Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legacypac (talk | contribs) at 05:58, 16 November 2015 (OneClickArchiver adding 1 discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Contested deletion

Initial speedy deletion was posted by a passing troll, nothing substantial. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --LjL (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No, obviously this page should not be deleted. LjL (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a rapidly changing current news event, an article certain to be expanded as more details come in. --22:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --104.129.196.75 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

20 people dead is not a trivial or insignificant matter. Looks like someone is trying to suppress news they don't like.

It's not going to happen. These breaking news articles are often put up for deletion in their early stages before their significance becomes apparent. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:07, 13 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 deaths

This is varying widely. Some say 18, some say 26, I counted 56 from the three locations. epic genius (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is to be expected. The attacks are ongoing as far as I'm aware and news just broke within the hour. Numbers are going to fluctuate wildly for a while. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's just remove it from the infobox till, say, tomorrow. It's too widely varying to be stable. epic genius (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
CNN (US) is reporting at least 60 deaths. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Present death toll is "at least 153" per [1]. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to "Le Monde" (Newspaper of record), the current (2015, November 14 5:23 AM UTC) death toll is at lest 120 deaths. Number of injured persons are in "urgence absolue" (critical) and the deaths toll is likely to increase. [1] Phil4242 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.250.38.106 (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to "Le Monde" (Newspaper of record), the current (2015, November 14 6:00 AM UTC) death toll is at least 120 deaths. At least 32 persons are in "urgence absolue" [crtitical] and the deaths toll is likely to increase. [2] Phil4242 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil4242 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

According to "Le Monde" (2015, November 14 8:57 AM UTC), the current death toll has been reviewed: At least 128 deaths. The deaths toll is likely to increase. [3] Phil4242 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil4242 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo shooting

Can we avoid mentioning this in any way, until an actual proof that those were connected surfaces? Thanks, Hołek ҉ 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's fair enough to mention it in "See also". It was in Paris, close in time, and in related places there. LjL (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Related places? North-east Paris is a vast and diverse area. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not right to mention it before these attacks have been definitively linked to radical Islamists. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The terrorists shouted "Allahu Akbar" and "This is for Syria".--Stefvh96 (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
You have a point, but it was a recent major event of the same type in the same city, so we definitely need to mention it. Anyway, I added a see also section with Terrorism in the European Union, then added List of terrorist incidents in France. Sorry for the mess it's going to cause. :-\ --Kizor 23:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a related thing, because it happens in Paris. Doesn't matter who's attacking now. The point is that this is happening in the same place, in the same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerhidt (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
And for roughly the same reasons it sounds like. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
And we need reliable citations establishing such a link... Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm all for sourcing, but "See also" sections don't need such strict standards. It's enough that reasonable people would think of them as related and/or want to "see also" the other topic (that's what the section is about). I quote from WP:ALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." LjL (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How's this: "France has been on edge since deadly attacks by Islamic extremists in January on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a kosher grocery that left 20 dead, including the three attackers." From france 24 Europe. Dcs002 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

On edge is not NPOV. Anyhoo, ive added something to the background section. Although connections are being made in RS to the migrant issue and further afield to convflict zones.Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Live coverage from French TV

I have cited French TV - ABC News is streaming it live. The same stats are rotating at the bottom - http://abcnews.go.com/live —МандичкаYO 😜 22:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

France24 article, "WATCH LIVE" is at the top of the site

Live coverage from Reddit here too the thread

article name

Please stop moving the article... November 2015 Paris attacks is fine and the common name. Even French TV is only referencing Paris as the location.[2] —МандичкаYO 😜 23:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Folks, please stop moving the article back and forth. Please consult Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names, which would argue for "Paris" as the name, even if there were events technically outside Paris. There is precedent with Beltway sniper attacks in Washington DC, where there were incidents not necessarily just inside the Beltway. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ... please note the image I linked above. It's just Paris. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we stop moving the page please? If you asked a casual reader where these attacks occurred, they would say Paris, not the perhaps geographically correct Île-de-France. Unlike the Île-de-France attacks earlier in the year, the November 13 attacks have not spread outside the City of Paris. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

