Talk:2015 Thalys train attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Actor injured in attack was an actor who starred in "The Wounded Man".

See who was the start of The Wounded Man (film). It is one of the wounded passengers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that - please stop re-adding it to the article unless you can establish there is a consensus for adding it in discussion with other editors on this page. You have not cited any reliable source which thought it worth mentioning in relation to the attack, and therefore it is WP:OR. --ℕ ℱ 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

+interesting fact, should be included Tough sailor ouch (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You are quite determined to keep readding your bit of trivia aren't you - despite the fact the source you cite doesn't mention it either. You are edit warring by continuing to keep re-adding it without establishing there is a consensus. --ℕ ℱ 23:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The films the actor appeared in are really not relevant to the article, so I've removed them.--A bit iffy (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

His film roles are not relevant to this attack, unless he once played a terrorist who opens fire on a train and every RS mentions this role. Anyone wanting to know about him can easily click his profile. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Not EVERY article in the world with President Obama says that he is President of the U.S. Therefore, demanding a standard that "every RS mentions this role" is unrealistic. Similarly, with the French actor, there is mention of his role in The Wounded Man. One example, http://www.lesoir.be/968815/article/actualite/france/2015-08-21/l-acteur-jean-hugues-anglade-blesse-dans-l-attaque-du-thalys

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the title of his films is trivia in relation to this incident.Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

a somewhat useful small addition.Hickley80 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I support this idea of inclusion. F117IS (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Gunman said attack was a robbery, not terrorism. Is "dumbfounded" at being called a terrorist.

According to the gunman's lawyer, the motivation for the attack was to rob people on board the train because he was hungry. His lawyer stated Ayoub el Khazzani found the assault rifle in the park he was sleeping in and, "A few days later he decided to get on a train that some other homeless people told him would be full of wealthy people traveling from Amsterdam to Paris and he hoped to feed himself by armed robbery." [1] --Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's also reported that the French authorities consider this to be a pack of lies. We can report the claim, but we must also report the counter-claim. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The lawyer could be more credible if he had added that Khazzani thought of selling the rifle and ammunition he found in the park in order to feed himself, but he was affraid that this would end up in terrorists' hands who could use it to kill people. He did what he did for pure love to humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.150.7 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw this article discussed on ANI. The robbery aspect should be mentioned but it is highly implausible and also not the focus of reliable sources. F117IS (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Consolidated discussion: passenger list

Discussion is in several sections so let's consolidate it.

I think we can and should agree on certain topics:

1. Listing all 500+ passengers is not useful and not possible to get unless we are the police or the train company.

2. Listing all the passengers that had some involvement is possible because that number is small, probably 7.

3. Cutting down the list from all 7 to 3 doesn't improve the encyclopedia.

4. Noting the role is useful, better than just a name. Also puts in perspective what their role is. Getting shot or stabbed is a big deal.

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion may not make the list shorter. Anglade did not engage in hand to hand combat. Yet he was injured. Damian A. might have only been pushed away and did not suffer from any injury. Stone was definitely injured and did hand to hand combat.

It may be useful to research Sadler's role. He was not injured. Yet he got a medal. Maybe he grabbed the bad guy's arm while the others were beating him on the head? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone made a new addition but lists the conductor as a passenger. Off duty? I don't think so. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's in several sources testimony of 'the Brit', he was helped by an off-duty conductor to disarm and tie up the assailant, he has not been named. An off duty conductor is a passenger, but I changed it to 'people'. What is so implausible about a conductor travelling off-duty, he probably travels for free.Pincrete (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment, this isn't consolidating discussion since the discussion centres on two issues 1) whether to distinguish between those actively involved in the disarming and others 2) Whether the title of one of the actor's films is relevant at all. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Question 2 shows extreme bias and should be not considered. Anglade's one film credit is cited information with a reference. It is equivalent to Stone's mention of his rank and the 65th Air Wing and also Sandler's California State University link. Anyone want to strip off the 65th Air Wing from the article? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, if the question shows extreme bias, why are you repeatedly inserting the information, I don't think it shows bias, merely that it is trivia.Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone else's proposal:

• Passengers involved in mayhem. (different terms used)

• Other passengers cited

My new proposal:

• Passengers injured

• Uninjured passengers involved in counterattacking the suspect (or similar terms).

Wikipedia rules are not to insist and revert but to think of new ideas, which I have. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I find your recent edit to organize the list of passengers by "injured" vs. "uninjured" a rather artificial separation that hinders, rather than helps, the article as it is not relevant in any way to telling the story about the event. Why not separate them by nationality? (That wouldn't help either--bad idea.) What about separating them by service status (civilian, Air Force, National Guard, etc)? (Another bad idea.) Why is "injured" vs. "uninjured" a helpful distinction? Alphabetical would be nice, if it's a list.

Curious what others have to say about this. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand now why you separated them--am I right in assuming that you think that being injured conveys greater merit, or greater bravery, on their part? It's this sentence of yours above all that made me think so:

It may be useful to research Sadler's role. He was not injured. Yet he got a medal.

But getting injured is not the measure of bravery, or everyone in a car accident should get a medal. Bravery, as I see it, is in taking action for the common good where you put yourself at risk, facing possible injury, or death. You might end up coming out of it completely unscratched, but that does not mean you are any less brave.

Now, I don't know what Sadler's role was exactly in the affair. The Telegraph said, "A third American, Anthony Sadler, helps his two friends push El-Khazzani to the ground" and also said, "[Sadler] jumped into action when the gunman appeared". The NY Daily News said, "Sadler and two Sacramento-area friends, U.S. Air Force Airman Spencer Stone, 23, and Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, 22, helped subdue Ayoub El-Khazzani". Whether he was injured or not, has no effect on whether he was brave enough to merit a medal.

I think this is all the more reason to list the actors in the drama alphabetically, or in some other way (chronologically, as in a timeline?) that makes the most sense for the clarity of the article, and not by whether or not they were injured. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you and changed the list, also took Anglade out, someone('s) having obsession to add his name to just about everywhere in this article.87.93.59.64 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely with both, also if we are to reorganise, the logical fashion is either alphabetically (not helpful but fair) or in the order of involvement, two french, 3 US, UK + 'anon', which is fairly consistently the order of what happened.Pincrete (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) … … I've made the order of people into chronological order of involvement (which only involved moving the UK person), leaving the three US alphabetically since whoever did what, they acted as a trio and at the same time by all accounts. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at airplane crash articles and some notable passengers are listed even if they are fairly obscure and didn't have a wikipedia article, like a head of a small charity. That suggests that Anglade should be included. Besides, he alerted the train staff by breaking the glass. If a Wikipedia editor is American and hates French people, that shouldn't cloud judgement (if this is the case).

Anglade should not be excluded. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, there is a clear majority view that the people actively involved in the same carriage, in disarming the assailant should be included here, that is the purpose of this list, even minor contributors, like 'the conductor'. You are repeatedly renaming the section solely in order to justify re-introducing Anglade and his film into this list, why? Mme Moogalian was in the carriage while her husband nearly died, we don't put her in the list. Anglade and his efforts (and complaints) are fully covered elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we must call the attention of admins if this edit-warring from one user does not stop. PS. Im neither American nor from any other country of the Anglosphere and I don't hate French people.:) 87.93.59.64 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not edit warring. Show me a clear reason why to exclude Anglade.

I see no citation where Sadler did much. Anglade was part of the passenger response. True, he didn't get stabbed. Damian A. is a skinny guy who just got pushed, yet he is cited.

I now see there is a section about passengers who subdued the gunman. This is very much original research unless you find a reference which lists each person's role. To show that I am not edit warring, I am making corrections but keeping this bad way of classification

There are only a few passengers who were involved. Why not list them all instead of censoring a few? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

New guidance?

See this Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

Victims

A total of 50 people were killed, including all 49 passengers and crew on board, and one resident of the house that was struck. There were four injuries on the ground, including two other people inside the home at the time of the crash. Among the dead were:

   Alison Des Forges, a human rights investigator and an expert on the Rwandan genocide.[32][33]
   Beverly Eckert, who became co-chair of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and a leader of Voices of September 11 after her husband Sean Rooney was killed in the September 11 attacks. She was en route to Buffalo to celebrate her husband's 58th birthday and award a scholarship in his memory at Canisius High School.[7][32][34][35]
   Gerry Niewood and Coleman Mellett, jazz musicians who were en route to a concert with Chuck Mangione and the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra.[32]
   Susan Wehle, the first American female Jewish Renewal cantor.[36]

Susan Wehle didn't do much but is listed. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Another possibility to defuse this disagreement is to list NO passengers. That is the way it is in the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 article and the shoe bomber article (American Airlines flight 63) Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, the comparisons are completely invalid, of course we do not list passengers simply because they were passengers, several other train passengers are not named. Anglade is mentioned fairly fully in the article in the section where he is relevant. The purpose of this section is to identify those who are known to have been actively involved in the 'disarming', (whatever precise term we settle on, we can discuss whether 'subdue', 'disarm' or whatever is appropriate, personally I think counter-attack is unclear and inapt). It is not our job to decide who did much/most/not much (nor to ask why they were honoured). It is clear from all accounts that 2 French, 3 US, 1 UK (+ 1 'conductor'?), contributed sufficiently to be extensively mentioned as having been directly involved in overcoming the assailant, and they became involved in that order. I'm afraid that, as far as I can see, the only one disagreeing is you, but why I don't know, it looks awfully like moving lists around in ways that are unhelpful, principally to re-insert Anglade and his silly film.Pincrete (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra has now placed dispute-tag at the article although at least here in the talk page there are no others who have wanted to include Anglade as "involved"...Im fed up 87.93.59.64 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, who died on the train? Because I agree any known fatalities should be mentioned, even if they 'didn't do much'. Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, with respect to your comment, If a Wikipedia editor is American and hates French people, that shouldn't cloud judgement (if this is the case). would you kindly remain civil and refrain from personal attacks, even against unnamed editors? Remember that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of WP. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on the purpose and content of the 'passengers involved' list

