Veidruste Otsing

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Wikipedia Talk about paris attacks

(post about page edits)


+ 3 More (scroll down)


The use of term hostages is incorrect in this case. Here is the definition from Oxford English Dictionary: noun A person seized or held as security for the fulfillment of a condition:
‘the kidnapper had instructed the hostage’s family to drop the ransom at noon’
While media reports referred to people in Bataclan as hostages, this was likely due to government press releases or assumptions. In fact, no demands or conditions were ever produced. Accurate language is crucially important here. While hostage situation calls for a siege and contact as part of the protocol, a mass shooting calls for immediate storming of the premises. I will not change this for lack of editorial experience, but I think someone should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

International response subsection

Should we include a section for international responses from world governments, first excerpt pasted below, more to follow:
Immediately following the attacks, worldwide governments issued statements in response. United States President Barack Obama spoke via live stream from the White House at 5:45 PM ET, condemning the attacks and offering American aid, calling the event an "attack on all of humanity". [1] British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged similar support for France through a statement made on Twitter.[2]
  • This was discussed above - see the Response section earlier in the talk page. SkittishSloth (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The international community will obviously express sympathy, offer aid, etc., etc. I argue that this is not notable. It was suggested above that perhaps a running list be kept on this talk page, for addition at some point in the future. Ignatzmicetalk 00:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not all express sympathy. Swedish vice Prime Minister Åsa Romson has tweeted that her worry is that it will be more difficult for her to attend a conference in Paris next month. Jeppiz (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps keep a running list here, add details to article if relevant? Responses may vary.
  • Bilingual response from Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister: "I am shocked and saddened that so many people have been killed and injured in violent attacks in #Paris. Canada stands with France. Je suis bouleversé et attristé par le lourd bilan des victimes des violentes attaques de #Paris. Le Canada est solidaire de la France." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas W. Wilson (talkcontribs) 00:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of the worst terrorist attacks in the West since 9/11, and no section for responses? Really?--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you agree this quote?--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Substantial reactions, as in providing monetary assistance, logistical support, etc. is worth including. Messages of condolences and solidarity are routine for tragedies such as this and not encyclopedic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This is being discussed above. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - standard and should likely be its own article МандичкаYO 😜 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - standard and should likely be its own article.--Oneiros (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - standard BUT should not be its own article yet. epic genius (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. These are just talking heads and generic statements of sympathy/solidarity/support. They add nothing to the reader's understanding; they're just filler, used by rolling news channels so that newsreaders don't keep repeating themselves. If anyone manages to sum it up in a nice, concise quote, that will become clear in the coming days; there's no emergency here. Obama's quote might gain that sort of traction, but most of the rest are the same obligatory condolences that politicians trot out every time there's an incident like this. No doubt they're sincere, but they add nothing. Please ask yourself, how is a readers' understanding developed by "talking head number one of country number two offered his condolences, while talking head number three of country number four offered her deepest sympathies". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "President Obama delivers statement.". The White House - President Barack Obama. White House. Retrieved November 13, 2011.

  • "Paris attacks: David Cameron offers condolences". BBC. BBC. November 13, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.

    1. "UN condemns ‘despicable’ terrorist attacks in Paris". UN News Centre. United Nations. November 13, 2015. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
    • Support - these are on all of the terrorism articles. Maybe keep the section small and have a link to the whole split article. (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - but only for reactions that contain substantial content, rather than condolences and moral support. Similar to when the head of NATO said an attack on one was an attack on all of the alliance after 9/11.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support for reactions that contain substantial content. I'd also support having a paragraph that simply lists the states that gave condolences without going into too much detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    If they're added, it should be as paragraphs, preferably with NATO powers bundled together.
    What people really don't like with these sections is the list of bullet points with flags with single sentences. -- Callinus (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, no responses, no flags, no bullet points. Report on actions, on policy, on border closings--those are the only reactions of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - The other section discussing this seems to have the opposite opinion → Here Snd0 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorta... - If a major international figure says something meaningful other than "I condole you" or "we deplore this", if they announce actions they are taking, then yeah, I think it belongs in the article, but not in a special section. That just invites list-making, article-bloating, faces in the spotlight trivia. The Obama and Cameron examples, no. Dcs002 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I guess this list making is my only issue. If you simply google "condolence paris" you'll find that the leaders of China, Malaysia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Ireland, Israel, Poland, Cambodia, New Zealand, and others have said the same thing... Yet currently we're only listing leaders from certain countries. Why the Philippines but not Cambodia? ... Sorry if this is pedantic. Snd0 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support absolutely pertinent in adjudging to students of IR how relations stand and who (and who did NOT respond). Armchair editors of WP may see otherwise, but encyclopedias are for students/education. To add, considering it is a political act, international reactions ARE necessary to adjudge both the relations and the consequences. (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If a lack of response seems important perhaps that should be pointed out explicitly, but that would be malpractice for students to think that because something is missing that it important to IR.
    • Oppose per HJ Miller's comment. It serves no purpose or aid to the reader to just list verbatim what leaders say. Include major examples with actual actions taken, but bullet pointed statements are repetitive and unconstructive. Reywas92Talk 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - why not? - theWOLFchild 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - Seen it elsewhere. Hanyou23 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - We had just yesterday reached a consensus to not include these... We also have this: International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Hollande's inclusion alone makes sense at all. Obama and other world leaders are just doing their duty, and their condolences are good for memorials and calming the shocked citizens, but do not belong to an encyclopedia. WP:NOTMEMORIAL In addition, it is sad that these lists are biased as nobody cares about some President of Togo's condolences while Obama from USA is seen as someone who can speak authoritatively about terrorism. Ceosad (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - We already reached consensus on this yesterday, there is no need to reopen the discussion. These sections are unencylopedic and add no value to the article. In five years, people reading the article aren't going to care about the long list of condolences. Unless something particularly notable happens (i.e. someone actually does something beyond offering an apology), there's little reason to make note of it here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Its a mandatory thing for anyone to say "We're sympathizing with France" or whichever nation was struck. This doesnt belong on a Wikipedia page unless this has directly resulted in a campaign for retaliation of sorts. Besides, the only valued opinions always seem to be the top 5 NATO countries, so who cares really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Motives are over-simplified

    Paris was attacked by a sophisticated terrorist group that is clearly very strategic in its actions. Claiming that this attack was merely done out of hatred for the culture of Paris or the French king's behaviour in the Middle East is clearly just a childish excuse that is clearly wrong. Yeah, ISIS may say they're doing it for that reason but since when did was any powerful adversarial force so simplistic in its strategy? Are we to say that German Unification under Bismark was done in the name of higher ideals? Are we to say that Russian theft of much of Ukraine was actually done to protect Russian Ukrainians? Are we seriously to believe that Julius Caesar just wanted to make Rome better? Face it, these are terrorists and they do terrorist attacks in order to get a reaction that benefits their overall objectives. If they wanted to kill people over degeneracy, then they wouldn't have lasted very long as a terrorist group before an Otto Von Bismark came along and used actual strategy. (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The French... king?!
    Anyway, this is all well and good, but do you have reliable sources to improve the "motives" coverage, or is this just your own original research? If the latter, it won't be used. LjL (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    agree ; the same as 911 they did itbecouse they hate our freedom. Perhaps a word 'blowback' if be any chance it is back and not blow-forward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:20, 15 November 2015‎
    All are over-simplifications but unless you have a reliable source talking about it you can't change it in the article until they do. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Broken page with VisualEditor

    (Also posted at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback, posting here for information.) This article is currently broken when opened in the Wikipedia:VisualEditor. To reproduce, try opening this revision of this article with the VisualEditor. The page looks fine until the "Attacks" subsection, at which point raw wikitext becomes visible, starting with the text
    {{quote box↵|title=Timeline of attacks↵|align=left↵|width=25%↵|quote=↵13 November
    and then most of the rest of the page following that is lost. It's been some time since I've seen the VE break on a high-profile page like this. Browser: Firefox 42 on Debian Linux. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Rifles used in the attack?

    Looking at the article now, someone has typed in that the rifles used by the terrorists were "AK-47s." Somehow I doubt these guys got their hands on 50s era Soviet rifles. They likely used AKM type rifles in this attack. Does anyone have any pics of the weapons used by the terrorists so that we can confirm what they are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FR4NCH3K (talkcontribs) 11:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    AK-47 rifles, despite being largely supplanted by smaller caliber AKs, are still not uncommon as there are many in circulation and knock-offs from other manufacturers. However, you're right that the mainstream media is typically lazy and uninformed about specific firearms, so this does merit some more research. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Going by my experience, and also by our own AK-47, I'd say the term now is used generically for all variants of the rifle. It's the Kleenex of automatic weapons. Anyways, we should probably follow sources, not interpret images. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    We shouldn't use AK-47 then, we should use "a Kalashnikov-style rifle" or "a Kalashnikov." Though, here's an article in the Daily Beast that says that since Russia has just upgraded their AKs, there is a glut of the older model. But I'm not sure if that's a glut of AK-47s or AK-74s. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    “One of the reasons we see a lot of Kalashnikovs and AK-47s on the black market is because Russia has just upgraded the Kalashnikov,” Kathie Lynn Austin, an expert on arms trafficking with the Conflict Awareness Project, told Al Jazeera, “and that has created massive stockpiles of the older models.”[1]
    Numerous sources mention 7.62mm cartidges found on site, ruling out AK-74s. Rama (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, that would do it for me then, in terms of keeping AK-47s. I only found one source, though. AP: [2] -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I herd it was AK47 assault rifles.20:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If reliable sources call them "AK-47s", then that's what goes into the article. Yes... sometimes this is kinda' dumb, but that's just how Wikipedia works. (by the way, there are still plenty of AK-47s in circulation. They are certainly cheaper than new AK-74s and AKMs and, if a group is going to sacrifice any weaponry in a suicide attack, it's certainly going to be older cheaper inventory as opposed to newer and more expensive equipment) Just sayin'... - theWOLFchild 23:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


    Do we need a whole section about a "#portesouvertes" hashtag, when this is already mentioned in the proper "Social media reactions" section on the linked article (except the hashtag is "#porteouverte" there, seems sources cannot agree)? LjL (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    That Local response section is now expanding and dangerously getting close in concept to the separate, linked Popular reactions section. There is now even a Mass that is "due to" being celebrated, which makes me want to link WP:FUTURE. LjL (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    @EP111: the edit you reverted clearly indicated in the summary that I had started a discussion about the issue here. Why did you not take part and instead just reverted? Now see my rationale for keeping it please. LjL (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Your edit did no such thing. Regards, EP111 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    @EP111: uhm, what do you think that "see talk" in that edit summary, with "talk" being a link to the relevant talk page section here, meant, then? LjL (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    As to your reason for reverting, please see this talk page for wide support towards moving the article from "International reactions ..." to just "Reactions ...", even though the move hasn't taken place yet. LjL (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Updates (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. Forensic police search for evidences outside the La Belle Equipe cafe, rue de Charonne.
    2. From there, the militants drove around a mile south-east – apparently past the area of the Bataclan concert venue – to then launch another attack, this time on La Belle Equipe bar in Rue de Charonne. #At least 19 people died after the terrace was sprayed with bullets at around 9.35pm.
    3. The unit drove about 500 yards to the Casa Nostra pizzeria in Rue de la Fontaine au Roi. A young woman told Le Monde she spotted a “very young” man – 18 to 20 years old – in the front seat of the car.
    4. At around 9.50pm, an hour after the band took to the stage, black-clad gunmen wielding AK-47s and wearing suicide vests stormed into the hall and fired calmly and methodically at hundreds of screaming concert-goers.
    5. At around 9.50pm a third blast took place near the Stade de France, this time by a McDonald’s restaurant on the fringes of the stadium.
    6. At least 89 people were killed in the concert hall. Three assailants were also killed after police stormed in - two by activating their suicide vests and a third shot dead.
    7. A little further east at least 19 people died when the terrace of the La Belle Equipe in Rue de Charonne was sprayed with gunfire, while 15 people were killed at Le Carillon bar-cafe in Rues Bichat.
    8. Five people at the Casa Nostra pizzeria and a nearby bar were killed by attackers wielding rifles. (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    At least 129 people were killed

    Actually it's 136, according to the numbers in the article itself: 129 victims and 7 perpetrators.- (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Per other articles we don't count the perpetrators among the victims. We should always show apart. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Nor am I'm asking that we do. I said that they very clearly should be counted among "people" that were "killed". Just use another term for people, one that would exclude the killers.- (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Innocent people? Innocent: "a person involved by chance in a situation, especially a victim of crime or war." Firebrace (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's awkward. Why not just "victim" then, since the very definition you gave would give "innocent people" as a superset of "victims", whereas everyone except the perpetrators are "victims" here? LjL (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Suicide victims" are a thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    The word for that is "civilian". epic genius (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The perpetrators were also civilians (a person not in the armed services or the police force). Firebrace (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Except for the one shot, the perpetrators were not killed by anyone but themselves here. They committed suicide. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Deaths: 129 civilians

    The sidebar calls the victims "civilians". Chances are that some are military or police, so that should be changed to something neutral.- (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. Changed to "victims". LjL (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Disagree. They are not victims but French and intl martyrs or killed. Agree that the use of the term civilians birders on slight propaganda.
    More neutral is to call them 129 dead or 129 deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIS59000750002015 (talkcontribs) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Victims" is pretty neutral, "martyrs" would obviously not be. They are already being called "dead" or "deceased", the issue here is to distinguish them from the perpetrators, who are also dead, in the infobox. LjL (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    More neutral and wrong. They are 136 dead, and 136 deceased, not 129.- (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    It says so in the infobox (129 +7). This section is about the infobox ("sidebar"). I don't care about elsewhere. Raise it elsewhere. LjL (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    It says 129 + 7, but if it would say "129 dead" as AIS59000750002015 suggested, it would be wrong.
    Is this the talk page of the sidebar only? I don't quite understand where you send me and why.- (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. Civilians sounds a bit too general and broad, "victims" may also be a bit problematic if you include the attackers in that, for instance. Perhaps a better term would be "deaths", or to, rather than use an abbreviation, word it slightly longer such as "136 individuals were killed during the attack" or something like that. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm saying you can make another section about the issue with the article body, but this particular section starts with "The sidebar", so let's not confuse issues. The article body says "at least", by the way. LjL (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I did make another section, and I wasn't mentioning it here.- (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    "First United States death is listed under Mexico"

    This comment is found within the casualties table, even though the article body talks about a United States death. Is there a valid reason why the victim should be listed under Mexico and not (additionally) under United States, since the comment says they had dual citizenship? Why does the Mexican citizenship take precedence, and why can't we list a victim in two places? (This shows all the problems with a naive interpretation of WP:CALC, by the way.) LjL (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    This now appears to have been changed (the United States are now listed with 1 victim). LjL (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Appears there was only one US citizen who was killed - a Californian college student who had dual Mexican nationality. I can't find any references to a second American death. Cantab12 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's what the article says, isn't it? LjL (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not until I edited it. It said 2. Cantab12 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, okay. Anyway my point with this section was merely that if someone has US citizenship, they should be listed under US (as well as any other country they have citizenship of). LjL (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Change all mentions of Militants to Terrorists

    I propose to change all mentions of Militants to Terrorists many of the sourced news article call them terrorists so why don't we use this term on Wikipedia? Do you agree? --Ntb613 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support per WP:EUPHEMISM: it's quite clear what we're dealing with, and it's not merely "militants". Of course, this should apply to mentions of people committing actual acts of terrorism, not (for instance) Islamist militants in general. LjL (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support. There is no civil war in France, this is terrorism. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Caution - I'm not sure what this accomplishes, since there is only one mention of "militant" in the entire article that is not in quotes. Also, look at other similar articles and they do not go as far as to use the term "terrorist" within Wikipedia's own prose. Rather, they use assailant mostly and perhaps militants. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Example articles include the following. Just keep the balance in mind:
    • Oppose Terrorist is a contentious (and vague) term that can be more neutrally replaced by attacker, assailant, or perpetrators. -- Veggies (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - I associate the word militant with political activism and violent revolutionaries. These people are neither of those things. Firebrace (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose It's a contentious WP:LABEL that helps them inflict their terror, so why use it at all? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Which label, "ISIL/ISIS" or "terrorists"? I'm guessing "terrorists" - Well, it's only "contentious" on Wikipedia talk pages, really. Reliable sources don't have a problem routinely calling this terrorism, and the perpetrators terrorists. LjL (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I meant "terrorists" as contentious. ISIL/ISIS is the WP:COMMONNAME unless Hollande's attempt to use Daesh sticks. The reliable sources can sensationalize a bit and I'd rather not follow them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - Is pretty standard for articles like this. See September 11 attacks. Islamic State is classified as a terrorist group by most countries, and this was undoubtedly a terrorist attack, so there's little reason not to call them terrorists in the text. Note that in any quotes, we should use the word that whoever we're quoting used. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    And on the subject of language, any reference anywhere to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be preceded by "so-called" or "self-styled." This entity's name is technically incorrect (it is not a "state") and self-delusional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose That's an absurd misdirection for the reader. The group calls itself that. It's silly to pretend that it doesn't. -- Veggies (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree. The terrorists call themselves "Islamic State" just as much as Bruce Jenner calls himself Caitlyn Jenner. Wikipedia, in all cases but one, goes by what people call themselves. XavierItzm (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    If I call myself the King of Europe does that make it true? Firebrace (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    You are (to the best of my knowledge) not notable, so it doesn't matter what you call yourself. LjL (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    OK, but say Shia LaBeouf, who is notable, starts calling himself the King of California, is that to be taken literally? Firebrace (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not necessarily, because if the rest of us still just call him Shia LaBeouf, that's his WP:COMMONNAME, whether or not he likes it. But I'm afraid the ISIL's common name is ISIL or ISIS, whether or not their being a state is "technically accurate" (we don't generally go by "technically accurate" for names). LjL (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Shia LaBouef is not made of beef either, but that's what his name implies. Names are quite literally nominal, not essential. (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    If you are notable enough to have an article and change your name to King O. Europe—yes, that will be your title. It's stupid to demand that common names make literal sense. -- Veggies (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Unfortunately, it can be argued that the Islamic State does meet all the basic requirements for being classified as a self-governing state, apart from that of (official) diplomatic recognition. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose It is true that a number of sources describe the assailants as terrorists; however, many also describe them using the word "gunmen", "attackers" and (the word I used) "assailants". The question is, which word best reflects the purpose of Wikipedia? Which is the most neutral? "Terrorist" certainly is not. It is value laden and inherently political. The word we use ought to be strictly descriptive. SomePseudonym (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • When it comes to ISIL, it checks almost entire sourced row at List of designated terrorist groups. As long the majority of states designates ISIL as a "terrorist" and as long as it conducts the classical terrorist activity, then it's not a problem to call it as such. We call cat a cat and not a dog, although it can't talk. Otherwise what's the purpose of the word "terrorism"? Brandmeistertalk 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support This is an easy call per the reasons already stated.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support, just weakly. This is contentious. "Terrorist" is widely stated but could be considered POV. "Militant" is more neutral but does not reflect popular opinion. I suggest "assailant" or "perpetrator." epic genius (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:NEUTRAL as a term which defines motive when more accurate descriptions of the behavior are available (and more precisely describe the actions "shooter" "attacker"). Bod (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - go with whatever the sources say - theWOLFchild 23:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Rue de Charonne - Restaurant name

    The name of the restaurant on Rue de Charonne is "la Belle Epoque"....not "La Belle Equipe" [1]
    No, it's not, see [3] [4] [5] (all mentioning it's in Rue de Charonne), as well, of course, as very many sources about the attacks. Liberation here is wrong, as Google can hint (first hit Liberation, later hits are "La Belle Equipe"). LjL (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Presumably "La Belle Équipe" ("The Beautiful Team") is a deliberate pun on the part of the owners. -- The Anome (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
     :-) (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Names and personal details of victims, again

    @XavierItzm: is insisting on adding the full name and personal/educational details about a victim from the US. We had previous agreement that should be avoided. The rationale for the edit seems to be that WP:BLP doesn't apply since the person is deceased; however, if you have a look at what WP:BLP actually says, it mentions "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased)". In any case, WP:BLP is not even the main concern here (see previous discussion). Let's discuss it further, but no single-handed consensus overthrowing, please. LjL (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Absurd. Person is deceased, gone, dead. Name, occupation, photo of the parents on the Washington Post. Any objections to publishing name are utterly capricious. XavierItzm (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Are you going to post all the 129 names? And what they did for a living or study? This is not like the Charlie Hebdo attack that you mentioned in another section above. There are not a small number of well-known dead people. Just because something is sourced we don't have to include it. And you're almost giving credence to the sometimes-advanced concept that some people only want to highlight American victims, by the way, hence WP:UNDUE. LjL (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    WP is not a newspaper. Firebrace (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed. Nor is it a WP:MEMORIAL. We established that after 9/11, with the spin-off into the separate sep11 memorial wiki as a one-off. -- The Anome (talk)
    Heh, all the responses use some excuse other than the original "BLP" excuse. Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Although WP:NOT (in terms of "memorials") refers to actual articles per se, and NOT lists/names contained within an article, it should be noted it encourages meandering sentiment-laden stories as to victims' personal lives in a mass casualty attack.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    That wasn't the original "excuse"; but I have already pointed that out. And as various other people also pointed out, WP:BLP is relevant in what it says about recently deceased people. I suggest you accept that your opinion is the lone dissenting one, and that you overlooked some parts of policy. LjL (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Anyone with a Wikipedia page that died should be named and linked (ie notable). The rest should not, because the event will not be known by their names, unlike a kidnapping or something. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yeh! (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Should these details be added?