👍 Fuzheado likes this. - see above

Suggest Page Move Protection Legacypac (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sooooo why do we have January 2015 Île-de-France attacks? FWIW, the French Wikipedia also calls the current event Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 en Île-de-France. LjL (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: - Honestly, I'm quite surprised to see this article title, as the incident is nearly always called the "Charlie Hebdo attacks" in the US news media. Maybe one reason why it's labeled as "outdated" is that no one I know of in the US would ever look up "Île-de-France attacks." It's also not unusual for different languages to have different titles, as Americans don't even know how to type that "Î" character. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I just realized we have BOTH Charlie_Hebdo_shooting and 2015 Île-de-France attacks, of which the former is a subset of the latter, but the former is actually much much longer and up to date. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we have both, it's possible that with these attacks too, the details about single events will grow to the point they'll need separate articles... although in the Charlie Hebdo case, it was the publication itself that caused it to get attention. Anyway, This is the English Wikipedia, sure, but not necessarily the American Wikipedia, so which characters Americans can type isn't very relevant (and made even less so by redirects and smart search engines). I wouldn't take that into consideration when deciding on article titles. LjL (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here in the U.S., I'm starting to hear the attacks being referred to as attacks that happened on Friday the 13th... just my two cents. Hanyou23 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen that at all myself. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Depends which news outlet you listen to ;p ~ Hanyou23 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably should have chimed in earlier but was busy with the article...anywho, WP:COMMONNAME lends to the article retaining its current title as it's being widely reported as attacks in Paris. The bombing at Stade de France (located in Saint-Denis) was a relatively small aspect of the overall atrocity, which predominately took place within Paris. One could argue WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to have this moved to 2015 Paris attacks, since it far exceeds the January attacks. But for now, having a stable title is nice. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The names of the 2 articles ("2015 Île-de-France attacks" and "2015 Paris attacks") dedicated to terrorist attacks that occurred in 2015 in France are very misleading. 1) They are not accurate A) For January series / "2015 Île-de-France attacks": Some events occurred in Picardie (outside Ile-de-France) - A hold-up in Villers-Cotterêts - Kouachi brothers might have spent a part of the night (from the 8 to 9) in Picardie - The terrorism alert level was also raised to the maximum in Picardie B) For November series / "2015 Paris attacks": Some attacked occurred outside Paris (intra-muros). c.f., Attacks in Stade de France 2) They are ambiguous: I don't if most of people living outside the Parisian region are well aware of the difference in-between Ile-de-France and Paris. Even some French people might not know. Conclusion / Disambiguation: Since those event occured in 2015, in Ile-de-France with a focus in Paris, to me, the only way to make distinction is to add the month. That why, I am suggesting: "January 2015 Paris attacks" or "January 2015 Ile-de-France attacks" for Charlie Hebdo, Porte de Vincennes, Montrouge, ... "November 2015 Paris attacks" or "November 2015 Ile-de-France attacks" for Bataclan, Rue de Charonne, Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi, Rue Alibert, stade de France, … Regards Phil4242 (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil4242 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The only issue I have with that is that eventually every name will begin to start looking like a Campbell's Soup can (they all look the same >< ' )... which one's the one you really want :o (at least the old cans ;p ~)??? Hanyou23 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add a Timeline of events as a section

BFMTV online has an abreviated timeline for events which is a useful start.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.241.108 (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 1 Radio has a timeline for events, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.241.108 (talk) 23:06, 13 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)

Opppose

Further discussion

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,

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

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

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)
  • 253 boulevard Voltaire (Le Comptoir Voltaire, le brasserie at the corner of boulevard Voltaire and rue de Montreuil, near Place de la Nation)
  • 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)
  • 2 rue de La Fontaine au Roi (La Casa del Nostra near canal St. Martin)
  • 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." [3] We should probably add that to the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Targets

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. —МандичкаYO 😜 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. —МандичкаYO 😜 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 —МандичкаYO 😜 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, added.
Resolved
Lihaas (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

See also: § Reactions part 2, and § International response subsection
Main article: International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks

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)
  • 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. —МандичкаYO 😜 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. Reywas92Talk 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - why? - theWOLFchild 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
exclamation mark  Note also existence of a separate page International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. -220 of Borg 23:53, 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)