Mathglot, Green Cardamom, Peregrine Fisher , Volunteer Marek, Difbobatl, Mezigue, Biwom, 87.93.59.64, Mjroots, I apologise for naming you all, but a lot of editing has been going on by myself and Sandra opposed to terrorism and others that fundamentally addresses two questions 1) whether to distinguish between those actively involved in the disarming and others on the train ie what purpose the list fulfils … … 2) Whether the title of one of the actor's films (the 'Wounded man') is relevant at all and specifically in the 'list' section, which mainly summarises who was involved and in what way. It would be helpful if we could attempt a consensus as this matter has been taken to a DRN, IMO before any proper discussion. I took all the names I could see that had contributed lately and hope I left no one out. There is discussion above in The Wounded Man and Passenger combatants and Consolidated discussion: passenger list. Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The title of the actor's film is just stupid trivia. It does not belong in an encyclopedia, it does not belong in the article. For the other question I want to see the arguments pro and con.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the current version is quite poor for several reasons. 1) separating people as per whether they received the Legion of Honour is pretty odd and clumsy. 2) I wouldn't really say that Anglade was "involved" since he wasn't even in the car where the events happened. In any case he is mentioned in the controversy section. 3) Describing Anglade as "a Frenchman who is an actor" is plain ridiculous and I am going to change this right away - he is a well-known film star. 4) agree with Volunteer Marek bout the film title - plain silly and off-topic. Mezigue (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Blame the producers of the film for the "plain silly title". That film is cited several times in the French press and on French TV. French TV is really having a blast linking Anglade with his work, The Wounded Man. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Before adding it back, there has been a slow edit war for days now, suggest establishing formal consensus with an RfC. -- GreenC 23:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The film title isn't silly (it's not about a physical wound by the way) - it's the quips about it that are silly. The French TV and press may fill airtime and columns however they want but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Mezigue (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, I have no objection to a RfC, but shall we see first if local consensus can be built? Mezigue, I don't think that anyone thinks that the film title ITSELF is silly, our including the 'joke' is what is silly, especially with such prominence. Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, the answer for your request for pros and cons depends on what the purpose of the list is. At this point, the list was a summary of those actively involved in the disarming, in chronological order of involvement, alphabetical for the three US. It briefly 'recaps' content of the previous section. I personally don't mind if the list goes completely, but if it is there it should have some logic and present the summary neutrally and coherently.Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if this is finally the discussion where we establish a consensus (that I thought already existed) I repeat what Ive said yesterday (IP has changed, it is dynamic, you see) and agree with what Mezigue has stated above in this discussion. See also the answer by Bejnar at Sandra´s talk page. This is really a war by one user who now has even gone to demand title change for the article as well although the present title was settled on only a few days ago by a wide consensus. This user has already been blocked for edit-warring once, has incorrectly used a dispute tag, has made baseless accusations against other people ("friend's of Versus", "American editors hating French people" etc...). This user is also claiming some other editors as allies but the talk page of an article is where we establish a consensus and I have not seen anyone outrightly supporting Sandra's view regarding "the list" and Anglade's film credit etc... Sandra is either a troll or a plain stupid person. And this is the final thing I have to say, no doubt there will form some kind of "new consensus" that prevents the return of the logical list we had. This is how wikipedia works. One persistent person can distort the process and gradually drive sane editors away. No wonder that en.wiki has seen declining numbers of editors. Community projects are prone to problems like this. Good Bye. 87.93.67.23 (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL They're going to slap you for being "uncivil" ... but you're right.89.204.155.25 (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm on of those named in the OP. I'll need to assess the discussion re point 1. Re point 2, I agree with Volunteer Marek, the title of the film has absolutely no bearing on the incident, and does not need to be mentioned. It seems that Anglade was barely involved on the periphery of the event. The article can mention him, but his involvement does not need to be exaggerated to make his rôle appear to be bigger than it was. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see this. A DRN case has opened about this. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 13:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Update It has provisionally been decided that the DRN will close in 24 hrs as I have declined to take part, since I consider it to be premature. Therefore, I believe we should continue to see if this can be resolved without 'outside aid'. Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

87.93.67.23 summed it up for me. Do you see it a different way? -- GreenC 14:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I only became involved with this article as a result of the 'rename'. I have no fixed opinion about what the purpose of the list is (people actively involved in disarming? … every known name? etc. its original purpose was 'actively involved'). However I have a very clear view of what it must not be, which is anyone's private view of who did or did not behave heroicly/ who suffered/ who deserved a medal etc. At the same time as the slow edit war about including/excluding the actor, we have had edits like this, more clearly seen in my removal here. Why add content with a 'cn tag'? Who says his role is unclear? Does the editor mean we don't know whether he threw as many kicks & punches as the others? Why 'but he was awarded etc.', this edit is clear POV and borderline BLP.

Whoever is in or out of the list, it should be coherent and serve a purpose. If it's everyone on the train, there are other names to be added and they should all be alphabetical and neutrally phrased. Do we seperate 'active in the disarming' from 'others'. The purpose is the key question, it then becomes obvious who is in or out.Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been left out. There's a lot of incivility above. Many people have written things of merit but I disagree that Sandra is by herself. I agree with some things she writes but not all. I agree with some things Pinochet writes but not all. But first, e must be respectful. Also why is the drn closed. It just for started. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete writes something I agree.... Whoever is in or out of the list, it should be coherent and serve a purpose. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Tough sailor ouch, no discourtesy intended, I simply copied all the names I could see on this page, I may not have seen all. Could you clarify what your position is on the two questions? … ps, (I have re-indented your remarks, I hope you don't mind). Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) … … pps the DRN was effectively closed by me, for reasons I give in the link above, but which boil down to thinking it was premature. Pincrete (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have died down. I wish we would get on with it and hopefully change the whole list because it looks very poor. Is there really a consensus to sort out people who have received the gong and people who haven't in separate sections? Mezigue (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue, I think you are right about 'dying down'. I think it is fair to say a) no one has defended the inclusion of references to 'The Wounded Man' film … b) No one has defended gong/no gong (the present) … c) many people are mixed/indifferent/undecided at present about the purpose of the list. I think it would be legitimate for you to take out the artificial medal/no medal, and arrange all names alphabetically, keeping all of them, until we see if people have a strong contrary opinion. That would be my opinion. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your conclusions are premature and, therefore, wrong. Be patient. The DRN has NOT been closed but is in progress.Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing Anglade's name is illogical much the same removing the unnamed train conductor. There should be no dislike towards Anglade. The fact is that he is very well cited in connection with the attack is not subject to dispute. Just because someone doesn't like the way world events happened should not influence the Wikipedia article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I have no idea what you are on about. What "hate"? And what are you insinuating and about whom??? I have removed him from the list of people involved because he was not involved. By all accounts he was in a different carriage the whole time. Do you understand this? Mezigue (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Mezique. This article is named "2015 Thalys train attack". If the article was named "2015 Thalys train attack in car number 9", then I agree. However, there was activity in more than one train car. Furthermore, there should be no dispute that all the issues regarding train security internationally and about the train conductors running away have nothing to do with the article because they were not in the same train car.

I admit that Anglade is almost a cartoon character. However, he was one of the most cited passengers, other than Stone. Damian A. is not cited very much. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Shall we be clear, my suggestion was ALL present names, (inc. Anglade) be included until such time as everybody has chipped in. Nobody has supported the artificial seperation between medals, non-medals. Nobody has supported, or even put up any arguments for including 'the film'. The DRN has been closed, and advice there was to settle on talk. I'm sorry Sandra, but you misunderstand DRN, if you think it would do anything else but establish what consensus here IS, within a more structured environment, which we should be able to do on our own. Including/excluding people has NOTHING to do with anyone's personal opinion, except opinion on relevance to that part of the article. The anon conductor is included for consistency, not because I, the papers or anyone else thinks the man was some big hero!Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am confused myself as to whether the discussion is open or closed over there. Meanwhile, in a spirit of constructive discussion no doubt, Sandra opposed to terrorism has gone on the talk page for the French Wikipedia article on this topic and posted a link to my last edit here which she reverted, together with the comment: "The Americans hate Mr Anglade. They have removed his name from the list of passengers". o_0 Mezigue (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue, DRN Update, The DRN had already been closed twice, first time because it named no parties to the dispute, second time because I declined to take part, (I thought it was premature and no attempt to establish consensus had been made here). It has since been unilaterally re-opened by Sandra., then closed by an editor who (rightly) reverted Sandra then re-opened again by Sandra opposed to terrorism … … watch this space for further news! I think it might be time for an admin to get involved. Pincrete (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

On French WP:Mort - Les Américains détestent M. Anglade . Ils ont retiré son nom de la liste des passagers. Does one laugh or cry? followed by 'Annulation des modifications 118251943 de Sandra opposed to terrorism (d) - wikipédia n'est pas un forum', which we all can understand!. Aside from the ridiculousness that a large number of are not US, why 'Mort' ? Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY why I had a problem with the entire section being included in the first place. It mostly repeats information already provided in previous sections, there's debate over dividing the list into subsections and the necessity of including Anglade, we've got unnecessary edit wars over silly trivia, and now it just stemmed off into personal bashing. The section looks pretty fine now (I honestly wouldn't give it a second thought if it was ultimately kept as a whole), but I assert my original position that this section is entirely useless. We already have a list of names of the defenders in the infobox, and their occupations and other useful info are already in the Attack section. Only one person will obviously miss the section. Versus001 (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The list of cited passengers names is useful. Otherwise, the interested user must get a pen and paper to write down the names, in order to get them straight. The three Americans also have similar names so the list helps one think "oh, this paragraph is about the airman". Movie articles list the cast, which does the same purpose....helps readers keep people straight. As far as a separate list for medal winners....not needed. As far as a separate list by nationality or injuries, less certain but probably not needed. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? There's no way people would get confused by the names. All they have to do is read it again. Versus001 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Most/many of the names in a cast list are not mentioned in the article, I agree with Versus. This list serves little purpose, but at present does little harm. Incidentally at present Anglade is mentioned 10 times, Stone 9, (2 of which define the friendship), others between 4 and 6. 'Mentions' does not define 'treatment', but at least it indicates, he is hardly being excluded. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the list is here, and likely to remain, it occurs to me that we could use it to 'cut out' duplication by 'pruning' the 'attack' section a bit ie 'S Stone, a 23yr old American Airforce man etc' (cutting out his 'regiment', rank etc), allowing the list to give the fuller biographical picture. Bonne idée ?Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. The article says what Stone did and the list gives some bio info, like that he's an airman. That makes the part about who punched whom more concise yet there is still the info later. Stone being an Airman, instead of a General, is not relevant to the punching but is relevant to the biographical description. Pincrete, we agree! Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, let's see what others think before doing this everywhere, it's not strictly policy, but could work here. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, actually there was only one other similar change needed ('with dual-nationality'), so my caution was unnec. Apologies. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following this very much, but passengers should be listed based on how much reliable sources mention them. For example, there could a famous person ten cars away from the attack, and if news sources talk about them a ton, they should be me mentioned a ton. If they aren't mentioned, then we shouldn't mention them. And so on. It doesn't matter where a passenger is, or what they did. It just matters what RSs say about them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

However, the issue is that we are focusing on people who were actively involved in subduing the gunman. No one else is THAT important, regardless of how many times they're mentioned and how many sources mention them. It's absolutely trivial and ludicrous. Versus001 (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not how WP's rules work. Reliable sources make the ruling on what is important. That's our rule. Doesn't matter if it leads to what a particular editor thinks is ludicrous or not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree to include the current list. The story, as reported in the press, is more than the gunman and his subduers, but evidently a human drama involving many people. It's not so many the press reported on and they all had some roll to play in the story. We can fine-tune the first sentence of the section to ensure the scope is well defined and not an indiscriminate list of every passenger. -- GreenC 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Sandra's edit to the French talk page: I have replied replied to her there, with links back to this Talk page. Summary: all her claims there are false. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, this discussion isn't about including people in the article, which of course we all agree with you about. It's about including them in a 'clarification list' which gives summarised 'biograph info' and 'action in the event' info. The general opinion seems to be drifting towards nobody objecting to that list with every name on it, though some (inc. Versus001), didn't want the list at all since it duplicates info and causes who in/out problems.Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Name change

English Wikipedia may be the laughing stock of the world. The world may think "how stupid are Americans and English".

What if an airline flight crashed. Would the title be "2015 American Airlines crash"? German Wikipedia gives a better idea....