    • Oppose - per the multiple policies and persuasive arguments above - theWOLFchild 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Age mention

    Currently the article states "French Police confirmed that the three men who attacked the theatre were:" and one of the three listed there has the age mentioned. I think, for reasons of symmetry, either all of them should have the age be mentioned, or none. (I'd probably be in favour of everyone, since this gives extra information, compared to none). As it now stands, it feels a bit awkward to see that some individuals have more information associated with them than the others. Since the age is known of the other ones, I would like to suggest to add this as well. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


    Just a reminder that this article needs to follow WP:BLPSOURCES. Specifically, it cannot make any contentious claims about living or recently-deceased people based on tabloid journalism. --John (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Wounded (not injured)

    They're called "bullet wounds" and "shrapnel wounds". They are not "injuries". These people were not playing a game of football.-- (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Injury and wound are synonymous, doesn't matter which is used. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    If someone was not wounded but, for example, suffered an internal organ injury due to explosions, do they not count? LjL (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Injury is damage to the body. This maybe caused by accidents, falls, hits, weapons, and other causes. Major trauma is injury that has the potential to cause prolonged disability or death. In 2013 4.8 million people died from injuries up from 4.3 million in 1990. Bod (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Of course we're free to use poor English on Wikipedia. We're also free to raise the standard if we choose.-- (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Except it's perfectly proper English, more proper than "wounded" in fact, which may not cover all the injured, as mentioned above. LjL (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Right. Never mind all the bullet and shrapnel wounds. One of them may have fallen over. Therefore paint them all as injured. Brilliant.-- (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    You are wounded by an implement - gun or knife - designed for the task. Anything else is an injury. Isn't that how it works? (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    A wound is a type of injury which happens relatively quickly in which skin is torn, cut, or punctured (an open wound), or where blunt force trauma causes a contusion (a closed wound). In pathology, it specifically refers to a sharp injury which damages the dermis of the skin. Injury is damage to the body.This maybe caused by accidents, falls, hits, weapons, and other causes. I've certainly been both injured and wounded by falling over the handlebar of a mountain bike and hitting the gravel road. One might argue that a mountain bike is "an implement designed for the task", but the road almost certainly is designed for another task. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, it's not. Check the definitions. And again for the third time, wound is external, while injury can be internal, and it's perfectly conceivable that some people affected by the attacks had internal injuries (there were explosions) rather than wounds. LjL (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Couldn't we get the neutral word casualty in?Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is already there and mainly used for deaths, not injuries. The word "injuries" is perfectly neutral, and I don't think we should cave in to some editor's weird interpretation of English. LjL (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    M. Hollande has said these attacks were an act of war. In war, there are specific usages. My memory needs checking, but I think in the US military, soldiers (combatants) are wounded, and civilians (non-combatants) are injured. Is that a standard in other English-speaking countries? (US vets, have I got that right?) Dcs002 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    The only distinction I can find (e.g., here) is that a wound is a deliberately inflicted injury that tears the flesh, while an injury can be the result of something not intended, i.e., an accident – but wounds are injuries, i.e., those wounded are injured, but those injured may or may not be wounded. In this case, however, I think the distinction is entirely semantic (and rather crass); clearly all of the wounds or other injuries that occurred here were intended (by the attackers), and even if the injuries did not involve broken flesh (such as broken bones from falling from the window of a concert hall or blunt force injuries from an explosion), they were certainly injuries. General Ization Talk 05:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe... - theWOLFchild 23:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Number of Perpetrators (more than 8)

    The number of attackers dead during the events turned out to be 7, not 8. But the total number must be at least 11.
    • 3 self-killed at Stade
    • 3 dead at Bataclan
    • 1 dead on boulevard Voltaire
    • PLUS all the shooters at the restaurants
    • even if the same 2 attackers were at sites 2 and 3
    • add 2 attackers at site 5
    Equals 11 conservatively. There must be sources. Bod (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Hadn't the seven dead men been at other sites before? There were three teams and six sites right? So they had moved around I cannot see eleven. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    If you look at the map and timeline, I think you might rethink the plausibility of travel. There were three teams, the Stade team, and the Bataclan team were all killed (6). One of the shooter team died (1). Bod (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Media is saying three teams. They had cars and accomplices, we know. And they were extraordinarily well organised. I don't find it implausible at all. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Even if the same 3 guys (somehow) moved from the rue Bichat to the rue de la Fontaine-au-roi (7 minutes later) to the Bataclan (8 minutes later), there were still 2 attackers at the rue Charonne, making the total 9. Bod (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's just the ones we know. It get be more than 11. Kiwifist (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    One paper points out that bomb makers don't go on suicide missions since their skills are to important to the group. SO that is at least one suspect at large Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Don't forget the butler. He was seen in the library with the now-missing candlestick holder at 9:00pm. (in other words... what do the sources say?) - theWOLFchild 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Many sources quoting experts saying there is a bomb maker out there. [6] Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


    All the news sites are saying 129 and the numbers add up to that; why does this page insist on 132 victims?
    State that they died in Hospital then - but couldn't we manage to separate the deaths of the victims and the attackers a little more? I don't think I'd want my death listed together with theirs. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Because the source linked to the 132 figure (which, I see, has been taken back to 129 now, without changing the source) repeatedly states 132. LjL (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Note this quote from them: "18:25 - Death toll now 132 - AFP reports the death toll in Paris attacks rises to 132 after three die", so they didn't dream it up. AFP is Agence France-Presse. LjL (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've fixed the bar to state explicitly that three died afterwards - and separate then from the immediate casualties. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Do the sources change or is the article updated? I think then that we should try to make an archived version of the page like (or or for the source that stated 132 deaths ( Nsaa (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Nsaa:It turns out the three victims died in hospital afterwards. Do you want to check how I've arraigned the infobar accordingly? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Why? If (or sadly, when) the death count changes, the sources will changes, and so will our article have to change. Surely we aren't going to keep saying 132 when it's no longer true? LjL (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    129 fell on the night; that number should be kept. As three more have since died, and that number may as you say rise, a separate total should be placed beside 129. Currently, 132. I've already clarified this on the page. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't like the current infobox version. It's a detail, but last time I had checked it, the "in hospital" death were as indented as the other death location; now that's been de-indented, and is at the same level as the 129 "victims" and the 7 "perpetrators", making it look like it's neither victims nor perpetrators, and making the sum look like it's wrong. I favor the older version. We shouldn't give the impression the victims who died later are "just" "futher persons" who died in the hospital. Their status is basically the same as all the other victims. LjL (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Then why can't it be as I've just put it? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Just seen this at BBC News: "Paris hospitals have said that the official death toll remains at 129 people, and not the 132 as had been earlier reported by AFP news agency." Firebrace (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    OK how's that? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The 352 injury non-fatalities must also change if true.Bod (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Don't change it yet - the reports are still very confused with some media saying the original 129 included the three later deaths. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The numbers will come in when they come in. I'm not rushing to change anything. Bod (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree, the reporting is all over the place. BBC reports 352 injured, 99 critically, but on the same page it says 415 were admitted to hospital, 80 of whom were critically injured. Firebrace (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Other where it says some were removed from critical care. Many were naturally discharged. I don't see a reason to have all the numbers now. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's cliche that so many of our articles about mass casualty events say "at least XXX" were killed. It's as if we always want to give the maximum number possible, and then suggest there are even more, even when all deaths have been accounted for. Our sources now say 129 are dead, not at least 129 dead. (Well, that's what the BBC says.) Can we just give the most reliable number in our sources? More might die as a result of their injuries, but they're not dead yet. Let's not write them off. Our statement is present or past tense, not WP:CRYSTALBALL. Dcs002 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    The "at least" stems from a time when the numbers weren't clear at all and it was virtually obvious that there were more casualties than the ones accounted for. Perhaps it's time to get rid of it now (but mind WP:NUMERAL). LjL (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Done. I added the BBC as a second source. Is it redundant to say the attacks killed 129 victims? If it is, feel free to clean that up - anyone. Dcs002 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    You would either say 129 were killed in the attacks, or that the attackers killed 129. The attacks did not kill anyone, the attackers did. General Ization Talk
    Good point. I'll fix that - if you haven't already. I prefer the latter option, per WP:NUMERAL, as LjL pointed out. Dcs002 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Done - "The attackers killed 129 victims,..." Still, it feels redundant to say killed and victims. They couldn't really kill non-victims. Still struggling with that. Dcs002 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    But there can be "victims" that weren't "killed" (injuries). LjL (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    You could just say that the attackers killed 129 people. General Ization Talk 02:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    But they also killed themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

    Quick Restaurant

    According to this report at Sky News, when Hollande was first informed of the situation in Paris, it was by saying that "The Quick has blown up", referring to one of several fast-food outlets in Paris. Sky says "The Quick fast food restaurant, just outside one of the stadium's main gates, had just been attacked by a suicide bomber." This would seem to be the Quick St Denis Grand Stade located at Quartier Stade de France rue, 1 Avenue Jules Rimet, 93210 Saint-Denis. I don't see the Quick identified as one of the targets in the article. Does anyone have any info on this? General Ization Talk 23:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I was just about to ask this as well, because I have heard some news sources say there were two bombers at Gate J (where there was most likely only the attacker who got flagged down by the security guard) but some say it was a pub near by, and some say it was the Quick. Wondering if there is any one agreement as to which one of these claims is right. YingBlanc (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Google Street View shows that the Quick is located directly across avenue Jules Rimet from Gates H and J of the Stade. General Ization Talk 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps the suicide detonation at the Quick was the terrorist who was turned away from the gate to the Stade (though we would need a source that says so). General Ization Talk 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think this bomber was the one who got turned away. There was only 1 bomber with a ticket to the game and he got turned away at Gate J at which point he detonated his vest. The third attacker past Gate J and the McDonalds haven't been given as much details which is where this confusion of where the bombing happened is taking place. YingBlanc (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    bolding and including the article title in the article

    What is the wiki policy on this? I have seen both done. My rationale for excluding is that our article title is not the commonly used term for the attack. For example, the frontpage does not use our article title. What are some other thoughts? --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    WP:BOLDTITLE completely supports your position (see the Mississippi River example there). General Ization Talk 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Is it called "Paris massacre"?

    If so, a disambig hatnote at Paris massacre of 1961 may be created. Or we could make Paris massacre a disambig. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's sometimes called that. A disambig hatnote seems fine, but a whole page seems like something we'd only do after this becomes this one's article name (if that happens). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

    Perpetrators in the info box

    At the moment the info box states that the perpetrators are the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". While that may be the case, I have not seen any proof of it. Nor have I seen any reliable sources stating that as a fact. Most articles states that "ISIS claims responsibility of the attacks".
    Should we change it from: "Perpetrators: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to "Perpetrators: Unknown. However, ISIS claims responsibility."? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    NO, they claimed they did it, some of the individuals came back from Syria, and there is no credible suggestion it was anyone else. In fact France bombed ISIL in retaliation. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Or just because that's what France, as a NATO member, does. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Earlier, I'd put "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants". I was told this didn't suck and still agree it doesn't. We know the general shadowy organization, but not who actually perpetrated (or planned) the attacks. It's a known unknown of sorts. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    I am ok with, "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants" or something like that. I just don't like to state, with Wikipedias voice, that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" did it. We don't know that. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    There's tons of stuff we don't know about this, and ISIS is general. All we can do is follow the sources. Wikipedia doesn't presume to be certain, just accurately reflective of the majority of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    The referenced article states that "ISIS claims responsibility". And it is more than one jihadi group in Syria (if any group in Syria is behind this). Erlbaeko (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agree with Erlbaeko on this. Sources don't state that ISIS was responsible but that ISIS claimed responsibility. Not the same thing. Volunteer Marek  09:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Unknown or unnamed Islamic State militants (alleged)"? It's not just claimed to be claimed by ISIS, but also widely blamed on ISIS. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:06, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    For that reason I would skip the "Unknown" part. It is... sort of "known" but not with certainty and there are some grounds to be skeptical (it'd sort of be the first for ISIS). Maybe just "(claimed)" or something like that. I'm too tired right now to think of the proper way to do it. Volunteer Marek  09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    That the perpetrators were aligned with ISIS is what is sort of known. Who they were (names, ages, birthplaces, motives) is virtually entirely unknown. The "alleged" part would cover the first slight uncertainty. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:17, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Wait, apparently I'm out of the loop and we have four IDs now. That's not "virtually entirely". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    I tried this. Simpler than having perpetrators, assailants and suspected perpetrators, and the "suspected" part covers our asses regarding the people and the group. Does it suck? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Works for me, however I prefer a small change to: (allegedly working for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    I figured "allegedly" was implied by "suspected", but that would make it clearer, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, I think it is ok for now, but this is likely to change rapidly. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Of course. I'd bet there are five hundred edits here before there are five on the Beirut one. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    I was wrong. There were 372 edits here before Beirut got five. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
    All that is certain so far, is that, through its channels, ISIS has claimed responsibility. Maybe that is all that should stay there. -- (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    ISIS is not a person. It can't perpetrate anything without actual people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    That is true. An official "spokesperson" has yet to make a claim... -- (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Beware wording such as "The claim could not be independently verified but it was similar to other IS claims." Because the other claims were fishy, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, November 16, 2015 (UTC)


    There was no curfew in Paris following the attacks. It was not mentioned in the French media as far as I am aware. I live near to affected areas so I could also see what was going on. The police did advise people to stay indoors. Some people were blocked inside bars and other venues as directed by the police, but that was on a local case by case basis rather than city-wide. It is difficult to show this given that some news sources incorrectly reported that a curfew was in effect. I have not found any sources saying 'no curfew was in effect'. Can anyone suggest how one should establish the fact that there was no curfew, given the requirements of Wikipedia to reference sources. - Wgsimon (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Isn't simply not saying there was a curfew good enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:40, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    I just bothered to click the citation on that bit about what "some English sources" say about the curfew. A Huffington Post headline is not "some English sources". Fixed now. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    If you'd like to straight-up deny the curfew, rather than just not mention it, the Malaysian Embassy can help. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    This is an ongoing issue (check talk page archives, too). A Canadian news outlet (CTV) started saying there was a curfew and it was the first since WWII (probably misinterpreting the recommendation to stay home), and then other agencies started repeating it, each time making the claim sound more sensational. Wikipedia joined in, despite me and some other editors pointing out these news were most likely false, on the ground of what local French sources said. But oh well, it's not like Wikipedia posting false information ever causes them to be perpetuated in other publications, is it? LjL (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    If reliable sources state there was/is a curfew, then it goes into the article. We can't just "not mention it" because it is notable. Unfortunately, even if a Wikipedia editor/user is right there and personally knows that there actually was not a curfew, we can not go by that as it's considered original research. - theWOLFchild 23:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with Thewolfchild. What I am trying to do here is establish what is the suitable burden of proof (or rather, disproof).
    How should one use this information in an appropriate manner on Wikipedia? - Wgsimon (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    If reliable sources state something that was clearly disproven, they are not reliable about it. By definition. And breaking news are often not reliable in the first place. At the same time, we most certainly can just "not mention it": Wikipedia is not about mentioning just anything that sources may have said at some point. It is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which helps with not making the mistakes that newspapers do. It also doesn't mention WP:HOAXes unless they are themselves notable. The (lack of) curfew should not be mentioned. LjL (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    The sources claiming a curfew (that have not since corrected their stories) are making an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. We either don't mention a curfew, or cite a story explicitly saying there was none. Or we somehow find exceptional sources backing the bullshit claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
    I strongly favor not mentioning it at all, because why should we pay homage to bullshitWP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that media outlet just started parroting from an unofficial originator (the authorities have stated nothing like that, and it can be checked in French sources and on the Elysee website) without any fact checking? It's a non-notable rushed-out hoax, nothing more, and Wikipedia is not here for that stuff. LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    Better source than Taheri?

    I searched briefly but couldn't find other news articles to backup the statement that 'Islamic State has referred to the Paris attacks as a "ghazwa" (religious raid)'. The Wikipedia entry for the author raises concerns about reliability. Meticulo (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well as Wikipedia isn't a news site I'd say it would be best for us after "the smoke has cleared" to see if any other news agencies will use the term, and especially agencies of more prestige. The problem with these types of articles and the news sites reporting on them is that when you insert the wrong sources it might fall under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Is Washington Post better? I just added WP reference. epic genius (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks Epic. Nicely tracked down. Meticulo (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


    A Skith man was falsely labeled by Spanish and Italian news organisations of being one of the terrorists in the attack
    2. (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    And? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    needs to be put in aftermath with title "hoaxes" (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Does it really? Many pieces of wrong information have been / will be circulated. Is it important? LjL (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose Has nothing to do with the attacks and the subject is not a public figure and should not be harassed. -- Veggies (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose Not relevant. General Ization Talk 13:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah. Mosque arson is bad enough for Canada's image today. Don't need other idiots getting angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:46, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Not Wiki's responsibility - nor the news outlets' - articles are to cite RS's and written per the guidelines, and that's all. (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, that's far from "all". We include or don't include things not just based on WP:RS treatment of them, but also WP:N, WP:UNDUE and a number of other policies. Specifically, "Like everything else, hoaxes must be notable to be covered in Wikipedia—for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years." (from WP:HOAX). LjL (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Otherwise known as GUIDELINES. But I wasn't referring to any of that - read who I was replying to and what I replied about. It isn't Wiki's responsibility to prevent crimes in the outside world, just to write an encyclopedia. (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    An encyclopedia written per the guidelines (and policies, which technically are distinct here). I'm not opposed to potentially putting a target on man's back because it's my responsibility as a Wikipedian, it just seems like a dick move. If it added any value to the topic, I might consider it. Seems like it could be relevant in GamerGate. But since we know there's no actual connection to this, we'd look foolish connecting it here. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: As other editors have said, this may not be relevant and the statement not correct. epic genius (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Les Fédérations Musulmanes

    @Firebrace: ... what? I'm not sure if Les Fédérations Musulmanes is notable enough to have its own article on the English Wikipedia, but surely, it makes no sense to claim that "if it had its own article, it would be in French". What's the rationale for that claim? That their name is in French? Surely that means nothing. An organization with a name in any language can be covered on the English Wikipedia (random example: Accademia della Crusca). LjL (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Much more importantly, I'm seeing that the sources given make no mention of an organization called "Les Fédérations Musulmanes": the English source doesn't mention it at all, while the French sources simply talk about "les fédérations musulmanes" (meaning "the Muslim organizations") generically. Dare I suspect that someone just mistook that for a specific organization? LjL (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    I can't find any reference to Les Fédérations Musulmanes on Google. It translates as 'Muslim federations' and appears to be a generic term, rather than a proper noun. Firebrace (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. I'll remove it. LjL (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Quotes from concert hall

    "What's happening to you, is your fault. We are avenging our brothers in Syria."
    "For five minutes, the gunmen next to us tried to boost our confidence."
    2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    More direct quotes from the ISIL?

