Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LjL (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 22 November 2015 (→‎Poland's response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

Proposed merge with November 2015 Paris attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep the pages separate, with 3 in favor of merging and 19 against. Important reactions can be handpicked and added to the main article as their significance becomes clear. Ignatzmice•talk 15:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attack is a content fork of November 2015 Paris attacks. No reason why the reactions shouldn't be in that article, like with other international events. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- there's a page for "International reactions to September 11 attacks", why not for this attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because September 11 attacks is 180 KB, and November 2015 Paris attacks is only 40 KB. The September 11 attacks page is already too long. epic genius (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As you can see here. There are many articles similar to this. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These articles exist because the original page was too long. In this situation, that isn't the case. epic genius (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Too new, and not needed right now per WP:SIZE. epic genius (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC) DELETE THIS ARTICLE. It is cruft. epic genius (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Changing my !vote Oppose now due to the article size. epic genius (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Maybe reconsider at end of this month, November. Qexigator (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Page is currently too new and too small to require a separate Wikipedia article for reactions from various other nations. Having said that, if a single article eventually becomes too large to contain all the notable encyclopedic summary of the matter, the page can be quite easily split then. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is now transcluded to the main article. The transclusion could be undone at the end of the month if the main article or this one gets too big. For that reason, we should not "wait until the end of this month," because what if the article doesn't expand? epic genius (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A split seems inevitable anyway per article WP:SIZE. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - highly notable event that needs a separate article with reactions.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The event itself is notable, the reactions for the most part are, for a for a lack of better word, standard and are not notable. --207.172.184.157 (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - as it is right now, it could easily be merged with the main article. But what is the point, as this is regarding a major event with big potential for much expansion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose We have a consensus not to use an anodyne list of condolences (which is what this is) on the main article. It would be highly inappropriate therefore to merge it against this consensus. Furthermore, this article cannot be a list of quotes as Wikipedia does not do this, though Wikiquote may be able to host such an article. WP:OVERQUOTE may be of interest here. But no, the material should certainly not be merged. --John (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose It is usual practice for major terrorist incidents to have their own reactions article. Needs to be improved with more reactions globally. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Two different but related topics. Volunteer Marek  14:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Frankly, the only argument presented thus far in favour of a merge is "I don't like it". Personally, I prefer the separation of reactions from the article in cases like this - the reaction sections are generally meaningless cruft that only detracts from the main article. Placing it in its own article helps this one retain focus. Resolute 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging this with the main article would make it way too long and bulky. The reactions belong here. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Run-of-the-mill reactions, not notable; my druthers would be, in fact, to delete this article altogether, without merging, but that doesn't seem to be standard practice. As people have been saying on the talk page for the main article, if a world leader offers concrete support (logistics, food, money) that might deserve a mention on the main article. Currently there is a boilerplate statement on the main article to the effect of "many world leaders offered condolences", which is good enough for me. Ignatzmice•talk 14:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all the good reasons already mentioned above. AugustinMa (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While 9/11 was a more deadly and more destructively devastating attack, this is the French equivalent. There will be much to learn about these attacks, and much written. Anything outside of the story of the attacks should be in a separate article.   Spartan7W §   14:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Oppose As a developing news event, the reactions may develop even quicker than the story, and may include anything from U2's concert schedule to tonight's US Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate. Wait for the information to develop, then decide whether the merge is warranted. MMetro (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Not the same scale as 9/11.  — Calvin999 15:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This attack has been likened to the 2008 Mumbai attack which has the page Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks with verbatim country quotes with flag bullets as a section. This can easily be expanded to "Reactions" mentioning social media and other issues if there is too much material in the main article. -- Callinus (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for all the reasons given above. Splitting lists like these out into their own articles prevents these lists from overwhelming the articles they relate to. -- The Anome (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if this collection of quotes needs to be given at all, then it shouldn't clutter the main article. LjL (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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: page moved early per unanimous consensus (the only "oppose" vote seemed to focus on the fact that a redirect would do the job with no need to change page title, not on an actual opposition to the change). LjL (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requested move/end must be substituted

International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks → Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks – This attack has been likened to the 2008 Mumbai attack which has the page Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. I think International reactions should be made a section, with other sections for wider coverage of social media and reactions in the article, similarly to the article "Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks". The social media phrases have included "Peace for Paris" and "Pray for Paris" as well as phrases like "Je Suis Parisien" which has a longer history (Je Suis Charlie, Ich bin ein Berliner, After the September 11 attacks a France 2 journalist said "Tonight, we are all Americans" ("Ce soir, nous sommes tous Américains") -- Callinus (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: as long as it isn't a license to include the "what Justin Beiber commented about the attacks" kind of information. LjL (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's "Bieber." Anyway, not many people are going to care what celebrities say. The focus is on the wider public. epic genius (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's already covered under WP:DUE and WP:ONUS. I was more thinking coverage like on Je Suis Charlie, which includes short paragraphs on some professional media reactions.-- Callinus (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided that the social media reaction, etc. is moved here. epic genius (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I think redirect will solve this small issue, no need to change it. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, if it would be best for the article to be at a given title, then it should be moved to the given title, not be "solved" by redirects. LjL (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This will give room for expansion for the article. Things like the impact of the Islamic community in France, could be useful to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impact is not "reaction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support - Would be helpful in keeping some of the reaction bloat out of the main article. The Mumbai case is a good comparison. Ceosad (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Should allow for some reactions to be moved from main article to this. Hollth (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support depending on if other pages also use this same naming scheme. Kiwifist (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no need until there is a time that French reactions to the November 2015 Paris attack splits off —МандичкаYO 😜 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was thinking the same exact thing as you were. Buffaboy talk 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Have a single section for popular/social reaction

At some point, November 2015 Paris attacks#Social media and popular reactions must have been copied and pasted (by the way, WP:Copying within Wikipedia, anybody?) into this article, and now both sections are being edited independently. If we're going to have this article cover reactions in general (see above section), it all should be merged here. In any case, it should be in one place. I've added merge templates accordingly. LjL (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was an easy way to merge the two articles while having them still say the same thing. I transcluded the section from here to the main article. epic genius (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The goal should be to use summary style on the main article. -- Callinus (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the transclusion that's currently being done, so I say stay this with the transclusion and remove the merge tag. If the section gets so overloaded with information with the main article that it carries excessive weight then the main article's version can be changed to a summary. --Pine✉ 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

User:Callinus has engaged in edit-warring and violated the WP:3RR by removing a paragraph about Facebook allowing its users to change their profile pictures to the colours of the French flag and introducing a safety check-in system on the grounds of "narcissism" despite it having been reverted by multiple editors. AusLondonder (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then report them on WP:ANEW if you think that's warranted. Do we really care here? LjL (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making a point here User:LjL? AusLondonder (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just did. Report it in the right place. This is not it. LjL (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is just not right. Matters of edit-warring should be raised with editors before a report is made. I cannot re-add the material without violating WP:3RR myself. Stop being so petty, by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then raise it on their user talk page. Here, you can raise the issue of whether the material should or should not be included, but just accusing users of violating 3RR (or being petty) is gratuitously inflamatory. LjL (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You respond to my post with "do we really care" and now tell me I am being "gratuitously inflamatory" for daring to say, correctly, than an editor has violated WP:3RR. Check page edit history if you don't believe me. What is your problem? AusLondonder (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondoner is correct - edit wars (not involving trolls/vandals/serial reverters) should be brought up on talk page to gain consensus. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic State

The Islamic State has made a statement claiming responsibility. Should it be included in the article and if so how should it be worded?Brahmavihara Bhavana (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is already included in the main November 2015 Paris attacks where it much more logically belongs... LjL (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An international response is an international response. As an encyclopedia, should we not make ourselves dispassionate and report all notable and verifiable responses regardless of their evil actions? Brahmavihara Bhavana (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is merely that we shouldn't be duplicating information. This particular bit of information is vital enough to stay on the main article. LjL (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be only a few bytes of data. The main article only describes the statement. I was maybe thinking of maybe putting the full statement on this page. Would that be too much? As demented as their actions are, I'm sure there are some people who would like to read and understand their words straight from the horse's mouth. Brahmavihara Bhavana (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a super-strong opinion. Add it if you want, if people don't want it you'll notice real quick. LjL (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is being back-and-forth'd again, and I have a somewhat stronger opinion now. It shouldn't be included in "reactions". They're the perpetrators and they made a declaration of motives, which is included in the main article. It isn't part of "international responses", it's an admission of guilt. LjL (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The perpetrators don't change the reaction of the attack in this case as the international reactions happened before anyone claimed responsibility so mentioning it might be redundant. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction of Syria/Assad is missing

http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article148847727/Assad-macht-Westen-fuer-Terror-in-Paris-mitverantwortlich.html http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Assad-macht-Frankreich-mitverantwortlich-article16354556.html

(He blames also the West.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poland and/or Latvia and the refugees

What are, as of now, unofficial statements, by government officials speaking in a private capacity - with some of the statements already being withdrawn or toned down by other government officials - about the Syrian refugees neither belong in this article due to WP:SCOPE nor because quite simply this is an ongoing situation and WP:NOTNEWS.

