epic genius (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe they murdered their hostages. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

They did. I've used the term "siege and mass shooting" to describe it. The siege is now a minor detail in what became a Mumbai-type attack. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• There might be one adjective that comes to be the commons name in the coming days, so we shouldn't worry to much about what we call it for the time being. I'd prefer to avoid "massacre" per WP:WTA, but then it's hard not to be emotive about a subject like this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also Nairobi at the mall was a situation that similarly lasted or hours/days.Lihaas (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:November 2015 Paris attacks

The category Category:November 2015 Paris attacks should not be added here yet. There is only one article in the category, which makes it useless right now. When other articles are created, the category can be added. epic genius (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, but you're speedy deleting the category too. Why? Everyone knows there will be a category "Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks" and maybe even attackers, and probably separate pages for some of the separate attacks. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It will be recreated when there are more articles to add. It's not like the category is salted or anything. epic genius (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, okay. But just for that nuclear weapons joke. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Next we'll be having Category:Epicgenius farts of 2015, just wait for things to die down.--Loomspicker (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Epic geniuses? epic genius (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, someone recreated the category. I don't understand the impatience. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Deaths

More than 150 dead after siege at Bataclan concert hall. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/13/shootings-reported-in-eastern-paris-live 92.16.213.2 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mumbai

I imagine people are adding 2008 Mumbai attacks to the see also section because the media have been making that comparison—random shooting sprees taking place across a city. Whether we should link to it or not I have no strong opinion, but that appears to be the connection for those who were wondering. @WWGB, Monochrome Monitor, Nick-D, and Aumnamahashiva: and probably others who have been adding/removing it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this should really be included. Otherwise, we'd need to add 7/7, 3/11, etc. epic genius (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no known connection, yet.--Loomspicker (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Mumbai attacks had a rather different set of targets (a train station and a hotel) and were motivated by India-Pakistan issues (with the Pakistani intelligence service allegedly helping to facilitate them), so comparing them to this attack seems hard to justify without very strong evidence. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the India/Pakistan conflict an extension of the old Hindu/Islam conflict? Were the bombers Islamist extremists? If so, even though there are differences in specific targets and goals, and IF it turns out the attackers in Paris are Islamist extremists, then I think it's appropriate to "see also". A massive, coordinated attack in a major city on multiple civilian targets by Islamist extremists (if verified). That doesn't happen every day. 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 were all very special events in that regard. I see no harm in putting them in the "see also" list IF Islamists are confirmed. Dcs002 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Suicide bombing

BBC News Channel, citing French police via news wires, just said that three of the theatre attackers blew themselves up using suicide vests. The relevant categories et can probably be (re-)added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Firebrace (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gunmen at large?

I'm not entirely sure whether I added this earlier and was reverted, or I edit conflicted without realizing and it never got it. But, Is the fact that "It is not known how many attackers were involved and how many could still be at large."[7] not particularly fussing anyone? LjL (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC News Channel, citing the Paris police prefect, just (literally a minute or two ago) said that all attackers are believed dead. I'd hold off on adding anything to the article until we know more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. This was definitely older. LjL (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The police think they killed all the gunmen. [8] Naturally, the article contradicts itself. Rklawton (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

Please change the death toll, 158 isn't confirmed. Sup3rdogey (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, what's the base established figure? Like from official police authorities? LjL (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just by adding up the "confirmed" totals, 158 is officially correct. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In which case, WP:CALC. "Confirmed" by whom, though? LjL (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Police nationale. At least 118 in the hall etc....Who said we can't do mathematical addition? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, why said it? LjL (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. epic genius (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Pointless wikilink"

User:Firebrace removed a redlink to the plan multi-attentats, calling it a "pointless wikilink". This is not helpful. Redlinks serve a purpose (see WP:REDLINK), and a major national emergency plan, particularly one that has now been put into action, is obviously notable and article worthy. @Firebrace: if you want to remove this again, please discuss it here first. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The other two plans mentioned in succession have articles, why shouldn't this one? LjL (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

'Multi-attentats' means that plan blanc and plan rouge were carried out in response to multiple attacks. It is not a plan in its own right. If it were, do you think it would already have its own article? Firebrace (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Source? -- Impsswoon (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A French editor has clarified the situation thus: Plan multi-attentats is actually part of the French red plan, see http://portail.free.fr/actualites/france/6067966_20151114_attentats-de-paris-que-signifie-le-plan-rouge-alpha.html Firebrace (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

See also [9]--Nowa (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Then it's not the link that should be gone, but the claim that there is such a plan. I see this change was already effected, but just pointing out you're still barking at the wrong tree, y'know... LjL (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Firebrace (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. -- Impsswoon (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my edit, Firebrace. It was redundant and pointless wikilink indeed. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please improve this sentence and source

The second sentence under the section Individual attacks is inaccurate:

Shootings were reported around the Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi, Rue de Charonne, and Rue Bataclan.

• There is no rue Bataclan in Paris.
• The source includes only three attack locations in Paris
• Also, see above Locations for a more precise list of the attacks

Perhaps these beginning sentences in the Individual attacks section could be improved.