    In the section "ISIL responsibility", the article currently just says that the IS claimed responsibility. It doesn't say anything about what the IS said was why the attacks took place, or what France should expect in the future. (This could be different from what those who participated in the attacks themselves said.) The quotes that I remember that seemed important were that "Paris is the capital of prostitution" etc., and that "France is among the top" of the list of enemies. The Wikipedia article currently mentions the probable death of a famous IS personality, without explaining why it mentions this; some media organizations, such as The Sun, speculated that the attacks were in revenge. But, of course, why attack France when it was the UK and US that launched the missile strike? The IS's statements give a sense of "France is not our main enemy", which creates a situation that sort of excuses France from taking significant action. A lot of comments on a Yahoo news article about France's airstrikes expressed skepticism about them, wondering how a "headquarters" could have been identified but not destroyed before now. It may be able to convey this point without using direct quotes, but the Wikipedia article avoids addressing the topic entirely. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Some of those claimed motivations are mentioned in the infobox at the top of the article, under "Motives". LjL (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Just be careful pulling "direct" quotes from this translation. There's nothing in the French version that says "apostate" or "profligate prostitution party". It's "idolater" and "perversion party". And Paris is "the capital of abomination and perversion", not "obscenity and prostitution". Probably many other mistakes. The Arabic might be closer, but I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
    This is helpful. The infobox gives two links; one just talks about those at the concert hall, the other only mentions some of the issues from the IS's statement (like other articles I had read). I was looking at the Guardian's live event and a transcript, but the Google translation isn't clear with the grammar. I agree that direct quotes are not as useful as I had suggested, given that the statements weren't in English. "Cursing/insulting our prophet" is not currently mentioned as a 'motive' in this Wikipedia article. Given the international reaction and Je suis Charlie, it seems significant that the IS maintains this as an issue. (Committing slander will earn you 80 lashes in the IS and possibly other countries like Saudi Arabia, I actually did not know that before.)
    The point I originally intended to make though was that the attack may have more complex motives than it seems. The translation, by someone who is better at French grammar than Google Translate, seems to support this; it mentions situations having a certain state, not specific (or recent) actions, as the reason for why "the smell of death will never leave their noses". Was the smell of death in their noses before this attack, described as the first, or beginning of the storm?
    My original edit before an edit conflict: I'm saying this because one such direct quote was removed from International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks on the grounds that it wasn't an "international reaction", but instead belonged in the main article. And to be a bit more clear: a famous French person released a graphic or something saying "those who were killed did not know that they were at war, but were enjoying themselves" etc. The IS's statement also suggests that it perceives that people in France did not feel it was a priority to drop more bombs on the IS (prostitution conflicts with dropping bombs). I didn't read the full statement; I read that the IS did say that France's airpower was ineffective in the streets of Paris, but I am not aware of the IS saying in its official statement that the attack was in retaliation for France's bombing of the IS. However, those were who were at the concert hall may have suggested, or said this. This may be too nuanced for an encyclopedia though. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, this is complicated, but on the whole, I'm certainly not opposed to explaining in the article what the claimed motives of ISIL were, as long as it's all properly sourced. Honestly though, I'm not going to do this research myself right now; why don't you make an edit request with the exact text you deem should be added? LjL (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    My mistake, there is a mention of "insults to Islam's prophet" (though not where you would expect in the article). The issue, I guess, is that any 'properly sourced' statements about the IS's motives will be based either on those who participated in the attacks, or the media statement by the IS. If a media organization says the IS's statement says something that it doesn't, then they're wrong, no matter how good of a reputation that media organization has. (Another, somewhat related issue, is a story will say "an expert speculated that this was their motive", then Wikipedia says "this was their motive". This is a minor violation of Wikipedia's rules, quite common, and usually helpful and appropriate, but...) 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    @2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01: I don't get what the problem is though: don't we have properly sourced reports of what IS said that do not say something the IS didn't say? (And as a matter of fact, I believe we can use the IS's direct statement, with care, as WP:PRIMARY). LjL (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    The problem with that is the primary sources are in French and Arabic. ISIS didn't offer its own English version. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
    In the infobox, under motive:
    • Islamic extremism (no reference, but to the extent it's an explanation, other references are sufficient... note that many other organizations seen as "Islamic extremists" denounced the attacks)
    • Ideological objection to Paris as a capital of "abomination and perversion".
    • What the reference says: 'Isis carefully listed its targets, couching its choice as one determined by its moral and theocratic superiority. Paris, it said, was a capital of “abominations and perversion”. ' (Couching: "To phrase in a particular style") This does not mean it was a motive. Yet Wikipedia says this was the motive. I do think the article should mention that the IS said this; but doesn't mean it was the motive.
    • Retaliation for French airstrikes in Syria and Iraq
    • Reference: "Attacks were retaliation for France’s bombing in Syria, Isis says". Straightforward from "reliable source" to Wikipedia article, but not supported by the actual statement. The body of the live event says the statement "goes on to call the attacks a response to" insults and airstrikes. The live event doesn't mention the "smell of death"; it skips that phrase. The statement actually says (depending on translation) that the "smell of death" would continue as long as France and others [...] are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their planes.
    • Foreign policy of François Hollande in relation to Muslims worldwide.
    • This is based on statements of the attackers at the concert hall. (Side note, in French, meaning not a war refugee, as authorities have noted.) The official IS statement actually called President François Hollande an imbecile or fool, and did not blame him for harming Muslims. Is it accurate to base an organization's motives on the words of a single, low-level operative who has died, instead of official statements from the organization? 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Suspect named

    1. Omar Ismail Mostefai, a 29-year-old French citizen of Algerian origin.
    2. 2 French-born brothers of Algerian origin, singled out as suspects.
    3. French citizen of Algerian origin, who had a criminal record and was accused. (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    some of mostefai's family members have been arrested

    can someone put this ?
    --Stefvh96 (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    DOB removed for Omar Ismaël Mostefai?

    Why was the Date of Birth (DOB) removed by Firebrace (talk · contribs)? Nsaa (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Why was it included? Firebrace (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Why would we care about the exact date of birth? It still mentions his age, which seems more than enough. LjL (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


    {{coord}} templates for the various locations, should anyone care to add them to the infobox or body. Decimal degrees format to 3 or 4 decimal positions depending on the rough size of the area represented, per WP:COORDPREC. The article currently specifies one coordinates pair (Comptoir Voltaire) as a ref, which I believe is improper usage of coord. Footnotes using {{efn}} could be used to save space, as at the end of this sentence.[note 1]
    Stade de France group: 48.924°N 2.362°E
    Rue Bichat and rue Alibert: 48.8719°N 2.3679°E
    Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi: 48.8687°N 2.3682°E
    Rue de Charonne (La Belle Équipe): 48.8539°N 2.3819°E
    Boulevard Voltaire (Comptoir Volltaire): 48.8504°N 2.3930°E
    Bataclan: 48.8630°N 2.3707°E (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Good work. (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    I have added these to the infobox, except for the Boulevard Voltaire. I presume it's not listed on the infobox because it isn't on the map (perhaps because no civilians were killed). Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


    1. Coordinates: 48.924°N 2.362°E

    qui bono

    This should be standard section in any crime related article. Terrorism is a high crime and is good to point of which district of criminals may "bono or qui bono". (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    "who entered France posing as a Syrian refugee"

    This is the current description for Ahmad Almuhammad, also spelled Ahmed Almuhamed. Here is a more recent or more informative article: He was not labelled as suspicious and wasn't on any lists. "In an official statement the Serbian interior ministry said the Syrian passport was recently registered at the Presevo border crossing (between Macedonia and Serbia), where alMohammad formally sought asylum." Last recorded in Croatia. Does not list any evidence he was living in France. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Are you asking for any particular bit of information to be included in the article? Or amended? LjL (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    It seems inaccurate. The referenced article says, "The men crossed into Europe through Greece and made their way through several other countries, including Hungary, before reaching France, according to reports." But a lot of information is indicating that some, and possibly all of those who participated in the event, came from Belgium, not France. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Surely they "reached France" eventually, though? It says "several other countries", so Belgium isn't ruled out. I'm still not sure I see the issue. LjL (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    The refugee debate is partly about whether the EU should allow war refugees at all and if so how many, and partly about which countries should accept those refugees before, or after their applications are processed. After processing, they are free to travel anywhere, but processing can take some time, can cost the state money, and refugees might stay in the same place if their application is accepted. France has not been a primary destination for refugees, but it is participating in the plan to distribute refugees who are applying, instead of having them all stay in the first country they reach (the Dublin Regulation). If those who participated in the attack were living in Belgium instead of France, it will change whether some people approve of France accepting refugees. If they traveled from Belgium to France just before the attack, they likely did not represent themselves as refugees while doing so. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    I herd he was a French born Algerian. (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Salah Abdeslam

    Salah Abdeslam's nationality is unclear. Some sources says he's Belgian while some others say French who lives in Belgium. By the way is he notable enough to have his own wikiarticle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    You mean citizenship. Nationality=ethnicity (as in, "nation-states")- he's Arabic. (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Nationality can mean "Membership of a particular nation or state, by origin, birth, naturalization, ownership, allegiance or otherwise." (emphasis mine). No need to correct lack of errors. LjL (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Nationality - as taught in any college history class - means ethnicity, not statehood or citizenship - that's just lazy journalism that never happened before the last 10 years or so. Hence the term "nation-state." (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Probably, since he commuted a heinous crime, then yes. (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    All the known perps are set up as redirects here. If a decent BIO beyond "he blew himself up in Paris" can be set up, I don't see why not. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    Diplomatic reactions

    Russia, Belarus and the USA.
    3. (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Suspected perpetrators infobox

    • Shouldn't the suspected perpetrators section on the infobox just say ISIS (or whatever the correct phrase is) and not list the suspected gunmen. The main body of the article is for lists/further development and the infobox should summarize the article/give the key points. Cantab12 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    See Talk:November_2015_Paris_attacks#Perpetrators_in_the_info_box Erlbaeko (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


    is it a religius figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Political/Religious, as is common there. Why? Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    Ahmad Almuhammad

    The link cited as a source for the line about Ahmad Almuhammad (in the Perpetrators section) entering France by posing as a Syrian refugee (Ahmad Almuhammad, a 25-year-old who entered France posing as a Syrian refugee.[95]) contains no mention of Ahmad Almuhammad or any other suspected perpetrator having entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. The source should be updated if this is indeed true or the part about posing as a Syrian refugee should be removed if no source can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Done. Probably somebody quoted Reuters selectively: Any identity documents and fingerprint records would have to be matched with the remains of the actual attackers to establish whether they passed through Greece posing as refugees, or perhaps bought or stole passports along the way. Jan Winnicki * 09:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


    @Firebrace: it's honestly a bit annoying to have to write a talk page section about this, but I keep having to revert your "minor" edits where you change digits into spelled-out numerals somewhat inconsistently, according to a narrow or superficial interpretation of WP:NUMERAL.
    However, WP:NUMERAL doesn't only say that numerals before 10 must be spelled as words and those after as digits, it gives a number of more specific examples and exceptions:
    • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures: [...] • There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries (even though "3" would normally be given as "three") which definitely applies very well to our case here
    • Not There were many attacks. 23 men were killed, but There were many attacks; 23 men were killed which shows that after a semicolon, digits are acceptable (and in our case, anyway, the rule above would take precedence, since you changed digits into words inconsistently)
    Please keep this in mind. LjL (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    OK, thanks. Firebrace (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    "Victims" prose

    I'm all for WP:PROSE, in general, but we have a referenced table of victims and their nationalities, while we also have a mostly equivalent prose section where, at this point, only a subset of the table's listed victims are indicated. This way, it's arbitrary; if they were all indicated, on the other hand, it would become overly long, and who exactly cares about which official or ministry communicated the information about how many people died in their country, anyway?
    I propose to keep the victim count & countries in the table, to do away with that information as prose, and to keep the prose section for general information about victims that doesn't include country specifics. LjL (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    General information? Firebrace (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    How many victims there were in total (deaths and injuries), and where these took place - which is already part of it. I'm not sure there is much else to add, aside from any notable victims perhaps (no more cousins of football players though, please!); I'm just pretty sure the current list of "minister X said they were N dead in country Y" is redundant and silly when we already have the table. LjL (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    The prose section is useless. Who cares which department of which govt said what. Like accounting, the numbers in a table are far easier to see then a written out paragraph. 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, good point. But the table is too long. Maybe it should only include deaths and not injuries? Firebrace (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, but I have a vague suspicion some people may take issue. The table can flow through other sections, though, that's not technically a problem. Try tentatively removing the injuries from the table if you want...? I've done the rest, for now. LjL (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've removed the injuries column. We're never going to know the exact number of injured for every country. Firebrace (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    If injuries are not going to be mentioned in the table, they must be mentioned in prose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    They are: the total number is. If you're claiming the individual countries "must" be listed, what is your rationale for it? LjL (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Consistency and comprehensiveness; countless sources are covering the nationalities of both killed and injured. Only listing the nationalities of those killed and briefly glossing over the large number injured goes against both of those. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    See my response to Epicgenius below: consistency is all well and good, but death and injury aren't comparable events, their noteworthiness is different, and we have no obligation to treat them identically. LjL (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Why did you do that? That is not a good idea. We already mention the total number injured. Do you want to remove that too? epic genius (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Seems like a pretty good idea to me. The table was probably destined to grow, and I'd say deaths are intrinsically more noteworthy than injuries, so if either should be specified by-country, and there are space concerns, deaths should be favored. LjL (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Injuries count as well. The table isn't that long yet, and I doubt that it would grow much longer. epic genius (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    I guess the prose should stay, but only the part showing the total number dead and injured, as well as the numbers for each site. Remove the number of countries, as well as the people who are named there. epic genius (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    You realize I already removed most of the prose, and added the number of countries to make up (it's a simple WP:CALC by the way)? The specific people mentioned are arguably noteworthy. I repeatedly removed the ones who weren't (despite other editors' best efforst to repeatedly include them). LjL (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    OK... but I think prose is still needed. Otherwise, we just have a table that just sits in the middle of the article with little explanation. epic genius (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    What I'm saying is that I previously removed all the prose that you wanted removed (except the number of countries, which is a part I added), and added the "only" parts you wanted to keep, i.e. the numbers for each site (which were previously in the top sidebar). LjL (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, reasonable. epic genius (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Firebrace: How come you think injuries aren't important? They seemed noteworthy enough to be that they were reliably sourced. epic genius (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    More than 250 people have been released from hospital. We only know the citizenship of 40 of those people. The likelihood that we'll ever know the citizenship of the other 210 is pretty slim. Try to be logical about this. Firebrace (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    The likelihood is that most of those are French, and at some point, we can find a source that states as much. Let's not edit war over this small issue... LjL (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    It isn't a small issue; the table (in its current form) takes up too much space. If most of the injured are French, just say in the prose that most of the injured were French. As you say, injuries are less notable than deaths. Firebrace (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I find it a small issue. I'm afraid for the time being, you are alone in this war... LjL (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    A'ight, so should we restore the "injuries" listings? epic genius (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I would propose removing the entire table, as it takes up too much space. Even with just the fatalities listed, that's 18 rows. There is no need for a table if the opening sentence states "The attacks killed 129 victims and injured 433...". If the nationality of a victim is notable, there will be some sort of reaction to it noted in "International reactions". We currently have a situation where prose is sandwiched between a table on the right and images on the left and it needs to be resolved. Jolly Ω Janner 06:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to agree, particularly in light of the cramping of the article text between images and tables. The table with the pretty flags can easily be replaced with prose with no detriment to the article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree too. These tables are horrible. Prose is better. --John (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep So instead of replacing the table with prose you've just deleted all of that relevant information and not included any of it in the main text? We now have nothing about the nationalities of those who died. How was removing the table useful? It allowed a succinct break down of those who were killed. The petty actions of deletionists make me despair with wikipedia at times. Cantab12 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk page archiving

    A reminder that a bot and various editors are archiving this very busy talk page, so if you can't see something and wonder about it, check the archive first. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Note I have disabled the automatic archiver for the time being, due to people repeatedly attempting to set it to 1 day archiving. I would just as soon manually archiving, because automatic archiving at that speed will indiscriminately remove threads that have not been resolved. A human, rather than a bot, should be making decisions of what to archive when a talk page is exceptionally busy. Safiel (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - good call. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - assuming said human is good at such decisions. (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Anyone can look at the archives and revive a thread they want to do more with. Page at 40 sections right now. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


    Whoever made the map did a great job, but could the sites be renumbered by chronology instead of just north to south? Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    That would require changing of the attributes across many wikis, since this is a global file hosted on Commons. I'm sure we'd want to avoid that. We could upload a new, similar map, or just use {{Location map}}. epic genius (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Abductive and Epicgenius: I created it. Do you mean just switching 4 & 5 (rue de Charonne with Bataclan) or is there something more complex you have in mind? -- Veggies (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a good map. I wouldn't rush to change the order of 4 and 5 right now. The times being used are those given officially by the public prosecutor and people here are complaining below (with evidence) that he was "wrong" in some cases. Where different attacking groups were involved the exact order of events may never be clear (or important). Thincat (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    Time of first and second explosion near the Stade de France

    Der Spiegel relies on these information ( Other reliable sources are and What about writing "According to the French public prosecutor the explosions happened at 21:20, 21:30 and 21:53.[references] Several media report explosions at 21:17, 21:20 and 21:53.[references]"? As there are different reports, it would be solid to write about these differences. One could argue, that the non-official (but reliable) reports are irrelevant, but I think they aren't because only these information can help the reader to get a plausibel impression of the timeline of the events. Greetings, --Qaswed (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with that generally. A while back I updated to the 21:20 and 21:30 times in the "timeline" and then rationalised elsewhere in the article checking against the references being used there. If it's sufficiently important (and it might be) then the article could indeed discuss this. The tabulated timeline would be best with single times, however. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    One reported Canadian injured.

    Just wanted to bring awareness to this article. I don't want to break anything trying to edit myself. Adombom (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

    The "Timeline of attacks" (right side) has to be changed as follows:
    "21:17:32 – First suicide bombing near the Stade de France.
    [Footnote:] The football match France v Germany at Stade de France began at 21:01:08 CET (UTC+1). The first explosion is audible at 16:23 play time. A Reference for the right time is the television broadcasting of the game at the German TV channel „Das Erste“ containing a digital clock at halftime at the beginning of the news program „tagesthemen“ at 21:50:45 CET (UTC+1).
    21:20:43 – Second suicide bombing near the Stade de France.
    [Footnote:] The football match France v Germany at Stade de France began at 21:01:08 CET (UTC+1). The second explosion is audible at 19:34 play time. A Reference for the right time is the television broadcasting of the game at the German TV channel „Das Erste“ containing a digital clock at halftime at the beginning of the news program „tagesthemen“ at 21:50:45 CET (UTC+1)."
    "21:53 – Third suicide bombing near the Stade de France."
    This includes a change in the timeline. The position of the second stadium bombing is now 2nd.
    Under "Stade de France explosions" the following changes has to be made:
    "The explosions happened at 21:17, 21:20, and 21:53. The first explosion near the stadium was in the 17th minute of an international friendly football match between France and Germany" ...
    "Three minutes after the first bombing, the second bomber blew himself up near the stadium."
    The difference between 2nd and 3rd bombing was false and is now right. The footnotes may have here too be included.
    Thanks in advance. meklenburg
    PS: The difference from one second is according to my data no error! It depends on the interval of (every) second. Meklenburg (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The times you suggest are not supported by the references in the article and the proposed text does not propose alternative references. Thincat (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    However, I have changed "at" to "near" because that is what the reference states. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    I'm not suggesting. I have evidence on hand and foot … You have to decide witch references are good enough for wikipedia. But after reading this you will know I'm right anyway.
    The first source will be away sometimes. It's a video on youtube (Asia?) witch contains all the facts I had discribed it in my edit request above. Here you can find the evidence in one source only. But you have to check it in reverse from halftime (means from the time of the „tagesthemen“ news digital clock at 21:50:45 CET) with the video time.
    You can check it faster with this table below.