I got to say also that trying to utilize this tragedy to push POV on Wikipedia is quite obnoxious. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What POV? Care to explain. As someone living in Poland I assure you that our politicians have our security in mind, nothing else, perhaps it is confusing to somebody from another country, where this might be interpreted according to some internal disputes it is having.

Anyway this was already discussed and deemed notable btw, even before we had numerous RS available like The Independent, Newsweek or CNBC. Here is my question which I have asked before putting the information in article. All users were of opinion that if we have RS it should be included. 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? Perhaps you should ask your questions there. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit it with the personal attacks - you know what I'm talking about since I've asked you repeatedly, as have other users, to stop making these.
And no, it was not "deemed notable". And because you blatantly misrepresented the sources - making it seem like this was some kind of official policy of the Polish government rather than just one politician mouthing off online, some editors might have gotten the wrong idea.
And no, "if we have RS it should be included" is not Wikipedia policy. RS is a NECESSARY not a sufficient condition for inclusion. If it's off topic, if it violates WP:NOTNEWS, if the RS in question is being misrepresented then it shouldn't be included. Volunteer Marek  22:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you move your concerns to the appropriate page where this was already discussed [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? I am open to amending the paragraph to point out who exactly said what and what was stated.Your claim "one politician mouthing off online, some editors might have gotten the wrong idea" is just a personal view not supported by Reliable Sources. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the official position of the Polish government? No? Is it just a statement online by one politician? Yes? What you are calling "original research" is just an accurate description of the sources. It's YOU who's misrepresenting the source to make this sound as if it was an official policy when it's not. THAT's ... not even just original research but blatant misrepresentation of sources.
And again, WP:NOTNEWS. All the he said she said then he said again can be hashed out once the government actually decides upon an official response. There is really no reason why any of it - particularly when it's inaccurate - absolutely must be in this article, especially since it's more or less of topic. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This should stay, it's reported by sources as something that not "politicians", but ministers (European affairs or foreign ministers), said, and they're reported as saying these things in direct relation to the attack, so there's no conceivable reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. It's much more relevant than the hilarious amount of "condolescences", too. LjL (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, following WP:NOTNEWS we should wait for an official response. There is no need to include it, it's not encyclopedic, both the situation and sources are being misrepresented and it's not directly relevant to the topic.
And btw, calling "condolences" "hilarious" ? Really? That sort of shows where you're coming from. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I called the amount hilarious. You seem to have neglected reading some words, just like you seem to have neglected reading the parts of November 2015 Paris attacks that you deleted where Czech statements (and not just Polish ones, as you snarked at me on your edit summary) were included. LjL (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, cuz that actually makes it better. Volunteer Marek 
Right, User:Volunteer Marek. Let me get this clear. It is "utilising a tragedy" for editors to insert well-sourced and highly notable comments by senior politicians utilising a tragedy? Irony bypass? Or letting your own obvious POV show? AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is "utilising a tragedy" to use this article to push a certain view about the current refugee crisis in Europe. Who's POV is obvious then?  Volunteer Marek  22:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I have no idea what POV you are talking about. We are just covering what major media news sources covered regarding Poland's reaction to the attacks. It is widely covered by Reliable Sources. Whatever POV you have in mind, it is unknown unless you elaborate, but I believe irrelevant to the article in question.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My POV is simply that it's a very big deal if an EU minister announces plans to stop following an EU agreement (like the refugee scheme) or an even more binding treaty (like Schengen). LjL (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if and when the government stops following an EU agreement then I agree, it WILL BE a very big deal. And then I'll be the first one to put it in (though I'm not so sure it belongs in this particular article). But until that happens (and the fact that it is a EU agreement suggests that it won't, and this is just a politician blowing smoke, like Trump on deporting American citizens of Mexican ancestry) we should err on the side of caution and keep it out. Volunteer Marek  23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it is the relevant minister of the country involved that stated this and not "one politician", no matter how much you keep using that label, and that makes it entirely different. And of course it belongs to the "reactions" section of the article, given it was stated in direct reference to the attacks. LjL (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this information needs to stay as it was widely covered and concerns a major international situation. Also please note that VM is wrong in his claims "Is this the official position of the Polish government? No? Is it just a statement online by one politician? " If you go to The Independent you will see that VM is wrong. Here is what The Independent writes "Poland has signalled it will retreat on an EU-wide quota commitment to relocate migrants across the continent" "Konrad Szymanski, Poland’s incoming European affairs minister, said his government did not agree" "In a separate interview for RMF FM radio, Mr Szymanski added". [1] So yes, Reliable Sources are treating it as position of the government, and Minister Szymanski also said it its position.The statement wasn't made just online but in fact repeated on radio broadcast as well. All in all definitely notable and covered by RS--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marek on this. Until an official statement is made it ought to be covered under wp:recentism. Hollth (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MyMoloboaccount. This information is relevant and should stay in the article. Dorpater (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the consensus that it is noteworthy and should stay. Volunteer Marek is out of line here. 98.67.190.14 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney Opera House French Tricolour.jpg

Per discussion at files for discussion, this photo is almost certainly a copyright violation. Especially given the high traffic on this article, it should be removed. Kelly hi! 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed it. Kelly hi! 00:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I estimate this article is about 50% quoted material. There are problems with our free licence when we include this much quoted material. As a rule, this should be no higher than 10% in an encyclopedia article, though obviously Wikiquote may like to host some of the quotes as that is what they do. We, as an encyclopedia, use summary style to include material, not full quotes. --John (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the case when the quotes come from dozens of different sources? Can you cite policy? AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't touch the topic of whether the article's style is editorially appropriate, but I take issue with the concept that there are license problems. The separate quotes, from different personalities, are very brief, which is much more important copyright-wise than the amount of them. Fair use would most likely apply, even if it somehow didn't apply due to the fact that they are short declarations from heads of state to the entire world, which makes any copyright problems virtually non-existent. LjL (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with placing things in prose? Many of the quotes say the same thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome that whenever possible, especially if it means that several countries' statements could be condensed into "X, Y, Z, ... offered their condolences." LjL (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose that. It makes the article far too bulky and less user-friendly. The current format is the usual practice see International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 or International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation for example. A whole category tree exists Category:International reactions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may oppose that, but you do so against policy, regardless of how many potentially policy-breaking articles already exist. LjL (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR applies here but WP:NOTQUOTE states "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe this page meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A page can meet WP:GNG, and still be deleted for failing other Wikipedia policies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, broadly speaking, the chances of that happening are rare, because even if an article is "bad", but the topic is notable, policy says the article should not be deleted, but merely improved. LjL (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you are right in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which you are, the article is kept =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a "quotefarm" - even the listing by country has some paraphrasing and short quotes. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of copyrighted material do you think it is? And how does that match with our mission of free material? --John (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What planet do you live on? —МандичкаYO 😜 19:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:John - how much of this is more than 10% of one copyright source? AusLondonder (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John: look, you can have many good reasons to have doubts about this "quotefarm", but copyright really shouldn't be one of them. Copyright really doesn't apply to any short statement said by a person. Copyright involves a "work". A newspaper article is a work, but a short statement of condolences or declaration by a world leader is, by any notion of common sense, not. The content is perfectly free. LjL (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright problem here, at least in the US. These are short quotes individually, and the statements were made with the express purpose of being reproduced as widely as possible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
There may be no legal problem, but our mission is to go beyond the legal minimum in creating free content. An article like this which consists of about 50% other people's work, is against our norms and our mission, even if we are unlikely to be sued for it. I recognise that it somehow makes people feel better in the wake of some awful event to post these meaningless flag-bedecked condolence pages, but it does not bring back the dead and it is not what we are here for. --John (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, with great respect, User:John you have lost that argument. I feel it may be time to move on. AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not other people's "work". It's reporting leaders' declarations. This doesn't fall under the legal definition of "work", and I feel at this point that your idea of "going beyond the legal minimum" is more geared towards not including what you don't like for other reasons unrelated to copyright-related "freedom". LjL (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Banner