Here is a list of locations of the attacks.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.241.108 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015‎

Let's update the map after all the locations have been verified. epic genius (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Stade de France photo

I added a Commons photo of the stadium, then had it deleted with an edit summary stating it was unneeded because the bombing took place outside the stadium. True, but events described in the article occurred inside, including the evacuation of the French President, and the fans on the pitch after the match. I have re-added the photo, and I maintain that the photo improves the article, and am happy to discuss it further. Jusdafax 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the image of the stadium being present. While not directly the scene of any of the attacks, the stadium was affected by them, and it also provides context for the locality. -- Impsswoon (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that inclusion of the photo of Stade de France is unnecessary. It looks like any other football stadium. Firebrace (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Status of Uber Service Unclear

The article currently says that Uber has been suspended, but the news seems to be unclear as to whether service is suspended, or just disrupted and/or under huge demand. -- Cyphase (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the service was supposedly suspended when I added the source. epic genius (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

French sources should be included

This article has too much bias toward BBC and New York sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.241.108 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because the main editors aren't French speakers, but rather speakers from England and New York? Otherwise, I agree that such sources should be added. epic genius (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using English-language sources for an English-language article. As long as they're RSs and are providing a reasonable, accurate view of things, it doesn't particularly matter what sources we use. If there is any information which is not in the English press but is exclusively in the French press, I have no problem with citing it from there, but most readers here can't read French, I'd imagine; if the information is in French and English sources, it would make sense to prefer English ones because they're more easily read and verified by readers, and are more useful to people who come across the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to use Google Translate, and French doesn't go bananes dans la machine the way some languages do. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Clarity needed in the following sentence

"As a result of the attacks, French President François Hollande announced a state of emergency and, subsequently, temporary controls on the borders of France in a televised statement at 23:58 CET."

The wording is not very understandable at the end of the sentence. Stueck9356 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The sentence has been reworded already. Nothing to do now. epic genius (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

There is no legitimate source for these attacks being of Islamic nature.

135.23.125.126 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

See this link for a legitimate source. It should be added to the article, though.

--\/\/slack (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't even have "isl" in it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

I've left the Digital Music News source, but attributed the suspicion in it to itself. Leadworthy statements should be made by more competent authorities, but it's something. For now. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

eight attacker => eighth attacker 98.237.144.180 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --joe decker^talk 07:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fishy history of edits

Writer Steven Beckow just pointed out that there is something fishy about the history of the edits to this article. Read the full story here:[10]--Satrughna (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Satrughna02: This Mr. Beckow seems to have missed the boat on time zones. France is one hour ahead of UTC, which all edits are time stamped with. Empty conspiracy to try and stir something up, it seems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit histories should be at least this fishy before mainstream media picks up. And mainstream media should pick things up before we do. Otherwise, the fishiness rolls on. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect to Mr. Beckow, he is sadly misinformed as people shocked and impressed by the reach and efficiency of Wikipedia often are. page was started while the attacks were still taking place, and the confused nature of the early reports is reflected in the sporadic nature of early edits to the article. I was reading twitter, listening to the radio and watching tv while editing, and it was a very confusing situation, as it is always is with breaking news stories on Wikipedia. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has established itself as the most timely and reliable aggregator of news items during a crisis. It is evident from media articles that many journalists consult Wikipedia as part of their research on emerging crises. WWGB (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

n,u=not,onlystukup+bakwedi/daxtremsmh (An IP added this, does it mean anything? 220 of ^Borg 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC))

This Wikipedian repeatedly tried to convince the Los Angeles Times that this dead clown was not fired in 1996. They finally amended it by adding another attribution to the obscure site they chose to trust instead, even though I'd explained how that obscure site doesn't even say what they say it does. It's pure WP:SYNTH on their part. Also, they imply he was "more than a little" of a terrorist. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Nothing fishy here, move along. That Beckow guy is a conspiracy theorist I take it? (No, worse "Steve is apparently from Arcturus ...." [11]) He attributes the creation of this page to an IP. Unless I'm mistaken Gareth E Kegg did that. [12] (whose lk above doesn't work now due to page move) - 220 of ^Borg 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators

The section claims that "all eight" were killed. This is wrong. We. do. not. know. how. many. were. involved. at. the. seven. sites. Obviously. It's almost certain that more were involved, imho - but that, like claiming ALL were killed, is pure speculation.72.172.10.182 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@72.172.10.182: I've tweaked the wording to indicate that they're only the known attackers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Disneyland Paris

Disneyland Paris has announced it will be closed due to the attacks. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/14/world/europe/ap-eu-france-paris-attacks-the-latest.html

Facebook

This Facebook Safety Check was certainly a brilliant innovation. It seems to have gotten a lot of press; I wonder is there any information its efficacy? Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Um, I've never seen someone with the temerity to outright undo an ordinary post on talk. Dismiss it, ignore it, but remove? Rude, in the very least... Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is heavily active and definitely needs moderating. Forum-material has to be removed otherwise this page would become cluttered with crap. Half of your comment is form-material, and the other half isn't relevant. It has been around for ages and is certainly not a notable factor of yesterday's events. Rob984 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly received a lot more attention than I'd ever seen. As far as notability goes, if a hashtag like #PorteOuverte is considered notable, I don't see how Safety Check isn't. Therequiembellishere (talk)