    Occurrence/ Time@ video above/ difference inbetween/ Play Time/ CET
    Kick-off/ 1:00:00/ 00:00/ 00:00/ 21:01:08
    Explosion 1/ 1:16:24/ 16:24/ 16:23/ 21:17:32
    Explosion 2/ 1:19:35/ 03:11/ 19:34/ 21:20:43
    TV News clock/ 1:49:37/ 30:02/ [45:00+]/ 21:50:45

    If that's not reference-worthy enough … then you should check it the other way around from the kick-off with two sources. You can hear and see it in every video from the first half: The explosions are always at 16:23 and 19:34 play time. Btw the first link is offical from German TV „Das Erste“:
    Second we have to go to twitter. When was the kick-off? At 21:01 CET (= 12:01 PST twitter-time from California, minus 9 hours) wrote the German team: „Anpfiff!“, means „Kick-off!“
    In „source“ one you have it with the seconds – the evidence for me: Explosion 1: 21:17:32 CET; Explosion 2: 21:20:43 CET
    With way two you have the proof and all in minutes for sure (21:01 + 16:23 or 19:34): Explosion 1: 21:17 CET; Explosion 2: 21:20 CET
    Thanks in advance.
    PS: The difference from one second is according to my data and proof no error! It depends on the interval of (every) second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meklenburg (talkcontribs) 15:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    Blood and sand

    This is not directly related to the article, but I thought I'd bring the image File:Blood and sand on the ground in front of Le Petit Cambodge the day after November 2015 Paris attacks (22998462382).jpg to your attention. It eloquently sums up the whole wretched affair -- people pointlessly and sordidly reduced to blood splashes on a pavement, with everything that made them human discarded without thought. -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    It has no context. I like File:Paris Shootings - The day after (22593523647).jpg better. Firebrace (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    "Victims" table

    I propose deletion of the table, or deletion of the 'injured' column and merging of references with deaths, as the table is too big and looks unprofessional. For comparison, this is how it looked after it was cleaned up yesterday. Firebrace (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Tables like this with their decorative flags are symptomatic of the OCD tendency for completeness among some volunteers here. The main features should be summarised in text and the table deleted. It is grotesque. --John (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the table should stay with only the deaths. Not long, and I'm not sure what the presence of flags can harm other than bothering John... LjL (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Abridged table now replaced previous version. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep Victims table allows a succinct break down of those who were killed by nationality. Cantab12 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Why is it so important to break them down by nationality? Why not age, gender, eye colour, or something else? John (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


    Pending some sort of verdict, I think we have to refer to these named living people as suspected perpetrators. --John (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Aye. WP:BLPCRIME is clear about the presumption of innocence. Doesn't matter if the court of public opinion has found them vile. That's not a real court. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, November 17, 2015 (UTC)

    14 - 15 Nov


    Contested deletion

    Initial speedy deletion was posted by a passing troll, nothing substantial. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --LjL (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, obviously this page should not be deleted. LjL (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a rapidly changing current news event, an article certain to be expanded as more details come in. --22:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    20 people dead is not a trivial or insignificant matter. Looks like someone is trying to suppress news they don't like.
    It's not going to happen. These breaking news articles are often put up for deletion in their early stages before their significance becomes apparent. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    Number of deaths

    This is varying widely. Some say 18, some say 26, I counted 56 from the three locations. epic genius (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    This is to be expected. The attacks are ongoing as far as I'm aware and news just broke within the hour. Numbers are going to fluctuate wildly for a while. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Let's just remove it from the infobox till, say, tomorrow. It's too widely varying to be stable. epic genius (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    CNN (US) is reporting at least 60 deaths. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Present death toll is "at least 153" per [1]. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to "Le Monde" (Newspaper of record), the current (2015, November 14 5:23 AM UTC) death toll is at lest 120 deaths. Number of injured persons are in "urgence absolue" (critical) and the deaths toll is likely to increase. [1] Phil4242 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to "Le Monde" (Newspaper of record), the current (2015, November 14 6:00 AM UTC) death toll is at least 120 deaths. At least 32 persons are in "urgence absolue" [crtitical] and the deaths toll is likely to increase. [2] Phil4242 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil4242 (talkcontribs) 06:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to "Le Monde" (2015, November 14 8:57 AM UTC), the current death toll has been reviewed: At least 128 deaths. The deaths toll is likely to increase. [3] Phil4242 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil4242 (talkcontribs) 09:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Charlie Hebdo shooting

    Can we avoid mentioning this in any way, until an actual proof that those were connected surfaces? Thanks, Hołek ҉ 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's fair enough to mention it in "See also". It was in Paris, close in time, and in related places there. LjL (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Related places? North-east Paris is a vast and diverse area. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is not right to mention it before these attacks have been definitively linked to radical Islamists. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    The terrorists shouted "Allahu Akbar" and "This is for Syria".--Stefvh96 (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    You have a point, but it was a recent major event of the same type in the same city, so we definitely need to mention it. Anyway, I added a see also section with Terrorism in the European Union, then added List of terrorist incidents in France. Sorry for the mess it's going to cause. :-\ --Kizor 23:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's a related thing, because it happens in Paris. Doesn't matter who's attacking now. The point is that this is happening in the same place, in the same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerhidt (talkcontribs) 23:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    And for roughly the same reasons it sounds like. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    And we need reliable citations establishing such a link... Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Look, I'm all for sourcing, but "See also" sections don't need such strict standards. It's enough that reasonable people would think of them as related and/or want to "see also" the other topic (that's what the section is about). I quote from WP:ALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." LjL (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    How's this: "France has been on edge since deadly attacks by Islamic extremists in January on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a kosher grocery that left 20 dead, including the three attackers." From france 24 Europe. Dcs002 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    On edge is not NPOV. Anyhoo, ive added something to the background section. Although connections are being made in RS to the migrant issue and further afield to convflict zones.Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Live coverage from French TV

    I have cited French TV - ABC News is streaming it live. The same stats are rotating at the bottom - МандичкаYO 😜 22:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    France24 article, "WATCH LIVE" is at the top of the site
    Live coverage from Reddit here too the thread

    article name

    Please stop moving the article... November 2015 Paris attacks is fine and the common name. Even French TV is only referencing Paris as the location.[2] МандичкаYO 😜 23:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Folks, please stop moving the article back and forth. Please consult Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names, which would argue for "Paris" as the name, even if there were events technically outside Paris. There is precedent with Beltway sniper attacks in Washington DC, where there were incidents not necessarily just inside the Beltway. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you ... please note the image I linked above. It's just Paris. МандичкаYO 😜 23:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Can we stop moving the page please? If you asked a casual reader where these attacks occurred, they would say Paris, not the perhaps geographically correct Île-de-France. Unlike the Île-de-France attacks earlier in the year, the November 13 attacks have not spread outside the City of Paris. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    👍 Fuzheado likes this. - see above
    Suggest Page Move Protection Legacypac (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sooooo why do we have January 2015 Île-de-France attacks? FWIW, the French Wikipedia also calls the current event Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 en Île-de-France. LjL (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @LjL: - Honestly, I'm quite surprised to see this article title, as the incident is nearly always called the "Charlie Hebdo attacks" in the US news media. Maybe one reason why it's labeled as "outdated" is that no one I know of in the US would ever look up "Île-de-France attacks." It's also not unusual for different languages to have different titles, as Americans don't even know how to type that "Î" character. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    OK, so I just realized we have BOTH Charlie_Hebdo_shooting and 2015 Île-de-France attacks, of which the former is a subset of the latter, but the former is actually much much longer and up to date. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, we have both, it's possible that with these attacks too, the details about single events will grow to the point they'll need separate articles... although in the Charlie Hebdo case, it was the publication itself that caused it to get attention. Anyway, This is the English Wikipedia, sure, but not necessarily the American Wikipedia, so which characters Americans can type isn't very relevant (and made even less so by redirects and smart search engines). I wouldn't take that into consideration when deciding on article titles. LjL (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Here in the U.S., I'm starting to hear the attacks being referred to as attacks that happened on Friday the 13th... just my two cents. Hanyou23 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't seen that at all myself. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Depends which news outlet you listen to ;p ~ Hanyou23 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Probably should have chimed in earlier but was busy with the article...anywho, WP:COMMONNAME lends to the article retaining its current title as it's being widely reported as attacks in Paris. The bombing at Stade de France (located in Saint-Denis) was a relatively small aspect of the overall atrocity, which predominately took place within Paris. One could argue WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to have this moved to 2015 Paris attacks, since it far exceeds the January attacks. But for now, having a stable title is nice. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The names of the 2 articles ("2015 Île-de-France attacks" and "2015 Paris attacks") dedicated to terrorist attacks that occurred in 2015 in France are very misleading. 1) They are not accurate A) For January series / "2015 Île-de-France attacks": Some events occurred in Picardie (outside Ile-de-France) - A hold-up in Villers-Cotterêts - Kouachi brothers might have spent a part of the night (from the 8 to 9) in Picardie - The terrorism alert level was also raised to the maximum in Picardie B) For November series / "2015 Paris attacks": Some attacked occurred outside Paris (intra-muros). c.f., Attacks in Stade de France 2) They are ambiguous: I don't if most of people living outside the Parisian region are well aware of the difference in-between Ile-de-France and Paris. Even some French people might not know. Conclusion / Disambiguation: Since those event occured in 2015, in Ile-de-France with a focus in Paris, to me, the only way to make distinction is to add the month. That why, I am suggesting: "January 2015 Paris attacks" or "January 2015 Ile-de-France attacks" for Charlie Hebdo, Porte de Vincennes, Montrouge, ... "November 2015 Paris attacks" or "November 2015 Ile-de-France attacks" for Bataclan, Rue de Charonne, Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi, Rue Alibert, stade de France, … Regards Phil4242 (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC) signed Phil4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil4242 (talkcontribs) 09:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The only issue I have with that is that eventually every name will begin to start looking like a Campbell's Soup can (they all look the same >< ' )... which one's the one you really want :o (at least the old cans ;p ~)??? Hanyou23 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Please add a Timeline of events as a section

    BFMTV online has an abreviated timeline for events which is a useful start.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Europe 1 Radio has a timeline for events, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

    Page protection?

    This article has attracted several IPs intent on adding bad or unsourced information. Does everyone agree we're due for partial protection here? Rklawton (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    It was semi-protected, then someone removed it. - DarkNITE (talk)
    Already restored it. It got lost when the page was moved multiple times earlier. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    No! Yet again a knee jerk response resulting in quick SP. All I see are loads of incorrect auto tagging of edits as "possible vandalism" followed up by inappropriate reverting by editors who haven't checked the edit. It doesn't take you protection warriors long to act, does it? (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's definitely warranted. There's been a lot of subtle vandalism that gets lost quickly in the flurry of edits. Semi-protecting helps keep the article in check. There's always the option to create an account, you know... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Bullshit! I already have an account and can edit the article. The only thing you warriors keep in check is the pesky IPs that you'd like to remove completely anyway. (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    There are lots of eyes on the page right now, I'm not sure protection is warranted. -- Luk talk 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly. It's well known that articles lie this bring in loads of new editors, some of whom stick around - unless the warriors SP it of course, as they invariably do with this type of article. (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Proposal: Unprotect.


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


    Further discussion

    Please add a map!

    For somebody not familiar with the layout of Paris this would be a real help. In particular as the attacks seem to be spread across the complete city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Map has been included in article by another user. Adog104 Talk to me 23:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

    Updates to be added


    15 dead and ~60 dead in the Bataclan theatre by 23.30.
    Are you sure? Last I heard, it was 35 dead. I guess we'll need to see the dust settle. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think they meant 15 dead and ~60 held hostage. Anyway, that BBC link was in the article, but thanks anyway. --Kizor 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is very confused and possibly out of date. (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Fox News is reporting at least 40. Let's stand by. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    State of Emergency and borders closed. Paris authorities have asked people to stay indoors. Military personnel are being deployed across Paris. All by by 23.30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    ~100 people dead. Agence France Presse. -- Luk talk 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Seven shooting sites: Rue de Charonne had shootings, too

    Over 100 shots at La Belle Équipe, a bar at the corner of rue Faudherbe and rue Charonne Liberation article:
    Cafe and a kebab restaurant had shootings, too. Europe 1 article:
    Liberaton has map of shooting sites and includes Rue de Charonne. Map: Updates:

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

    From Daily Mail article,
    Not certain if its related to attacks yet. Adog104 Talk to me 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That would need a better source. --John (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    @John: Better source on the incident.. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    Hollande said there were “unprecedented terror attacks under way in Paris” and authorities have warned residents to stay inside. (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Seven attacks

    Europe 1 reports seven attacks.
    • au Stade de France,à Saint-Denis
    • 50 boulevard Voltaire, dans la salle de spectacle du Bataclan où une prise d'otages était en cours dans la nuit (three suspects killed by security forces)
    • 253 boulevard Voltaire (Le Comptoir Voltaire, le brasserie at the corner of boulevard Voltaire and rue de Montreuil, near Place de la Nation)
    • au coin de de la rue Bichat et de la rue Alibert (Le Carillon bar at 18 rue Alibert, and Le Petit Cambodge restaurant at 20 rue Alibert)
    • 2 rue de La Fontaine au Roi (La Casa del Nostra near canal St. Martin)
    • 40 boulevard Beaumarchais (Le Barbier de Bastille, between rue du Chemin Vert and rue du Pas de La Mule)
    • 92 rue de Charonne (over 100 shots at La Belle Équipe, a bar at corner of rue Faidherbe and rue de Charonne).
    BFMTV has updated map:
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    Paris shooting: Scores killed and injured after 'Kalashnikov and grenade attacks' across French capital with dozens of hostages taken. (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Bataclan Death count

    Over one hundred dead inside Bataclan following police raid. (talk)


    1. At least 60 dead in series of Paris terror attacks.
    2. Kalashnikov-wielding gunman opens fire in restaurant.
    3. 100 hostages are taken at theatre. 2 suicide bombs detonate near entrance E of the the Stade de France. Gunfire at shopping centre
    4. At least 60 people have been killed and several wounded in a series of terror attacks in the heart of Paris tonight
    5. 11 were killed in restaurant shootout on Rue Bichat, close to where Charlie Hebdo shootings occurred in January.
    6. Another 15  killed in the Bataclan concert hall where terrorists are said to be holding around 100 people hostage.
    7. The terrorists shouted 'Allah Akbar' and 'this is for Syria' as they burst in and opened fire, witnesses have said.
    8. French President Francois Hollande declared state of emergency for whole country and shut all of its borders.
    As of 23.0092.16.213.2 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    The lines 3, 5, 8, 9, 11 pass through arr 10, 11. Europe 1 article:
    I added that. epic genius (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    ‘It’s a horror’: Hollande orders French borders closed after Paris terror attack leaves at least 140 dead. As of 01.00. (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Current attack

    There is a current operation ongoing, the paris police said it already finished; 3 terrorists were dead but also possibly some hostages. Can someone add this subsection? 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The operation's covered under November 2015 Paris attacks#Bataclan theatre shooting and hostage-taking. --Kizor 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Les Halles attack

    This one does not seem to have happened, there are no confirmations or even hints on it on any major French online medias (at 01:00). Hervegirod (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    There have been reports of a Media Blackout, as that is allowed within French Law, so it may have occured. (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    mm, there were no blackout on every other attacks tonight, so IMO this information is not sufficiently verified/ sourced Hervegirod (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Apparently, all the Les Halles info was a false report. "Shootings were reported in Les Halles in the centre of Paris and at Le Pompidou and Louvre, but they are believed now to be false alarms." [3] We should probably add that to the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


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


    Aside from the cited CTV News, I don't see any source mentioning a curfew in effect. Other sources say that police have recommended that citizens stay home: that's not a curfew. The claim it's the first time since 1944 adds to the drama of it, but I'd rather remove it if uncomfirmed by other sources. Anybody has any? --LjL (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, no curfew, just a strong recommendation from the authorities, which seems rather sensible considering the situation. Hervegirod (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think it should be changed to reflect this. epic genius (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    A State of Emergency. (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    More sources stating that a curfew is in effect: Telegraph, Bangkok Post, New York Daily News. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The Telegraph is just reporting what CTV says, so it's null. The other two also make sure to mention it's the first time since WW2, so they look like they copycatted too. --LjL (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    No curfew would be shocking given the situation. We need strong sources to say no curfew Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Don't be ridiculous, this is not America. Curfews aren't declared willy-nilly. --LjL (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    See: "Attaques terroristes à Paris : une centaine de morts, l'état d'urgence décrété". Le Figaro. La Mairie de Paris appelle les habitants de la capitale à rester chez eux
    These are not French medias informations. I'm French, and it seems that they did not understand correctly what was said by the French officials. The state of emergency was officially announced by the French President, but no curfew. Just a strong recommendation, and not by the police, but by the Paris Mayor First Deputy.Hervegirod (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly. This is American-style nonsense. --LjL (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Reuters seems to be confirming that a curfew is in effect. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I bet everyone is now just echoing the original CTV claim (and quite possibly Wikipedia's). Look at the local sources, and what the authorities actually said. LjL (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The French TV said there was a curfew. I don't know if it's throughout the city or just the north. МандичкаYO 😜 00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    OK it seems like even the French don't all know what's going on what "State of emergency" means since the current legislation regarding this was only established 10 years ago. Looks like they are describing a "curfew" at Orly. МандичкаYO 😜 00:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    "State of emergency" (état d'urgence) allows the possibility of curfew but doesn't declare curfew. Otherwise, the entire country would be under curfew, since the state of emergency was declared country-wide. See French Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    By the way, it says all over the place that certain (but just half a dozen) metro lines were closed. Surely, if there city-wide curfew, all lines would be closed, as people would simply not be allowed to be outside? LjL (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I see the "first mandatory curfew in Paris since WW2" claim is back. Will someone kindly provide a government/police source that declares this curfew, instead of reports of reports of associated reports and so on? Otherwise, I still find it incredibly dubious. LjL (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    France closing borders for the first time since?

    I read in one of the references that Hollande's decision to closing the country's borders is the first time since the second world war. However now I read elsewhere it is the first time since the 70s. // Psemmler (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    There seems to be total confusion within the French Government; only a few minutes ago the Foreign Ministry (or someone at it acting on their own initiative) issued a statement saying that "Airports continue to function. Airline flights and train services will be assured". (Via Reuters) Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Liberation aritcle:
    OK92.16.213.2 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • What I heard was the curfew in Paris was the first since WWII МандичкаYO 😜 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, added.
    Lihaas (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    Can we possibly, as a mark of respect for the seriousness of these events, refrain from adding the anodyne condolences of every world leader as they come in over the next 24 hours? I know there is a natural tendency to add every single one in full, with little flag icons sometimes, but our mission as an encyclopedia is to report the facts as soberly as we can. We are not a collection of quotations or a book of condolence. Please let's remember this. --John (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'll be doing what I can to curb that. I fully agree that these message of condolences are not worth listing and have tried numerous times to stop them on various articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support these memorials are invariably edited into a condensed version. Perhaps we can use the talk page to maintain them with the aim to facilitate future editing? Rklawton (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support but @HJ Mitchell: if that's what the "NO QUOTES PLEASE" comment meant, then it should be clartified, because it's after Hollande statements, and quotes from him would be fine. LjL (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Partial Support I like RKlawton's plan, there are inevitably dozens of these responses. John, everybody's voluntary hard work on this article is the ultimate mark of respect. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - Change this to an RFC, agreed with reactions. Adog104 Talk to me 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support, as was the case back when I was active and around for the Boston Marathon bombings and the 777 that crashed on landing at KSFO. I was planning on WP:BOLDly removing that section just now, and came to the talk page for consensus; given the supports above, I think I'm just going to go do it (and then take a hands-off approach if anyone feels like reverting). Ignatzmicetalk 00:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support: The little flags are pretty, but ultimately harmful, as these lists of quotes tend to cause certain types of biases, clutter the page, are questionable in context of WP:NOTNEWS, and overall are related to multitude of other issues. Ceosad (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support: Only make specific note of particularly notable responses (i.e. military action, actual aid rendered, ect.). Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - of course, they are reactions from heads of state and international messages, and most importantly they receive significant news coverage. Should be its own article. МандичкаYO 😜 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - of course, reactions by e.g. NATO, EU, Germany and the USA should be mentioned here. And eventually they should be moved to their own article.--Oneiros (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support no, we can add them at a later date.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support These sections add nothing of value for readers: it can be taken for granted that national leaders, etc, condemn terrorist attacks. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Elsewhere I have seen such condolences and similar messages limited to world leaders who have some real connection to the event. That's difficult to establish in this case though, because we don't know who the shooters were, or their affiliations. If (for example) they are somehow related to ISIL, then the parties currently fighting against ISIL might be appropriate to quote, as well as any public statements or claims of responsibility made by ISIL, or whatever group it turns out to be. The determining factor is whether they are parties to the story. Any world leader that announces specific actions that will be taken (not intentions in general or nebulous proposals or vows to end terrorism) should be quoted too. Dcs002 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - It makes sense to have a statement from Hollande, but beyond that, the quotes will be coming from people who aren't more informed than we are. How could that possibly add to the article. Maybe add a statement saying "Dozens of world leaders expressed their condolences on Twitter". Snd0 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support - Assuredly, the condolences are heart felt...but there is no need to mention or list them. Buster Seven Talk 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, as John says. No responses, no flags, no bullet points. Report on actions, on policy, on border closings--those are the only reactions of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    First you cite not a memorial then you say "As a mark of respect".?
    oppose At any rate, "world leaders" is not NPOV because everyone did not reply. While its well and good not to have flags if consensus deems so, prose can mention the leader/country that offered a message because WP readers are NOT editors alone. In IR, who said what and who didn't say is an important indicator of relations between states.Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Considering the soon-to-be expansive list of country leaders who have given their statement of support, it may be more efficient to list those who haven't made a statement. Snd0 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Conditional support. My support is a little conditional. I don't think that we need a listing of every single condolence out there, as this sort of thing is well, automatic. They will be heartfelt, for sure, but we don't need a blow by blow account of who said what. However there will need to be an international reaction section that summarizes the general reaction and highlights 1-3 of the major countries. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • For the umpteenth time, Support Good to see this addressed quickly today. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    • Support for 24 hours only as mentioned in statement of section. (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support indefinitely. It is unnecessary to individually list every source's statements that are all just the same sentiment in different words. Actions taken can be included but multiple "international reactions" are excessive, redundant, and unconstructive. Reywas92Talk 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - why? - theWOLFchild 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol opinion vote.svg Note also existence of a separate page International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. -220 of Borg 23:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Current death-toll

    The Death-toll should be edited to reflect the current reports (100+ Dead at theatre + 43-60 elsewhere) (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Pretty sure we cannot use Twitter. Do you have anything in a reliable source? I also saw a report of 100+ dead in the theatre on live news but we can't use that as a source. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is AFP that posted on twitter, Ill see if theres a Article with that amount (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yahoo News has those figures in an Article;_ylt=AwrC0CbWf0ZWjj8AvTPQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sky News in the UK is reporting provisional total of 118 dead at the Bataclan. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    ‘It’s a horror’: Hollande orders French borders closed after Paris terror attack leaves at least 140 dead. As of 01.0092.16.213.2 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Beirut attacks

    Please can links stop being added to the page linking these attacks with the 2015 Beirut bombings. no group has claimed responsibility for the Parisian attacks, and though the attacks appear to be similar in nature, it appears they have occurred coincidentally. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Removed it from there too till a claimant.
    Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Connection to ISIS

    How should we approach the gunmens' purported recruitment by ISIS? There is secondhand coverage from twitter accounts and on live news.
    I believe it should go in a separate section once there's enough sources to support it The war on shrugs (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Reliable published sources as ever. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Just wait until an RS publishes something, won't be long if there is any link whatsoever. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Right now the article mentions that an 'eye witness' told journalists that the attackers at Bataclan said something about Syria. Julien Pierce, a journalist who was actually present says they said nothing at all. Considering that the 'eye witness' in question, also mentioned five to six attackers (the French Police claims there were three.) could we either maybe remove the 'said something about Syria' thing or else add that Julien Pierce contradicted this? Robrecht (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    Around 100 dead in attack on Paris concert hall: Police source.
    New- "It’s a horror", Hollande orders French borders closed after Paris terror attack leaves at least 140 dead. As of 01.0092.16.213.2 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    It should be mentioned that you could hear the detonations in the stadium (and in the live broadcast) while the match took place. And in German media I heared that the Islamists tried to enter the stadium. Also, there was a bomb threat for the German hotel, but no bomb was found. Also, the German national team (I don't know about the French one) had to wait for more than three hours until they finally could leave the stadium.
    From Daily Mail article,
    Obviously the football match was the reason for these attacks in the first place, so it definitely should have a more prominent position in the article.-- (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Obviously? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Obviously the OP is trolling. epic genius (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Trolling? Don't you have any argument or is your sole purpose in Wikipedia to insult people?-- (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also, see above Terror threat to German futbol squad

    Migrant camps on fire?