We cannot use the Ulster Banner to symbolise Northern Ireland, see Flag of Northern Ireland. It is like using the Confederate flag to symbolise the Southern United States. --John (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked claims that the UK government itself has been known to use the Saint Patrick's Saltire to specifically represent Northern Ireland, so that would seem like the natural choice. LjL (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. The problem really is that, as the article states, Northern Ireland doesn't currently have a flag, and all the possible choices are regarded as insulting to some sector of the population or other. Not to mention WP:NOR. Wikipedia consensus is not to use a flag for NI, except for football and maybe one or two other sporting contexts. --John (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know about any previous consensus, but how would it be WP:OR if the government's using it? Is it also WP:OR to state what a country's anthem is when it's technically unofficial, for instance? LjL (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The government sometimes uses the Union Jack and (occasionally) the saltire. It is a matter of controversy, hence the consensus to use no flag. --John (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Firstly, it really is nothing like using a pro-slavery flag. To say it is trivialises the evil of the Confederate flag and slavery. I would be happy with the Union flag being used as it is the official flag of the UK and therefore Northern Ireland. If the Saltire is used by the government that would be appropriate as well, surely. AusLondonder (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to that policy, User:John? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMOS FLAGS. --John (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But does that prohibit the use of the Saltire or the Union flag in this context? AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --John (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation. I don't think it does, actually AusLondonder (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It quite clearly does. The only exception it allows is for organizations that use a NI-representing flag to represent themselves, not for NI itself. LjL (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've changed your tune, then. But it talks about organisations, teams and people. It does not say the Union Jack can't be used in list alongside Northern Ireland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed nothing, if you actually read the course of this discussion. I was also not aware of the policy until John linked it; now that I'm aware of it, I can read what it says and interpret it. LjL (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, back to being insulting again I see. "if you actually read" "I can read what it says and interpret it". Again, why do you find the need to be so consistently pettily insulting? AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:John or User:LjL could you clarify what specifically in that policy prevents the Union Jack being used on a list to represent Northern Ireland? AusLondonder (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I call myself out of this debate because I think you are now making it personal: the policy is there for everyone to read, so I'm done (try not making personal, and false, statements like "you've changed your tune" if you don't want personal responses, maybe). LjL (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think "You've changed your tune" is a personal statement? Did I call you a name? Did I swear at you? No. You did change your tune. Initially, you said the Saltire "would seem like the natural choice". I understand you didn't know the policy, but you still did change your tune. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These criticisms on this article by people who wanted it deleted are amazing... The Ulster flag is NOT the equivalent of the Confederate flag for christ's sake! The Ulster flag is the national flag used by Northern Irish athletes. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And for that matter, the Confederate flag is only being seen as synonym for slavery with a modern eye, and wasn't seen as that by anyone in its time, except perhaps as propaganda. But you know, people need to be dramatic. LjL (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly. But anyway, we can't use this flag. --John (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was used by groups fighting for the right to continue slavery. Let's not be pedantic, User:LjL AusLondonder (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Muslim response is unnecessary

Some Muslim reactions were on Twitter, so they can be characterized as "Popular reactions". Other reactions come from countries, and they should be listed alongside those countries.

Rather, I think there should be a section on "religious response", especially since there's been a response from Pope Francis (who is a global religious leader).VR talk 16:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the section, it doesn't seem accurate to me that most of the reactions "come from countries", unless you mean that they originated in a country, which is true for pretty much anything outside of Antarctica, international waters and space. At the same time, changing the section header into "Religious response" might be a good idea, as more inclusive and less POV-specific. LjL (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are responses form Muslim groups. These are not necessarily religious responses. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
They are certainly "religion-related". Do you have a better term? "Responses from religious groups"? LjL (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this attack was perpetrated by Islamic extremists trying to hijack a religion and start a Holy War, I believe this is a valid section. The reaction of Muslim groups is notable by the dedicated press coverage. Plus besides the Pope, there is no other religious response. It's not like Shinto or Amish groups are issuing statements. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Мандичка's viewpoint, I think that the section is relevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also supposed to be a section dedicated to the reactions regarding their religion as a whole. The section should stay. Kiwifist (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

They are colourful, but probably unnecessary decoration. Can we remove them? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The problem as I see it is not with the flags, but with the verbatim quoting of many equivalent statements. I'd leave the flags there, per se. Those are not a problem. LjL (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The flags are as pointless as the verbatim equivalent statements. So, too, is the long list of buildings that were illuminated. We're going crazy here with another NOTNEWS article. We could cut something like 50 per cent of this article simply by referencing one or two BBC news stories, eg: this. I despair of this place more and more every day. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, but as long as the extensive per-country citations are given, then the accompanying flags make sense. LjL (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my link to the MOSFLAG guideline? - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure which section of that you're thinking would apply here. The main thing I see is "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.", which I read as supporting their use here. Perhaps you'd care to quote me the parts you have in mind? LjL (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the bit you cite says may, not must. Then there is

Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative.

A bullet-pointed alphabetised list is all that is required for decent navigation, especially since the list should be massively pruned also. We're not a child's colouring book and do not need the extra visual clues. Honestly, use of flag icons is generally deprecated outside of sports and military articles. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sheer length of the list (which may need to be addressed), I'd say any items that "serve as visual cues" to aid the reader should be used here to help. "Generally deprecated" doesn't mean much, when AFAIK, most of the other "Reactions" articles have these flags... not saying such predecents override policy, but policy plainly doesn't forbid any of this. "May" doesn't mean "must", but it certainly doesn't mean "may not". LjL (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the flags. They are standard in international response articles and I see no reason to remove them. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) But even you seem to think that the list shouldn't be as long as it is, and the rest of your arguments seem equally contradictory, specious ("may not"?) or irrelevant (other articles have adopted this idiotic idea). Plus, removing them neatly avoids the Northern Ireland issue referred to above. You really, really do not want to get involved in the UK/Ireland etc palaver in any form unless you have a deep understanding of the issues. (I'm a Brit and even I don't understand a lot of the to-ing and fro-ings that go on - IIRC, Gladstone once bemoaned of the failure of his Third Home Rule Bill that "every time I answer the Irish Question, they change the question".) - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one flag is problematic must not be an excuse to remove them all - that should be a general principle on Wikipedia. The policy not only doesn't say that flags "may not" be used, but actually (see above quote I gave) provides an explanation of when it's appropriate to use them that seems to match this article's usages. That the list should be shorter is a separate issue that doesn't need to be confused with this at all. LjL (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support keeping the flags. Flags not appropriate in many contexts, but this is one of the few occasions in which they are suitable according to policy and precedent. Suggesting because of the Northern Ireland issue we should remove all flags is ludicrous. Stop trashing this article. See Category:International reactions and the related category trees. AusLondonder (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flags are awful, but they are the least of this article's problems. It is a quotefarm, full of largely identical anodyne quotes. It violates so many policies that the flagcruft is not worth bothering about. We can leave it here and horrible for a few weeks until people lose interest and move onto another story, then those of us who know what we are doing can trim it back to more like a Wikipedia article. At the moment it fulfils the role of a dumping ground for all this trash; better here than on the main article, I suppose. --John (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good thought, John. This thing is a complete mess of trivia seemingly driven by over-eager and/or inexperienced people. I've watchlisted it and hopefully will be in better health in a few weeks' time. It looks likely that the same treatment may be needed at other articles in the category that AusLondonder mentions. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)User:John - please stop threatening to over-ride community consensus. I, for one, am not going anywhere. Again, long-running consensus supports these articles - see Category:International reactions. Your conduct has been unbecoming. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The flags, while not terribly important, still serve some use in helping distinguish the different countries. Clearly are not for decorative measures, I don't know why some deltionist editors come up with that lame excuse to remove them. Still I agree that many of the quotes and content are excessive. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletionist? Moi? ROFL. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      • Keep Flags allow quick identification of countries for readers. I never understand why some editors hate the use of flags on Wikipedia. Cantab12 (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop WP:POINTy disruption

A number of editors have an issue with the concept of this article, mostly citing policies that can easily be contradicted by other policies. A long-running consensus exists behind these articles. Stop being WP:POINTy and nominate all the articles in Category:International reactions for deletion and see how it goes. Don't try and kill this article by a million cuts in the meantime. AusLondonder (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, doing that thing you suggest would be WP:POINTy. LjL (talk)"
No, it would be starting a broader discussion about the existence of such articles. It is more POINTy to find petty issues here and try and over-ride community consensus through the back door. AusLondonder (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has survived AfD, so what is your problem? The "concept" is resolved for a few months at least; the style is the current issue. Articles such as this always end up being forgotten about once the initial surge of silliness has happened, and that's when the clean up can probably best take place. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2)It's already been settled as keeping the article. I still don't agree with it but if that was the community decision, I can't push my opinion further. I've tried multiple times over the past year to get the ball rolling on these discussions and this is the first time there's been considerable input (granted the vast majority was simply "keep because precedent"). I'm just not going to edit this article. Simple enough on my end. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My problem User:Sitush, is that people such as User:John (and now yourself) have specifically stated their intention to "clean-up" this article (ie changing the concept endorsed by the community) once people have "forgotten". AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, maybe some editors could quite clearly state right now what it is they wish to remove? AusLondonder (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, and it often does with news-related articles once the blow-ins have moved on and people become more rational/less emotional about the news event itself. You'll only learn this through years of experience here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush I've been here almost 10 years, even longer than you have, and AusLondonder is right IMO. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: The majority of those in opposition to this article agree on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which was brought up in the deletion discussion. The article is mostly statements of condolence and endless quotes of such from talking heads. It drowns out actual actions taken by nations to help France and curb the overall issue of Islamic terrorism. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is a "recent event" article that is still evolving and changing fairly rapidly. Certain editors who referred to this article as "Dreadful, worthless garbage" that will "function as a septic tank" should perhaps find something more constructive to do than slapping templates all over this. Studying the history of the Confederate Flag would be a start. And Cyclonebiskit those who argued this article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE at the AFD were not making a good argument; this was a Snow keep. So clearly that argument does not reflect consensus. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)User:Sitush. I'm not a "blow-in" nor am I being "irrational" or "emotional". If a change in consensus is sought the only approprate way would be through a new deletion nom, not a underhand death-by-a-thousand-cuts operation. AusLondonder (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Wikimandia: I disagree severely with your assessment. The majority of arguments to keep were hollow at best. They stemmed from high-strung emotions in the wake of a tragedy and based themselves on precedent (as in they voted keep solely because other articles exist), which is an awful argument when discussing the actual merits of a topic. I'll let your subtle jab at myself and other editors opposing slide just this once. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention your name, AusLondoner. You do, however, seem to be mistaking consensus for what is included in the article with consensus for whether or not an article about the subject should exist. And even on that latter point, the closer of the AfD did note that a reassessment might be necessary when things calm down. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cyclonebiskit - Nice that you are letting a "subtle jab" pass, like I let your "subtle jab" at emotional irrational blow-ins pass. AusLondonder (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonebiskit if you really think that is true, then feel free to nominate any past "reaction to...." article. Surely those high-strung emotions in the wake of the tragedy have long subsided, right? Surely people are much more level-headed by now. Go to Category:International reactions and start knocking out those AfDs one by one! I look forward to your nominations. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: That would be a clear violation of WP:POINT. As I've stated, directly or indirectly three times already, I have no intention of pursuing deletion again. Furthermore I don't feel the need to bite into the bait your tossing my way to provoke improper actions on my part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonebiskit How would that be a violation of WP:POINT? I've seen many AfDs in which subject is not notable in the long-term but seemed notable at the time. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots (2nd nomination).) I fail to see how I'm baiting you into something improper. I would like to see you demonstrate that these are being kept because of "high-strung emotions in the wake of the tragedy" and would be very interested in the AfD response. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go on. How about someone nominate at least one for deletion. Many, many more exist. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my previous comment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. AusLondonder, you seem upset. Why not have a cup of tea? --John (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hah AusLondonder great minds think alike. Roll up your sleeves and get to work Cyclonebiskit, if you really think you are correct about the "emotional" response. Sitush it's already been stated: WP:NOTQUOTE says, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." Feel free to add UK police involvement. As I said above, this article is continually evolving as it's in relation to a current event, so more actionable reactions will be forthcoming. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last comment on this thread. It's hardly constructive, for all parties involved, and wasting everyone's time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated

I have been convinced by Sitush, Cyclonebiskit and others that these articles are essentially just holding grounds for crap that can be cut out at a later time in order to keep the main article. Therefore, since the above articles have already had much time for their events to settle down, I have nominated them for deletion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. hopefully this will settle the matter. At least you have the guts and integrity to seek community consensus rather than simply seek to ignore the community consensus now the events have passed and kill the articles by a thousands cuts. AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem not to understand consensus, AusLondoner. Watch and learn over the next few months and keep your mind open - it is a weird concept and consensus to keep an article is not consensus for content of an article itself. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for this, well, unless you have a reliable source that says Castro can see into the future, the words are completely irrelevant and the phrasing plain silly. He couldn't have sent the message unless he had heard of the event. D'oh. - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand consensus. Which is why these articles that have been nominated, most of which consist entirely of quotes will be interesting. Re Castro people wanted more prose style, not just direct quotes, User:Sitush. I am consensus building. Quotes and prose. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have now reverted me again without seeking consensus here despite telling others to do so about the buildings? Are you serious? How about you stop edit-warring and trying to damage the page to assist your argument for deleting/butchering it later. AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[redacted insult]. Your accusations are baseless, your writing style is atrocious. Prose means prose, not fluff. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) (edited by Fences&Windows 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • For general discussion of "International reaction" articles, I wrote an essay a while back at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these articles and some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. Fences&Windows 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the AFD's that are nominated; most of all the nominations have no base whatsoever and seem like they could have been discussed in a simple on-the-talk-page of the article or even an RFC. Quite literally I'm against all of those nominations because all it seems that they have been nominated for having problems in the articles that can be completely fixed without even talking about it. They all pass WP:GNG and all it seems like they are doing is making a point on the articles rather than actually reaching some sort of real consensus. Adog104 Talk to me 02:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities that stood in solidarity with paris

The following section was deleted by Sitush in their cleanup of the article:

Following the attacks, multiple landmark structures around the world were lit in the colours of the French flag, including the spire of One World Trade Center in New York City, the London Eye and Tower Bridge in London,[1][2] Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus in Mumbai (one of the targets of the 2008 Mumbai attacks),[3] the CN Tower in Toronto,[4] the Sky Tower in Auckland,[5] the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin,[6] the Sydney Opera House in Sydney,[7] the Space Needle and CenturyLink Field in Seattle,[8][9] Presidential Administration of Georgia, Tbilisi City Assembly and The Bridge of Peace in Tbilisi,[10] the Ángel de la Independencia in Mexico City,[11] the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai,[12][13] the Kuala Lumpur Tower,[14] the Wembley Stadium arch in London,[15] Petřín Lookout Tower in Prague,[16] Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw,[17] Matenadaran in Yerevan,[18] the Museum of Contemporary Art in Zagreb,[19] National Music Academy in Kiev,[20] the Acropolis of Athens,[21] the Peristeri City Hall,[22] the Tower of Belém in Lisbon,[23][24] the Castle of the Moors,[23] the Sintra City Hall[23] and the Rivoli Theatre in Porto,[23] Portugal, the city hall in Tel Aviv[25], the Old City walls[26] and the Knesset[27] in Jerusalem, the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro[28], Belfast City Hall,[29], the Torre Colpatria in Bogotá[30], the Brussels Town Hall[31], Ghelamco Arena[32] the Arctic Cathedral in Tromsø[33], Telenor Arena in Bærum[33], the Bratislava Castle in Bratislava,[34] Three Crosses in Vilnius and the Ostankino Tower in Moscow[35]. In Montreal, a sister city of Paris and the second-largest French-speaking city in the world, numerous buildings and landmarks were illuminated including the Olympic Stadium, city hall, the former Saint-Jacques Cathedral building of the Université du Québec à Montréal, the Grande Bibliothèque, the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal and Place Émilie-Gamelin.[36][37], and the High Roller ferris wheel in Las Vegas, Nevada, next to the Paris Las Vegas Casino that had dimmed the lights on their Eiffel Tower replica to honor victims.[38]

References

  1. ^ "Paris terror attack: Syrian passport found on attacker was used to seek asylum in Greece as one Briton confirmed dead". Telegraph.co.uk. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  2. ^ "Lord Mayor's show in London marks Paris attacks". BBC News. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  3. ^ "Paris attacks: World monuments light up in blue, white and red in solidarity with France". Times Of India Blogs. 15 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  4. ^ Nighswander, Matthew (14 November 2015). "One World Trade Center Spire Glows in French Colors to Honor Paris". NBC News. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  5. ^ "Sky Tower to light up for France". New Zealand Herald. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  6. ^ "France vows to punish ISIS for Paris attacks that kill 127". wwlp.com. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  7. ^ "Paris terror attacks: Sydney Opera House lit in show of solidarity". The Australian. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  8. ^ Garnick, Coral (14 November 2015). "French flag flies atop Space Needle". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  9. ^ "Seahawks light CenturyLink Field in French colors".
  10. ^ "Presidential Palace, Tbilisi City Council Lit Up in French Colors". Civil Georgia.
  11. ^ "Monumentos del DF se iluminan en solidaridad con Francia". La Jornada. 13 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  12. ^ "上海地标东方明珠今晚亮起"法兰西色"-搜狐" [Shanghai landmark Oriental Pearl tonight lit "French colour"] (in Chinese). mt.sohu.com. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  13. ^ "Paris attacks: buildings around the world are lit up in honour of the victims of Friday 13". The Guardian. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  14. ^ "Facebook". 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  15. ^ Fernando, Gavin (14 November 2015). "Famous world landmarks are being lit up in red, white and blue in solidarity with France". Herald Sun. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  16. ^ "Attentats de Paris : les dirigeants tchèques expriment leur solidarité" (in French). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  17. ^ "Pałac Kultury w barwach Francji, "Paris, Paris" na Narodowym". tvn24.pl.
  18. ^ "Երեւանը սգում է Փարիզի հետ" [Yerevan is mourning with Paris]. Yerkir.am (in Armenian). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  19. ^ "'ZAGREB FOR PARIS' MSU u bojama Francuske, gradonačelnik Bandić pozvao na zajedništvo". Zagreb.info. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  20. ^ "Pray for Paris. National Music Academy was highlighted in colors of the national flag of France". 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  21. ^ "ΕΠΙΘΕΣΗ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΙΣΙ: Και η Ακρόπολη στα χρώματα της Γαλλίας" [ATTACK IN PARIS: Acropolis in the colors of France]. http://hellasforce.com (in Greek). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
  22. ^ "Στα χρώματα της γαλλικής σημαίας το Δημαρχείο Περιστερίου!" [The Peristeri City Hall at the French flag colors] (in Greek). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  23. ^ a b c d "Torre de Belém junta-se ao resto do mundo e veste as cores francesas" [Tower of Belém joins the rest of the world and dresses with the French colours] (in Portuguese). Diário de Notícias. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  24. ^ "Torre de Belém tricolor: a solidariedade portuguesa" [Tricoloured Tower of Belém: Portuguese solidarity] (in Portuguese). Público. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  25. ^ "Hundreds Gather in Tel Aviv for Paris Solidarity Rally". 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  26. ^ "Jerusalem to light Old City walls in colors of French flag". 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  27. ^ "Knesset lit in colors of French flag as a sign of solidarity; Speaker Edelstein: "Time to declare all-out war on extremist Islamic terror"". 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  28. ^ "Cristo Redentor é iluminado com cores da França em solidariedade" (in Portuguese). G1. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  29. ^ "Paris: Belfast City Hall lit up in French colours". 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  30. ^ Mora Cédric [@CedricMora] (November 14, 2015). "#torreColpatria finally w/ French flag . Thx #bogota @EnriquePenalosa @CancilleriaCol @ELTIEMPO @France_Colombia" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  31. ^ "deredactie.be video: Het journaal - 14/11/15". deredactie.be.
  32. ^ "Ghelamco Arena kleurt blauw, wit en rood". sporza.
  33. ^ a b "Ishavskatedralen lyser for Frankrike i kveld". Dagbladet.no.
  34. ^ "Bratislavský hrad rozsvietili, u prezidenta stiahli vlajky". TERAZ.sk.
  35. ^ "В свете последних событий: Как изменились мировые столицы после терактов в Париже". Lenta.ru. 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
  36. ^ "Plusieurs sites montréalais illuminés pour rendre hommage aux victimes des attentats de Paris". Radio-Canada (in French). 15 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  37. ^ "Plusieurs édifices montréalais ont pris les couleurs de la France". TVA Nouvelles (in French). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  38. ^ Associated Press. "Paris Las Vegas Hotel dims Eiffel Tower to honor attack victims". Las Vegas Sun. Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 15 November 2015.