And >7 months ago is "ages" now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2015

2015 Paris attacks → November 2015 Paris attacks – Per Talk:2015_Paris_attacks#article_name. The current title is indeed vague due to Charlie Hebdo shooting and 2015 Île-de-France attacks, as both those attacks also occurred in Paris. As such it's unclear to which attack we are referring to. While there's no common name for this event yet, per WP:PRECISION, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Brandmeister^talk 10:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - @Ymblanter: Please do not move this page again without discussion. The name 2015 Paris attacks is too imprecise, as the Charlie Hebdo shootings were also in 2015. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote lists the two other 2015 attacks, including the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Note that you have moved it without consensus as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And now we got tons of incorrect links to the disambig page because of your move.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What was the purpose of listing this discussion if not given enough time to discuss? You need to wait at least seven days for discussion to take place! Sheriff (report) 11:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus, discussion or even a notification for the original move [13]. This was treated as a revert. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert can be done without a discussion, it was silly to list a discussion and then go ahead with the move without consensus. Sheriff (report) 11:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Listing it was Brandmeister's decision. Reverting it was mine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators known, not unknown

The president of France has confirmed that Islamic State did this, that would definitely satisfy WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It says he blames them in this headline, but not in the story. This one does the same. It's not in this speech. Even if true, who were they? ISIS is not a hive of bees. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps the "Islamic State - Perpetrators" section header should be re-worded? - ^theWOLFchild 10:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I watched his speech, he directly named them, by name. BBC also reports it. Jeppiz (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz - OK, but why did he name them? Do the French have some evidence? Have ISIS taken responsibility? Or is the French President making an assumption? I didn't see the speech, so is there anymore you can add? - ^theWOLFchild 11:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

{u|Thewolfchild}} ISIS has taken responsibility, but I assume (and I emphasize assume) that the information comes from French security. Already in a speech late last night, he said they knew who the perpetrators were, but did not name them. In his speech today he named ISIS, but not the individuals. These are speeches, not press conferences, so no questions asked. But I think it's safe to say he would not risk the embarrassment of naming the group is he didn't have very reliable information. So with the French President saying ISIS did it, and ISIS saying they did it, I think we have enough for now. Jeppiz (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Do I have to look for where ISIS claims this now, or can you link something? The only thing I see are "reports" and "sources" claiming that ISIS claimed it. The SITE Intelligence Group is not to be trusted. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

That "capital of abomination and perversion" line seems legit enough for me, even in The Hollywood Reporter. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Washington Post: "French president calls Paris attacks ‘act of war’ by Islamic State" https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/string-of-paris-terrorist-attacks-leaves-over-120-dead/2015/11/14/066df55c-8a73-11e5-bd91-d385b244482f_story.html

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tat_islamique_%28organisation%29 "Daech".92.16.213.2 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Washington one's the style most English news had been following. Put "act of war" in quotes, but not the Islamic State bit. It seemed fishy. But not as much now. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Here is the BBC: Paris attacks: Hollande blames Islamic State for 'act of war'. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34820016 XavierItzm (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

CET

UTC+/-XX=wo=neded!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.183.246 (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but Central European Time (CET) is only UTC +1. "wo"? 220 of ^Borg 11:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS? Yes or No?

In the infobox it states "unknown" for perpetrators. But there's also an actual sub-section titled - "Islamic State - Perpetrators", with a sourced comment stating that the French President has claimed ISIS is responsible for the attacks. So which it? Can we just go with one or the other? - ^theWOLFchild 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a few French quotes after realizing he calls them "Daech". Seems like his legit opinion. Still, who the hell were the perpetrators? That section title is just plain ugly, notwithstanding anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

And should translations be in quotation marks? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

I've tried this. Does it suck? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:55, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

No... it doesn't "suck". - ^theWOLFchild 11:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Washington Post: "French president calls Paris attacks ‘act of war’ by Islamic State" https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/string-of-paris-terrorist-attacks-leaves-over-120-dead/2015/11/14/066df55c-8a73-11e5-bd91-d385b244482f_story.html

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tat_islamique_%28organisation%29 "Daech".92.16.213.2 (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Islamic State is now prominently in the lede paragraph. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

PD license disputed

I don't believe the Peace for Paris icon is in the public domain. The copyright information needs to be corrected and a non-free use rationale should be added. – Editør (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The peace sign is a “universal symbol that retains its message in all context”. If nobody can trademark it, it seems reasonable that nobody can claim copyright, either. Laws are complicated, though. Maybe this is terrible. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

This says symbols can’t be copyrighted if they are fairly common and widely used. And if making something purple doesn't make it distinct, drawing a little bit sloppy probably doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

The icon is not simply a peace sign, because it was blended with a drawing of the Eiffel tower. Also, this image isn't a simple geometric shape because of its blurred lines. – Editør (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that one line does count more than purple. In any case, I didn't call it geometric, just universal. Technically, the rationale is a bit off in that regard, but it seems a frivolous fight. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that if Wikipedia continues to use the P4P symbol, it will not get sued... - ^theWOLFchild 11:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The file is at Wikipedia commons - not here. So any comments should be at commons because the file is up for deletion there. If its deleted, it can be uploaded to the english WikiPedia as long as it can be argued that it is used under "fair use". Christian75 (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