    According to "unconfirmed reports", the Calais jungle migrant camps have been set on fire. Perhaps it's worth a mention? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's worth it. Damn this is depressing. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Should wait on this. The source says that it's uncertain whether or not it took place this week or last week. Not our place to make connections. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agree, timing is important. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    BBC News Channel says this is a hoax—the reports were based on old photos. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Friend there said it was tents that caught fire due to high winds from fires used to keep warm. Around 40 tents/shelters lost, now under control. People then used old pics of fires, and passed on rumours of a revenge arson attack. --Mongreilf (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Edit conflicts

    Would people kindly edit individual sections whenever possible rather than the whole article? It's exceedingly hard to make a single edit without a conflict, even when I'm editing a section unrelated to other edits. LjL (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    You're right. I HATE when that happens. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Editing individual sections (not the whole article) should always be the way to go, not only on this article Hervegirod (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Amen to that. - theWOLFchild 10:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Change of border status from closed to severely restricted

    Announced by Francois Hollande, please include this..--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Stefvh96: do you have a link to a source handy? LjL (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    "President François Hollande called an unprecedented terrorist attack on France. He announced sharply increased border controls ..." "he convened an emergency cabinet meeting and announced that France was placing severe restrictions on its border crossings." "Despite the increased border security, air travel in and out of Paris appeared to be unaffected". [4]. Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    That doesn't seem to confirm that he announced downgrading the border controls from "closed" to "severely restricted". If the status changed that way, it needs to be stated. LjL (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The source doesn't seem to indicate a downgrade explicitly, though. It just says "severely restricted". I'd opt to wait until more reports come out backing this up. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It does, though, back up what the television media are reporting that though the borders may have been closed they are not now closed and this in the lead " François Hollande declared a state of emergency and closed the borders for all of France". gives the wrong impression. Just Chilling (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Islamic terrorism

    Can you believe that users Rklawton and Firebrace think this isn't actually an Islamic terrorist attack? Mindless wiki-bureaucracy.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Jinx. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Is this a personal attack? Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, it is not a personal attack. Not calling an obvious terrorist attack as such when it has has been labelled as such by heads of state and mainstream media is reminiscent of refusing to call the winner of a US presidential election "the president-elect" until the electoral college has voted. Wikipedia sometimes suffers from a mindless adherence to some idealized standard of proof before stating things which are reliably sourced. Edison (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't seen any sources that say any heads of state or the media have labeled this an Islamic attack. That's what I'm waiting for - a reliable source. So far I've seen one report from one unidentified witness that one gunman shouted allahu akbar. That's not particularly impressive. Wikipedia, on the other hand, IS impressive - and it's our diligence that makes it so. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    We cause enough misreports in the media by stating unsourced things that turn out to be incorrect and which the media repeat. Let's stick to reliable sources, not guesses. If it's so obvious that it's Islamic terrorism, anyway, people will know without reading it. LjL (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Trolling, or just speculation? epic genius (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Uh, that's not how it works. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Russian government, Egyptian government, President Assad, ISIS, ETA or Catalan separatists? (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    After the Oklahoma City attacks, some public figures rushed to blame Islamic terrorists. Turns out they had nothing to do with it. Hence, erring on the side of caution, when no reliable, verifiable source has linked the attack to any group at all, whether religiously motivated, political, etc., is wise. (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Reading this page is the first time I am hearing about this incident and it makes me so happy to see that editors like Rklawton, Firebrace and LjL exists. Your work is so important. There is a flood of editors, that has no clue about what an encyclopaedia is all about and your work to keep Wikipedia free of speculation, unproven claims and conspirational ideas is excellent. Especially in a case like this. When I go here, I want to read about the solid facts and nothing else. There are so many other fora on-line (and off-line) for discussions, speculation, accusations, bickering and arguments. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a place for information, it is so crucial to keep these things out and in their right place. Thank you! RhinoMind (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Category islamic terrorism

    I added it then deleted it in favor of Category:November 2015 Paris attacks which is in Cat:Islamic terrorism in France. Same thing. But let's substantiate it with links, not just with common sense. [5] Ding. There it is. Sorry to be blunt but there are people dying it's horrible and lets not equivocate. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    This isn't rocket science. We don't get to guess or crystal ball. We just write up what we find in reliable sources. When reliable sources say that this is an Islamic attack or an ISIS attack, then we get to add it. Until then, we don't. That's how Wikipedia works. If you'd like to write a blog filled with your personal opinions and assumptions (more likely correct), then please do so, but don't do it here - not in the article and not through Categories. Rklawton (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    You're right, it's not rocket science. The attackers shouted allahu akbar. Real obscure.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I know I'm being bitchy but it's hard not to be in this situation. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Must be the Scientologists then, we'd better add the article to Category:Scientologist terrorism in France.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    That video is not of today/yesterday's attacks, as evidenced by the date. Also evident at a glance from the fact that today's attacks all happened after sundown, not the middle of the day. Robrecht (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Oops. I think I meant this. [6] --Monochrome_Monitor 01:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Nobody has yet claimed responsibility, and the attackers have not been identified. We simply don't know what their motives were, so even calling it terrorism is arguably original research (because it implies political motivation, which we don't know yet, but common parlance these days is to label every large attack "terrorism"). If they're identified tomorrow and it turns out they were ISIS, we can add that then—the article is not set in stone; if they're identified as being an independent band of nutters, we can add that; if they turn out to be something completely different, we'll look pretty silly (and Islamophobic) if we call it Islamic extremism. It's always possible (unlikely, but at this point we simply don't know anything) that it's somebody trying to make it look like Islamist terrorism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Terrorism doesn't imply political motivation, our article about it says "Terrorism is any act designed to cause terror". It's pretty much built into the word. This is patently terrorism. LjL (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Does anyone else know of non-Islamic people that go round killing people shouting Allahu akbar? We can then search for reliable sources that describe these unicorns people.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The "logic" is much simpler: to call it an Islamist attack would be racist and media calling it an Islamist attack would be racist media, which are not considered reliable resources. Only the establishment media has the right to choose that label –- if and when they do, Wikipedia will, too. (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    What if the one witness was wrong? What if the reporter or the witness were racists and just made it up? What if the witness was just reporting a rumor he or she heard and lied about hearing it him or herself? What if this is a bunch of neo-Nazis trying to start a race war by running a false flag operation? What if we just wait for something more reliable than what we currently have? Rklawton (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Either a false flag operation by neo-Nazis who want to start a race war or by liberal terrorists who want to give religion a bad name. (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, especially since Julien Pierce, a reporter who was actually present when the Bataclan attack started, claims the attackers didn't say a word.[7]. Until we have actual confirmation witness reports, even those of journalists in reliable sources, are all just hearsay. Robrecht (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Take a deep breath Loomspicker, keep calm, and stick to the guidelines. They are sound, and don't get thrown out because you are feeling hyped up.--Mongreilf (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    How could you not be "hyped up"? More than a hundred fifty people were murdered. Saying it could be a "false-flag" operation just reveals your own biases.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Anders Breivik - a word to the wise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC).
    I am hyped up. I said guidelines don't change when people are hyped up. And saying we don't know what it is, to the level required by Wikipedia, is not bias. It is a fact. A fact that will change soon, so be patient.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    This is off-topic and personal. Stick to WP:RS and don't waste talk page space, it's tight enough here. LjL (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ha! It's finally sourced. We have a reliable source that definitively states that it's not clear who is responsible. [8] Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Guidelines and policies are there for when we get worked up. We can all be reasonable under calm, more academic circumstances, but when emotions run high, these guidelines and policies are our friends. They protect us from our own well-intentioned carelessness. I'll echo what's been said: This can wait for proper sourcing. WP is not in a race to be the first to draw conclusions. Even if those conclusions are correct, they give the appearance of disregarding the need to verify information. Only poor quality encyclopedias do that. Dcs002 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It does seem smart to simply wait a few (or more?) hours. History and the singular account of "Allah akbar" suggest it probably is, but it won't take that long for police to properly ID the guys/shooters/terrorist. Snd0 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Please read French sources

    Liberation Le Parisien Le Monde BFMTV Europe 1
    Would most people in France call these acts terrorism?
    Yes. Can we close this? This is most likely a troll. epic genius (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Terrorism? Yes. Islamic? Not without clearer evidence. LjL (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Except they shouted "This is for Syria! Allahu akbar!" I'm guessing they weren't Buddhists. Thismightbezach (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    This has been discussed to death yesterday. When this was written at least, it was far from certain what they had "shouted", witnesses were panicking, and sources weren't reliable. LjL (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    11. (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Canadian Prime Minister has a statement on the attack,please add it
    Who doesn't have a statement? We actually have a comment in the article asking not to add these statements. LjL (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    And yet Iran, Germany and the U.S. have had their specific, individual comments added. Hmmm... - theWOLFchild 10:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    "Siege" vs. "massacre"

    Given the scale and indiscriminate nature of the shooting, the word "massacre" succintly describes the events at the Bataclan theatre, and we should use it instead of "siege". -- Impsswoon (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    We should also try and get the words "carnage" and "bloodbath" in. Srsly though, mass killing would be my preferred term, though the BBC have used massacre.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The use of the word "massacre" is a topic that's visited very often on this site. I haven't been paying attention to it lately, but I believe the popular option (or the one that gets the bickering to stop) is to wait until the press settles on a term and then use that. --Kizor 02:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Carnage" and "bloodbath" are emotive tabloid terms. "Massacre" is descriptive. We should at the very least use "mass shooting". -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Siege" is neutral and shorter. The gunmen shot people and held them hostages. epic genius (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I believe they murdered their hostages. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    They did. I've used the term "siege and mass shooting" to describe it. The siege is now a minor detail in what became a Mumbai-type attack. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There might be one adjective that comes to be the commons name in the coming days, so we shouldn't worry to much about what we call it for the time being. I'd prefer to avoid "massacre" per WP:WTA, but then it's hard not to be emotive about a subject like this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also Nairobi at the mall was a situation that similarly lasted or hours/days.Lihaas (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Category:November 2015 Paris attacks

    The category Category:November 2015 Paris attacks should not be added here yet. There is only one article in the category, which makes it useless right now. When other articles are created, the category can be added. epic genius (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I would agree, but you're speedy deleting the category too. Why? Everyone knows there will be a category "Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks" and maybe even attackers, and probably separate pages for some of the separate attacks. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It will be recreated when there are more articles to add. It's not like the category is salted or anything. epic genius (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Hah, okay. But just for that nuclear weapons joke. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Next we'll be having Category:Epicgenius farts of 2015, just wait for things to die down.--Loomspicker (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Category:Epic geniuses? epic genius (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Of course, someone recreated the category. I don't understand the impatience. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    More than 150 dead after siege at Bataclan concert hall. (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    I imagine people are adding 2008 Mumbai attacks to the see also section because the media have been making that comparison—random shooting sprees taking place across a city. Whether we should link to it or not I have no strong opinion, but that appears to be the connection for those who were wondering. @WWGB, Monochrome Monitor, Nick-D, and Aumnamahashiva: and probably others who have been adding/removing it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think this should really be included. Otherwise, we'd need to add 7/7, 3/11, etc. epic genius (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, there's no known connection, yet.--Loomspicker (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The Mumbai attacks had a rather different set of targets (a train station and a hotel) and were motivated by India-Pakistan issues (with the Pakistani intelligence service allegedly helping to facilitate them), so comparing them to this attack seems hard to justify without very strong evidence. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the India/Pakistan conflict an extension of the old Hindu/Islam conflict? Were the bombers Islamist extremists? If so, even though there are differences in specific targets and goals, and IF it turns out the attackers in Paris are Islamist extremists, then I think it's appropriate to "see also". A massive, coordinated attack in a major city on multiple civilian targets by Islamist extremists (if verified). That doesn't happen every day. 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 were all very special events in that regard. I see no harm in putting them in the "see also" list IF Islamists are confirmed. Dcs002 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Suicide bombing

    BBC News Channel, citing French police via news wires, just said that three of the theatre attackers blew themselves up using suicide vests. The relevant categories et can probably be (re-)added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Done. Firebrace (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Gunmen at large?

    I'm not entirely sure whether I added this earlier and was reverted, or I edit conflicted without realizing and it never got it. But, Is the fact that "It is not known how many attackers were involved and how many could still be at large."[9] not particularly fussing anyone? LjL (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    BBC News Channel, citing the Paris police prefect, just (literally a minute or two ago) said that all attackers are believed dead. I'd hold off on adding anything to the article until we know more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Okay. This was definitely older. LjL (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The police think they killed all the gunmen. [10] Naturally, the article contradicts itself. Rklawton (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

    Please change the death toll, 158 isn't confirmed. Sup3rdogey (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, what's the base established figure? Like from official police authorities? LjL (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Just by adding up the "confirmed" totals, 158 is officially correct. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    In which case, WP:CALC. "Confirmed" by whom, though? LjL (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Police nationale. At least 118 in the hall etc....Who said we can't do mathematical addition? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know, why said it? LjL (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. epic genius (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    "Pointless wikilink"

    User:Firebrace removed a redlink to the plan multi-attentats, calling it a "pointless wikilink". This is not helpful. Redlinks serve a purpose (see WP:REDLINK), and a major national emergency plan, particularly one that has now been put into action, is obviously notable and article worthy. @Firebrace: if you want to remove this again, please discuss it here first. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. The other two plans mentioned in succession have articles, why shouldn't this one? LjL (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    'Multi-attentats' means that plan blanc and plan rouge were carried out in response to multiple attacks. It is not a plan in its own right. If it were, do you think it would already have its own article? Firebrace (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Source? -- Impsswoon (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    A French editor has clarified the situation thus: Plan multi-attentats is actually part of the French red plan, see Firebrace (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    See also [11]--Nowa (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Then it's not the link that should be gone, but the claim that there is such a plan. I see this change was already effected, but just pointing out you're still barking at the wrong tree, y'know... LjL (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing that out. Firebrace (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's much better. -- Impsswoon (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying my edit, Firebrace. It was redundant and pointless wikilink indeed. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Please improve this sentence and source

    The second sentence under the section Individual attacks is inaccurate:
    Shootings were reported around the Rue de la Fontaine-au-Roi, Rue de Charonne, and Rue Bataclan.[4]
    • There is no rue Bataclan in Paris.
    • The source includes only three attack locations in Paris
    • Also, see above Locations for a more precise list of the attacks
    Perhaps these beginning sentences in the Individual attacks section could be improved.
    Here is a list of locations of the attacks.

  • Le Monde. 2015, November 14 5:23 AM (UTC)

  • "Ce que l’on sait des attentats de Paris." Le Monde. (2015, November 14 5:23 AM [UTC]). Retreived from

  • "Ce que l’on sait des attentats de Paris." Le Monde. (2015, November 14 5:23 AM [UTC]). Retreived from

    1. Goldstein, Sasha (13 November 2015). "At least 26 dead after explosion, shooting reported in Paris". NY Daily News. Retrieved 13 November 2015.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015‎
    Let's update the map after all the locations have been verified. epic genius (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Stade de France photo

    I added a Commons photo of the stadium, then had it deleted with an edit summary stating it was unneeded because the bombing took place outside the stadium. True, but events described in the article occurred inside, including the evacuation of the French President, and the fans on the pitch after the match. I have re-added the photo, and I maintain that the photo improves the article, and am happy to discuss it further. Jusdafax 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm fine with the image of the stadium being present. While not directly the scene of any of the attacks, the stadium was affected by them, and it also provides context for the locality. -- Impsswoon (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I have to agree that inclusion of the photo of Stade de France is unnecessary. It looks like any other football stadium. Firebrace (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Status of Uber Service Unclear

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

    French sources should be included

    This article has too much bias toward BBC and New York sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps because the main editors aren't French speakers, but rather speakers from England and New York? Otherwise, I agree that such sources should be added. epic genius (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    There's nothing wrong with using English-language sources for an English-language article. As long as they're RSs and are providing a reasonable, accurate view of things, it doesn't particularly matter what sources we use. If there is any information which is not in the English press but is exclusively in the French press, I have no problem with citing it from there, but most readers here can't read French, I'd imagine; if the information is in French and English sources, it would make sense to prefer English ones because they're more easily read and verified by readers, and are more useful to people who come across the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's pretty easy to use Google Translate, and French doesn't go bananes dans la machine the way some languages do. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

    Clarity needed in the following sentence

    "As a result of the attacks, French President François Hollande announced a state of emergency and, subsequently, temporary controls on the borders of France in a televised statement at 23:58 CET."
    The wording is not very understandable at the end of the sentence. Stueck9356 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The sentence has been reworded already. Nothing to do now. epic genius (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

    There is no legitimate source for these attacks being of Islamic nature. (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    See this link for a legitimate source. It should be added to the article, though.
    --\/\/slack (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    That link doesn't even have "isl" in it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    I've left the Digital Music News source, but attributed the suspicion in it to itself. Leadworthy statements should be made by more competent authorities, but it's something. For now. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

    eight attacker => eighth attacker (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Thank you. --joe deckertalk 07:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Fishy history of edits

    Writer Steven Beckow just pointed out that there is something fishy about the history of the edits to this article. Read the full story here:[12]--Satrughna (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Satrughna02: This Mr. Beckow seems to have missed the boat on time zones. France is one hour ahead of UTC, which all edits are time stamped with. Empty conspiracy to try and stir something up, it seems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Edit histories should be at least this fishy before mainstream media picks up. And mainstream media should pick things up before we do. Otherwise, the fishiness rolls on. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    With the greatest of respect to Mr. Beckow, he is sadly misinformed as people shocked and impressed by the reach and efficiency of Wikipedia often are. page was started while the attacks were still taking place, and the confused nature of the early reports is reflected in the sporadic nature of early edits to the article. I was reading twitter, listening to the radio and watching tv while editing, and it was a very confusing situation, as it is always is with breaking news stories on Wikipedia. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Wikipedia has established itself as the most timely and reliable aggregator of news items during a crisis. It is evident from media articles that many journalists consult Wikipedia as part of their research on emerging crises. WWGB (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    n,u=not,onlystukup+bakwedi/daxtremsmh (An IP added this, does it mean anything? 220 of Borg 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC))
    This Wikipedian repeatedly tried to convince the Los Angeles Times that this dead clown was not fired in 1996. They finally amended it by adding another attribution to the obscure site they chose to trust instead, even though I'd explained how that obscure site doesn't even say what they say it does. It's pure WP:SYNTH on their part. Also, they imply he was "more than a little" of a terrorist. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Nothing fishy here, move along. That Beckow guy is a conspiracy theorist I take it? (No, worse "Steve is apparently from Arcturus ...." [13]) He attributes the creation of this page to an IP. Unless I'm mistaken Gareth E Kegg did that. [14] (whose lk above doesn't work now due to page move) - 220 of Borg 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    The section claims that "all eight" were killed. This is wrong. We. do. not. know. how. many. were. involved. at. the. seven. sites. Obviously. It's almost certain that more were involved, imho - but that, like claiming ALL were killed, is pure speculation. (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @ I've tweaked the wording to indicate that they're only the known attackers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Disneyland Paris

    Disneyland Paris has announced it will be closed due to the attacks.