I think some of these mentions, however, may be marginally useful to the reader. Maybe this can be summarized in a shorter way? epic genius (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weight becomes the problem. We'll get people from every damn country wanting to include their nation's tribute(s) - seen it happen somewhere before, and similar things happen repeatedly at caste articles. It is simpler to make the broad-brush statement and link to a source that gives some examples and won't rot any time soon. That's why I added the BBC source that I linked somewhere above a few hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can mention a few of these, though. I think these sources[2][3] describe a few of the most prominent lightings. epic genius (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say let's mention that it did happen in very many cities, without giving any names; leave that to the sources, and it's pretty obvious that it happened in most major world cities even if you don't name them (which invariably causes much-less-major ones to be added). LjL (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The BBC source that is already in the article mentions a few. Sorry, but I do not understand your "though". I thought I'd already explained that as soon as we start mentioning some, we open the floodgates. The same, indeed, applies with the list of cities which, for example, got really silly at articles such as India Against Corruption. The need to give examples escapes me. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lets mention those buildings which were mentioned by the BBC and then create and SHOW/HIDE list of every single city/country. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'd just like to say that after all the editing and pruning and removing and arguing, this article now does not have any reference to the fact that many landmarks and cities around the world lit up with the French tricolour at all. I think that this is a pretty important part of an international reactions article. I'm not going to add it back in because everyone seems to prefer to be arguing than do anything else, so I'm just raising it here. Ps, I agree with Itsyoungrapper. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  22:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should implement LjL's idea with the prose, then have a collapsible list as well per Itsyoungrapper. epic genius (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content" MOS:SCROLL LjL (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone re-add at least some of the prominent buildings and images removed without consensus by Sitush AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added section back in, see International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Landmarks_lit_with_Tricolour  Seagull123  Φ  22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is better but you didn't have consensus. I'm doped on morphine so I will leave it for now, safe in the knowledge that the clued-up will eventually get their point proven. Fed up of the cluelessness that AGF insists we accept. And fed up of the snide accusations of Auslondonder - one more of those and I'll see them at ANI. Dimwit. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have consensus to remove. Not sure what snideness you are referring to. But please do file a case at Ani. Make sure you add repeatedly calling me a "dimwit" reverting my edits sourced to the German equivalent of the BBC with the edit summary of "stop being a twat" and writing on my talkpage without warning "don't be fucking stupid" AusLondonder (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "repeatedly" done any of those things. Perhaps we have a problem with the English language here? That would explain a lot. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: you aren't doing yourself a favor here. You have just been redacted by an administrator. Take a deep breath and read WP:NPA... LjL (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less about admins right now. Particularly not ones who fail to recognise that I am reacting to numerous "civil" PAs and insinuations made here in the last few hours. Admins are not gods. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't all of this just be summarized in a sentence or two someplace? All of those footnotes lumped together like that doesn't look very appealing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm seeing some serious POV here. Why hasn't anyone added that Montgomery, Alabama, lit up the fountain on Court Square in the French colors? Isn't that a prominent edifice? Or do cities in the Southern US simply don't count? Here, it's verified. And verified, and verified again. If we're going to include things we're going to have to include all things. And please do not forget to include our flag, Alabama. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: That's a good point. Maybe we should only add really major icons, like those in NYC (bias), London, Sydney, Rio (i.e. those covered by the major sources like Time and Newsweek). epic genius (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. But if it's covered by Time and Newsweek one leaves out all those places not covered by Time or Newsweek, and every single list you come up with, except a complete list, is open to the charge of selection. Pick only the notable ones. How does one define notable? Well, it's notable if it has a Wikipedia article, so I just wrote Court Square Fountain. I'm sure you see the problem--I'm not sure others do. The long and short of it is that this is not encyclopedic writing; it's simply compiling facts. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I get what you are trying to say—WP:INDISCRIMINATE. So I am suggesting that we summarize it all in one sentence or two: "Following the attacks, multiple landmark structures around the world were lit in the colours of the French flag." That can have the Time/Newsweek/etc. sources. If anyone wants to know which cities, they can go to the sources. epic genius (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know you do, Epic genius. I'm also agreeing with Sitush's edit, of course. BTW, Court Square Fountain is now up at DYK; feel free to review and send it on its way. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fortunately, I, too, had a DYK nomination, so a QPQ opened up for me. Yay. epic genius (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Let me note that, spawned from the re-added short list of major places, now there is a long list of landmarks (bulleted, even!) again. I'm almost tempted to boldly remove the whole thing again myself this time. LjL (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t want to remove the mention altogether, but we should just remove all the names of all the landmarks. epic genius (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Epicgenius:, but my specific point is that if we mention any particular landmark, then a ton of others will be added back again: this is proven by the fact that it just did happen, after they were heavily pruned the first time. So we should mention the general fact that many landmarks were lit, without naming any. LjL (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LjL: Yeah, we should really remove the landmarks list. epic genius (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoopee. What did I tell you would happen? - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition

Could someone please find synonyms for condolence and condemn. In the Government reactions (?) section, my control+F option found more than 100 words using condemn in its form, in the past tense, the present tense and as a noun. It found nearly 95 matches using condolence. Isn't that excessive and unnecessary? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies deeper than this, though this is a symptom of the problem. This article is a cesspit of anodyne quotes, drawn up without regard for notability, decorated with tiny flags and defended by a group of people who think that doing this will bring the dead back to life. It won't. It isn't a Wikipedia article but a condolences book. Introducing elegant variation isn't enough to save it. When I lived in the countryside we had a septic tank and once a year it had to be emptied. The time to clean this article up will be in a few weeks when the magical thinkers have moved on to another article. Right now, I fear there is nothing to do. --John (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote for deletion, but how is this different from International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting? 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an AFD, but at least this article contains stuff other than quotes of condemnation, censure, reproof, etc. The Charlie Hebdo reactions article only contains these quotes. epic genius (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK subnational responses.

  • How come the UK is the only country with sub-national responses/quotes - i.e. Jersey, Wales, Scotland, Guernsey. I think it is unnecessary and propose deletion. Surely the Prime Minister or the Queen speaks for the nation. Cantab12 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did other countries give sub-national responses? Did every governor of a US state, for example? 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than likely - the first three I looked at did. [1][2][3]Cantab12 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's popular for everyone to use Twitter and Facebook for important national announcements these days, but seriously, if this article about "international reactions" consisted only of Twitter statements how useful or relevant would it be? o.0 While the sub-national UK countries or whatever do include several mentions of Twitter, they also mention "formal letters of condolences", longer statements that were probably made to media, etc. They might be no more informative than those from heads of state of other countries that have a seat at the UN, but still show a deeper level of concern than a Twitter statement would. "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom"... this seems to support the case for "sub-national" statements. If they weren't acting as though their statements mattered then it would be a reason to avoid mentioning them, but they are acting as though their statements are important. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The UK is not see Hong Kong and Iraqi Kurdistan. It is relevant because these are constituent countries. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who lives in the US, I can say that I don't understand the UK, or England, or whatever. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Christie Twitter".
  2. ^ "Abbott twitter".
  3. ^ "Walker twitter".