See deletion discussion at Commons: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peace for Paris.svg. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Second requested move 14 November 2015

November 2015 Paris attacks → 2015 Paris attacks – Approve Support as nominator: Simply because there are no other attacks which are called or can be called as "2015 Paris attacks" and all these attacks happened in Paris city and not in "Île-de-France region". Page for January attacks is named as 2015 Île-de-France attacks and there is no mention of Paris in the title. There is a big difference between "City of Paris" and "Île-de-France region", no confusion there. No need to list month in the title, it's precise enough without the mention of month. Sheriff (report) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - There is clear confusion that 2015 Paris attacks and 2015 Île-de-France attacks lead to different articles. Perhaps we need some way to rationalize both the January and November events, but that's for a later time. Right now, precision is what matters, and we had dozens of people here editing away at November 2015 Paris attacks without a problem until the recent move. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There were earlier attacks around Paris in 2015. Keep the current title to avoid confusion and uncertainty. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose For future proofing of the article name. Look back on this a year from now, 2 years, 5 years, etc. I've never heard of "Île-de-France" until these attacks. The article itself calls Île-de-France the "Paris Region", so there is the likelyhood of confusion, esp. from people who are not familar with the subtle differences of city/region naming in that part of the world. I support the bold move done earlier. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Commect: That's what i am saying there is difference between Paris region and Paris city. Region encompasses the :city but is huge compared to the city itself. There is a distinction there, no confusion. Then why not name the other page :as "January 2015 Paris attacks". Keep it consistent, that's all i want, remove "Île-de-France" from the title. Sheriff (report) 11:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You can do that via WP:RM if you wish. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, some of the January attacks were in Paris some were outside in I-de-F. The current titles of the 2 articles are exactly as they should be (or at least until the media come up with a more specific name for what's just happened). If a reader was looking for info about one of the attacks that did occur within Paris itself in January, they wouldn't know whether to look in this article or not if your proposal was adopted. DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above 3 opposes. DeCausa (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and my previous concerns. Also, plain wikilinks to 2015 Paris attacks without context, for example, would often be vague due to previous attacks. Brandmeister^talk 11:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• No opinion for three days After that, the common name the English media chooses will be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I renamed 2015 Île-de-France attacks to January 2015 Île-de-France attacks specifically to avoid a naming conflict with this article. epic genius (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • And in turn, that should probably be moved from January 2015 Île-de-France attacks to January 2015 Paris attacks -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The January 2015 attacks occurred in Parisian suburbs as well, which is why the article is at that title.. epic genius (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understand that distinction and your solution with the redirect is probably the best one at this point. But we have precedent for not being pedantically precise, especially for something complex that happens over days over multiple areas. For example, the Beltway sniper attacks article describes a series of shootings that had events far outside the Washington DC beltway, but the series of events are known popularly as the Beltway shootings. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I see your point, but we should wait a few days to see what the media's common name for the attacks is. epic genius (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a significant historical event and will be better known under a more general title. The attacks in January could be referred to in a disambiguation hatnote.Ljgua124 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The other shootings were significant, too. epic genius (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This serves to disambiguate from other 2015 Paris attacks, and as mentioned above, the sources may come to give us a better/more common title to use before long. Sam Walton (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, there were other attacks in Paris in 2015 (whether or not it was technically Île-de-France, in any case, they were certainly partly in Paris), which makes this a no-brainer. Keep the current name. LjL (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Overwhelming consensus to keep November 2015 Paris attacks the way it is. 2015 Paris attacks has been made into a disambiguation page. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Arrest and warning before the attacks

Several days ago the police in Rosenheim arrested a man who originally comes from Montenegro, when they found a professional secret place in his car with several handguns, submachine guns, ammunition, and kilograms of TNT. There was substantial evidence that the man was on his way to Paris and French authorities were informed. Source: Polizei fasst möglichen Komplizen, by Oliver Bendixen, w:de:Bayerischer Rundfunk, subsidiary of ARD (broadcaster).

The relevance hasn't been proven yet. epic genius (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Put more details from here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-34815972

In view of the attacks Poland rejects EU refugee agreements.

Poland offered condolences but noted that due to these attacks Poland will renounce EU refugee relocation scheme. Is this notable to be included in international reactions? [14] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it could be, but lets hear what others have to say. Jeppiz (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is very notable! XavierItzm (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Notable view if backed up, but not sure about the reliable sourcing. I'm not familiar with that Polish publication, so it's not clear we can do anything with it at this time. A quick Google News search brings up nothing similar in English. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here about NaTemat.pl. They are sometimes called: the Polish Huffington Post. "Who" exactly however is that Poland person they are referring to ? --78.127.34.25 (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

[15]. Main Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza also has this info."Polska nie widzi politycznych możliwości wykonania decyzji o relokacji uchodźców ? mówi dla wywiadu dla portalu wpolityce.pl Konrad Szymański, minister ds. europejskich w rządzie Beaty Szydło". Konrad Szymanski is the European Affairs Minister in newly appointed government of Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

These were just statements by one politician in an online op-ed. It's not official policy or anything like that, which is what the inserted text tries to pretend. Other politicians have already toned it down. This is just sensationalist reporting as is typical with these kinds of tragedies. Until this becomes official, there is no reason for it to be in the article. Volunteer Marek  22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 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.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, this is suppose to be an article about a terrorist attack IN FRANCE, which killed more than a hundred people IN FRANCE in a greatest tragedy since WWII. It is NOT about Poland's politician's hang ups about refugees from Syria. It is NOT about your own personal hangs up about refugees from Syria. How about we keep the article on topic that it's actually suppose to be about rather than go off on POV tangents to pursue personal political agendas? Volunteer Marek  22:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this Blow-back from the 'Jihadi John' Killing?