    This Facebook Safety Check was certainly a brilliant innovation. It seems to have gotten a lot of press; I wonder is there any information its efficacy? Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Um, I've never seen someone with the temerity to outright undo an ordinary post on talk. Dismiss it, ignore it, but remove? Rude, in the very least... Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    This talk page is heavily active and definitely needs moderating. Forum-material has to be removed otherwise this page would become cluttered with crap. Half of your comment is form-material, and the other half isn't relevant. It has been around for ages and is certainly not a notable factor of yesterday's events. Rob984 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It certainly received a lot more attention than I'd ever seen. As far as notability goes, if a hashtag like #PorteOuverte is considered notable, I don't see how Safety Check isn't. Therequiembellishere (talk)
    And >7 months ago is "ages" now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Requested move 14 November 2015

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Yes check.svg Done WP:BRD
    {{requested move/dated|November 2015 Paris attacks}}
    2015 Paris attacksNovember 2015 Paris attacks – Per Talk:2015_Paris_attacks#article_name. The current title is indeed vague due to Charlie Hebdo shooting and 2015 Île-de-France attacks, as both those attacks also occurred in Paris. As such it's unclear to which attack we are referring to. While there's no common name for this event yet, per WP:PRECISION, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Brandmeistertalk 10:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done - @Ymblanter: Please do not move this page again without discussion. The name 2015 Paris attacks is too imprecise, as the Charlie Hebdo shootings were also in 2015. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The hatnote lists the two other 2015 attacks, including the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Note that you have moved it without consensus as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    And now we got tons of incorrect links to the disambig page because of your move.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    What was the purpose of listing this discussion if not given enough time to discuss? You need to wait at least seven days for discussion to take place! Sheriff (report) 11:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    There was no consensus, discussion or even a notification for the original move [15]. This was treated as a revert. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Revert can be done without a discussion, it was silly to list a discussion and then go ahead with the move without consensus. Sheriff (report) 11:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Listing it was Brandmeister's decision. Reverting it was mine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    Perpetrators known, not unknown

    The president of France has confirmed that Islamic State did this, that would definitely satisfy WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It says he blames them in this headline, but not in the story. This one does the same. It's not in this speech. Even if true, who were they? ISIS is not a hive of bees. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Then perhaps the "Islamic State - Perpetrators" section header should be re-worded? - theWOLFchild 10:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I watched his speech, he directly named them, by name. BBC also reports it. Jeppiz (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Jeppiz - OK, but why did he name them? Do the French have some evidence? Have ISIS taken responsibility? Or is the French President making an assumption? I didn't see the speech, so is there anymore you can add? - theWOLFchild 11:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    {u|Thewolfchild}} ISIS has taken responsibility, but I assume (and I emphasize assume) that the information comes from French security. Already in a speech late last night, he said they knew who the perpetrators were, but did not name them. In his speech today he named ISIS, but not the individuals. These are speeches, not press conferences, so no questions asked. But I think it's safe to say he would not risk the embarrassment of naming the group is he didn't have very reliable information. So with the French President saying ISIS did it, and ISIS saying they did it, I think we have enough for now. Jeppiz (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Do I have to look for where ISIS claims this now, or can you link something? The only thing I see are "reports" and "sources" claiming that ISIS claimed it. The SITE Intelligence Group is not to be trusted. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    That "capital of abomination and perversion" line seems legit enough for me, even in The Hollywood Reporter. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Here is the Washington Post: "French president calls Paris attacks ‘act of war’ by Islamic State" "Daech". (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, the Washington one's the style most English news had been following. Put "act of war" in quotes, but not the Islamic State bit. It seemed fishy. But not as much now. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Here is the BBC: Paris attacks: Hollande blames Islamic State for 'act of war'. XavierItzm (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    UTC+/-XX=wo=neded!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I tend to agree, but Central European Time (CET) is only UTC +1. "wo"? 220 of Borg 11:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    ISIS? Yes or No?

    In the infobox it states "unknown" for perpetrators. But there's also an actual sub-section titled - "Islamic State - Perpetrators", with a sourced comment stating that the French President has claimed ISIS is responsible for the attacks. So which it? Can we just go with one or the other? - theWOLFchild 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I found a few French quotes after realizing he calls them "Daech". Seems like his legit opinion. Still, who the hell were the perpetrators? That section title is just plain ugly, notwithstanding anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    And should translations be in quotation marks? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    I've tried this. Does it suck? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:55, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    No... it doesn't "suck". - theWOLFchild 11:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Here is the Washington Post: "French president calls Paris attacks ‘act of war’ by Islamic State" "Daech". (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done - Islamic State is now prominently in the lede paragraph. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    PD license disputed

    I don't believe the Peace for Paris icon is in the public domain. The copyright information needs to be corrected and a non-free use rationale should be added. – Editør (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The peace sign is a “universal symbol that retains its message in all context”. If nobody can trademark it, it seems reasonable that nobody can claim copyright, either. Laws are complicated, though. Maybe this is terrible. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    This says symbols can’t be copyrighted if they are fairly common and widely used. And if making something purple doesn't make it distinct, drawing a little bit sloppy probably doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    The icon is not simply a peace sign, because it was blended with a drawing of the Eiffel tower. Also, this image isn't a simple geometric shape because of its blurred lines. – Editør (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe that one line does count more than purple. In any case, I didn't call it geometric, just universal. Technically, the rationale is a bit off in that regard, but it seems a frivolous fight. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    I'm fairly certain that if Wikipedia continues to use the P4P symbol, it will not get sued... - theWOLFchild 11:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The file is at Wikipedia commons - not here. So any comments should be at commons because the file is up for deletion there. If its deleted, it can be uploaded to the english WikiPedia as long as it can be argued that it is used under "fair use". Christian75 (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    See deletion discussion at Commons: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peace for Paris.svg. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Second requested move 14 November 2015

    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
    The result of the move request was: not moved. Formally closing this so it's out of the RM queue, actual reading of the discussion was made by Fuzheado at the bottom of this section. Jenks24 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    November 2015 Paris attacks2015 Paris attacksApprove Support as nominator: Simply because there are no other attacks which are called or can be called as "2015 Paris attacks" and all these attacks happened in Paris city and not in "Île-de-France region". Page for January attacks is named as 2015 Île-de-France attacks and there is no mention of Paris in the title. There is a big difference between "City of Paris" and "Île-de-France region", no confusion there. No need to list month in the title, it's precise enough without the mention of month. Sheriff (report) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose - There is clear confusion that 2015 Paris attacks and 2015 Île-de-France attacks lead to different articles. Perhaps we need some way to rationalize both the January and November events, but that's for a later time. Right now, precision is what matters, and we had dozens of people here editing away at November 2015 Paris attacks without a problem until the recent move. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose. There were earlier attacks around Paris in 2015. Keep the current title to avoid confusion and uncertainty. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose For future proofing of the article name. Look back on this a year from now, 2 years, 5 years, etc. I've never heard of "Île-de-France" until these attacks. The article itself calls Île-de-France the "Paris Region", so there is the likelyhood of confusion, esp. from people who are not familar with the subtle differences of city/region naming in that part of the world. I support the bold move done earlier. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Commect: That's what i am saying there is difference between Paris region and Paris city. Region encompasses the :city but is huge compared to the city itself. There is a distinction there, no confusion. Then why not name the other page :as "January 2015 Paris attacks". Keep it consistent, that's all i want, remove "Île-de-France" from the title. Sheriff (report) 11:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    You can do that via WP:RM if you wish. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    SheriffIsInTown, some of the January attacks were in Paris some were outside in I-de-F. The current titles of the 2 articles are exactly as they should be (or at least until the media come up with a more specific name for what's just happened). If a reader was looking for info about one of the attacks that did occur within Paris itself in January, they wouldn't know whether to look in this article or not if your proposal was adopted. DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per the above 3 opposes. DeCausa (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per above and my previous concerns. Also, plain wikilinks to 2015 Paris attacks without context, for example, would often be vague due to previous attacks. Brandmeistertalk 11:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No opinion for three days After that, the common name the English media chooses will be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong Oppose. I renamed 2015 Île-de-France attacks to January 2015 Île-de-France attacks specifically to avoid a naming conflict with this article. epic genius (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • And in turn, that should probably be moved from January 2015 Île-de-France attacks to January 2015 Paris attacks -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
        • The January 2015 attacks occurred in Parisian suburbs as well, which is why the article is at that title.. epic genius (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I understand that distinction and your solution with the redirect is probably the best one at this point. But we have precedent for not being pedantically precise, especially for something complex that happens over days over multiple areas. For example, the Beltway sniper attacks article describes a series of shootings that had events far outside the Washington DC beltway, but the series of events are known popularly as the Beltway shootings. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
            • I see your point, but we should wait a few days to see what the media's common name for the attacks is. epic genius (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support This is a significant historical event and will be better known under a more general title. The attacks in January could be referred to in a disambiguation hatnote.Ljgua124 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The other shootings were significant, too. epic genius (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose for now. This serves to disambiguate from other 2015 Paris attacks, and as mentioned above, the sources may come to give us a better/more common title to use before long. Sam Walton (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose, there were other attacks in Paris in 2015 (whether or not it was technically Île-de-France, in any case, they were certainly partly in Paris), which makes this a no-brainer. Keep the current name. LjL (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    X mark.svg Not done - Overwhelming consensus to keep November 2015 Paris attacks the way it is. 2015 Paris attacks has been made into a disambiguation page. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    Arrest and warning before the attacks

    Several days ago the police in Rosenheim arrested a man who originally comes from Montenegro, when they found a professional secret place in his car with several handguns, submachine guns, ammunition, and kilograms of TNT. There was substantial evidence that the man was on his way to Paris and French authorities were informed. Source: Polizei fasst möglichen Komplizen, by Oliver Bendixen, w:de:Bayerischer Rundfunk, subsidiary of ARD (broadcaster).
    The relevance hasn't been proven yet. epic genius (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Put more details from here

    In view of the attacks Poland rejects EU refugee agreements.

    Poland offered condolences but noted that due to these attacks Poland will renounce EU refugee relocation scheme. Is this notable to be included in international reactions? [16] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think it could be, but lets hear what others have to say. Jeppiz (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think it is very notable! XavierItzm (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Notable view if backed up, but not sure about the reliable sourcing. I'm not familiar with that Polish publication, so it's not clear we can do anything with it at this time. A quick Google News search brings up nothing similar in English. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Here about They are sometimes called: the Polish Huffington Post. "Who" exactly however is that Poland person they are referring to ? -- (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    [17]. Main Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza also has this info."Polska nie widzi politycznych możliwości wykonania decyzji o relokacji uchodźców ? mówi dla wywiadu dla portalu Konrad Szymański, minister ds. europejskich w rządzie Beaty Szydło". Konrad Szymanski is the European Affairs Minister in newly appointed government of Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    He can say whatever he wants but until this becomes official policy it's just blowing smoke - which politicians do all the time. Volunteer Marek  22:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    These were just statements by one politician in an online op-ed. It's not official policy or anything like that, which is what the inserted text tries to pretend. Other politicians have already toned it down. This is just sensationalist reporting as is typical with these kinds of tragedies. Until this becomes official, there is no reason for it to be in the article. Volunteer Marek  22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It wasn't "one politician" but Minister for European Affairs. As to the rest of your personal views, they are not supported by RS.Please kindly present them.True they clarified what they meant, but the stance remains the same.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    For fuck's sake, this is suppose to be an article about a terrorist attack IN FRANCE, which killed more than a hundred people IN FRANCE in a greatest tragedy since WWII. It is NOT about Poland's politician's hang ups about refugees from Syria. It is NOT about your own personal hangs up about refugees from Syria. How about we keep the article on topic that it's actually suppose to be about rather than go off on POV tangents to pursue personal political agendas? Volunteer Marek  22:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Please refrain from personal attacks. If you disagree with something, please say so, but personal attacks are not appropriate. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    If this bloody outrage is found to be some kind of blow-back for the 'Jihadi John' Killing, then it seems to call into question the wisdom of such (legally questionable) killings. So, instead of reporting stage managed/public relation replies, should not Wikipedia reflect a range of related opinions?
    If you find reliable sources or significant, high profile opinions around this, then it may be appropriate for inclusion in the article. Otherwise, it is pure speculation and WP:OR which is not acceptable in articles. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Interesting theory, and one that passed through my head as well, but as Fuzhead says we need sources. In addition, if the terrorists can mobilize such a large-scale attack on so little notice we're all fucked. So there's that. Ignatzmicetalk 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    If Emwazi is dead at all, he was killed by the US and UK, not France. It'd be a strange sort of revenge. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:29, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    I don't really believe we need a ref so as to provide the context between battles in an ongoing war per WP:COMMON; and it's rather biased to only mention one side's recent attacks and not the other side's in the lead. Nevertheless, I've added a ref. -- Kendrick7talk 18:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Raffaello Pantucci, director of International Security Studies at counter terrorism think tank RUSI, told MailOnline: 'This was planned long before Jihadi John's death but it's possible that they thought this was a good trigger.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    This was planed long before and they thought Jihadi John's death will be good as a tigger. < what about put it like this? whith some logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    this is more to Vienna Talk today (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Request to rename

    November 2015 Île-de-France attacks is a better title than November 2015 Paris attacks, because attacks was not only in Paris, but also in Saint-Denis, who is a town, close from Paris, but different (and both are in Île-de-France)... (Sorry if my english is not very good, i am a frenchman). --YANN92340 (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @YANN92340: see also #Requested move 14 November 2015. Note there are two sections above named that. 220 of Borg 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, Saint-Denis is PART of Paris. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. Saint-Denis is a suburb of Paris, administered as a separate commune. This is common for French cities. "Paris attacks" is also the common name. No justification for move. Rob984 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis is in a separate department Seine-Saint-Denis - it's not just a separate commune. It is part of the (unofficial) Greater Paris connurbation, however. But with the abolition of Seine (department) there is nothing between the city of Paris which St Denis is not in and Ile-de-France (region). DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Of course, but it is nonetheless a suburb of Paris. The three departments of the Petite Couronne are widely considered "Paris". Cities are more than simply administrative divisions. In Paris' case, it isn't even disputed, except on Wikipedia... Rob984 (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, no, no... Sorry, but I cannot agree with all i read here! I live in Paris suburb, I was working in Saint-Denis, and i can say Saint-Denis is not a part of Paris!... Paris is a "commune", Saint-Denis is another one. It is like saying if something else happens in Oakland, that happens in San Francisco, just because view from my place, those cities seems approximativly on the same place on the map of USA! So, I understand if you live far of France, Saint-Denis seems just a part of Paris, but that is not the true! Please, see the Wikipedia in french language, it is : "Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 en Île-de-France", not "Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 à Paris". If the largest part of the yesterday attacks was indeed in Paris, the attacks near the Stade de France was in Saint-Denis, in Seine-Saint-Denis. (Seine-Saint-Denis is, as Paris also, a part of Île-de-France, a larger area who include the city of Paris itself, and the largest part of the suburbs around who are "la banlieue de Paris", "la région parisienne" if you want... but not Paris!)... For all french people it is clear, and if you see Paris attacks in some newspapers, it is just an abusive simplification from some journalists, maybe because Saint-Denis is less famous than Paris and the territory of Saint-Denis bording the territory of Paris, and only "Paris" faster to say or to write than "Paris et/and Saint-Denis". Anyway, an encyclopedia have not to make abusive simplifications as this one! Wikipedia have to try to be the closest as possible from the true. November 2015 Île-de-France attacks or November 2015 Paris and Saint-Denis attacks, trust me, it is more the reality than November 2015 Paris attacks!... --YANN92340 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    X mark.svg Not done - See earlier conversations for consensus on keeping the article title November 2015 Paris attacks. @YANN92340: I'm very sympathetic to your view as the local and the knowledgeable one. But there is the en.wp policy of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names even if it is not pedantically the most accurate title one could use. A good example is Beltway sniper attacks in the US, were many of the shootings were not even close to the Beltway, but that's what they were known as in the media and to the general public. Hope you can see that perspective. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Proposal for article name change

    Shouldn't this be called something like "Second 2015 Paris attack", to distinguish it from the first one in January? Calling it "November 2015" is too reducing, especially since other terror attacks call each other "2004 Madrid bombing" "2005 London bombings" "2008 Mumbai attacks"?-- (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    January had the first, second, third, fourth and fifth attacks. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    It should be titled what it is referred to as in sources. Right now, that is "Paris attacks". "November 2015" is only for disambiguation. Making up names is not helpful for readers. Rob984 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    X mark.svg Not done - See earlier conversations for consensus on keeping the article title November 2015 Paris attacks -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Friday the 13th

    Are there any Reliable Sources pointing out the symbolic importance of the Friday the 13th date (or 'vendredi treize', to give the superstition's name in French, if that helps with Google searches), perhaps mentioning that Islamist terrorists allegedly often choose symbolically significant dates, with, for instance, 9/11 often being mentioned as based on 911, the emergency phone number in the US? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sadly, I only see the Inquisitr. Even The Daily Mail only has this other psychopathic Friday the 13th attack. But it's on BeforeItsNews, so maybe soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:20, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    CNBC probably didn't mean it, but said there was no scary Friday the 13th for Europe. If that wasn't unfortunate enough, there's a picture of some blurry figure lining up a shot on the Eiffel Tower. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Whoa. Mysterious space junk. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Was listening to CNN - the reporter in France mentioned something to the fact that that the attacks where not random... they occurred at the same time and also on Friday the 13th - which is something terror investigators will be looking at. Hanyou23 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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


    Is there any analysis on why ISIS made this bizarre statement: "the Bataclan Conference Center, where hundreds of apostates had gathered in a profligate prostitution party"? Obviously, this is a mischaracterization of a rock concert, so maybe they're just talking nonsense, but it's still weird to see them applying the "apostate" label to a French crowd. They're already known for applying the apostate term very broadly indeed, but this still surprises me. Were they targeting some individual or group of Muslims within the venue? Wnt (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is irrelevant what kind of propaganda term is used by the terrorists. If you look at the warfare that Takfiri groups did since 5 years then the above is no surprise. They always use similar terms to attempt to legitimize why they kill other people. Just ignore these statements - besides, just because they can make any statement does not mean that it is true. There have been 8 different attackers involved in a coordinated manner. A nineth one was captured in Germany, Bavaria, prior to the attacks. It is significantly more important where they came from, where they received funding and training etc... 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    If you use "prostitution" as broadly, it sort of characterizes a rock concert. One needn't have sex to be a whore. Just get paid for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Also, the word "apostat" is nowhere in the French bit. Just "idolâtres". And they were at a "perversity party", not a "profligate prostitution party". InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    That translation seems to go back to SITE. They're not to be trusted. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:39, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    Ahhhh, thanks! Wnt (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Update: The Daily Beast, alas, did not realize the trouble with the translation. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    International reactions

    Firstly, I agree that the international reactions should be part of the main article.
    Secondly, the stance of the Syrien Government also should be included, considering that they have been enduring ISIS terrorism since about 5 years already. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also enduring the French-supported Free Syrian Army for about as long. Hard to tell how to take Assad's words. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

    Nationalities of some perpetrators

    The Guardian, Libération (Willy Le Devin is from the 'paper) and Reuters are reporting that an Egyptian and a Syrian (already included in this article) passport have been retrieved near the Stade de France. AFP reports that one of the Bataclan attackers was a French citizen.
    Sdsouza (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Les Halles attack

    Please add in a bit about this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottolads (talkcontribs) 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Information is sketchy. Firebrace (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Those were found to be false reports - "Shootings were also reported at the central Les Halles shopping centre and at Le Pompidou and Louvre, but they are believed now to be false alarms." - Telegraph UK, (12:30PM GMT 14 Nov 2015) [18] -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    timeline of attacks
    Can someone help me form this page?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talkcontribs) 2015-11-14T14:42:43‎
    Looks like it was redirected correctly[19] by Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). I suppose if we start a section Timeline in this article with the timeline, and then move it out when it's big enough could be a way forward. Nsaa (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry if I caused incovenience. I was only trying to facilitate the reading of this article (in speculation that this would become bigger, which almost certainly it will).--Stefvh96 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's a very good start, and I hope it's possible to set up a timeline. I suppose it should be started here first. Hope you can start on it. Just include sources for every point in the list. Nsaa (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    A timeline is a good idea, and I've unprotected the article for now to allow for new users and anon users to contribute. However, if the vandalism gets too high, we may have to protect it again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done - Timeline has been added to article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Unprotected the article for now

    In order to aid merging of at least two other articles (Timeline... and International reactions... ), I've unprotected the article so new editors can edit. However, if there is too much vandalism and undesirable behavior, we may need to re-protect it. However, for now it looks like there are good contributions for IPs and new folks and during daylight hours in Europe and US, there are a lot of eyeballs to watch out for problems. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Fuzheado, should you be acting in an administrative capacity with the article while also revert-warring with editors who have made non-vandalism edits? Cla68 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    As long as he unprotected it, I don't see a problem. LjL (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The article is getting a lot of vandalism. Some protection may be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sigh. Re-protected, and blocked that crazy User:Anonne. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Reactions part 2

    With respect, lets keep the reactions sections from getting bloated. A lot of celebrities have been tweeting and otherwise posting to social media about these events. Mark Dacascos and Amy Schumer, just to name two, have been posting their reactions on Twitter, as has Justin Bieber, who was performing at the time and had recently been in Paris. I'm sure many other famous people are voicing their reactions as well. While their words are well intended, I believe the reactions section should be limited to world leaders, and attention should be paid to how relevant the reaction is to the article. Just offering some forward thinking here. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • What might be simplest would be to just summarize it as "The attacks were met with international comndemnation, with leaders from numerous countries expressing their shock and solidarity with the Frence people." and source that to either or both of the BBC and Guardian live feeds. No need for names or quotes. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Why even bother with that? What else will they be doing, supporting the attacks?--Loomspicker (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe. France has no official enemies, as France, but as a NATO member, it does. No politician worth his or her salt is going to cheer out loud, but it's sort of informative to read which states are absent from the standard condolences list. No point reading their entire quotes, but listing leaders who did send thoughts and prayers is better than just "numerous countries". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
    These reactions to this sort of tragedy are by now, alas, formulaic. But while we don't necessarily need a massive block of quotations, they are still significant political statements. The detail of the statements can be spun off into its own mini-article. -- Impsswoon (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes. Sigh. As usual in such cases, people respond and express their sympathies. This is run of the mill, to be expected, of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Ignatzmice, seems to me that consensus here is against that one line. "Responses" ought to be actions taken by governments and institutions, not words. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like we have three different sections on this page discussing the same thing now... oy. I was basing my opinion on more later comments, but it could be taken either way. I'm off to bed now, no hard feelings either way. Sad night all around. Ignatzmicetalk 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I have renamed this section #Reactions part 2 as there is already a section called #Reactions earlier. And another on the same topic of another hdg, as Ignatzmice said. 220 of Borg 06:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

    I wanted to add that some parts of the world (United States in my area) have called these attacks 5-11/20 (5 Attacks in November 2015) 32BitNick (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    X mark.svg Not done We would need evidence in the form of citations of reliable sources that state this. Personally I think even if true, at this time this is trivia. Most of the world doesn't really give a d*mn what catchy name someone not on the scene might dream up for this horrific event. They are still trying to cope with the reality. General Ization Talk 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    In my part of the US, we call the day of the attacks "Friday the 13th." ;) (But seriously, yes, reliable sources are needed.) epic genius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Reference error

    Reference #40 (labelled "reuterstimeline") is repeatedly used in "Timeline of attack" box, but never defined. Could someone fix it? Thanks. --Vachovec1 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Shortly before your post I restored the definition of this and another reference from a revision in the page history.[20] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Fixed. Firebrace (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

    The following were omitted from a list of items enumerating similar tributes throughout the world and should be included with them:
    Israel: Flags ordered to half mast; Tel-Aviv buildings illuminate as the Tri-color (La place Rubin)
    Sources: seen on i24 streaming broadcasts; likely available at their website: (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page November 2015 Paris attacks. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. epic genius (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Specifically, the page you need to post to is Talk: International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. epic genius (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Islamic State, Wall street connection.