Let's consider

Thalys train 9364

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

We just had RM that closed a few days ago. It's too soon to open that again. -- GreenC 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Using the example given above, the article would be housed at "American Airlines Flight (number)", per the naming convention for aircrash articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree it's too soon, and Sandra, please rein in the hyperbole a tad; what English WP calls this article will not make us the laughingstock of the world. Or at least, if it does, we'll be in good company. No need to trust me, let's go have a look at what the other WP's have done--and the verdict so far, is: two with the train number as you would have it (German, Armenian), and six over here in the LOTWC (Laughingstock Of The World Club): Spanish, French, Javanese, Japanese, English, and Chinese. Even if your proposal ultimately wins out (and I might vote in favor) please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors--just because they don't always agree with you, doesn't make their opinions stupid or a laughingstock. Be respectful, seek consensus, they are core principles. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

nb it isn't normal in UK to refer to crashes etc. in that way, where place is more usual, hence Lockerbie disaster, however a redirect via the train number would solve the problem for now, though I see no sign of it becoming the 'common name' as yet. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the current title, not a change. F117IS (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

accuracy of the lede intro paragraph?

It reads

Four people who subdued the attacker were awarded France's highest decoration, Knight of the Legion of Honour, while two others will be honored at a later date (see below).

Is that false? It's one of the highest, I know. But Knight is the lowest, not the highest. Maybe delete the Knight part in the intro to make the statement not a lie then explain later that they got the Knight level? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Knight is the baseline of that order, that order is the highest which could be awarded. Higher is normally only awarded for lifetime contribution. Most RSs are describing it that way so, maybe no need for change 'K of the L of H' (highest) is still true if you treat (highest) as applying to 'L of H'. It's a bit like describing a PhD. as the highest degree, yes it might be possible to get an 'extra-ordinary merit PhD.'. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the confusion that could arise, Pincrete is correct that LoH is the highest award, Sandra is right that Knight is the lowest grade of the highest award but the wording could be confusing. Since this is the Intro, 'Knight' is unnecessary detail that doesn't have to be mentioned here, so "delete the Knight part in the Intro" seems like a fair move here, since the details are present in the body. I've made the change. Note that this doesn't change the target of the link which is still the Legion of Honour article; only the underlying anchor text has changed to remove 'Knight of'. Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

An admirably simple solution - why didn't I think of that?Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So Mathglot's solution is the exact solution that I proposed. Therefore, Pincrete agrees with me. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot's neat way of side-stepping the issue, is that the same thing ?Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Armenian descent?

I'm unsure about the validity of including Moogalian's ethnicity, I don't doubt the source but the usual 'rule of thumb' is whether the individual identifies as such rather than if 'his people' claim him. I know that Greek media presents 'Skarlatos' as 'Greek' and consequently has 'Greek hero saves the world' headlines. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say it is totally irrelevant. For that matter, "American-born Frenchman with a dual nationality" is a tautology to start with. Mezigue (talk)

Agree about probable tautology, I think that may be my fault, I was 'pruning' constructions like 'American-French man' (ambiguous), 'an American and a French man' (uninformative and clumsy, is he two people?). It isn't quite a tautology, since he might have never had, or have renounced his US citizenship, but is that detail important? Probably not IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree not quite a tautology, and agree again not that important. Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've moved 'with dual-nationality' from 'Attack' to 'list', where it acts as a clarifier without 'breaking the flow'. Have also removed 'ethnicity' on Moogalian.Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Uganda born?

Mezigue, just to check, but Norman was born in Uganda (and has only lived in UK briefly), though I agree that this is irrelevant. The difference with Moogalian is that 'US born' explains why he is both US & French. Norman's UK-ness doesn't really need explaining. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But "Ugandan-born", which is what I removed, means something different than "born in Uganda". It would mean he was Ugandan to start with. He just happened to be born there but is British. Mezigue (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I also noticed the 'n' and its ambiguity, both I think are irrelevant, especially mere 'place of birth'. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, there is a difference between 'born in Uganda' and 'Ugandan born', the modern country did not even exist when he was born (part of Empire). His family was probably among that colonial class that 'ran' the country prior to independence. There is no reason to believe that he would even be entitled to Ugandan citizenship, just as someone born of American forces parents on a US base in Germany, is not/never has been German. Moogalian is different for reasons given, namely that it explains his US-French citizenships. I don't think where Norman was born matters, (he left when very young and lived in RSA), but please, at least get it right, Norman is/was/always has been as far as we know, a UK citizen. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I would also agree that such information as absolutely trivial. Versus001 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugandan born means you're born in Uganda. Norman was born in Uganda and Ugandan born. It doesn't always mean you're a citizen of Uganda. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It means both, mainly it means your nationality at birth, that is why the sources bother to say 'born in', it would especially imply nationality when linked to 'British'. But why is his place of birth important since he left when still a very young child? Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way, unless we have enough material to create a full individual article for Norman, then I don't see the necessity in mentioning something trivial such as the country he was born in. Versus001 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As this section exists, and as there may never be justification for 'own' pages, I don't see why we shouldn't use this section for basic biog info, eg hometown/state of the US trio. I agree that we don't need Mom+Pop, school etc. I don't feel strongly either way about 'Uganda', only that it should be accurate and remain clear + readable.Pincrete (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We know next to nothing reliably about this man. Some sources say he works in IT but I read one where he said he was doing something quite different. He has apparently grown up "across Africa" but there are no more details. It is his prerogative not to become a public figure. Anyway, his place of birth is irrelevant and putting it in a two-line presentation gives undue weight to it, in my opinion. Mezigue (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

African lives matter. He is from Uganda. We mention the French American so let's not discriminate against Africans. It is a worthy point to bring up. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, To the best of our knowledge, Norman is not African, Norman is not Ugandan, John McCain is neither Panamanian, nor South-American … … Moogalian IS American, (as well as French). Which part of that is difficult to absorb? … … I'm sorry Sandra but moral homilies like 'African lives matter' , just make you look silly, especially since the only person so far in this story who (as far as we know) has ever been a citizen of an African country is called El Kahzzani. If you think Norman's background is pertinent, please at least try to find a rational argument for inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

good to mention Uganda 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hickley80 (talk • contribs)

Possible source of weapons section

The only part of this section that connects directly to this incident is French newspaper Le Voix du Nord said the suspect may have had connections to a group involved in a suspected Islamist shooting in Belgium in January. The Belgian government confirmed an inquiry was under way but would not comment further.

The rest of the section establishes that the area around Gare du Midi, where the suspect boarded, is known for illegal gun sales, but other than that, it is discussing old incidents in France/Belgium. Doesn't this go 'off-topic' and over detailed for such a tenuous assertion 'may have had connections'? Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've pruned heavily and re-ordered to make the section less off-topic.Pincrete (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is important To mention.12:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)(comment by Hinckley80 11 September 2015)

Sadler's role

Earlier, Anthony Sadler's role in the affair had been questioned. According to an interview on The Tonight Show on September 2, 2015, Sadler described the events to Jimmy Fallon. After his two compatriots ran towards Khazzani, Sadler followed. Fully expecting a bullet to arrive in his direction, one never did. Spencer jumped Khazzani first, then Sadler and Skarlatos joined in a couple seconds later, and helped beat him unconscious. The trio then tied him up. signed on behalf of Mathglot approx 12:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, thankyou, I think most of us had already concluded that this was a joint action, and more importantly, it would be wrong for US to conclude it wasn't. Pincrete (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadler references

Netherlands instead of Belgium?

Why to say article is about Netherlands when terrorist take the Thalys train in Bruxelles, in Belgium? www.lesoir.be/968917/article/actualite/france/2015-08-22/attaque-dans-un-thalys-suspect-monte-bruxelles-aurait-voyage-en-syrie-video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.106.208 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a project banner for WikiProject Belgium. – Editør (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thalys trains are Dutch-owned, aren't they? As the train was travelling from the Netherlands, through Belgium, to France, the article could be said to fall under all three WPs. It could also be said to fall under MILHIST too. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

According to fr:Thalys, it is a belgian company owned at 60% by the french SNCF and at 40% by the belgian SNCB. But if WikiProject Belgium has been added, it might solve th eissue.

Title

I didn't except to such a title. The attack didn't occur at Arras (a train station in France). Everything was finished when the train arrived at Arras.

I would suggest to title 2015 Amsterdam-Paris train attack. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit). Even better is indeed 2015 Thalys attack per the suggestion here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect info about which gun did what

I'm too lazy to correct this, but it sounds like the only fired weapon was a handgun. The guardian says "Then came a terrifying “click, click, click” as the half-naked man held his AK-47 aloft, aiming an apparently temporarily jammed gun at occupants of the carriage." This article makes it sound like he sprayed bullets everywhere with the AK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

guardian article - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed in these edits. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Article nominated for front page "In the news"

This article has been nominated for to be featured in the "In the news" section on the front page of Wikipedia. Please go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2015 Arras attack to voice your opinion on if it should be featured. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename article as 2015 Thalys attack?

Arras is hardly relevant to the incident. I think it's reasonable to presume the attacker was targeting an international high-speed, high-profile train, not a minor town in northern France.--A bit iffy (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

agree....except Arras is not too obscure. Support a change.Tough sailor ouch (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's 164th by population.;-) --A bit iffy (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Any other opinions, for or against, on renaming?--A bit iffy (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As opinion, french article is named fr:Fusillade du train Thalys du 21 août 2015; might be it is not obvious to everybody that Thalys is a kind of Train.

Another opinion might be to include the train traject: Amsterdam-Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.106.208 (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed. 2015 Thalys attack seems most logical to me. – Editør (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for opinions all. I've now requested the necessary page move.

That's a good idea. Arras is just a train stating where the train was sent to after the event. It occured in a Thalys. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely rename to 2015 Thalys attack - all sources referring to it as "Thalys attack" - it was only rerouted to Arras. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I requested it get renamed per consensus here and it was quickly done. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be 2015 Thalys train attack for a number of reasons:

• Follow the lead of the French article fr:Fusillade du train Thalys du 21 août 2015
• Outside France very few know Thalys is the name of a train company. Even in France they specify "train".
• People associate the attack with a train, the title should include train.
• The attack was against a Thalys train, not against the Thalys corporate HQ or some other Thalys property.

-- GreenC 15:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"train attack" sounds like someone attacked the train, or it was a possessed train that attacked people. Maybe people outside of France don't know that Thalys is a train, but they can quickly learn that. They've probably also not heard of Arras or 99% of the villages of France either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A possessed train that attacks people is a real possibility! :) Of course, everything can quickly be checked by reading the article. The problem I ran into was in finding the article. I looked in Category:Terrorist incidents in 2015 assuming the article title would contain the word "train" and was forced to click through each one until I found it. There is precedent for naming terrorist attacks after the involved piece of infrastructure and/or its location, but there is no precedent for naming after the company that owns the infrastructure (that I can find). See List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems. -- GreenC 18:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Think of the User first. Strongly agree we add "French train" or nobody looking for our coverage will be able to find it. What's the point of the article if interested parties can't find it? The actor John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison but Wiki titles its article "John Wayne." Profhum (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's just very redundant, like "Amtrak train attack" or "American Airlines airplane flight 200." When you search for "2015 French train attack" this article is the very first result. I just made redirects from 2015 French train attack and 2015 French train shooting to be safe. I don't see how anyone could possibly not find it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the title and was wondering where Thalys was, especially because the name isn't really being used in the English-language coverage. Therefore, I disagree with using Thalys in the title. Articles do not have to conform to titles across Wikis, otherwise we'd never be able to translate movie titles. "2015 French train attack" should work just fine. MSJapan (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you only read the article title, or did you read any part of the article? Did you at least see at the big infobox picture with a train on it that has "Thalys" on it? I'm just trying to gauge how long you were confused. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"The attack took place on a Thalys train that looks quite a bit different than this one."