If this bloody outrage is found to be some kind of blow-back for the 'Jihadi John' Killing, then it seems to call into question the wisdom of such (legally questionable) killings. So, instead of reporting stage managed/public relation replies, should not Wikipedia reflect a range of related opinions?

If you find reliable sources or significant, high profile opinions around this, then it may be appropriate for inclusion in the article. Otherwise, it is pure speculation and WP:OR which is not acceptable in articles. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting theory, and one that passed through my head as well, but as Fuzhead says we need sources. In addition, if the terrorists can mobilize such a large-scale attack on so little notice we're all fucked. So there's that. Ignatzmice•talk 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If Emwazi is dead at all, he was killed by the US and UK, not France. It'd be a strange sort of revenge. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:29, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

I don't really believe we need a ref so as to provide the context between battles in an ongoing war per WP:COMMON; and it's rather biased to only mention one side's recent attacks and not the other side's in the lead. Nevertheless, I've added a ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Raffaello Pantucci, director of International Security Studies at counter terrorism think tank RUSI, told MailOnline: 'This was planned long before Jihadi John's death but it's possible that they thought this was a good trigger.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.107.96 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to rename

Hello,

November 2015 Île-de-France attacks is a better title than November 2015 Paris attacks, because attacks was not only in Paris, but also in Saint-Denis, who is a town, close from Paris, but different (and both are in Île-de-France)... (Sorry if my english is not very good, i am a frenchman). --YANN92340 (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@YANN92340: see also #Requested move 14 November 2015. Note there are two sections above named that. 220 of ^Borg 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Saint-Denis is PART of Paris. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Saint-Denis is a suburb of Paris, administered as a separate commune. This is common for French cities. "Paris attacks" is also the common name. No justification for move. Rob984 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis is in a separate department Seine-Saint-Denis - it's not just a separate commune. It is part of the (unofficial) Greater Paris connurbation, however. But with the abolition of Seine (department) there is nothing between the city of Paris which St Denis is not in and Ile-de-France (region). DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but it is nonetheless a suburb of Paris. The three departments of the Petite Couronne are widely considered "Paris". Cities are more than simply administrative divisions. In Paris' case, it isn't even disputed, except on Wikipedia... Rob984 (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no... Sorry, but I cannot agree with all i read here! I live in Paris suburb, I was working in Saint-Denis, and i can say Saint-Denis is not a part of Paris!... Paris is a "commune", Saint-Denis is another one. It is like saying if something else happens in Oakland, that happens in San Francisco, just because view from my place, those cities seems approximativly on the same place on the map of USA! So, I understand if you live far of France, Saint-Denis seems just a part of Paris, but that is not the true! Please, see the Wikipedia in french language, it is : "Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 en Île-de-France", not "Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 à Paris". If the largest part of the yesterday attacks was indeed in Paris, the attacks near the Stade de France was in Saint-Denis, in Seine-Saint-Denis. (Seine-Saint-Denis is, as Paris also, a part of Île-de-France, a larger area who include the city of Paris itself, and the largest part of the suburbs around who are "la banlieue de Paris", "la région parisienne" if you want... but not Paris!)... For all french people it is clear, and if you see Paris attacks in some newspapers, it is just an abusive simplification from some journalists, maybe because Saint-Denis is less famous than Paris and the territory of Saint-Denis bording the territory of Paris, and only "Paris" faster to say or to write than "Paris et/and Saint-Denis". Anyway, an encyclopedia have not to make abusive simplifications as this one! Wikipedia have to try to be the closest as possible from the true. November 2015 Île-de-France attacks or November 2015 Paris and Saint-Denis attacks, trust me, it is more the reality than November 2015 Paris attacks!... --YANN92340 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - See earlier conversations for consensus on keeping the article title November 2015 Paris attacks. @YANN92340: I'm very sympathetic to your view as the local and the knowledgeable one. But there is the en.wp policy of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names even if it is not pedantically the most accurate title one could use. A good example is Beltway sniper attacks in the US, were many of the shootings were not even close to the Beltway, but that's what they were known as in the media and to the general public. Hope you can see that perspective. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for article name change

Shouldn't this be called something like "Second 2015 Paris attack", to distinguish it from the first one in January? Calling it "November 2015" is too reducing, especially since other terror attacks call each other "2004 Madrid bombing" "2005 London bombings" "2008 Mumbai attacks"?--134.219.227.29 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

January had the first, second, third, fourth and fifth attacks. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

It should be titled what it is referred to as in sources. Right now, that is "Paris attacks". "November 2015" is only for disambiguation. Making up names is not helpful for readers. Rob984 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - See earlier conversations for consensus on keeping the article title November 2015 Paris attacks -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