Damascus

Added, removed, insults, etc. It also mentions many other organizations and groups in Syria denouncing the attacks. If that reference isn't acceptable, there are many more. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01: those are dead links. You can link them as external link (full URL) and they'll work. LjL (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, @2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01: I just posted about this below as well. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2601... meant en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks?diff=prev&oldid=690827871 and so on. They don't work in wikilinks. epic genius (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from Damascus

I propose to include a short mention of a letter from residents of Damascus in Syria expressing solidarity with residents of Paris. Amongst many of the less poignant reactions (such as American TV shows) this is surely a notable reaction. The source is here, Deutsche Welle. I had inserted this prior but was reverted by another editor who stated "stop being a twat and find a reliable source - this one is useless" I propose text such as: A number of residents of the Syrian city of Damascus, caught in fierce fighting between the Syrian government, ISIS and Western air strikes wrote an open letter stating, "We extend our hands to all the people that love peace and freedom, most of all the French people" AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly support inclusion (I deleted some American TV show-related reactions, by the way, as absolutely not notable). LjL (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, User:LjL - glad to see we agree on something! AusLondonder (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I removed it again before seeing the above. The problem is, the source doesn't actually make any sense. This sort of thing usually comes via a mayor's office or some similar representative body. That the source (which seems pretty poor anyway( ascribes it to the residents of the place is crap journalism. Did each resident write one letter in the document or what? Were the residents even consulted by whoever actually wrote it? It is maudlin BS at present, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... and I see you removed it again. How about you wait for consensus to change to your side due to your argument above, instead of single-handedly going against the opinion the other editors have expressed on this talk page? LjL (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I apologised. Did you not read my opening sentence? I am on and off here today. However, I'll add something else: I've now found out that my local council has expressed the usual sentiments, as per Damascus. If Damascus is to go in then should I add my town also? Where does this end? In this specific regard, it is exactly the same problem as the illuminated buildings. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it looks like I will be adding my local council's reaction etc. The standard of writing and selection in this article is absolutely appalling. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

None of the three images currently headlining the page show a proper Tricolore - probably because they are all tall thin structures - and are not very impressive images per se. Perhaps keep the best one and swap the other two with a couple of those from the much better gallery below. Davidships (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen images are too many. Pick the best three. --John (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2k015 (UTC)
Agree that there are too many. I removed them once but I'm afraid we'll have to wait for the blow-ins to pass by before much of this can be sorted out. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can barely make out the tricolor on some of them. IMO, the Sydney Opera House should be on top (along with Brandenburg Gate). It was one of the first landmarks to be draped in these colors and the flag is easily recognizable. Thoughts ? As for the rest of the images, we can fit them in a small gallery at the bottom. --Killuminator (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it to those two. The article could maybe stand another one or two. Not fifteen though. Galleries are not a good thing on Wikipedia, especially on an article experiencing problems with bloat, as this one is.--John (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead images have been turned back into three skyscrapers by Castncoot. I kind of agree with their rationale that the One World Trade Center should probably be included, but I wouldn't go with three skyscrapers (the other rationale of "svelte-ness" doesn't seem very convincing): the previous two images were more varied and looked much more like a French flag. I would compromise by including those two, and the One WTC. LjL (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can format them well, then go ahead and replace Taipei/Toronto with Sydney/Berlin. But I agree, One WTC should be the standard bearer. Good luck. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with using 1 WTC as a "standard bearer" at all. It isn't a very good picture. The pictures (if we must have more than one) should be chosen to illustrate the French flag being projected on buildings. Skyscrapers aren't well-suited for this. --John (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with John (again). More, I have absolutely no idea why anyone should want to promote WTC as a "standard bearer". We've had far, far better images of far more suitable structures than that and we are not here to memorialise anything. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To illuminate a spire on the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere with the Tricolour of France reflects a far more powerful imprint than on something much simpler to illuminate such as a short, squat building - not that there's no place for examples of the latter, which are already displayed in the parent article. Castncoot (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetics only mattter to an extent. If a picture is particularly bad, I won't insist to include it. It seems silly to just include skyscrapers, too. But one very prominent skyscraper (with pretty obvious symbolic significance) should not be an issue. LjL (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an issue. The purpose of the images is to illustrate the subject, not "symbolic significance". If we are trying to illustrate that the French flag was projected onto buildings, we should use an image (yes, one is probably enough) that clearly shows this. Not a bunch of pictures where you have to read the description to find out what it is supposed to be. --John (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a poor image and doesn't really demonstrate the impact of the projected flag. And I really don't see the connection between al Qaeda and ISIL, if that is intended to be the symbolic reason for inclusion. Don't lump all Muslims (terrorists or otherwise) together. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image 1) is clear with respect to display of solidarity in the 13 November attacks, 2) displays a highly complex human feat, and 3) is additionally symbolic of the highest-casualty terror attack in modern history. All of this encompassing the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere, to top it off (no pun intended). Meanwhile, you're reading in a non-existent religious connection. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I share Sitush's concern that the "symbolic significance" you are reaching for here is unencyclopedic. --John (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Taipei skyscraper is actually even worse. I can barely make out any tribute on that building. The Shanghai Pearl Tower was a much better image. --Killuminator (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish fans' boo

In the article it mentions that at before the match between Turkey and Greece, during the one-min silence, the Turkish fans booed and chanted "Allahu Akbar", and it provided 11 links (astonishing). But Turkish netizens disputed that they were not chanting "Allahu Akbar", instead, they were chanting "Sehitler olmez, vatan bolunmez" (Martyrs never die, the nation won't be divided), a common slogan. Also, it is said that in Turkey, it is rare for any one minute of silence not to be disrupted by that slogan. Here is one link; here is a clear video from the stand. I do not know Turkish, but I can see that they were booing and clearly they were not chanting "Allahu Akbar". I highly doubt the English media such as Daily Mail. None of the links provided is tangibly reliable. Sofeshue (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a video from a month ago, not to the event in discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That video was quoted from the reddit link I provided. I misread the message and thought it was from the scene... Sofeshue (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people WP:BOMBARD very dubious assertions with (very dubious) citations. I hope there is a more reliable source disproving this. LjL (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that Turks have different symbols of mourning, according to some sources they sing a song or something like that. Also they were angry because none of soccer teams after Turkish terrorist attacks paid tribute (unconfirmed news). Itsyoungrapper (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Reuters is reporting that the fans booed. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As is USA Today Sports, with video. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Huriyet confirms it: "During the subsequent moment of silence, supporters also whistled their disapproval while a section of the crowed also reportedly shouted “Allah-u Akbar” and “Martyrs don’t die, the homeland will not be divided” – a common nationalist slogan." Gre regiment (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should be added to the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I won't object. Hürriyet seems more than reliable enough for this. To put things in perspective, though, perhaps "One month ago, Turkish supporters in the Central Anatolian province of Konya also booed a minute of silence for the victims of the Oct. 10 Ankara Massacre, in which 100 peace activists were killed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" should be mentioned. LjL (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could mention this, but it has more to do with 2015 Ankara bombings and the conflicts (2015 PKK rebellion) between PKK and Turkey, than with the Paris attacks. Gre regiment (talk), 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think if we're mentioning that Turkish hooligans booed an international recent terrorist attack mourning, we should mention that they had just done the same even with a domestic one. LjL (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mentioning and I've added it (after it was removed due to being in the "wrong place" and unreliably sourced) using Hürriyet as the source. LjL (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Hürriyet article claims based on reports of "Allahu Akbar", not anything recorded. Like most of the news articles mentioned above, they are based on one source, this Reuters reporter. Apparently Reuters don't trust her so much, even they ignored her twitter posts. Nonetheless, If you want to include this to article, you should include counter argument as well. Which is, this wasn't disrespect againt victims of Paris attacks but, news agencies continously ignoring Turkish losts in Ankara and Suruç [1]. [2]. Another counter argument to this, even if there were people in that stadium that were chanting "Allahu Akbar", numbers were insignificant, current mention in this article only mentions people that are chanting "Allahu Akbar". Majority of them were chanting "Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez" (Martyrs don't die, nation don't separate). That would make this edit a nitpick. Why they were chanting "Martyrs don't die, nation don't separate" is out of scope of this article. --Bluetogreens (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a lot of WP:OR to add. I've summarized what Hürriyet says, including that the same happened during the minute of silence for Ankara, and that "a section" of the crowd (not all) chanted. I didn't make an "argument", so I see no particular need to include a "counter-argument": I stated what reportedly happened. LjL (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I said was an observation of course. I wouldn't possibly want you to add all of them. But only the clear quote like "Turkish supporters are unhappy that a silence wan’t held for the 100 people killed during the Ankara terror attack in October when two bomb explosions were set off outside the Ankara Central railway station." should be included. And addition to that keep in your mind, only one Turkish source mentions "Allahu Akbar" chanting. Rest of them don't even mention anything remotely similar. Of course I am not counting foreign sources, seems to have only one source, which I mentioned above. And please watch and tell me where it is heard "Allahu Akbar". This whole thing going to blow your hand really bad. --Bluetogreens (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what's heard, as with many recordings like that, it's a mess for a layman to hear, especially one who doesn't speak Turkish or Arabic. Anyway, if the "Allahu Akbar" thing really is dubious, we can do without it, but the booing is pretty clear, no matter the background there might be to it. What's that quote from? Hürriyet actually says they also booed an Ankara minute of silence, so... LjL (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quote was from metro.co.uk. It seems there are news reports concerning Iceland-Turkey football match which took place in Konya, mentions "Allahu Akbar" chanting, but that was a lot before Paris. In worst case it only proves there are people in Turkey that support ISIS. Which wasn't even open the discussion, it was already a known fact. Number of their supporters and how this is represented in this article is our issue. For your information, Turkish news already reporting "Allahu Akbar" chanting claims as a lie [1] --Bluetogreens (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Not only is that dubious currently, but this may not also be notable. Maybe there's another reason why they yelled "Allahu Akbar." Is it because they sarcastically also claim to like ISIS, when in fact they hate them with all their guts? That doesn't really matter, because it's a relatively minor incident. epic genius (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this article is basically a collection of "relatively minor" reactions that weren't important enough to fit into November 2015 Paris attacks. Why should this one be singled out? Just because it doesn't appear to align with the rest? LjL (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Multiple RS refs, notable worldwide coverage. No policy-based reason for excluding. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BernardZ: after reading all of the above, how exactly can you find it tenable to simply claim that "you can hear it in the video" that they shouted Allahu Akbar? Your hearing is not a source. The sound is definitely confused. The Turkish newspaper itself says "reports", they don't confirm it, even though I'm sure they have the ability to watch a video. I also note that you removed the above-discussed reference to Ankara bombings, citing the lack of a source, but the source I gave covered both things. You must have skipped that bit when you read it. Finally, YouTube is not generally considered a reliable source for pretty much anything, so no need to add it. LjL (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly, the source of the Youtube is clearly listed as http://www.sdna.gr/ which is a news channel which makes it okay. The screams of Allahu Akbar are clearly audible. I do not know where you get the idea that the sound is definitely confused. Maybe you need a hearing aid?