Very funny caption. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

T Shirt vs Tie

I've read news articles that say they hog tied him with t shirt, and others that it was the british guys tie that they used. We're currently using that french language source as the ref that it's a t shirt. We should find something more definitive, and in english. Be aware that sources disagree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

They tied him with both. They tied his arms together with a t-shirt and then hogtied him with a tie. You can see this on the video. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Navbox

I thought the navbox might get removed. Therefore bringing up for discussion. Should {{2015 railway accidents}} be included in this article. I edited the header of that template to read "accidents and incidents" as there is not a dedicated navbox for terrorist attacks by year. Aircraft terrorist attacks / hijackings go in the relevant aircraft accident navbox, such as the Dawson's Field hijackings in the {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1970}}. I appreciate the naming of the templates varies, but very few rail incidents are not accidents. The 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident is included in this navbox, after discussion at talk:2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Precedent is unclear. The navbox isn't on 2004 Madrid train bombings, but it is on 7 July 2005 London bombings. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Acceptability vs deletion

For information the french page is proposed for deletion, as the attack was aborted. (See: fr:Discussion:Fusillade_du_train_Thalys_du_21_août_2015/Suppression — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.106.208 (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Also for info, if you have less than 50 edits in mainspace of fr-Wiki, your !vote will be ignored. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

also the tally is currently at 45 keep vs 14 delete. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Luger pistol

Hi everyone, is there perhaps a better source on the "Luger pistol"? I very much doubt that he had THE Luger pistol, it is more likely French media not knowing the difference between a Luger firearm and Luger ammunition. Cheers Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Injured passenger?

Do we know anything about the passenger who was injured at the neck? Was it a gunshot wound or a cut, what is his nationality, how severe was the injury? AxelBoldt (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe he was a French man. I put in the article that he was airlifted to the hospital in Lille. It was a very serious injury - they mentioned that he would have bled to death quickly if they had not applied pressure to the wound. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the NY Times version of events this French guy was the first to confront the gunman [2]. Strangely this is getting omitted in other version of the story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Damien A. is very scared, thinking that ISIL will hunt him down and kill him so he doesn't want to be interviewed. In contrast, the Americans are not afraid. History will reveal whose strategy is better. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

---

2015 Thalys attack → 2015 Thalys train attack –

• Readers unfamiliar with France generally associate the attack with a train not with the Thalys corporation. Having train in the title helps readers find the article. Per WP:NC Recognizability.
• The French title specifies a "train" (fr:Fusillade du train Thalys du 21 août 2015) we should follow the lead. Even in France they specify "train" since it was an attack on the train, not the company HQ or other property. Per Naturalness.
• "Thalys train attack" is used by the press, it is a precise and concise phrase. Per WP:NC Precision and Conciseness.
• There is precedent for naming terrorist attacks after the involved piece of infrastructure (a train, plane etc) and/or its location, but there is no precedent for naming after the company that owns the infrastructure (that I can find). See List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems and Category:Terrorist incidents in 2015 Per WP:NC Consistency.

-- GreenC 02:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support as nominator. -- GreenC 02:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Sounds better than what we have. I think maybe we should have "France" and "train" in the title instead of "Thalys". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current name is more concise and still recognizable. Otto (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds sensible. Prioryman (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I searched for this using "train" not "Thalys" (who knew? not me) and it took some extra clicks to find the right page. Spencer Weart (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - "Thayls" means nothing to non-rail fans outside of the countries of operation, particualrly the Anglosphere. Even the French Wiki pages doesn't have such an arcane title. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - This is more descriptive and will match for searches Aphexcoil (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support move. Think of the User first. Strongly agree we add "French train" or nobody looking for our coverage will be able to find it. At least my college students never would, and Wikipedia is their Bible. What's the point of the article if Users can't find it? The actor John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison but Wiki titles its article "John Wayne." Mandichkayo protested, when I wrote this, "It's just very redundant, like "Amtrak train attack" —МандичкаYO 😜 02:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC) You know, I'd even support "Amtrak train attack," to help people outside the US find such an attack if one should happen (god forbid). Profhum (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support common sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as Otto says, the current name is more concise and still recognisable. I don't see how a user who does not know the name Thalys is likely to type "2015 Thaly Train Attack". Currently, this page is the first result of a search for both "French train attack" and "2015 train attack". This moves tries to solve a non-existent problem by making things more complicated. Mezigue (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to find the article initially. I started at Category:Terrorist incidents in 2015 hoping to find one named "train". -- GreenC 23:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why oppose? Conciseness is a minor objective, getting a WP:AT recognizable title is a much more important objective. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons that I just detailed above! Mezigue (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Sounds pretty reasonable. Versus001 (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Request quick closure This is a highly trafficked article, with 9,700 views on the previous day. I initially opposed, then tried Bing for "train attack" and 2004 Madrid train bombings comes up. The article 2004 Madrid train bombings has the word "train". Either way it's not a huge change and best to take the tag off by closing this discussion as quickly as possible. -- Callinus (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• support request for quick closure In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - A commoner may not know what the Thalys is, but if you clarify by adding train in there, it all makes sense. I only happened to know that it was a train because I rode that same route on the Thalys just two and a half years ago. The more clarity, the better. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• No objection I'm one of those who initiated the original renaming from 2015 Arras attack to 2015 Thalys attack. I've no objection to a further renaming.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• If we want to close this out early we need overwhelming SNOW consensus and the best way to get that is by tagging the article so the thousands of readers will come here to !vote. Unfortunately two editors keep removing the tag (who both seem to support the move) thus delaying the move. I would encourage others to add the tag back as I have used up my 3RR on this for the next 24hrs and I can't fight it alone. Even better, someone who has not participated in the discussion could read closing instructions and make the move. -- GreenC 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Make the move, and make it as soon as possible.-- Callinus (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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

American man serving as a Airman First Class in the US Air Force.

Re: 'American man serving as a Airman First Class in the US Air Force.' I don't know if there is such a thing as a female 'Airman' or a non-American in the US Air Force, but the phrasing seems a bit pedantic and un-natural. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is repetition .. we know he is Male by his name, he is American by "US Air Force", he is serving by the tense. Could theoretically trim it down to "An Airman First Class in the US Air Force". -- GreenC 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Male is important. Citizenship is important. Some non-citizens do service in the U.S. military and some apply for citizenship later. Airman is a rank. Sorry, not Airwoman. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with GC, it ends up sounding like a police report, I don't doubt his gender and nationality are important, but just as 'British businessman' is adequate (we assume it doesn't mean a German national working in a British business, because we would say it if it were so), I think GC's is also clear. btw I wasn't being flippant about 'Airman', I genuinely didn't know the US convention. UK forces are less integrated, but I THINK, try to use use gender-neutral terms.Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps 'Spencer' is not universally recognised as exclusively male, however 'he' is. Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No magazine in the pistol

Skarlatos reported, that there was no magazine in the pistol. Therefore I'd interposed the following passage:

According to Agnès Ogier, the director of Thalys, another bullet grazed the train's conductor.

However this seems doubtable, because later it turned out, that there was no magazine in the pistol. Apparently it contained only one single bullet. If intentional, this could indicate an intended suicide.

The assailant also tried to shoot his rifle, but it jammed.

This information was immediately reverted. I consider it a relevant information, which should be mentioned somewhere. (I could imagine, that the assailant was only provided with one bullet, because a magazine of a Luger was to valuable as a possible spare magazine for future use.)37.49.94.28 (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cit.: “There was no magazine in it, so he either dropped it accidentally or didn’t load it properly, so he was only able to get what appeared to be one shot off,” Mr. Skarlatos said.

Source: New York Times from 22 August 2015

Whatever. Maybe this was not intentional. But it's quite hard to imagine, the magazine just got lost. 78.42.164.97 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Passenger combatants

There was an edit war overnight re the (non-)inclusion of the passengers involved in neutralizing the attack. Both parties in the war have been blocked for 24h. FWIW, I think the names should be included. It is arguable that each of them is now a Wikinotable person, and capable of having their own article. Others may disagree, so lets discuss please. The section title may not be optimal, so suggestions for alternatives are sought. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No way should any of them have their own article.--89.204.139.121 (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

...because...? Peace&Karats (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E -- 100% chance someone would AfD it on those grounds. Maybe it would hold, or not. But seems clear these folks were not notable prior to this single incident. If certain individuals received so much attention after the event (appearing on Oprah etc..) then leading to other things (guest appearance on a TV show etc) it could transcend the single event. More likely they will have 15 minutes of fame and disappear back as normal citizens unburdened by an extensive life history on Wikipedia they have to worry about for the rest of their lives, just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. BLP1E is meant to protect people who are otherwise not public figures. -- GreenC 16:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as WP:BLPIE is being thrown into the arena, Barbara Jane Harrison was completely non-notable before BOAC Flight 712. She received a George Cross, which is roughly equivalent to the Legion d'Honneur insofar as each it the awarding country's highest civilian honour for bravery. So, as I said, it is arguable that these people are now Wikinotable. I'm not minded to create biographies on them myself, but if any were created and subsequently AfD'd, I'd assess each on the merits of the article as written, and !vote accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

She had sustained coverage over time, which is one of the mitigating factors of BLP1E. That's why I said they could still be notable if they continue to get a diversity of coverage over time. But it's too soon to declare sustained coverage for the train attack. -- GreenC 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The currently used term "defenders" may have a non-biased bent. The previous term "passenger combatants" is probably too unusual and possibly based on the word "enemy combatants". I proposed and, for a trial, will change it to "passengers involved in the incident" Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The 3 Americans, the British guy, the guy who got shot, and the actor are well cited. The French banker is less cited but he's getting a medal. Therefore, all of these should be in our list. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, no big opposition! It makes sense. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's emerging role as the Newspaper of Record

I've realized, I now normally turn to Wikipedia, rather than wade through the endless fluff and human interest stories connected with an event. My print version of the Economist will carry a full account new week, but in nothing like the depth of this article. As an academic, I thank everyone here. You're been writing "the first draft of history" that the NY Times used to write before the last heir took over. Only in this article did I read the full actor interview, which went on to describe how the train crew had locked themselves in and abandoned the passengers. That had been quietly censored, apparently, by the media, god knows why. Reading the eminent historian Max Hastings on Winston Churchill recently, he paused to tell the reader how difficult his job was, because in those days, the newspapers didn't cover personalities, they covered the actual news. Even the quotable, colorful Churchill had a personal life largely off-camera. Now the news is People Magazine writ large. But Wikipedia coverage generally sticks to, and digests, facts about events. And by now, a few days after the event, the media has gone off to cover the latest kerfluffle on the campaign trail, but Wikipedia is still assembling this story. As a cultural historian, I thank everybody. This coverage has been great. Profhum (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

By «train crew had locked themselves», I assume that you mean some people from the restaurant company? Nonetheless it is not sure that what the actor did helped to solve the issue. 77.193.106.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! A group effort, emergent. I agree Wikipedia is a usually a reliable source for breaking events. There is room for improvement, for example newsy articles often lack historical context and analysis. -- GreenC 19:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tread carefully, here. It's appropriate to cover breaking stories that adhere to policy, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wounded Man

Really, what does THAT have to do with the article? It sounds like original research that needs to be pointed out. Versus001 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is in sources, but agree it is trivia.Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the whole passage about Anglade in the article is a bit dubious, it gives undue weight to him because of his celebrity status. It seems eg. that he has lied about injuring his hand because alarms in Thalys are not protected by glass. 188.67.224.45 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that what he broke was the thin glass that protects the emergency hammer used to break the train window. Charitably, it is understandable that he is confused in all the panic. His account triggered a fairly large controversy in France so it should be in there, but I agree that it is currently too long and probably too early in the article. Mezigue (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict, User:188.67.224.45 If you read the French press, it's less clear that it was 'alarm glass', rather than breaking some other kind of glass (window, door?), in order to 'raise the alarm'. However, whichever is true, it isn't our job at WP to decide who are the 'real heroes' and who aren't. It is widely reported that he was 'part of the story', so we reflect that here, in proportion to the coverage. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is in more than one reliable source. Wikipedia only requires one. If it required ten, then you would have 10 footnotes for every fact. Do we want to change Wikipedia to that? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, I'm not sure of your point, I was answering an IP about why the actor should be mentioned but not 'characterised' by us. I think the bigger question is what relevance his film career is here. WP only requires one ref, but the number and quality of refs contribute to the 'weight' assigned, otherwise we would be including every point made in every article about the subject.