Are there any Reliable Sources pointing out the symbolic importance of the Friday the 13th date (or 'vendredi treize', to give the superstition's name in French, if that helps with Google searches), perhaps mentioning that Islamist terrorists allegedly often choose symbolically significant dates, with, for instance, 9/11 often being mentioned as based on 911, the emergency phone number in the US? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I only see the Inquisitr. Even The Daily Mail only has this other psychopathic Friday the 13th attack. But it's on BeforeItsNews, so maybe soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:20, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

CNBC probably didn't mean it, but said there was no scary Friday the 13th for Europe. If that wasn't unfortunate enough, there's a picture of some blurry figure lining up a shot on the Eiffel Tower. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. Mysterious space junk. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Was listening to CNN - the reporter in France mentioned something to the fact that that the attacks where not random... they occurred at the same time and also on Friday the 13th - which is something terror investigators will be looking at. Hanyou23 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just change "On the evening of 13 November 2015" to "On the evening of Friday the 13th November 2015" and there's a link if people want to go there. Oceandozenre (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"apostates"

Is there any analysis on why ISIS made this bizarre statement: "the Bataclan Conference Center, where hundreds of apostates had gathered in a profligate prostitution party"? Obviously, this is a mischaracterization of a rock concert, so maybe they're just talking nonsense, but it's still weird to see them applying the "apostate" label to a French crowd. They're already known for applying the apostate term very broadly indeed, but this still surprises me. Were they targeting some individual or group of Muslims within the venue? Wnt (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what kind of propaganda term is used by the terrorists. If you look at the warfare that Takfiri groups did since 5 years then the above is no surprise. They always use similar terms to attempt to legitimize why they kill other people. Just ignore these statements - besides, just because they can make any statement does not mean that it is true. There have been 8 different attackers involved in a coordinated manner. A nineth one was captured in Germany, Bavaria, prior to the attacks. It is significantly more important where they came from, where they received funding and training etc... 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If you use "prostitution" as broadly, it sort of characterizes a rock concert. One needn't have sex to be a whore. Just get paid for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Also, the word "apostat" is nowhere in the French bit. Just "idolâtres". And they were at a "perversity party", not a "profligate prostitution party". InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

That translation seems to go back to SITE. They're not to be trusted. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:39, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thanks! Wnt (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

International reactions

Firstly, I agree that the international reactions should be part of the main article.

Secondly, the stance of the Syrien Government also should be included, considering that they have been enduring ISIS terrorism since about 5 years already. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also enduring the French-supported Free Syrian Army for about as long. Hard to tell how to take Assad's words. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Nationalities of some perpetrators

The Guardian, Libération (Willy Le Devin is from the 'paper) and Reuters are reporting that an Egyptian and a Syrian (already included in this article) passport have been retrieved near the Stade de France. AFP reports that one of the Bataclan attackers was a French citizen.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates

https://twitter.com/Will_ld/status/665525045381496832

https://twitter.com/Will_ld/status/665524366650798080

https://twitter.com/Will_ld/status/665523716596572160

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/665530187329720322

Sdsouza (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Les Halles attack

Please add in a bit about this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottolads (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Information is sketchy. Firebrace (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Those were found to be false reports - "Shootings were also reported at the central Les Halles shopping centre and at Le Pompidou and Louvre, but they are believed now to be false alarms." - Telegraph UK, (12:30PM GMT 14 Nov 2015) [16] -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

timeline of attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks

Can someone help me form this page?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talk • contribs) 2015-11-14T14:42:43‎

Looks like it was redirected correctly[17] by Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). I suppose if we start a section Timeline in this article with the timeline, and then move it out when it's big enough could be a way forward. Nsaa (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused incovenience. I was only trying to facilitate the reading of this article (in speculation that this would become bigger, which almost certainly it will).--Stefvh96 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a very good start, and I hope it's possible to set up a timeline. I suppose it should be started here first. Hope you can start on it. Just include sources for every point in the list. Nsaa (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A timeline is a good idea, and I've unprotected the article for now to allow for new users and anon users to contribute. However, if the vandalism gets too high, we may have to protect it again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Timeline has been added to article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Unprotected the article for now

In order to aid merging of at least two other articles (Timeline... and International reactions... ), I've unprotected the article so new editors can edit. However, if there is too much vandalism and undesirable behavior, we may need to re-protect it. However, for now it looks like there are good contributions for IPs and new folks and during daylight hours in Europe and US, there are a lot of eyeballs to watch out for problems. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuzheado, should you be acting in an administrative capacity with the article while also revert-warring with editors who have made non-vandalism edits? Cla68 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as he unprotected it, I don't see a problem. LjL (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is getting a lot of vandalism. Some protection may be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Re-protected, and blocked that crazy User:Anonne. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to Islamic terrorism in the lede