    WSJ's part: "Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks on a social media account but didn’t provide specific information that would allow the claim to be verified.
    the quote from above suggest WSJ cover up ISIL. Is it right? (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    And what makes you think that? Kiwifist (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    Andrewnwilliams (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not done: the change needs to be specified exactly and all there is here is some vague allegations in the section header. Tell us what needs to be changed into what and where. LjL (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Abuse of the voice of the WSJ

    Right now, the article reads "According to The Wall Street Journal, the attacks were motivated by ISIL as "retaliation" for the French role."
    This is an abuse of the use of the voice of the WSJ, which never mentions ISIL at all in the ref. The WSJ only discusses the Islamic State.
    Words are being put in the mouth of the WSJ which the WSJ never expressed in the ref. XavierItzm (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Those are the same thing according to our very article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (as well as just about everyone). Therefore, consistency within our article prevails over verbatim quoting of the source. See WP:NOR about using "own words". LjL (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'll disagree with Abductive's rephrasing. This needs attribution. As currently written, we're just inviting an "According to whom?" tag. The previous language was fine imo. (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Notice: This subject is being discussed above at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 1#Discretionary sanctions. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I find this debate perplexing - what could the WSJ piece refer to when it says "Islamic State" other than ISIL? I was the one who originally put in "According to the Wall Street Journal" because someone had put in that line without attribution, which I found irresponsible. If you look at the full quote, you can see why you need attribution because it's a lot of speculation even on the WSJ's part: "Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks on a social media account but didn’t provide specific information that would allow the claim to be verified. It said the attacks were retaliation for French airstrikes against the group in Syria and Iraq." [21] Can you see now that you cannot simply write that sentence without attribution? It is even short of being "verified" by WSJ's standards. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've added another source that says that the IS might have committed the attacks for that reason. Also, IS = ISIS = ISIL, so I don't know what the OP is talking about. epic genius (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    were motivated by ISIL as "retaliation" for the French role."???
    why not reoword to French position The midleestern folks are very sensitive to sex. :also explain what was the (imo somehow marginal) French role. They did say they will send aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, but they did not. So do this 'abkar' suiciders realy want France to commit those role?
    logic in reverse, perhaps u geting this form mas media (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


    14 - 15 Nov


    Link to Islamic terrorism in the lede

    ISIL has claimed responsibility for the attacks and the French government has confirmed that they were acts of Islamic terrorism, so I think we should say that and link it in the first sentence of the lede. Cla68 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    OK, then, if no objections I'm going to make the change to the article again. I'm not sure why someone keeps revert warring me on it when they won't participate in this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Can you please slow down and give time for people to actualy read, think and edit the piece? Follow the lead of articles like January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 7_July_2005_London_bombings where neither lede sentence actually tries to nail a group or cause, but simply tries to state the facts clinically and verifiably. I've already consolidated all the ISIL information into one graf, including Hollande's reaction into one place and moved it up. It could even be moved up more. But the insistence that the first sentence must name "Islamic terrorists" does not fit how we write articles about these subjects. And characterizing one exchange as "revert warring" is disingenuous. This is typically what's called "editing." Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I believe that sufficient WP:RS are now collectively stating that this can be characterized as "Islamic terrorism" that we can do so too. (In addition to it also being amazingly obvious from other evidence, but that would be WP:OR) -- The Anome (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The lede already states that ISIL claimed responsibility. This seems like enough to me. LjL (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks to @Jumplike23: who did a good job of recrafting the lede, and moving up the ISIL/ISIS mention. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Syrian refugee involvement?

    I read that a Syrian passport was found with one of the bodies of the terrorists. Was this a Syrian refugee? Cla68 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is being reported that one was a refugee who was processed in October on Leros. (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    If you want to make assertions like this here, you need to provide links to reliable sources that back them up. Otherwise, "things you read" do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed. I'd strongly suggest not to create or strengthen unsourced rumours on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Here is a news article report the refugee connection ( (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    We need to show extreme caution and to stick to just the facts. A Syrian passport has been found, but it does not imply directly that it was a Syrian refugee. That needs further confirmation. The source itself states:
    While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.
    --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Already reported by Reuters. Citation added. XavierItzm (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    In US tv thy say the found Syrian Passport . Using precedense from 9/11 it when the passpords flown out of higjacked plane. They suggest one of terrorist lost his passwor out of his t-shirt pocket. Other mass outlet saing it was instead inside hes underwere pants (and this is stronger argument) terrorists usually hide things

    See also section

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

    Eagles of Death Metal

    I have the news that the California band called Eagles of Death Metal escaped the Bataclan Theatre massacre; all band members were unharmed. Here's the link for this if you want to update, okay? [1] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Is anyone listening to me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Angeldeb82: - Do you have a proposed place to put that info? -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    To be honest, but it's just my personal opinion, underlining the fact that a small number of "famous" people were unharmed is slightly offensive to the >100 people who definitely were harmed. If you want policy, it'd fall under WP:UNDUE I guess. LjL (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Right, I'm inclined to say: "Band member harmed" = news. "Band member safe" = not news. Though, do send our best to the band and tell them we are glad they are unharmed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The absence of information does not imply a positive outcome. Firebrace (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, here's another survivor added to the list: Simone Rivera, the 21-year-old daughter of Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera. Is that okay to you? [2] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Okay to add to the article? Absolutely not. I survived the attacks, too. Will you add me to the article? LjL (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    High speed train derailment

    A high speed train has derailed in France today, with 5 dead and at least 7 injured. There are suggestions in some media that this was a deliberate act. I would suggest being very cautious, as this just happened and ANY connection is unconfirmed. News of the derailment can be seen here:[3] I mean no sarcasm when I say France is having a very bad weekend. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's a really nasty coincidence, but there is as yet no suggestion that it was terrorism, and we can't link it to this attack in any way at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree, which is why I suggested restraint in editing. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The article says it was a "test train", so likely no passengers, and one could conjecture something technical failed. LjL (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    If it was a test train, then we have an explanation that is more likely and more mundane than terrorism, and the default hypothesis that it was not terrorism just became a lot more likely. -- The Anome (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    [4] now reports 7 dead, 40 passengers total, confirms it was a test train, no ill-doing suspected. Pretty scary aerial! LjL (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    My guess is the train accident is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia at this point, unrelated to this article. I know emotions are high right now, which is why I wanted to proactively prevent the linking of these two issues. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    List of rail accidents (2010–present). Also, this is probably not a related incident. Why would terrorists derail a test train on an unopened line with only 46 people, all technicians, on board? epic genius (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    To cause terror! (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Another editor has created the article: Eckwersheim train crash. I haven't been involved in it yet, but I'll add it to my watch list, and may collaborate. Lets keep these issues separate unless a reliable source says otherwise Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    17th reference

    Hi, the 17th reference has already been corrected and completed by me. Please don't try to put any other in in the same place (like now) or at least do that in a correct form. It's resulting in a unreadable edit conflict. --La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Can't understand why both have been deleted - the CNN's reference was ok. Nevermind anyway. --La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    Please do not delete or add content to lead without stating a reason. Also, do not combine paragraphs without doing such. I would be in an edit war if I did such. I have tried to improve the lead but someone just comes along and combines paragraphs--with the resulting paragraphs not being coherent. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    For example, look at last paragraph, all of a sudden the fact that eight attackers were killed gets added in a paragraph that seems about context of attack--JumpLike23 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Jumplike23: - I think we're good now, but double check and edit as you see fit. I think we were messed up by a vandal who tried to insert "Friday" and did not resolve an edit conflict and just wrote over some intermediate edits. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Fuzheado: I agree, I think national emergency flows from the casualty count and President's response. Thanks! --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    👍 Fuzheado likes this.

    cells in Germany?

    German police arrest someone linked to Paris attacks had guns, explosives, hand grenades. This should be in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talkcontribs) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    There have also been arrests in Belgium. Firebrace (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    gunpowder was Chinese invention. But ChannyBushRumsfeld link to US. It is only mater of how dip one wnat to dig. Mudy water dip by drip.

    some photos in infobox? (though this one may be too graphic) Add some below if you have any more ideas--Stefvh96 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    No thanks. Infobox already crowded, map is enough. Photos can be added throughout the article when/where relevant. LjL (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


    Stop adding unrelated navboxes please. Navboxes aren't "see also" links (although their contents may be similar). If this article is about the November attacks, it shouldn't embed the navbox about the January attacks. That's a bogus addition. The ISIL navbox is an example of something appropriate, because it's the perpetrators of the attacks (once established), not just because it's somehow "related". LjL (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's quite clearly linked. Compare with the 2015 Copenhagen shootings which also links to the January article. I see you've reverted that several times, in direct conflict to the talkpage header - "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users". Continue, and you risk being blocked. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Clearly you don't know what navboxes are for. LjL (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Clearly you don't know what personal attacks and trolling are either. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    These are some of your edits on this article: [5] [6] [7]. They are reverts. They are three. Three is bigger than one. Feel free to request to be blocked yourself. LjL (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Predictability of links

    Re: [8]
    This user has twice reverted my removal of this link without explanation. I believe link targets should be somewhat predictable from the displayed text. Thus, a link that says "retaliation" should link to an article about retaliation, or something close to that, not an article about the spillover of the Syrian Civil War. This is widely accepted link practice, but I'm willing to defer to local consensus on this. Comments? (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with you there (talk · contribs), they should at least use an edit summary. (Though, I also note that the number of dead & injured was also being changed, by them?) Linking only one isolated word means that anyone printing the page out will not see the context of what is being linked to at all. WP:Astonish links to the relevant guideline, or a similarly named guideline? The astonishment factor here is that a reader may be lead to a totally unexpected page if only one word is linked.
    "...motivated by ISIL as a [[:Spillover of the Syrian Civil War|"retaliation" for the French role]] in the Syrian Civil War ..."
    resulting in
    "...motivated by ISIL as a "retaliation" for the French role in the Syrian Civil War ... "
    would seem to be a better link, to me. "Syrian Civil War" could also be linked but avoids a semi- WP:Sea of blue text. This page also says
    "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links."
    Or the link could simply be left out. I note that, right now, that link is not on the page. Pinging the involved editor H0peiambag (talk · contribs) for comment. 220 of Borg 00:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Re: 220
    I saw the updated total on the morning news and I forgot to update the existing citation.
    This one should work:
    I made no other edits to the above page, and I reverted no edits on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by H0peiambag (talkcontribs) 01:25, 15 November 2015‎
    • Added 2 wp:indents to H0peiambags' above comment. 220 of Borg 01:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    H0peiambag, please make sure that you also update sources when changing figures, it is quite common for vandals to do this so sourcing is very important. If you look at the link to your 2nd edit [9], you did in fact also change the link, twice, without explanation. Earlier edit is here. Did you have a wp:edit conflict? 220 of Borg 01:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I was on mobile, so not sure.
    -H0peiambag — Preceding unsigned comment added by H0peiambag (talkcontribs) 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Added 4 wp:indents to H0peiambags' above comment. 220 of Borg 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, I can only suggest using the Show preview button to ensure you haven't accidentally changed something. 220 of Borg 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Facebook part 2

    Many facebook users have changed their profile picture by superimposing the French flag over it to show solidarity with the people of France. Should this be mentioned in the article? Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not unless RS has given it significant significance. (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Seems pretty irrelevant to me, but I do realize that, these days, any tiny thing Facebook does it bigger news than the attacks themselves. LjL (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    What I found more relevant from a Facebook standpoint was the fact that users could report themselves as "safe" from their Facebook page. I was sitting in California and a push notification on my phone from Facebook let me know that my friend in Pairs was safe. I thought that was pretty cool. While Facebook has done the "change your picture" idea in the past, this is the first time (and correct me if i am wrong) that I have seen the social media website be used to report people as safe during a terrorist attack. Sorry if this was already mentioned above I couldn't find "part 1" on my quick scroll through the page Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agree that we need a significant RS to do a story about Facebook profile pics changing before it warrants a mention here. However, I agree with @Comatmebro: that it's likely that a mention of Facebook Safety Check is justified, given how this is perhaps the first major event to showcase that technology, and a number of outlets have mentioned this, including The Atlantic, CNN and Time magazine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Names and surnames of victims

    Should we really list who exactly some of the known victims are, in light of WP:BLP + WP:RSBREAKING, and the fact that there are more than a hundred victims yet (at this point) we are only giving the name of one, so, WP:UNDUE? LjL (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not unless they were independently notable, and maybe not even then in this article: see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E -- The Anome (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    A table displaying the number of victims from each country seems to be the standard for this type of article, e.g. 2002 Bali bombings and 2004 Madrid train bombings. Firebrace (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Morbid? (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    so if one person ged killed you list the name when hundredds none -staistics or cannonmet. Perhps only names of one specialy ch. country?

    Requested move 14 November 2015

    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
    The result of the move request was: Not moved/DFFT ~~~~

    November 2015 Paris attacksFriday the 13th Paris attacks – Symbolic meaning of the date being unlucky. The Telegraph Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose or Snow oppose - No one has reasonably talked about this event being know as Friday the 13th attacks. Let's be serious now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Premature. Wait at least two weeks to see what COMMONNAME emerges. (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's one. It's light years from COMMONNAME. (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Citation needed on Telegraph. I see this at their site: [10] - "How will Britain respond to the Paris terror attacks?" and [11] "Paris terror attack: Syrian passport found on attacker was used to seek asylum in Greece as one Briton confirmed dead." No FRIDAY and no 13TH. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    One swallow doesn't make a summer. Firebrace (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Snow oppose -- this would only make sense if the consensus among WP:RS was that this was called this. It isn't, and we haven't even been provided with any evidence that the Telegraph itself does. -- The Anome (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    The 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.

    Number of attackers revised to 7 (press conference)

    The french Procureur de la République de Paris has held a press conference in which facts about the attack were described (video of the press conference held by François Molins). I believe it should be a trusty source as it is a government official, not a news outlet.
    Amongst the facts mentionned at 10:00 of the video, it has been noted the number of attackers is 7, not 8 as the article currently states.
    At 5:54 it is mentionned the number of attackers in the Bataclan is 3, not 4 as the article currently states.
    Can someone revise the article? I can't do it due to my poor english and I don't know how to cite the sources. I hope my report is accurate.-- (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, it is too much to change without a written source in English. Otherwise, it might be 7 then 8 then 7 then 8. Bod (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem is both French sources and English sources reported the same mistake until the statement from the Procureur de la République de Paris caused French news to rectify their numbers (the Procureur being a representative of the justice). The French version of the article is already rectified to show these numbers, and uses a source in written French as a reference. I believe it should be rectified with facts, even if the sources in English are lacking. -- (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


    Discretionary sanctions

    The fact that this article has now been placed under the same umbrella as other Syria-related articles and WP:1RR is enforced makes it basically impossible to correct repeated mistakes, as this article moves too quickly and edit summaries are too scant to keep track of who changed what and when. It's exceedingly easy to revert more than once (note that revert rules aren't about the same revert, it can be unrelated reverts), including logged-in users since there is no semi-protection anymore, meaning anyone can make an account and edit.
    I've edited this article a lot and, for the little it matters, been "Thanked" a lot for it, but I will virtually stop editing now unless this is lifted. I've just been threatened with blocking (see above - by a user with a history of multiple blocks, ironically) for a pretty legitimate concern. LjL (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've seen at least two inappropriate edits by user (talk). XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've seen one by you where you actually claimed I had vandalized the article (have you read what WP:Vandalism means?) over a dispute on whether we should say "ISIL" or "Islamic State" just because the source used the latter, even though the whole Wikipedia article used the former. Claims of vandalism aren't taken lightly, and you should be careful about making them. LjL (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I am going to add that there is little difference between using ISIL and Islamic State. If there is a big difference, User:XavierItzm, then you should have pointed it out somewhere on the talk page so a discussion could have been started. Additionally, the infobox at the top of the page uses the expanded abbreviation of ISIL and the section that was edited had the acronym next to the full name of ISIL to show what it referred to. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps worth noting that a search for "islamic state" gives Islamic state, and a search for "Islamic State" gives Islamic state (disambiguation). Neither gives Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly right. Right now, there is abuse because the voice of the WSJ is being used to read "ISIL", when the referred WSJ article never at all mentions ISIL. It uses "Islamic State." XavierItzm (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    XavierItzm seems to be exhibiting a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, in light of his talk page discussion. LjL (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Xaviertzm, are you saying that WSJ is referring to something other than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Perhaps worth noting that a search for "isil" or "ISIL" gives Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, so Wikipedia currently considers them synonymous. Not so for "Islamic State", as demonstrated above. (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    We paraphrase sources routinely. We don't have to use the exact words they use, provided we don't alter their meaning. I don't think using ISIL alters WSJ's meaning, and it's less ambiguous than Islamic State, as shown above. (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to the lede, "Hollande also said the attacks were organised from abroad "by Daesh," the Arabic acronym for ISIL," which should make it obvious that this is referring to ISIL which is used everywhere else in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I note that direct quotations are an exception, so if Hollande said Daesh, we should quote Daesh - but only if we're actually quoting him verbatim, we can always rephrase as long as we don't pretend it's a direct quote. LjL (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Actually best thing to do would be to fully protect the article for the near future. Volunteer Marek  23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Nice joke. Now back to the topic, okay? LjL (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not a joke. Dead serious. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble and sending out an invite to various POV pushers everywhere who are going to try to hitch their agenda to this. And we've already seen some of this. Volunteer Marek  23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Volunteer Marek: So, you are requesting that we restore discretionary sanctions to the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    If we have full protection, we won't need DS. Volunteer Marek  01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Wikipedia has my standing vote for a one-month delay on all major breaking news stories. Plane crashes, mass murders, terrorist attacks, and so on. Per NOTNEWS. Would make more sense than allowing creation of an article and then prohibiting it from being developed. Can't seem to get much traction for the concept. (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    One Click Archiving

    I failed to set this up correctly, so sections are going to the wrong page. Can someone with expertise in this take a look? Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    She works - thanks User:General Ization Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Thomas Ayad of Mercury Records dead