My own feeling about including him as 'involved in the incident', is that he wasn't, any more than any other passenger/staff who are mentioned in sources. His comments and role are covered fairly generously earlier in the article. Pincrete (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are a NECESSARY but not a SUFFICIENT condition. We also need DUE WEIGHT and common sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Until this edit, the 'passengers' section was called 'defenders', I don't like that title but its logic is clear, ie passengers directly involved in the dis-arming. If every 'passenger involved' is included, why not list Mark Moogalian's wife who was sitting next to him while he was bleeding, why not include every passenger who is mentioned in any source, named or otherwise? For that reason including the actor IN THIS SECTION is pointless and including his films trivia.Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, but unfortunately someone keeps adding Anglade to 'involved passengers'. I took him out, together with the constantly reappearing "Wounded man" -trivia section, but Im not going to patrol here or engage in further edit wars. So if people desperately want him there with all the trivia then let them have it.188.67.58.87 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about whether Mr. Anglade should be included or not in this section, but I think if there is a consensus that he should not, it would help that the section be renamed to something in the line of "Passengers involved in subduing the assailant". Biwom (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've split the sections between 'disarmers' and 'others', it may well be that as the story unfolds, other passengers will have something notable to say. However I think it appropriate to differentiate between those who have been widely written about as being active in the disarming.Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"another bullet grazed the train's controller"

Am I the only one who is unsure what "the train's controller" is? I had to check the original French ("un contrôleur a senti une balle le frôler") to ascertain this is about one of the conductors. Biwom (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The "contrôleur" is indeed the conductor. The sentence implies the bullet passed by, without touching him, but was close enough he could feel it. ACiD88 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, a graze is a contact injury, albeit sometimes very light. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just as a footnote, writing "controller" for "conductor" is a classic example of a false friend mistranslation, which bites language students of French and English constantly. (And also of other language pairs where borrowing or common word derivation occurs.) One of the marks of fluency is not making this kind of elementary mistake.Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Massacre averted

This article is as notable as it is chiefly due to widespread acceptance that a massacre was narrowly averted, however the article has very little to say about this. A new section should be added, perhaps Perception of tragedy averted or some such.

Although this non-fatal attack involving the wounding of five persons on a European train would doubtless still have been news in France and possibly merited an article on WP, it's quite evident that the level of attention it has received in the news worldwide and the almost immediate awarding of the Legion of Honour by the French President in person to some of those involved in subduing the perpetrator is almost entirely due to the perception that a massacre had been averted. The train held 550 passengers, and reports say Khazzani had 300 rounds of ammunition for his AK-47, as well as other weapons, so there could have been dozens, or perhaps hundreds of deaths on the train had he not been subdued. Although this is a perception and not an event, it is still a key part of the story, but it is not described in the article.

There is one note in the Reaction section by President Obama ("may have prevented a far worse tragedy") and three mentions of the word 'massacre' in the footnotes, but little else. There should probably be a new section describing the media reports and the decoration of the passengers by Hollande, in the context of this perception of an averted massacre. The statement by Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve could be quoted, as well as an excerpt of the remarks by President Hollande at the ceremony and before. The Belgian P.M. made similar remarks, and I'm sure comments could be pulled from numerous high officials in France, Holland, and elsewhere about this.

Just to be clear: WP cannot say "a massacre was averted" because we don't know that, and no massacre occurred. What we can do though is report that many politicians, media, and others claimed or opined that this was the case, and that the public believed it was so (with appropriate sourcing) so that this was the widespread, common presumption, including at the highest levels of French government, sufficiently so to award four foreigners on a train France's highest order of merit within days of the event. Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually we can say "a massacre was averted" because that is what the majority of sources say. However we also need to provide a balanced POV and give the defendants view that he had no intention of committing a massacre (he said?). Wikipedia isn't about absolute truth, only providing multiple POVs with due WP:WEIGHT to each POV. -- GreenC 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, actually you can't. Because the sources don't say that, they include the conditional qualifier may or similar. Read the actual quotes: CNN reporter: "...the five heroes who may have averted a massacre..."; French Interior Minister Cazeneuve (per CNN): "...a massacre might have occurred"; Cazeneuve (per NYT): "...we could have been confronted with a terrible tragedy..."; Pres. Obama: "...their heroic actions may have prevented a far worse tragedy"; Hollande: "...averted what could have been a true carnage"; and so on. Your statement about what WP is about, is exactly right. I don't believe your point about defendant's view is relevant in a paragraph about worldwide perception of tragedy averted because I don't think the perpetrator's claim has any weight in what worldwide perception about this event actually is. (Easy to prove me wrong; cite a RS saying, e.g. *NYT interviews and quotes people who think there would not likely have been a tragedy on the train contrary to overwhelming public opinion about the question, because the defendant said so.") We can certainly quote the defendant in the section about the events and aftermath, and he is duly quoted, already. The defendant's weight in worldwide public perception of an averted tragedy, imho, is zero. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok then say that, include a qualifier "may have" or whatever. -- GreenC 21:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur

I provided a source (though there are many more) indicating that the French citizens have not yet been awarded the L d'h. There have been no sources given contradicting this. For French citizens a background check must be performed first and there is no evidence that this has occurred. Stop undoing my correction unless you can back up your assertions with a source! Difbobatl (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semantics perhaps, but one can be said to have been awarded an honour on the day an announcement is made, one receives or is presented with the medal at a ceremony, the medal is only the 'membership badge', rather than the honour itself. The honour is becoming/being made a Knight of a notional chivalric order, this at least is the logic/terminology of UK honours which I presume is true of French ones. A better analogy than a Purple Heart or VC, (in respect of semantics), would be being made a lifetime member of the motion picture Academy. … ps the use of 'receive the honour' is legitimate shorthand IMO, but 'was made' or 'became' is more accurate.Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Difbobatl, would it address your concerns if the phrasing were intention to award the French men, which I believe is RS, but note my comments above about awarded/received/being made. Pincrete (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should speak only of "intention" at this stage. Pincrete, you would probably be interested to know that in the case of the LdH the law explicitly says that the award is only considered given once the ceremony has taken place ("Nul n'est membre de la Légion d'honneur avant qu'il n'ait été procédé à sa réception dans l'ordre"). And this is not just a formality because there are cases of people refusing the honour, which can be done simply by not attending the ceremony (or refusing that a ceremony takes place, whatever). Oftentimes these people would explain loudly why they don't want it, the latest such case (that I know of) being Thomas Piketty in January 2015. Biwom (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Very much like UK honours, I think technically one is not an MBE, CBE, etc until her Maj. says 'join the club', but it is commonplace shorthand to speak of 'today awarded a CBE' on the day of announcement, rather than of investiture, when they 'are made' or 'become' a CBE . My own edits were only concerned with not implying that only the UK/US were going to be honoured and trying to avoid the slight nonsense of being given a 'Knight of the L.d'h.' Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps 'The Palace', handles refusals a little more self-protectively, people are approached before the announcement to check whether they will accept, occasionally it leaks that someone has refused, but 'the Palace', never confirms or denies such refusals. The Beatles famously accepted honours in the 1960s, but then returned them a few years later!Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree both that the Ld'H specifically requires the ceremony and that "intention" is the right way to express it. Thanks! Difbobatl (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to modify the wording taking into account my, and others' points, if it doesn't work, please amend.Pincrete (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that 'Damien A' may not become C'de Ldh, as to thus reward him would break his anonymity. I think the intention to honour him in some way is established though. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, I agree with both the spirit and letter of your edits and your comments here, especially caution about use of terms like 'massacre' and the changes to the 'involved' and 'Anglade'. However, is it not a courtesy to once refer to (French: Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur)? It was actually me that first put in the Eng. translation, since I thought that readers would want to know what it meant, rather than its 'real name'. Is this not the normal logic on WP, to once refer to orig language? No, readers don't need to know, but the Eng version is not well established and many papers refer to it by its Fr name. Pincrete (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Pincrete, I added it back in the first link. I actually don't think it's needed even as a courtesy, because one can assume interested parties will click the link (or even just mouse over it, if they have that feature enabled) if they're really curious about the French. But I don't feel strongly enough about it either way. My main peeve, is that guidelines and essays such as WP:Translation or MOS:LINK should say something definitive about this one way or the other so we can follow the recommendation, but they don't. It's hardly the only lacuna where it comes to topics involving more than one language, there are many such. Maybe I'll go edit the guidelines one day, and see what happens, and if you have an opinion about it, I'd certainly encourage you to go do the same. I edit articles on French and other language topics, and sometimes even on French WP, and there's a huge gray area in things like this. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Mathglot, thanks, I think the French is more familiar in UK, even to dunces like me with 'schoolboy French'. I couldn't contribute anything useful to that discussion beyond a general impression that orig. language should be included once, for reasons of courtesy and precision, and the English meaning should be included, even if its use is not well established. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

2015_Thalys_train_attack#Account_of_Jean-Hugues_Anglade

This section heading is strange and undue. The info is fine, but we need to merge it to attack or something else. Not sure what is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

One analogy is if there is a hijacking and telling of the story from a pilot's perspective and a passenger. Separate paragraphs and/or sections help. But it becomes confusing if it reads: The pilot called the tower at 8:05 telling about the hijacking. At this time, passenger A was drinking coffee but noticing that another man was suspicious. The pilot was told not to do anything "funny" by hijacker B. Passenger A, saw that man C was looking in his bag to get a gun. The pilot at 8:15 replied to the hijacker B that he was in charge and not to forget that, but that the hijackers requests would be accepted. Passenger A punched man C in the jaw. ... Message left by Sandra ott 30 August 2015.

Much of the 'Anglade' info relates to his complaints of being abandoned by staff, apparently this has become a big issue in France. I think any testimony that describes the attack should be seperated from 'complaints', 'complaints' should move down the page as it's 'aftermath'. Agree section title is strange and undue. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

we in wp call it a controversy but it is only a wp controversy. In real life, it is fact. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Created new section header Controversy towards the end of the article, and moved the "strange section", which formerly was part of the first section (Attack) of the article, where it had undue weight, under the new Controversy heading. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Rerouted to Arras?

I'm a little curious as to how/why the train got rerouted to Arras. The station isn't on the LGV Nord and with the attack happening at Oignies near Lille, one would have thought that Lille would have been a much closer and more convenient stop. Anyone know the answer? Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the openstreetmap map you will see first that Oignies is AFTER Lilles and not before, and secondly that railway network is interconnected, in a way which makes we can assume that the Thalys has some possibilities to go to Arras. (see www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=arras#map=12/50.2949/3.0065&layers=T )

Anyway if you ask to some railway operator or to police in charge of this case, you will have a better answer...77.193.106.208 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Trains are forbidden from stopping on the high speed tracks. By getting on the regular track, the train driver made it possible to stop on the track in case that the attack would have continued and it would become more important to immediately stop and let the people run out of the train instead of reaching the closest station. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP1E?