ISIL has claimed responsibility for the attacks and the French government has confirmed that they were acts of Islamic terrorism, so I think we should say that and link it in the first sentence of the lede. Cla68 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, then, if no objections I'm going to make the change to the article again. I'm not sure why someone keeps revert warring me on it when they won't participate in this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please slow down and give time for people to actualy read, think and edit the piece? Follow the lead of articles like January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 7_July_2005_London_bombings where neither lede sentence actually tries to nail a group or cause, but simply tries to state the facts clinically and verifiably. I've already consolidated all the ISIL information into one graf, including Hollande's reaction into one place and moved it up. It could even be moved up more. But the insistence that the first sentence must name "Islamic terrorists" does not fit how we write articles about these subjects. And characterizing one exchange as "revert warring" is disingenuous. This is typically what's called "editing." Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that sufficient WP:RS are now collectively stating that this can be characterized as "Islamic terrorism" that we can do so too. (In addition to it also being amazingly obvious from other evidence, but that would be WP:OR) -- The Anome (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede already states that ISIL claimed responsibility. This seems like enough to me. LjL (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to @Jumplike23: who did a good job of recrafting the lede, and moving up the ISIL/ISIS mention. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian refugee involvement?

I read that a Syrian passport was found with one of the bodies of the terrorists. Was this a Syrian refugee? Cla68 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is being reported that one was a refugee who was processed in October on Leros. 68.194.210.70 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make assertions like this here, you need to provide links to reliable sources that back them up. Otherwise, "things you read" do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd strongly suggest not to create or strengthen unsourced rumours on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a news article report the refugee connection (http://www.avgi.gr/article/6027031/eixe-katagrafei-sti-lero-to-suriako-diabatirio-pou-empleketai-stin-tromokratiki-epithesi-sto-parisi) 68.194.210.70 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We need to show extreme caution and to stick to just the facts. A Syrian passport has been found, but it does not imply directly that it was a Syrian refugee. That needs further confirmation. The source itself states:

While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Already reported by Reuters. Citation added. XavierItzm (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

See also section

I removed a see also link that was already linked above in the article per MOS. --Malerooster (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Eagles of Death Metal

I have the news that the California band called Eagles of Death Metal escaped the Bataclan Theatre massacre; all band members were unharmed. Here's the link for this if you want to update, okay? [18] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone listening to me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Angeldeb82: - Do you have a proposed place to put that info? -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, but it's just my personal opinion, underlining the fact that a small number of "famous" people were unharmed is slightly offensive to the >100 people who definitely were harmed. If you want policy, it'd fall under WP:UNDUE I guess. LjL (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'm inclined to say: "Band member harmed" = news. "Band member safe" = not news. Though, do send our best to the band and tell them we are glad they are unharmed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The absence of information does not imply a positive outcome. Firebrace (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's another survivor added to the list: Simone Rivera, the 21-year-old daughter of Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera. Is that okay to you? [19] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay to add to the article? Absolutely not. I survived the attacks, too. Will you add me to the article? LjL (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

High speed train derailment

A high speed train has derailed in France today, with 5 dead and at least 7 injured. There are suggestions in some media that this was a deliberate act. I would suggest being very cautious, as this just happened and ANY connection is unconfirmed. News of the derailment can be seen here:[20] I mean no sarcasm when I say France is having a very bad weekend. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a really nasty coincidence, but there is as yet no suggestion that it was terrorism, and we can't link it to this attack in any way at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I suggested restraint in editing. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The article says it was a "test train", so likely no passengers, and one could conjecture something technical failed. LjL (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If it was a test train, then we have an explanation that is more likely and more mundane than terrorism, and the default hypothesis that it was not terrorism just became a lot more likely. -- The Anome (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

[21] now reports 7 dead, 40 passengers total, confirms it was a test train, no ill-doing suspected. Pretty scary aerial! LjL (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My guess is the train accident is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia at this point, unrelated to this article. I know emotions are high right now, which is why I wanted to proactively prevent the linking of these two issues. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of rail accidents (2010–present). Also, this is probably not a related incident. Why would terrorists derail a test train on an unopened line with only 46 people, all technicians, on board? epic genius (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

To cause terror!92.16.213.2 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has created the article: Eckwersheim train crash. I haven't been involved in it yet, but I'll add it to my watch list, and may collaborate. Lets keep these issues separate unless a reliable source says otherwise Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

17th reference

Hi, the 17th reference has already been corrected and completed by me. Please don't try to put any other in in the same place (like now) or at least do that in a correct form. It's resulting in a unreadable edit conflict. --La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't understand why both have been deleted - the CNN's reference was ok. Nevermind anyway. --La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

lead

Please do not delete or add content to lead without stating a reason. Also, do not combine paragraphs without doing such. I would be in an edit war if I did such. I have tried to improve the lead but someone just comes along and combines paragraphs--with the resulting paragraphs not being coherent. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, look at last paragraph, all of a sudden the fact that eight attackers were killed gets added in a paragraph that seems about context of attack--JumpLike23 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jumplike23: - I think we're good now, but double check and edit as you see fit. I think we were messed up by a vandal who tried to insert "Friday" and did not resolve an edit conflict and just wrote over some intermediate edits. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: I agree, I think national emergency flows from the casualty count and President's response. Thanks! --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuzheado likes this.

cells in Germany?

German police arrest someone linked to Paris attacks had guns, explosives, hand grenades. This should be in.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-14/german-police-arrested-man-with-suspected-ties-to-paris-attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There have also been arrests in Belgium. Firebrace (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

some photos in infobox?