If you had kept up with the events, you would know that the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has in a speech condemned the boos and the cries of “allahu akbar” from Turkish fans at this soccer game. So he accepts that it happened.

Here are some other news reports of the incident.

http://soccerly.com/article/soccerly/turkey-to-take-action-after-fans-disrupt-paris-silence

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/20/erdogan-rebukes-fans-booing-greek-anthem-not-moment-of-silence-for-paris/

http://wwntradio.com/2015/11/21/turkey-soccer-fans-boo-chant-allahu-akbar-during-moment-of.html

http://billsinsider.com/2015/11/20/17177-turkish-football-fans-boo-during-minutes-silence-for-paris/

Also I did removed the above-discussed reference to Ankara bombings, but your source was I thought not good enough. I have no objection to you putting it back if you come up with a better source although I confess the relevance here is slight. I suggest putting it into the Ankara bombing article. BernardZ (talk)

Please keep your "get a hearing aid" snide remarks to yourself. I'm not replying to the rest as I'd be going over stuff I have already covered. LjL (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why you need one based on your comments, "my ear..." and you clearly did not know about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speech but you still felt a need to write about something you knew little about. Support for the ISIS in Turkey is about 8%

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ft_15-11-17_isis_views/ 

BernardZ (talk)
Your point? LjL (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft theories

There has been (hoaxing) rumors that the terrorists trained in Minecraft. I strongly believe that's a hoax, but a Spanish Google News search brought up this, so maybe it warrants inclusion. I'm not sure, so that's why I'm bringing it here. --TL22 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Length

The article is becoming really silly now. It currently stands at 134,000 characters and is likely to rise as rather more pertinent reactions than mere quotes begin to surface (eg: restrictions on immigration etc). I am already having occasional trouble loading it, which is most evident in the slow population of the flag icons. We're going to have to take a knife to this before much more time passes. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My preference still leans towards "packing together" all the comments that are effectively the same; so, something like Most heads of state expressed their condolences; X, Y, and Z said that France has a right to wage war against ISIL; but A, B and C actually said that ISIL had good reasons to inflict this attack on France. In particular, the president of Foo's statement stood out for claiming "France smells like brie", and the prime minister of Bar distanced himself from other Euranian statements. LjL (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both. The article suffers from the common problem of articles like this which is the need to be comprehensive, to list and quote every single statement of condolence, to show a picture of every single pile of bouquets, to have fifteen pictures of skyscrapers with red-white-and-blue stripes projected on them. The time is approaching for the big trim where this starts to look more like an encyclopedia article. One place to start would be to remove anything sourced only to Twitter and other social media. Anything that is only sourced to self-facilitating media nodes inherently does not belong here. --John (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually astounded at the cheek of John and Sitush. No consensus exists to do this, as the rejected deletion nominations for several similar articles prove. AusLondonder (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11 attacks, in the exact same style as this, has just been kept. AusLondonder (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK

User:Ashton 29 linked a few well-known cities (after they had been repeatedly de-linked by others with WP:OVERLINK as rationale) calling it "ridiculous" that some cities were linked and others weren't, so I reverted pointing to policy, but my edit was undone by User:Castncoot who then went on to link even more cities, simply claiming that I "was misinterpreting" the policy.

The policy states: The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions. France should not normally be linked; the republic of Tuva should. This implies that very big or well-known cities should not be linked, while obscure ones should. I'm at a loss as to what I would have misinterpreting here. Of course, there is also the fact that there newly re-added links created multiple links, which is also discouraged by policy: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article".

Additionally, WP:SPECIFICLINK would suggest that if we're already linking to a specific structure in a city (whose article, surely, would link to the city) we would have no need to additionally link to the city name right next to it.

So again, @Castncoot: would you care to elaborate on what I am "misinterpreting", and if I'm really not, undo your edits? LjL (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you pretty much said it yourself: "Generally, a link should appear only once (not zero times) in an article." (Captions have their own count.) Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? That can't be a serious reply. LjL (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No more joking than User:Ashton 29's remark. Castncoot (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To say that NYC or London can never be linked is ridiculous. Castncoot (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are the relevant edits, should someone elect to restore sanity and policy later: [4] [5] [6] [7]. LjL (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THey are unnecessary links. We are not a kid's colouring book. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little exaggerated assessment of innocuous single text links, don't you think? Castncoot (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These links are ridiculous and should be removed. --John (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poland's response

Re [8]

How about we stop being ridiculous and stop making this page - which is about the November attacks in PARIS - about Polish politics? Starting with the Szymanski quote all the way through this whole thing violates WP:UNDUE. We have a dedicated article for the reactions and these kinds of details belong there if anywhere. Not here. Volunteer Marek  16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, this is the Reactions article. I'm confused. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: and as well you might be. This is an old diatribe, and you might want to check the archives of Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks to understand what's going on. Volunteer Marek has repeatedly tried to remove the response by Polish government officials from both articles against consensus to keep them, a consensus that could be found in more than one talk page section. He claims that the fact that it's not "official" but just stated by "one politician" (except that one politician was a minister of the government, and now the actual prime minister) makes it not suitable for inclusion, and that it's parochial to include Polish politics like this. Virtually everyone else disagreed, but there you have it. Volunteer Marek also repeatedly accused me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude (didn't help that I reported him for 3RR beach about this, I guess), but he appears to be so blinded by his POV that he can't even tell one article from the other. LjL (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making stuff up. Your "repeatedly tried to remove" involves me removing it a couple of times. No, "virtually" not everyone disagreed. Yes, you do have a BATTLEGROUND attitude. Your 3RR report was a revenge tactic for me having warned you to stop reverting people like crazy on this article. Volunteer Marek  01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, sorry, I did get confused. The same issue was present on the original article. My apologies. I stand by the view that this material does not belong in the main article.
LjL, you reported me for 3RR in a pre-preemptive revenge move after I warned you about edit warring, after you've been involved in four different edit wars in 24 hours. Your report got closed with no action.
And please keep your personal attacks out of it. Volunteer Marek  17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The report was closed as "stale". It wasn't preemptive, as in fact you had "warned" me as a reaction to me warning you. You might want to check your previous posts for personal attacks yourself. LjL (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall there was overwhelming consensus to include this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make stuff up. There was no "overwhelming consensus" (really? overwhelming? No) to include this. Maybe your recollection is erroneous. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No stuff being made up. There was consensus, and there still is, aside from you. You keep opening new sections about this as if you had never read WP:DROPTHESTICK before. End it. LjL (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have opened ONE new section about it here. It's worth discussing, particularly since somebody's 1) removing well sourced content that they don't like and 2) there was no clear consensus, whatever your claims about it before, 3) this is an ongoing recent event so any kind of "consensus" about one thing really is irrelevant, 4) you continue to address the main issue at hand, which is WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek  01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There must be something I am not understanding here. The comments appear to have been made by a senior government member in some sort of official capacity, even if (?) later rescinded. That is the very definition of a notable reaction, surely? - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed in main article about the attacks

[9] There were 4 editors supporting inclusion of this information, 1 editor against(VM).

  • After attempts to remove this information by VM, second discussion was opened up

[10] 4 editors were in support of this information being included, 1 against(VM).


  • Finally we had discussion here after reactions were moved to separate article

[11] 5 editors were supporting this information, 2 against(VM included).

There is no consensus to remove this information, there is one to include it. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: I have a headache, and I think if I go click on the links for the various sections and try to count editors again my head will explode. Are you able to tell us how many editors in total were in favor of keeping it (I assume only 2 were against, VM and that other one)? LjL (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, and doubtless teaching you all to suck eggs, WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote. That said, without actually having paid much attention to the sources etc regarding this issue, it certainly seems like a reaction to me and to be one by someone worth noting. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, but I wouldn't say numbers don't matter either. When this keeps being brought up by the same editor, and we keep needing to rehash old and archived talk page section, at some point it needs to be shown a clear majority of editors is in agreement. LjL (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes if the majority are policy-compliant. In that situation, the objector would be in IDHT mode if they were repeatedly and regularly trying to rehash the issue. I really haven't looked deep enough into this specific issue to make my mind up but AGF'ing that others have checked the sources etc, inclusion here seems fine to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes if the majority are policy-compliant. In that situation, the objector would be in IDHT mode if they were repeatedly and regularly trying to rehash the issue. I really haven't looked deep enough into this specific issue to make my mind up but AGF'ing that others have checked the sources etc, inclusion here seems fine to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush and MyMoloboaccount: I've now actually tried to make a full count with the relevant statements at the bottom of this talk page. See also what I replied to Volunteer Marek below for context. LjL (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LjL, MyMolobboaccount, EVEN IF you guys were right about previous consensus - which you're not, you're making shit up - my last edition concerned an official statement made by the Polish PM AFTER that discussion took place. In my original objection I pointed out that Szymanski's statement was just one politician blowing smoke without any kind of hard substance, and hence didn't belong in a Wikipedia article, since encyclopedias are not in the business of spreading gossip. You two (not consensus, you two) objected and edit warred (breaking 1RR, or even 3RR) to get that material back in. As it turned out, I was right and a day or two later the Polish PM explicitly stated that Poland was still committed to observing the agreement it had made. I added that part in. Then MyMoloboaccount came in, removed that information and replaced it with some off handed comment the PM made in an online chat.