Alek Skarlatos, this seems a clear WP:BLP1E. Pincrete (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

His decision to appear on Dancing with the Stars tells us he is seeking the spotlight and choosing to be a public figure. BLP1E is meant to protect people from becoming a public figure who otherwise don't seek it. I would !vote Keep if it came up, given all the other notability evidence. Winning a Legion of Honor normally carries a lot of weight, though I would not recommend the other passengers have an article until/if they do something more in the public sphere. -- GreenC 13:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting! I am the creator of the article. I created the article, because is much more notable than stopping the attack on the Thalys train. He will now be appearing on Dancing with the Stars and has won the Legion of Honour, which certainly makes him notable for more than one thing. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 21:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

'Dancing with Stars' is the only thing that isn't already in this article … … maybe he'll end up having a whole new career, but WP isn't a crystal-ball. Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read my new comment to your deletion nomination. He does not satisfy BLP1E. Good day. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 00:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP1E is not something one needs to satisfy, it lays out grounds for clear exclusion. There is then a 'grey area', as to whether someone HAS established a name outside the 'trigger event', that may or may not happen in the case of Skarlatos. At the moment it hasn't. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Skarlatos is still BLP1E imho, although if he keeps it up, he might not be at some future point. But the idea is, to let some time elapse to see if that occurs. We are too close to the events, what's going on now in Skarlatos' life is still part of the Thalys news cycle. As for Legion of Honor winners, it is indeed an honor, but there are over a million of them, although the exact number is not known. If that's enough for notability, then we've got another million or so articles to add to WP. Sadler was interviewed on the Tonight Show, but that doesn't make him notable, either. Mathglot (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my newest comments on the matter. Note to other people; please !vote in the deletion discussion. Thanks. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 22:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• User:Green Cardamom, 1E is also there for our protection, so that not every Tom, Dick, and Harry who dances on a TV show gets an article written about them. User:CookieMonster755, I think you're suggesting that Dancing on the Stars makes someone more notable than stopping a madman with an AK-47. I hope you understand how seriously perverted such a view is, and that such a mindset should fit Wikia more than Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I just want to make it clear that there is nothing personal about this. I genuinely believe that WP, its readers, and possibly Skarlatos himself are better served by giving him full coverage of his role within the train incident article. We should all know how fickle the media and the public are, at the moment he is famous everywhere, but tomorrow ?, who knows. It isn't our job to either diminish or 'fuel' the story. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What do we want?

It may help us if we decide what we want in general terms.

This may change, but my first thought is that the article should:

1. Have a succinct introduction.

2. It should have a few representative, free use photos. Color is good.

3. It should have a great deal of detail of the attack and things related to the attack, surpassing anything else on the internet, by compiling things reported in the news.

4. It should provide an overall perspective as far as terrorism or if it were (yeah, right) just a robbery. It should cover the areas of debate that the world is considering.

Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is in a pretty good shape right now. I would suggest you stop tinkering pointlessly with it, since most of your contributions are poor and have to be reverted. Mezigue (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

1. The introduction is succinct enough.

2. If there were free-use photos, someone else would've put it in by now. In other words, we have all the photos we need in the article as of now.

3. Everything provided in the article IS everything reported in the news. Why do you think there are lots of citations? And a Wikipedia article cannot "surpass anything else on the internet". Its content and quality is dependent on the sources provided.

4. What debate? The only real debate going on is if the perp should be fried for what he did or not.

I concur with Mezigue. The article is good as it is right now, and if a source comes along with new information regarding the case, then it will be implemented. But for now, leave the article as it is. You've been nothing but a nuisance in contributing to the article, and your edits have brought a great deal of strife and debate over many certain aspects of it. I am so close to reporting you. Just lay off on the ambitions. Versus001 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If it is so good then let's nominate it for featured article. I don't think the article is so good because it needs improvement? Featured article??? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Improvement is incremental and specific, it is not made by generalities, nor speculations about the believability or otherwise of El Kahzzani. It is too early for 'good article' etc. IMO. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There is this pic of the 3 Americans + Hollande, but it isn't a great photo, whether there is a free use of everybody I don't know. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Not EVERY good article in Wikipedia has to be nominated for featured article. It just needs to be the best it can be with the commonly accepted information. What YOU believe are improvements are in fact just trivial information that unnecessarily buff up the article. You clearly have no idea how to assemble a Wikipedia article, do you? Versus001 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Versus, take it easy please. Sandra, your zeal is appreciated, but turning this into an FA isn't really in the cards right now, though you can try for GA. Also, please consider that articles on Wikipedia do not fight terrorism--let's keep it neutral, in the article and on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Spelt/spelled

Versus001, Sandra opposed to terrorism, both the online dictionaries I consulted, gave BOTH spellings of this word, neither was recorded as especially US or UK, or 'other'. I think spelt is more traditional, but either way, is it really worth edit-warring over? Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen that version of the word before, so I was understandably confused at where this was going. Versus001 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done the same thing a few times, start to correct some idiot's spelling, only to discover that the idiot's spelling is perfectly normal to half the world! Pincrete (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Spelt is more often used in France. Therefore, spelt. It is also used in the UK. I don't want to fight about it but spelt is the better way. EDIT: looks like we should use the spelt way because look at the way the date is written. Not the USA way. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article uses US English (since France is neither US nor UK), guidelines say we should stick to that consistently once established. Either Month Day or Day Month is acceptable in citations, what citations don't like is the UK habit of XXth, XXrd etc. Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, as so often, you are factually wrong, 20 August is NOT more common in UK than August 20, the long forms 20th August and August 20th are both equally common, but the use of st,nd,rd,th, is discouraged on WP, although it is traditionally almost universal in the UK. The only 'standard' difference is the short form where UK always uses dd/mm/yy - which is also discouraged on WP. France is a French-speaking country, so what led you to your conclusion about how they spelt an English word and what relevance would it have anyway? The article is written in US English. … … which incidentally, is not MY English, in case anybody hasn't realised/ized. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

For the verb form, spelt is chiefly U.K. where it is about twice as common as the alternative, whereas in the States you almost never see it spelled that way compared to 'spelled' which is over 100 times more common there. For me, 'spelt' is a grain. But the real issue here is to follow policy, and the applicable one here is MOS:RETAIN which calls for U.S. English in this case, therefore, "spelled". (Oh, and by the way, regarding: Spelt is more often used in France: uh, no, épelé is more often used in France. If you're talking about English instruction in France, then of course spelt is more common, because English instruction in France follows the British standard, but that provides no weight for the argument in either direction, as this is English Wikipedia.) Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

a) Mathglot is completely right b) it ain't worth edit-warring about. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

article is cut in two, not good

The article is cut in two and this is not good. I am fixing to be more chronological order. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is putting Anglades complaints about the train crew (which happened after the event, and which are not supported by all witnesses) 'more chronological'. How does seperating this from his meetings with Thalys make those complaints clearer. In what way is info about this (fairly minor and much contested) detail, more important than information about the alleged perpretator. Your changes just seem arbitary I'm afraid (except of course they move Anglade up the page!). I'm reverting you until others chime in.Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Anglade's complaints barely have anything to do with the Attack section, and as Pincrete said, they are not as important of a section as, say, the section on the suspected perpetrator. Therefore, it belongs at the bottom of the section list, only above the References and External links sections, of course. Sections are organized according to importance, not chronological order. Versus001 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, both actually (a balance between chrono and importance), but agree, importance here is more appropriate.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The crew running away is part of the incident and chronological. It would be like an article on 9-11 where it describes what happened omitting flight 93 then at the very end of the article describes the fight about United flight 93. Note that all analogies are never perfect, so don't pick on that one. Will try to dissect more sentences to make you happy. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith Post-It 01

Sandra, the 'crew running away' is contested by several key witnesses inc. Mme Moogalian, (and implicitly by Skarlatos) it emerged as an allegation after the event, it is anyway a detail, peripheral to the main event. It makes more sense to be dealt with as an after-matter, putting together the allegation and Thalys's response (and Anglade's partial retraction when he realised that the 'runaways' were actually catering staff). 9/11 was an extremely complex event, which would challenge any editor's skills to present clearly, but I doubt if criticism of the various agencies' 'failures' is interspersed into the main narrative. ... ps renaming the section 'Train crew escape', as if it were a fact, not an opinion, is potentially libelous. You also seperated Anglade's quote from the ref that supported it. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats are not permitted. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats from whom? Versus001 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt very much if Thalys staff would sue WP, however that isn't a good reason for us to print as true, what we know to be unproven (indeed partially withdrawn). Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am happy with the revert by Pincrete--this version by Sandra makes no sense to me. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The crew ran away. That is fact and not disputed by anyone except a legalistic train employee from the head office. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is a good idea if you slow down, Sandra. Clearly your edits find no consensus, and it's starting to get a bit disruptive. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, how many people are 'the crew'? How many Thalys conductors are on each train? (I don't know the answer but suspect one or two), Mrs Moogalian comes to the crew's defence and says one came to their help in the midst of the incident (I forget which source). Skarlatos says that while they were 'laying into' the gunman, a conductor came along and told them to stop (misunderstanding who the attacker was probably, they had no French, him no English) - that is in the interview at the end of 'criticism' (perhaps this is the 'unnamed conductor', cited by Norman).

That at least one passenger felt 'abandoned' and complained is a fact, that the catering staff locked themselves into their 'room', is acknowledged. Anything more than that is giving undue weight to the impressions of someone who wasn't even in the relevant carriage, and who has subsequently amended his testimony, and is about an issue that the press seems to have dropped, as far as I know. Pincrete (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not just one person. Even the company felt the incident was serious enough to comment and deny it. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In one of the September 11th ariticles, there is a part of the crew's involvement. One flight attendant called headquarters to report the descriptions and seat numbers of the hijackers. It is within the body of the article, not separated. Similarly, in this article the actions of the crew related to the attack shouldn't be separated to the end. I will ask others. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Breaking news!!! On the American Airlines Flight 11 article talk page, I suggested our problem here and asked whether that article should be treated the same way, i.e. take out the efforts of the crew member Betty Ong and put it in the very end in a separate section. David Johnson, a user, said NO. Besides, that is a featured article showing it is better than good. Therefore, I have wisdom that some of the gang here lack. Stop hating me and start following my wisdom. To make it easier, I will be more careful and star to only suggest the great wisdom part and not the suggestions with merit but less wisdom. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, Actually this was the advice you got on American Airlines Flight 11 from David Johnson, I don't think it represents an endorsement of 'your wisdom', it is telling you to not mess with things until there is consensus on talk. Pincrete (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because one article is doing it doesn't mean EVERY SINGLE OTHER ARTICLE has to follow that pattern. In fact, WP discourages it in a number of cases. Believe me, I learned that the hard way. Versus001 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism: be careful not to go shopping. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not forum shopping but seeking opinions. Splitting the article in two is wrong. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the community will doubtless decide that. Ciao! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, re: Splitting the article in two is wrong, because? … Re seeking opinions, they have already been epressed above, and so far, I don't see one that agrees with you, therefore you are knowingly editing against consensus, which is disruptive and vandalistic.

re: Not just one person. Who else? Why would weight be given to that one person's testimony (said in the heat of the moment, and which he later partially retracted) and ignore the testimony of two others rather 'closer to the action' . What right do you have to present that one version as FACT, when it is contradicted by at least two other witnesses, and has been largely withdrawn by Anglade himself. Why is this so important that it needs repeating word-for-word in two places in the article, when it has been largely dropped by Anglade, dropped by the news coverage, as what it probably was, namely the feeling of fear and abandonment (understandable), of one witness.