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/73084d25dc6ec012b8aa18b9e98f056a3fb11ece/1012_665_3550_2130/3550.jpg?w=460&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=a86cdc5e19c4fb972a556d94d256c083

http://dd508hmafkqws.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/article_node_view/public/paris_2_0.jpg (though this one may be too graphic) Add some below if you have any more ideas--Stefvh96 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. Infobox already crowded, map is enough. Photos can be added throughout the article when/where relevant. LjL (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes

Stop adding unrelated navboxes please. Navboxes aren't "see also" links (although their contents may be similar). If this article is about the November attacks, it shouldn't embed the navbox about the January attacks. That's a bogus addition. The ISIL navbox is an example of something appropriate, because it's the perpetrators of the attacks (once established), not just because it's somehow "related". LjL (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clearly linked. Compare with the 2015 Copenhagen shootings which also links to the January article. I see you've reverted that several times, in direct conflict to the talkpage header - "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users". Continue, and you risk being blocked. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know what navboxes are for. LjL (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know what personal attacks and trolling are either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

These are some of your edits on this article: [22] [23] [24]. They are reverts. They are three. Three is bigger than one. Feel free to request to be blocked yourself. LjL (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Predictability of links

Re: [25]

This user has twice reverted my removal of this link without explanation. I believe link targets should be somewhat predictable from the displayed text. Thus, a link that says "retaliation" should link to an article about retaliation, or something close to that, not an article about the spillover of the Syrian Civil War. This is widely accepted link practice, but I'm willing to defer to local consensus on this. Comments? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

I've seen at least two inappropriate edits by user (talk). XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Islamic State tangent

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Facebook part 2

Many facebook users have changed their profile picture by superimposing the French flag over it to show solidarity with the people of France. Should this be mentioned in the article? Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not unless RS has given it significant significance. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty irrelevant to me, but I do realize that, these days, any tiny thing Facebook does it bigger news than the attacks themselves. LjL (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What I found more relevant from a Facebook standpoint was the fact that users could report themselves as "safe" from their Facebook page. I was sitting in California and a push notification on my phone from Facebook let me know that my friend in Pairs was safe. I thought that was pretty cool. While Facebook has done the "change your picture" idea in the past, this is the first time (and correct me if i am wrong) that I have seen the social media website be used to report people as safe during a terrorist attack. Sorry if this was already mentioned above I couldn't find "part 1" on my quick scroll through the page Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that we need a significant RS to do a story about Facebook profile pics changing before it warrants a mention here. However, I agree with @Comatmebro: that it's likely that a mention of Facebook Safety Check is justified, given how this is perhaps the first major event to showcase that technology, and a number of outlets have mentioned this, including The Atlantic, CNN and Time magazine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Names and surnames of victims

Should we really list who exactly some of the known victims are, in light of WP:BLP + WP:RSBREAKING, and the fact that there are more than a hundred victims yet (at this point) we are only giving the name of one, so, WP:UNDUE? LjL (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not unless they were independently notable, and maybe not even then in this article: see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E -- The Anome (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A table displaying the number of victims from each country seems to be the standard for this type of article, e.g. 2002 Bali bombings and 2004 Madrid train bombings. Firebrace (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Morbid?92.16.213.2 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved/DFFT ~~~~

---

November 2015 Paris attacks → Friday the 13th Paris attacks – Symbolic meaning of the date being unlucky. The Telegraph Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose or Snow oppose - No one has reasonably talked about this event being know as Friday the 13th attacks. Let's be serious now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Premature. Wait at least two weeks to see what COMMONNAME emerges. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The Telegraph has begun using that name. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's one. It's light years from COMMONNAME. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed on Telegraph. I see this at their site: [26] - "How will Britain respond to the Paris terror attacks?" and [27] "Paris terror attack: Syrian passport found on attacker was used to seek asylum in Greece as one Briton confirmed dead." No FRIDAY and no 13TH. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Premature - one can foresee this might catch on but WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COMMONNAME at this point in time. DeCausa (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

One swallow doesn't make a summer. Firebrace (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Snow oppose -- this would only make sense if the consensus among WP:RS was that this was called this. It isn't, and we haven't even been provided with any evidence that the Telegraph itself does. -- The Anome (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Number of attackers revised to 7 (press conference)

The french Procureur de la République de Paris has held a press conference in which facts about the attack were described (video of the press conference held by François Molins). I believe it should be a trusty source as it is a government official, not a news outlet.

Amongst the facts mentionned at 10:00 of the video, it has been noted the number of attackers is 7, not 8 as the article currently states.

At 5:54 it is mentionned the number of attackers in the Bataclan is 3, not 4 as the article currently states.

Can someone revise the article? I can't do it due to my poor english and I don't know how to cite the sources. I hope my report is accurate.--86.198.32.153 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Highly reasonable. Thanks. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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....) -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, I'm kinda tired here anyway. :D 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also potentially numerous new editors to the project, though. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Why not pending changes? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [28] ("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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The bombers are victims too. They should be included.

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 . If you listen and watch 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)

References

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)

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)

I wouldn't keep those, either. 68.19.1.154 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but good luck with that. LjL (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I have rephrased. Abductive (reasoning) 22:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)