Now, does that look legit to you? Does that look like you can really claim "consensus"?

For funky's sake. Even if you guys did have "consensus" (you didn't) to include Szymanski's statement at the time he made it, because this is an article on a developing event, the situation has changed and there's no "consensus" now. Szymanski said X. You guys pretended to have consensus and edit warred to have X in the article. Then a few days later the Polish Prime Minister said "well, not X, Y". I put Y in since that's more up to date. MyMoloboaccount shows up and removes it. I undo. LjL jumps in to edit war just because. And then you claim consensus for that too. Please stop being ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  01:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying including so many details about Poland's response - which isn't even a response to the attacks but rather statements about Syrian refugees made after the attacks - is WP:UNDUE. Rather than making personal attacks, I would very much appreciate it if you addressed the question. Why is it not UNDUE? Volunteer Marek  01:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can include what they said in succession. The fact someone has said something later doesn't negate them, or someone else, having said something earlier. If there was consensus to include that - and there was, as I just showed (see above) - then there still is consensus. But instead, you recently removed some of those statements to replace them with your preferred ones; and when I restored the ones with consensus (without deleting yours), you asked me to self-revert or I'd face 1RR sanctions. It was all pretty inappropriate, really. LjL (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to do that, how about just starting a dedicated page of Polish reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks?  Volunteer Marek  01:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that won't be needed, but if we're going to report the statements you find important and not the others... do you know who the author of the following quote is? All I want there is for the issue to be presented in a reasonable and appropriate manner. That means that editors shouldn't cherry pick the statements they like and remove and ignore sourced statements which don't fit their POV. LjL (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about chilling effects! Help please

Any issues to do with the scope and implementation of editing restrictions need to be dealt with at some other forum because they apply to a range of articles and not just this one. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pinging in particular @Fuzheado and John: I just got an 1RR warning from User:Volunteer Marek "blackmailing" me to revert an edit, which I assume is this one, where I had actually restored sourced content that he had just deleted (I did it without deleting his own content, so a very partial revert if there ever was any).

Consensus is against him on the matter, as innumerable talk page sections, both here and at November 2015 Paris attacks, keep showing (see this section which links to more) - but he keeps creating more, and beating the dead horse.

Of course, I consider a 1RR threat entirely spurious on this article, which is about international reactions and not even at all about ISIL (the topic with sanctions that we had previously debated on), and which does not currently even have a sanctions template on its talk page (because obviously no one but someone clearly acting maliciously - no, enough WP:AGF from me at this point - thought to apply it).

I am going to self-revert as "kindly asked", but I'm not caving in to this blatant blackmail. There is a motion to give these silly sanctions a break (you can have your say there by the way! few people are participating, seemingly only those already familiar with administrator noticeboards) where I was repeatedly reassured that they would be applied with common sense only (I was assured of the same in other places too), and even User:Volunteer Marek countered that there can't be chilling effects, and yet, he's most certainly causing them right now.

@RGloucester: you too, you wanted there to be no ill feelings? Then please oppose this nonsensical attempt to enforce rules in the face of any WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:CONSENSUS on the specific issue.

LjL (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: thank you for undoing my forced self-revert, although it was undone by yet another user who thought they had to have a say in this, even though, as I explained to them, they don't seem to understand the concept of "status quo" that they described. LjL (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look. You really need to cut it out with the personal attacks and hyperbolic rhetoric.

1. I am not "blackmailing" you. This is a personal attack. All I did was WARN you that you broke 1RR on this article, in contravention of the 1RR restriction. I *could* have REPORTED you, instead I tried to be nice about it. Apparently, my thanks for that is you posting these personal attacks to the article talk page.

2. Your "ping"ing other users who have also complained about the 1RR restriction is a blatant attempt at WP:CANVASSing. You're trying to rally the troops to win your battles, which is also a blatant display of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

3. There is no well established consensus. You are only claiming there is. Big difference.

4. To claim that this article "is about international reactions and not even at all about ISIL" is patently absurd. The fact that you even make that claim illustrates that you are willing to engage in any kind of rhetoric just to win an argument, rather than that you are interested in improving the article.

5. Whether the talk page has the 1RR warning template or not is irrelevant. The 1RR warning template is a courtesy, not a necessity. You can get blocked for 1RR even without the template. As you well know. In fact, you know ALL of this since you are the one who just filed a motion to remove the 1RR restriction from these articles. I simply cannot understand how you can pretend that you are not aware of the 1RR restriction after you've already filed a motion to remove the 1RR restriction! WP:GAME?

6. All I'm asking is for you to abide by rules which apply to everyone else. You seem to think that you are somehow exempt from them because... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...? Not clear on that exactly.

 Volunteer Marek  22:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Reaction to a reaction

@AusLondonder: I agree there isn't really a need to specify what the Republican thought of Sanders' comments, but in this edit, I believe you also removed the entire source for the entire claim. Could you please re-add it? (I appear to be under watch for 1RR breaches, you know). LjL (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that User:LjL, I have re-added the source. AusLondonder (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about Polish reactions

I'm summing up what people have said about this seemingly contentious topic of whether to include reactions from government officials of Poland (which has tangentially extended to some other countries). I am including the user names, their statement I found most relevant, and the support or opposition to inclusion I infer from it (since explicit "support" stances were not clearly requested).

The statements are taken from the sections listed by User:MyMoloboaccount at this section, plus the section itself, which I think probably covers everything.

Some statements are about including at November 2015 Paris attacks, while some are about Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, but given we are talking about reactions to the attacks, I suppose if people were in favor of adding them to the former, they'd be even more compellingly in favor of adding them to the latter.

  • User:MyMoloboaccount: 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? (proposer)
  • User:Jeppiz: I think it could be [notable], but lets hear what others have to say (conditional support)
  • User:XavierItzm: I think it is very notable! (support)
  • User:Fuzheado: 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. (conditional support)
  • User:Volunteer Marek: He can say whatever he wants but until this becomes official policy it's just blowing smoke - which politicians do all the time. Until this becomes official, there is no reason for it to be in the article. (oppose)
  • User:LjL: Please add this stuff back to either article or both, it pretty obviously matters. (support)
  • User:78.127.34.25: Here about NaTemat.pl. They are sometimes called: the Polish Huffington Post. "Who" exactly however is that Poland person they are referring to ? (unspecified)
  • User:Tobby72 Agree with LjL, MyMoloboaccount and Super Goku V. It's Warsaw's official policy. Poland's conservative Law and Justice party is strongly anti-immigration, anti-Muslim. (support)
  • User:AusLondonder Right, User:Volunteer Marek. Let me get this clear. It is "utilising a tragedy" for editors to insert well-sourced and highly notable comments by senior politicians utilising a tragedy? Irony bypass? Or letting your own obvious POV show? (support)
  • User:Hollth I agree with Marek on this. Until an official statement is made it ought to be covered under wp:recentism. (oppose)
  • User:Dorpater I agree with MyMoloboaccount. This information is relevant and should stay in the article. (support)
  • User:98.67.190.14 Agree with the consensus that it is noteworthy and should stay. Volunteer Marek is out of line here. (support)
  • User:Sitush I really haven't looked deep enough into this specific issue to make my mind up but AGF'ing that others have checked the sources etc, inclusion here seems fine to me. (conditional support)

To pretend it's a vote, I count: 4 "conditional support" (I include the proposer given their wording), 5 "support", 2 "oppose". Given the "conditional support" was either based on reliability of sources (and opposers haven't seemed to put that into question) or on whether others found the statements notable (and they did), I'd say it's safe to call this 9 support, 2 oppose.

LjL (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two IPs are throw away accounts that have been following me lately. You're also ignoring the editors who objected to the text by also removing the text (but who were probably driven off by your edit warring).
And like I've already pointed out that was the discussion about the original statement. You still have not explained why removing well sourced statement by the Polish PM which was made later is ok.
Also, "consensus" is not a vote, which you appear to think it is. Expressed opinions only count only in so far as they're well grounded in actual policy. None of these - not yours, not MyMolobo's not others - actually address the main issue here, which is WP:WEIGHT.
Can you please explain how this text does not violate WP:WEIGHT? This is like the fourth or fifth time I've asked you. Volunteer Marek  01:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Check the relevant section. I've had enough of playing your games of chasing what people (me included) have said in the relevant sections which keep coming up: find it yourself, I'm not repeating myself on it. Drop the stick. LjL (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks&oldid=691773558"