Did somebody 'call headquarters' in the middle of the event, and if they did what is the pertinence to the event, or pertinence of your comparison. Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. Even if you get 100 people to vote to delete the September 11th article or the article on George Washington, you should not do so. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If it has been retracted, then it should be mentioned in the article, not hidden in the talk page. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, I have moved the above two posts, don't intersperse your comments into the middle of someone else's post, it becomes impossible for anyone to know who has written what. Pincrete (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'If it has been retracted, then it should be mentioned in the article, not hidden in the talk page'., … … it is in the article, Criticism section … …On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company. He added: "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behaviour."Pincrete (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

btw, comparing the moving of Anglade's accusations down the page a bit (and not presenting them as established fact), to deleting George Washington, is a tad over-dramatic don't you think ? Pincrete (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to trying to hide the fact that the train crew ran away. It should be included in the description of the attack. Seen in ANI so I came here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F117IS (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

F117IS, we don't decide what goes in primarily on what WE are in favour of or opposed to, but on what reliable sources say happened. The only person to claim that the crew 'ran away', has since withdrawn the statement, partly because they weren't even train crew, but caterer's staff. It has never been stated as a fact anywhere, (only as one man's temporary claim). That claim is in the article, but you would have a hard job persuading anyone to include it as fact in the main body with NO ONE any longer claiming it happened. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Skarlatos and crew intervention

I've added the H2 header 'Skarlatos and crew intervention' to set this sub-conversation off into its own section, so it's clearer what's being discussed. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, I also think that Skarlatos interview (final para) is not really criticism nor controversy, it's more the 'confusion of the situation'. There have been several LATER interviews with the 3 US boys, I think it would be a mistake to break up the straightforward factual account of the 'attack section', but possibly material from these post-event interviews could go in a new section to 'flesh out' the bare narrative. (or go?)Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete Re Skarlatos interview, I agree that it's not about a controversy, but rather about events during the attack. If it is retained at all, it should be moved to section "Attack", and certainly should not include the full quote. I would keep the reference only, throw out all the text, and add the reference to the "Attack" section, possibly after the words "...assailant was unconscious." Anyone interested in what he actually said, can read it at the referenced link, but it has no importance to the article as a whole.Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, IF used, as with Stone, and Sandler interviews, I don't think they should interrupt the 'clean' 'bare' factual narrative, which is the primary purpose of 'attack'. The Skarlatos interview used now in controversy is almost a 'comedy of misunderstandings'. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Kind of agree with you. What do you think should be done with Skarlatos interview, keep, keep but move, shorten, shorten and move, delete, other? I'm okay with deleting it entirely, or deleting all the text, and keeping the ref but putting the ref elsewhere. Any others want to weigh in, here? Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It should at most be sumarised in a single sentence- that's all it needs, anything else = WP:UNDUE. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; in which section do you think it should be placed? Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflicts: Mathglot, After posting, I thought Skarlatos interview could be heavily pruned and go into 'attack', eg while subduing the gunman, a train conductor attempted to intervene … Norman translated for them. A sentence would probably suffice, anyone wanting to see the 'humourous/dramatic' side can read the interview. The incident is relevant to the whole picture, including the 'staff behaviour' element. Mme. Moogalian has also spoken about this conductor, but I forget which source. Her presence isn't recorded anywhere, I'm unsure as to whether it should be, in one sense she was wholly involved, but not actively so. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

removal of Fox quotation

The declaration of Alek Skarlatos about the train crew on Fox News is crystal clear and unambiguous. How comes it has been removed as a detail?????????? http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/08/28/thwarting-terror-on-tracks-in-1-american-hero-own-words/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Bayer (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it's WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek  20:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Alek Skarlatos recounted on Fox News the behavior of the train employee. Any attempt to remove his testimony is a clear attempt to hide some crucial information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Bayer (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Helmut Bayer, actually it was removed by me initially, following discussion above, the only editors to 'chip in' came to the conclusion that it WASN'T criticism of the crew. How exactly is an off duty member of staff challenging them in French (not understanding who was who), when they were 'beating up' the attacker, but then helping them when Norman translated for them, how is that a criticism? He didn't speak English? He didn't immediately understand who was who? What is the criticism? btw it isn't removed, it is reduced to its factual element in a sentence in 'Attack'. Since the main 'criticism of the crew' is that they supposedly 'ran away and hid', Skarlatos actually contradicts that. The incident is more indicative of 'confusion of the situation' than criticism. Skarlatos's own words are more indicative of the craziness of the situation, with no one understanding who was who and with them unable to communicate. … … ps apologies Helmut, but your last remark is BOLLOCKS. What is the 'crucial information' and why on earth do you imagine that anyone would want to hide it? Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs what was removed, where it was put using the same interview as source. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Helmut Bayer WP:SPA _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC) … … I see what you mean. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Any attempt to remove his testimony is a clear attempt to hide some crucial information." Now why would anyone on Wikipedia, especially people who have provided lots of contributions to the article, suddenly feel the need to "hide some crucial information" about the incident? How crucial exactly is Skarlatos' account supposed to be, even? Versus001 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, this editor, was another SPA. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"A British passenger, 62-year-old Chris Norman, and a French train driver came to their aid to hold the gunman down. They used Norman's T-shirt to tie his arms behind his back. The train driver had intervened initially to tell Skarlatos and Stone to stop attacking the gunman, until Norman translated for them to explain what was happening." If the train staff would have helped he would have been decorated with a Legion L'honneur. Why hadn't he? Because train staff never helped. The reference does not say anything about this. This is pure speculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Bayer (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Helmut Bayer, What you have been doing, is edit war to include the Skarlatos testimony, this explicitly states a train crew member 'intervened' while they were beating up the gunman, until Norman translated to explain. How could this crew member be hiding in the engine car, and at the same time 'intervening' in the 'attack carriage'. Norman and Mme. Moogalian both explicitly state that a crew member came along and helped towards the end of the fight and with the tie-ing up. Why didn't he get a L'd'H? Ask Hollande, not us. I guess it may have been because a). he was doing his job b). he didn't arrive until the gunman was largely disarmed. Perhaps he is getting some kind of 'train medal'. I believe he is mentioned in the Thalys report (which I have not yet read). .... ps even if no one did 'intervene', it would not be our job to say so unless a souce EXPLICITLY said so.Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of Helmut Bayer's odd agenda and gibberish talk, I do think this version is inaccurate. It is an employee of the train, not the driver off duty who asked him to let go of the gun. Mezigue (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue, I think you are wrong here, Norman speaks of a 'train person', who joined in with the tying up. Mme. Mogalian speaks similarly, of someone who came to help during the incident. Skarlatos speaks of someone 'interfering' mid-fight, who clearly didn't understand until Norman translated. No one speaks of a 2nd train person, though no one says explicitly that these are the same person. Open to any suggestions as to how to resolve this. Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the Thalys report one of the two ticket inspectors joined the fray. He would have been in uniform whereas the off-duty driver wasn't. Furthermore, the off-duty driver was there from the start and knew the situation. It seems obvious to me it must be the inspector who asked them to stop beating the suspect and lower the gun. However in the absence of certainty on that the best thing is to leave the convesation out altogether. A few posters with an agenda are obsessed with including it because they reckon it reflects badly on Thalys staff, whereas it seems to me it is just a matter of clashing perspectives: military men in "combat mode" vs train employee who would rather guns were put down and no one was killed. I see nothing noteworthy in that conversation. Mezigue (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of the report's content, I agree completely with your conclusion (omit). Regardless that (whoever it was), was wrong in their understanding, it actually takes a lot of courage to walk up to 3 fit young men (one waving an AK47 around), who are beating the shit out of a fourth (who is armed with a knife), with blood all over the floor, and tell them 'you can't behave like that on my train!'. Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"you can't behave like that on my train!". Could you please cite your reference for this quote. Or is this pure speculation? Whoever had a lot of courage on the train was awarded a medal Legion L'honour for gallantry by French President Hollande. This is a fact. The choice not to quote Alek Skarlatos who spoke on Fox News and to invent quotes from unknown people is quite bizarre. Or is there a hidden agenda here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Bayer (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Helmut Bayer, "you can't behave like that on my train!" is pure speculation/characterisation on my part, however I have not for one nano-second suggested including it in the article.

What exactly is Skarlatos' criticism ? That the French train driver didn't speak English? That he didn't immediately realise who was who? Or that the man was hiding in the engine car at the same time as he was in 'the attack car', challenging them to stop beating the gunman (a rare gift). Or that he didn't understand proper US Army procedure for clearing an area of threats? (why would he, he was French train staff?) . Here is the quote There was one train employee that came up to us right as it was getting over and told Spencer to stop choking the guy, which was insane because he was not even fully unconscious, and told me to put the AK down, which again was insane because I hadn't even looked through the train to see if anybody else was there. I don't know what he was thinking, but I just told him that I was military and to calm down and get out of the way, and then Chris translated for us, and that was really it … Please tell us what the criticism IS and we can discuss whether to include it. Because it looks to us to be part of the 'confusion of the situation', never even intended as a criticism. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Alek Skarlatos said what he said, whether you like it or not. The rest is pure speculation. You want to omit the quote because you think it is not a criticism. The burden of proof is on you to explain why it is not a criticism, not on me to prove it is a criticism. I just know what Alek Skarlatos said on public television. What he said was added here for information and removed. Still, this is what he said. The name of the off-duty French train driver was made public. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34041873 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Bayer (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is on you to explain why it is not a criticism, not on me to prove it is a criticism." Er, no. We are not in a court of law. We are discussing whether the statement is significant and you are making a very poor case that it is. Mezigue (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Helmut Bayer, by your logic, everything said by any person, in every interview, whether we think it makes sense or not, (or was simply a 'throw-away' remark) whether it contributes to understanding or a coherent narrative or not, should be included in its entirety. And by what criteria would we be deciding what was a factual description, what a criticism, and what simply background 'colour' to the story telling? As Mezigue says, you are not even attempting to convince that Skarlatos' interview adds anything of significance, nor why exactly you imagine it was a criticism. The same question, (3rd or 4th time of asking,) what is the criticism ? Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC) … … Your BBC link answers your own question about L d'H for the crew, though 'will be awarded' is not 'have been awarded', and we should be cautious about that info Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice reductio ad absurdum! "Everything said by any person, in every interview, whether we think it makes sense or not, (or was simply a 'throw-away' remark) whether it contributes to understanding or a coherent narrative or not, should be included in its entirety.". Says who? Me? When? Where? Reference please. What I know is what Skarlatos said on television. Facts. I don't put words in his mouth. I don't speculate. I like facts and references, and will keep it that way. Have a lot of fun with your wiki page and so long! Over and out! Helmut Bayer (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Helmut Bayer

Helmut Bayer, he wasn't quoting you. He is describing the point you seem to be making, intentionally or unintentionally. Versus001 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Helmut Bayer ,then could we please have some reason why this particulat thing Skarlatos said is important, what it contributes to understanding, and why it is a criticism? Skarlatos (and others), have said many things, what is relevant or important about this ? You still haven't attempted to answer these questions. Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, while there's an ongoing Talk page discussion about a particular passage of text in the article, please don't edit it to suit yourself as you did here, here, and here. I've reverted your last reinclusion of the Skarlatos/Fox quotation in the Attack section until consensus is achieved.