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,

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". [4]. 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. [5] 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. [6] --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.[7]. 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. [8] 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)
Except they shouted "This is for Syria! Allahu akbar!" I'm guessing they weren't Buddhists. Thismightbezach (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death yesterday. When this was written at least, it was far from certain what they had "shouted", witnesses were panicking, and sources weren't reliable. LjL (talk) 23:31, 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)


"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."[9] 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. [10] 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 [11]--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.[4]

  • 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

  1. ^ Le Monde. 2015, November 14 5:23 AM (UTC)
  2. ^ "Ce que l’on sait des attentats de Paris." Le Monde. (2015, November 14 5:23 AM [UTC]). Retreived from http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/13/fusillade-meurtriere-a-paris_4809485_3224.html
  3. ^ "Ce que l’on sait des attentats de Paris." Le Monde. (2015, November 14 5:23 AM [UTC]). Retreived from http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/13/fusillade-meurtriere-a-paris_4809485_3224.html
  4. ^ Goldstein, Sasha (13 November 2015). "At least 26 dead after explosion, shooting reported in Paris". NY Daily News. Retrieved 13 November 2015.

— 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 deckertalk 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:[12]--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 ...." [13]) He attributes the creation of this page to an IP. Unless I'm mistaken Gareth E Kegg did that. [14] (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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

 Done WP:BRD

{{requested move/dated|November 2015 Paris attacks}}

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". Brandmeistertalk 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 [15]. 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)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Formally closing this so it's out of the RM queue, actual reading of the discussion was made by Fuzheado at the bottom of this section. Jenks24 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


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. Brandmeistertalk 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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? [16] --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)
[17]. 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)
He can say whatever he wants but until this becomes official policy it's just blowing smoke - which politicians do all the time. Volunteer Marek  22:44, 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)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you disagree with something, please say so, but personal attacks are not appropriate. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:47, 15 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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)
This was planed long before and they thought Jihadi John's death will be good as a tigger. < what about put it like this? whith some logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

this is more to Vienna Talk today 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:25, 15 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)
Update: The Daily Beast, alas, did not realize the trouble with the translation. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 16 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) [18] -- 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[19] 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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

I wanted to add that some parts of the world (United States in my area) have called these attacks 5-11/20 (5 Attacks in November 2015) 32BitNick (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We would need evidence in the form of citations of reliable sources that state this. Personally I think even if true, at this time this is trivia. Most of the world doesn't really give a d*mn what catchy name someone not on the scene might dream up for this horrific event. They are still trying to cope with the reality. General Ization Talk 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
In my part of the US, we call the day of the attacks "Friday the 13th." ;) (But seriously, yes, reliable sources are needed.) epic genius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference error

Reference #40 (labelled "reuterstimeline") is repeatedly used in "Timeline of attack" box, but never defined. Could someone fix it? Thanks. --Vachovec1 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortly before your post I restored the definition of this and another reference from a revision in the page history.[20] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Firebrace (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic State, Wall street connection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)
I'll disagree with Abductive's rephrasing. This needs attribution. As currently written, we're just inviting an "According to whom?" tag. The previous language was fine imo. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Notice: This subject is being discussed above at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 1#Discretionary sanctions. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I find this debate perplexing - what could the WSJ piece refer to when it says "Islamic State" other than ISIL? I was the one who originally put in "According to the Wall Street Journal" because someone had put in that line without attribution, which I found irresponsible. If you look at the full quote, you can see why you need attribution because it's a lot of speculation even on the WSJ's part: "Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks on a social media account but didn’t provide specific information that would allow the claim to be verified. It said the attacks were retaliation for French airstrikes against the group in Syria and Iraq." [21] Can you see now that you cannot simply write that sentence without attribution? It is even short of being "verified" by WSJ's standards. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added another source that says that the IS might have committed the attacks for that reason. Also, IS = ISIS = ISIL, so I don't know what the OP is talking about. epic genius (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

why not reoword to French position The midleestern folks are very sensitive to sex. :also explain what was the (imo somehow marginal) French role. They did say they will send aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, but they did not. So do this 'abkar' suiciders realy want France to commit those role?
logic in reverse, perhaps u geting this form mas media 70.195.65.120 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks/Archive_1&oldid=690872835"