In addition, please always use descriptive edit summaries for your edits to help other editors follow the history, and even more so when your edit might be controversial or related to an ongoing discussion. Please don't "hide" your edits with brief, opaque edit summaries as you did in the three edits noted above, with summaries 1. Actions of train crew: added, 2. Attack: restored, and 3. restored tag, respectively. This is misleading and sneaky, as it's hard for other editors to see that you're making changes without consensus on a topic under discussion. Instead, please join the discussion on the WP:Talk page, say what you'd like to do, and achieve consensus first. Then make your changes.

Finally, just a friendly tip: when your edit concerns a discussion taking place on the Talk page, adding a link in the Edit Summary box directly to the Talk page section in question is a courtesy that helps your fellow editors. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Moogalians

Connected with the above discussion (the later interviews), Stone in a US TV interview says (approx.) that Moogalian's bullet, entered his neck, damaged his lungs, ricocheted off his ribs and then 'exit-wounded'. There may be a better (French?) source. Is this worthy of inclusion? I was thinking in the 'people summary' list. I also wondered above whether the fact that he was travelling with his wife was valid background info for the same section. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Driver/Conductor

The 'off-duty' Thalys employee (due to be honoured later), is described at some points in our text as a conductor, at some points as a driver. The 'conductor' story, I think comes from Norman, anyone know which is correct? Both are sourced. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In French, the driver is conducteur- what we call the conductor- as in, the Guard- is the chef de bord. So I think it's a confusion that there is any distinction between them by the source. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I THINK, the original term used was "contrôleur", (see above "another bullet grazed the train's controller", but maybe that was someone else) however, whatever, we should decide what he was, or call him 'employee/crew/??. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

H'mmm contrôleur = signaller IIRC. Can I suggest the term train crew as that not only covers all grades but also is impersonal and non-gender-specific? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one of the native speakers (yourself?), should go back to French sources, rather than 'rapid' Guardian etc. translations. Mathglot & Mezigue I think come into that category. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I could have a look- but my level of proficiency was professional rather than native. I appreciate the compliment though _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the source is Huffpost France: http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2015/08/22/chris-norman-consultat-britannique-assaillant-thalys-train_n_8025282.html which talks about a "conducteur au repos", an odd turn of phrase they put between quotation marks which suggests a driver off his shift. But then the source for that is Chris Norman who is a British man speaking in French, so he might have meant conductor! This person does not feature in most accounts so I wonder if he even exists. It might be the mysterious Damian A and Norman got confused. Witness testimonies can be notoriously inaccurate when something out of the ordinary happens. Mezigue (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Damien A is described as a banker, but everything else you say is spot on. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, well things are becoming a bit clearer now that Thalys have released their report. The man in question was indeed a train driver described as "on work travel" (« en voyage de service »). In fact his name can be found on a different Thalys press release but I am not sure if it is appropriate to include it. Mezigue (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

My presumed understanding of "on work travel", is that he was being paid to travel to the place where he would start actual driving, I know this is normal with London tube and UK rail, where scheduling people often involves them starting/finishing their driving day away from their 'home' station. 'Off-duty driver' is probably as close as we can get! Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove information.

Some topics, I can see that there could be differences in opinions, like having flags.

Some topics, should have no opposition. For example, with George Washington, there should be no argument that he was President of the United States. There should be no argument that there is a legend about the cherry tree.

For this topic, there should be no argument that a Purple Heart medal was awarded. There should be no argument that the crew reportedly ran away. Both of these are being deleted. They must be restored. Even if there is a consensus, which there isn't, some things must be there. For example, if 100 editors went to the Hitler article and wrote that the Holocaust did not exist, such consensus must be ignored if it flies in the face of citations and truth.

Similarly, there should be no argument that the Purple Heart medal was awarded. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales- of all people!- once stated his belief that if there had been a Wikipedia in the 15th/ 16th century, it would have reported the earth as having been flat and Copernicus as merely a fringe-theorist. Thus, your argument that there should be no argument is somewhat against policy, which has stood the project well for some years well. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: the crew reportedly ran away, but you aren't inserting it like that, you are inserting it as the crew ran away. Furthermore the one person who reported it has since acknowledged that they weren't crew and apologised. So what you are left with is zero evidence that the original single story was correct, and without even a single source that says it happened (rather than that Anglade claimed it happened, then withdrew). Yes, that's very like denying the evidence of the Holocaust! Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We are here in 2015 and the Purple Heart has been given. No argument should exist. Arguments are against policy. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds mildly Stalinist... are you sure of that? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Stalin killed opponents. I do not kill anyone though I have smashed some spiders (not a person). Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's beside the point. What you're saying is that what YOU say goes, even if the majority is opposed to it. WP is a team effort, and what you've been doing most of the time is operate outside of the team's rules. Versus001 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You really don't have to use the most obvious examples to prove your point. We get it. However, it's all about RELEVANCY. RELEVANCY dictates which edits stay and which ones don't. For example, your tidbit about the Camaro. So, by your example, should we mention that every person praised for stopping a terrorist attack received a car as an award? Anyone can be awarded with a car for doing anything (especially contest-related). That is barely informative and just buffs up the article with superfluous information.

As for the train crew running away, what have we told you? These claims are being disputed by varying eyewitness accounts. If the credibility of the information is disputed, then it shouldn't be included on a section that serves to only include facts and should be in a more appropriate section like the "Controversies" one. The Purple Heart info, however, I can agree with; I think that's something that probably should stay.

As for your comment on things staying even if there is a consensus against it, that actually goes against WP policy. If there are differing opinions about certain information included in an article, they NEED to be settled with a consensus on the talk page or (if necessary) the appropriate forum. But you cannot just include information disputed among other users while the discussion is ongoing (or even if the majority has decided against it). It has to be settled first BEFORE it can be included (if something is approved, that is). Please don't be self-serving. Versus001 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Camaro sentence by itself looks like trivia. However, it won't be once we improve the article. There should be a new section about the ticker tape parades, invitation to the White House, free cars, etc. There is a whole big topic about the aftermath that has yet to be written. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

...Are you kidding me? There haven't even BEEN parades, White House invitations, etc., etc., and I doubt there ever will be, since the attack didn't even get big enough before the gunman was subdued and it was only limited to a few injuries. If the decorated heroes are ever invited to the White House, then yes, that can possibly make it into the article, but the inclusion of parades and free cars is just pushing it too much and plain-out ridiculous. The mere CONSIDERATION that there will be a parade in the heroes' honor is just ludicrous. Versus001 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"No argument should exist. Arguments are against policy." I love it! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I just remind some folks that WP is read by some people who come here to get away from celebrity obsessed, TV culture. People who just might think that ticker-tape parades (which ain't gonna happen anyway, probably), are of marginal interest (footnote status), compared to the factual information about the event itself. And that talk show hosts and car manufacturers getting a bit of cheap publicity by giving away cars, are so predictably yawn-worthy, they would want to vomit at the crassness of it, and worse, the crassness of their favourite online encyclopedia repeating this nonsense, as though it were actually remotely interesting, even less, as though it were remotely relevant. Pincrete (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of wounded

According to the BBC article, it is five wounded -

• The assailant was beaten unconcious
• Chris Norman injured subduing assailant
• Spencer Stone cut with the knife
• Unidentified man cut with the knife
• Jean-Hugues Anglade cut by glass raising alarm.

Therefore I will amend the article to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Very confusing without a list of names. Added in. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The conductor was grazed so it is now six. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, the infobox is a summary of the article text, unless it is in the text (and adequately cited), information CANNOT be in the infobox, there are sources for the figure of 5, (Mjroots list - unidentified + Moogalian) what's the source for any other figure?Pincrete (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

nb this section moved down to keep discussion together.Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Six injured?

Where'd the sixth injury come from? The details of the attack that I'm seeing point at only five injured: Moogalian, an unidentified train conductor, Stone, the gunman, and Anglade (whose injury was unrelated to the actual incident). Versus001 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, even the figure of 5 is stretching 'injured' to the limit, however the answer is simple, unless a source can be found saying 6, it's Synth. No further info has come out that the train conductor received a 'wound', so 5 is being generous.Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots' BBC article says only "Norman was hurt", but we don't mention his being hurt in the article currently. If we go with that, then it's six: Moogalian(shot), assailant(beat), Norman(hurt), Stone(cut), UnIdent(cut), Anglade(scratched). However, I've read 7 other articles mentioning Norman, and none of them says anything about his injury, only the BBC article does. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, As well as Norman, 'unidentified man cut with the knife' and 'guard grazed by bullet' seem also to have disappeared from the radar, and been thin in initial coverage(are they even the same person?). My suspicion is we are dealing with the confusion of initial reports and 'well I sprained my hand a bit', type of answers from some, such as Norman, being reported as 'injured'. I think the only thing we can do is report what majority of RS say and not synth our own answers. Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC) … … personally, I think that is only 4, including, Anglade and assailant. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this is pretty confusing. I do think this confusion is stemming from the whole initial-coverage-is-a-mess scenario. Versus001 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, agree with your conjecture about the fog of initial reports. We should stick to the most conservative list, which seems to be your list of four. A compromise, if it were found necessary, could be to go with the four, sourced, plus a "Note"-type reference in the footnotes, saying something to the effect that "some initial reports claimed others were injured, including Norman, or XYZ but this was not confirmed by subsequent reports". The advantage here would be to forestall later editors from adding it, believing something was overlooked, although hopefully they'd come to the Talk page and realize it had been dealt with and omitted on purpose. Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, why do you keep having the best ideas! Perfect solution. Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I made an Infobox adjustment, please double-check that I got the list right and the wording's okay; please just fix it if not. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In the Attack section, we still have this:

According to Agnès Ogier, the director of Thalys, another bullet grazed the train's conductor.[17]

However he's not in our list of four. In light of the previous discussion, do we want to leave this as is, remove it, move it to a Note or regular footnote? Mathglot (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A simpler solution is to remove that parameter from the infobox. The point of an infobox is to provide key information in a succint manner; as soon as you have to add footnotes and explanations you are losing that battle. Casualty figures in an infobox are more appropriate for military battles (with large numbers) than for a squirmish like that. As with flags, we should ask "is there a need for this?" rather than think "well that box is there so we must fill it." Mezigue (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good points; I support removal. Mathglot (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being late here, but regarding the train conductor being wounded, you should refer to the section called "another bullet grazed the train's controller" (far) above. Basically, "grazed" is an incorrect translation of what was said in French. The bullet did not graze the conductor, it merely passed very close by. So the conductor was not wounded whatsoever. Biwom (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Biwom, thanks, we have anyway reduced the number to 4, with mention of 'early reports not being corroborated later', but that explains why they were not corroborated - because of mis-translation !Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata language links

Is Wikidata down, or did someone unlink the article? Normally, I see a half dozen languages listed in the left sidebar under 'Languages', but I don't see any there now. Can someone confirm what I'm seeing? If I navigate to other articles (Thalys, Paris, France) I still see the language links there. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. The French article still links to the English one (among others) but not vice versa. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Question added at wikidata Project chat. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm, fixed now. Wonder what all that was about? Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to cross-post this handy tip from a user over at wikidata:

Seems to be working now, but I’ve had the problem before on other pages. In my experience it can usually be fixed by purging the page (add ?action=purge to the URL). Hopefully someone else has more info… —Galaktos (discussion) 23:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)