    I noticed that Thomas Ayad, executive of Mercury Records, was killed in the Bataclan attacks. Somebody needs to update the article to include this one. [12] --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    In keeping with general practice in Wikipedia articles concerning mass disasters, we are not naming individual victims among the 129 dead and more than 300 injured in the article at this time. If and when this is mentioned in a significant number of prominent news sources (not just an entertainment industry site), it may be mentioned here. Also, meaning no disrespect to Mr. Ayad or his family, but he was not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines before his death, and his being a victim of this incident does not make him so (and they are still entitled to privacy). General Ization Talk 04:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed, Thomas Ayad wouldn't be notable just out of the 129 victims. We need to wait for more information before listing too many people. Kiwifist (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Noting that if Mr. Ayad is a US citizen (which can't be determined from Universal Music Group chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge's note quoted at the source cited above – he could just as easily be French, or otherwise), this may require a change in the table of casualties by nationality. We must wait for a better source. General Ization Talk 04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Age mention

    Currently the article states "French Police confirmed that the three men who attacked the theatre were:" and one of the three listed there has the age mentioned. I think, for reasons of symmetry, either all of them should have the age be mentioned, or none. (I'd probably be in favour of everyone, since this gives extra information, compared to none). As it now stands, it feels a bit awkward to see that some individuals have more information associated with them than the others. Since the age is known of the other ones, I would like to suggest to add this as well. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    "Nationwide" state of emergency

    @Zziccardi: why remove the fact that the state of emergency is nationwide, though? Many, if not all, of the past times it's been declared, it was only for certain territories, but this times multiple sources reported it as actually being nationwide ("sur l'ensemble du territoire", on the whole of the territory). LjL (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Hi, LjL. Thanks for the ping. I was responding to this edit by Biwom. I can't read French, so I apologize if I'm wrong, but the NY Times article that was cited doesn't specifically mention that it's a nationwide state of emergency. As far as I could tell, the 1961 state of emergency wasn't statewide either. —zziccardi (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the 1961 one. But if this one is nationwide (I'll try to find a source in English), it's either the first since 1961, or the first since the state of emergency law was instated, both of which would be relatively prominent facts, no? LjL (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Interestingly, the BBC is saying it's a nationwide state of emergency, but many other reliable sources just say "state of emergency". I think it's best not to use terms like "statewide" for now since it's not clear whether that's actually the case. Time says the following: Previously, the country had imposed a state of emergency only in Algeria, a former French colony, in 1955, 1958 and 1961.zziccardi (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The French sources were routinely saying it was nationwide, though, using terms that perhaps the English sources may not have picked up properly. Let's read the original government announcement: "un décret déclarant l’Etat d’urgence a été adopté. Il prend effet immédiatement sur l’ensemble du territoire métropolitain et en Corse." [13] ("a decree declaring the state of emergency has been adopted. It takes effect immediately on the whole of the metropolitan territory and in Corsica."). Note that "territoire métropolitain" (metropolitan territory) doesn't mean the territory of a city or anything like that in French, but it simply contrasts with offshore territories like colonies the overseas territories (see Metropolitan France to confirm). LjL (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    These three sources (in French) say 1961 was nationwide: 1 2 and 3. 1 and 2 say clearly it's the first nationwide state of emergency since 1961, 3 says it less explicitly. My feeling is the French medias today were more focused on this "first since 1961" than "first since 2005" thing, so we should do the same. Regards, Biwom (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Reflecting the fact that France declares a state of emergency quite rarely, mentioning the 2005 occurrence seems just as relevant to me, and reliable English-language sources have given it plenty of coverage. —zziccardi (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification—I was absolutely interpreting territoire métropolitain as just the metropolitan area, unaware of the term's specific use in France. Personally, I'd prefer to reference an English-language source, seeing as this is the English Wikipedia and most readers presumably can't read French sources to verify any information stated within the article for themselves. How about we cite both the government's announcement (providing a quote in the citation) and the BBC's assertion that the state of emergency is nationwide? I think that would be most useful for our readers. —zziccardi (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    English sources are generally preferred, although non-English ones are acceptable (especially to clarify a situation like here). As long as the sources now given in French convince you, I'm fine with giving BBC as the primary source for "nationwide" within the article. LjL (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I appreciate the gesture, but it's not about convincing me, specifically. Using both the BBC and the French government's announcement as sources would probably be in the interest of readers. :) —zziccardi (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    is "piano man" playing the Lennon song really noteworthy?

    I would vote to remove it. There will be lots of these sort of stunts in the coming days. (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'd keep it. It's been widely reported on, and just because it didn't happen "online" that doesn't make it less important than the various hashtags and Facebook stunts... LjL (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I wouldn't keep those, either. (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but good luck with that. LjL (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know what he played. It sounded only remotely like "Imagine". No need to keep that in the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Err, your WP:OR on what it sounded like isn't really relevant, to be fair, what sources reported him as playing is. LjL (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I removed it per the above discussion.--Malerooster (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    "Suicide bombings" and "bombings"

    "Suicide bombings" and "bombings" are both mentioned in the second sentence. Aren't they both the same thing? Why is it being differentiated here? Kiwifist (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    due proces is only possible in absentia for sucide bombing. Do It explain somehow? (legality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, looks like it's already been fixed now. Kiwifist (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    the killed people of Jewish ancestry

    how many generation back it count. If somebody has grand granmather roots could be added to victim section ? (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    What are you on about? Nowhere does it talk about Jewish victims in the article. Stop posting nonsense to this talk page. See what I told you on my talk page. Thank you. LjL (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    France has started bombing Raqqa massively, this should be put (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    20 bombs dropped. (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Removed an unreliable source

    The French source quotes a tweet by Yannis Koutsomitis saying: Toskas confirms Paris attacker w Syrian passport was registered as refugee on Leros island in Oct, which quotes Antenna News which quotes Greece's deputy minister in charge of police, Nikos Toskas, who says "The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on Oct. 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules". I'm removing the French source on grounds that it doubles the Reuters source, but fails to properly quote Toskas. Jan Winnicki * 14:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Times of events

    The body copy says that the attacks began at 21.16 but the info box further down says 21.20. One of them is obviously wrong. --Doris Kami (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've amended that, thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Removing SCW&ISIL sanctions

    I am going to be bold and get rid of the {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} template on this, to remove it from the status of being under the discretionary sanctions, for several reasons:
    1. This article is related to ISIL but certainly not one of the ones in high contention from that arbcom case.
    2. It is a new article that is being actively edited and is also a breaking news article, which means it is in high flux. It's unreasonable to think that people can be banned or blocked after one small mistake and reverting.
    3. Heuristically and operationally, it has ruined the working dynamic here which I thought was developing quite nicely
    4. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and WP:IAR and do this in the name of common sense.
    Removing the template now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Highly reasonable. Thanks. (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I support this. (I'd rather support ArbCom not just slapping 1RR sanctions on things as a default, but when all you have is a hammer....) -- Kendrick7talk 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Notwithstanding the removal of the template the Discretionary Sanctions still apply, but I would hope that they would not be used against editors making routine edits on a fast developing news story. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The sanctions for SCW&ISIL automatically apply and users should be aware of it. Any edit on pages related with ISIL - "As the result of a discussion at WP:AN, the scope of the Syrian Civil War general sanctions is amended to apply to all pages related to the Syrian Civil War or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed" [14].GreyShark (dibra) 12:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    There has to be a logical limit to that blanket decision, and if the consensus in this editing community on this page is that the edict should be put on the back burner until there are specific parts of this article that touch on Islamic State or Syrian Civil War topics that breach that ARBCOM ruling, then we should have the liberty to do so. We should be able to stick to the explicit and implicit consensus seen above. I understand the desire to use Arbcom power to pre-emptively enforce civility, but articles like these about breaking news with information in flux, rapid iteration and high standards for WP:V show the great flaws in applying the sanctions indiscriminately. We have ways of dealing with this without a 1RR hammer. Please respect the original spirit of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Five_pillars points 1 and 5) and let thinking editors decide. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The statement "All articles related to ... the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is sufficiently vague to be almost meaningless. For example, the article No. 12 Squadron RAF mentions ISIL, so is it covered by 1RR? It's time a minority of editors treat others as adults and stop trying to micro-manage editing. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    👍 Fuzheado likes this.

    Semiprotecting required.

    Article needs protecting so only autoconfirmed users can edit: It is attracting numerous acts of vandalism.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm kinda tired here anyway. :D (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also potentially numerous new editors to the project, though. -- Kendrick7talk 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with your observations, and am sorry for the contributors with noble intent, but the alternate is 2, 3 or 4 acts of vandalism per minute. They can still propose edits on the talk page though. Also, they can become autoconfirmed users.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry to have to do it, but at least for a little while we may have to keep it as semi so the vandals don't return. I'd like to try to get out of that status as soon as possible. - do create an account and edit more if you can. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I have an account, just choosing not to use it at this point (long story). But I understand. I'll make myself useful elsewhere. (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Why not pending changes? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Because it still allows IPs to edit, and the object of the exercise at WP is to remove all IP editing, by stealth. (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Indefinite SP now. This just goes to support what I said above. There is a massive push in WP to ban IP edits completely, hence any excuse for permanent SP. (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    You're aware that indefinite does not mean forever? It doesn't even mean a long time necessarily. It means "unprotection date to be determined". If you wish to discuss this conspiracy, please do it in a more appropriate venue such as WP:VPM. If you feel any discussion would be futile, why are you wasting your time and ours discussing it? (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Indefinite" means someone has to do something to change it. And guess what? That nearly always doesn't happen. Why are you wasting your time responding to me? I didn't ask you to do so, so just move on, like you said you were going to, above. (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'll gladly move on from this waste of time. I will not move on from this talk page because you say so, regardless of what I said above. (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


    To add to the page :
    • A Chilean among the victims. The niece of Ambassador Ricardo Nunez said Senator of the Chilean Socialist Party Isabel Allende.
    • Two Algerians, a woman 40 years a man of 29, were killed in the attacks fl according to APS quoted Algerian diplomatic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Links to the sources please... you can't expect autoconfirmed editors to do the research for you! LjL (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Here is a reputable link from 9 minutes ago re: Algeria. Can't find anything re: Chile.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The bombers are victims too. They should be included.
    and we schold give they names. But no victims names?
    The bombers are deceased, but per definition of wikt:victim, they are not "victims" of the attacks. LjL (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The U.S. victim is deceased. Her name is in the Washington Post. And people are objecting to her inclusion? All the names of the Charlie Hebdo massacre are included. XavierItzm (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Time of second Explosion

    Concering the the time of the second explosion around the Stade de France, it is stated: " explosion at a bar near the stadium at approximately 21:30, about 20 minutes after the start of an international friendly football match...". This is an impossible statement. As the game started at 21:00 CET [1]. If you listen and watch [2] the uninterrupted first half broadcast, you can clearly hear a scond explosion at game time 19:35. This would put the second attack arround 21:20 CET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Agreed and changed. The uploader of footage of the game ( reports two blasts; the first time 21:17 matches various other reports; the second time 21:20 matches a statement (in e.g. the Telegraph that the second blast was 3 minutes later. "live-text" reports of the game indicate that the game started on time Cathalwoods (talk)

    Suppressing international reactions about refugees/Schengen

    @Volunteer Marek: seems very intent on removing reactions by ministers in Poland and other countries from International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks (here is the relevant discussion) against multiple editors. Now he has moved on to doing the same on this article. His opinion on those statements not being worth repeating seems to be very much his own; but aside from that, he appears to be even removing things without realizing, since he gives the edit summary "uh, it's "countrY" not "countrIES" - did you even bother before hitting the revert button?" to my revert, and yet, text removed included sourced Czech Republic statement, not just Poland ones.
    Please add this stuff back to either article or both, it pretty obviously matters. LjL (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes I removed it because it it's not an official response - as the text pretended it was - but just what a politician said online. And since we have JUST STARTED discussing this saying that this view is "very much his own" (i.e. mine) is disingenuous. There's two people who disagree. You and MyMoloboaccount. Ok fine. Let's have a wider discussion. Start an RfC. But per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact its off topic, let's keep it out until then. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Volunteer Marek: That is incorrect. From the section above, User:MyMoloboaccount started the discussion and it continued until your posts. At one point, MyMoloboaccount said the following, "It wasn't "one politician" but Minister for European Affairs. As to the rest of your personal views, they are not supported by RS.Please kindly present them.True they clarified what they meant, but the stance remains the same.", to which you replied very aggressively as with the three edits you made to the article. If anything, the only one who disagrees is yourself, with everyone else discussing. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Since it was there before, and you aggressively removed and removed it again from articles (check WP:Edit warring), and it's well-sourced, and you're the only one so far claiming the sources are wrong about it, I'd very much say keep it in until then. LjL (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Right... so I "aggressively" removed it, but you "reinserted it back into the article in the most pacifist way possible"? Did I get that correct? And I'm the one who "edit warred" but you just ... "reinserted it back into the article in the most pacifist way possible"? Gimme a break and cut out the weaseling. And NO, I did not say "sources are wrong". I said "sources are being MISREPRESENTED". It's not that hard of a difference to understand if you pay attention, or if your interest is anything but reflexive blind reverting. Volunteer Marek  22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    If what sources say is not that "Poland" said something, but a Polish minister said something, then amend the article to state so. It's still very much relevant. See WP:PRESERVE: you almost deleted entire section of sourced, relevant material that came from involved countries' ministers. That's just short of inexcusable. LjL (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Please stop making stop up. This "entire section" that I deleted was ... a sentence or two. You're trying to make it seem like I gutted the article. Nice rhetorical move, but dishonest (although I guess you do give yourself a bit of wiggle room with that "almost" thrown in there). And I made my position clear - it's not official policy, it's a statement in an online op-ed. And the burden for inclusion is on you, not me. Volunteer Marek  23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to the history of the article, you have removed 3,345 characters from the article in three edits. For the edit in discussion, the article was left with a single three word sentence and a single reference after your edit. Prior to your edit, it was three sentences with a combined word count of fifty-eight words (24, 17, 17) and with three references. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Look, if there was an article like Poland's reaction to the European refugee crisis then maybe that statement would belong there. But it's way too parochial, Poland-centric and off topic for this article. Volunteer Marek  23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agree with LjL, edits by VM do not seem to be justified and removed well sourced and relevant material covered by Reliable Sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, we know you agree with LjL. This isn't a vote. What you're suppose to do is substantiate and give a reason for your view.
    And IF we do include this then we MUST include the response by Human Rights Watch and other sources which condemned this joker's statements by saying that "Gold medal to #Poland for the most ridiculous&ignorant response to #ParisAttacks #Refugees flee war and persecution " This has also been covered in sources. Probably should also include the opinion of Henry Foy "#Poland says #Paris proves EU migrant policy flawed. Known position, but I'm astonished @ speed of criticism. Still blood on the streets". Maybe we should have an article on the Reactions to the reactions to the November Paris attacks?
    And if this is the standard we're going to have for inclusion might as well include the fact that Russian media is blaming... Americans (who else!) for the attack. Volunteer Marek  23:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Basically, can someone please just add the Polish and Czech declarations back into the article, without having me do more reverts? This as well as the above discussion show overwhelming agreement to include them, with only Volunteer Marek opposed, and really on the sole ground that unless a government minister's word is made "more official", it shouldn't be included here (which seems, uh). LjL (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    You've been here since 2005. More or less. You should know better than to WP:CANVASS other people to edit war for you because you've ran out of reverts. Volunteer Marek  23:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't "run out of reverts". I believe I've effectively only reverted you once (per article). I was asking others to implement the clear consensus (which you are the lone opposer of) to avoid edit warring. But anyway, I've now boldly gone and re-added the information anyway. Everybody who said anything about it except you wants it there. (Asking people in the relevant talk page to implement consensus isn't canvassing, it almost looks like you haven't actually read the page.) LjL (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    You are asking others to edit war for you. That's a blatant demonstration of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude rather than a desire to resolve the dispute. The fact that you immediately claim "consensus! consensus!" after the discussion HAD JUST started also shows you're not here to work on an encyclopedia but to do "battleground". Volunteer Marek  23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    You reverted me again, with the edit summary "it's ridiculous to claim "consensus" when the discussion just started". It looks likve you've neglected again to consider the linked discussion above that shows blatant consensus and that the discussion did not just start. Just because you just joined it, after coming in and starting aggressively removing content, doesn't mean there wasn't consensus before. I am running out of good faith for you: you are ignoring the obvious. LjL (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Can you stop being dishonest? There is NO "overwhelming consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. There is NO "clear consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. The discussion you link to [15] DOES NOT establish clear consensus. It's basically just you and MyMoloboaccount. It's really bad form to try and claim consensus when you don't have it.
    And please stop. it. with. the. battle. ground. attitude. Stop trying to get others to edit war for you. Volunteer Marek  23:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I would like to ask you to stop being aggressive with everyone. Also, I believe it is silly for you to have removed so much content from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agree with LjL, MyMoloboaccount and Super Goku V. It's Warsaw's official policy. Poland's conservative Law and Justice party is strongly anti-immigration, anti-Muslim. – "Anti-immigrant party sweeps to power in Poland". The Times. 26 October 2015., "Poland's Duda Blasts EU `Dictate of the Strong' on Migrants". Bloomberg. 8 September 2015., "Polish PM candidate backs closer ties with neighbors on refugee crisis". Reuters. 5 October 2015., "Refugee crisis stokes anti-Muslim fervor in Poland, Eastern Europe". Fox News. 29 September 2015. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's NOT "Warsaw's official policy" - and you have no source to back that claim up. Again, don't make stuff up. Volunteer Marek  03:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to Ministries of Poland, there is no Minister of European Affairs. Not anymore. You might be confusing the Polish government with the European government. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, November 15, 2015 (UTC)
    It is the common name used for Secretary of State for European Affairs in Poland Minister do spraw europejskich--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Boulevard Beaumarchais

    • 40 boulevard Beaumarchais (Le Barbier de Bastille, between rue du Chemin Vert and rue du Pas de La Mule)
    I cannot find reference to the importance of this street in the sources. It will be deleted if someone cannot substantiate what events occurred there in this article. Bod (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Removed. Europe1, which previously included this location, has now removed it: Cathalwoods (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Casualty section (citizenships)

    The Spanish and the U.S. citizen killed also held Mexican citizenship. I think the Mexican citizenship should be mentioned, too. I just don't know how we should do it. Thanks, ComputerJA () 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I did some changes to the infobox with the nationalities. I'd welcome some feedback on it. Thanks again, ComputerJA () 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    File:Sydney Opera House French Tricolour.jpg

    Per discussion at files for discussion, this photo is almost certainly a copyright violation. Especially given the high traffic on this article, it should be removed. 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and removed it. Kelly hi! 00:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Kelly: FYI, I have commented at the deletion discussion that I contacted the photographer via his website about this issue,
    Unfortunately the (abridged) answer is Negative :
    "That text is for Instagram use only. None of my images are license free. Thank you for deleting it from Wikipedia and for bringing this matter to my attention. Matt Weller."
    Face-sad.svg - 220 of Borg 08:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Merge proposal ("International Reactions to...")

    There is a currently a suggestion on the page to merge a section of this article into another, "International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks." This page is being considered for deletion.
    I propose that that page be merged here. You are encouraged to debate this topic in this thread. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 00:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


    Could you change the flag to French? The one is Russian (or rotated?) and thus false flag of course. (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Which flag? LjL (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    the flase flag (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, that helps a lot understanding what you mean... not. LjL (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    But i do not understand why now is only the black flag with the word 'jews' in center of cippa. and other words barelly readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    You mean the ISIL flag? Next to the "Perpetrators" entry of the infobox? LjL (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

    These 4 paragraphs should be removed as they are not directly relevant to the page, and they are clearly added for the purposes of political propaganda:
    Protestors at the University of Missouri, who have been complaining about unfounded racial attacks and slurs were shocked the Paris Terror Attacks, where at least 129 innocent people were murdered on 14-15 November 2015, were taking headlines in the US news media away from their cause.
    According to; "Campus activists in America showed their true faces during an international tragedy last night: they are the selfish, spoiled children we always knew they were. Black Lives Matter and Mizzou protesters responded to the murder of scores of people in Paris at the hands of Islamic extremists by complaining about losing the spotlight and saying their “struggles” were being “erased.” Their struggles, remember, consist of a poop swastika of unknown provenance and unsubstantiated claims of racially-charged remarks somewhere near Missouri’s campus." [167]
    Many of the Mizzou activists took to twitter and sent hateful and racist tweets because the news media was no longer paying the attention they demanded. Black Lives Matter and Mizzou tweets fell broadly into two categories of stupidity last night:
    Paris and Mizzou are equivalent: both represent “terrorism.” (This is the message from Black Lives Matter.) White people are “erasing black lives” by focusing on Paris. (This is the language of the racial grievance-fuelled campus social justice movement.[168]
    Andrewnwilliams (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see these paragraphs in the article. LjL (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    ...Er, those references do not seem to exist as quoted. Mind if you add the url from the page you are on or the section of the page you are on? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Andrewnwilliams: request has been answered so 'pinging' them. 220 of Borg 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    table detailing number of casualties somewhere in the article

    I think to make it simpler, there should be somewhere detailing the number of killed and injured in each location where the strikes took place.--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    EDIT: sorry--just noticed that there is one in the description. though i suggest expanding it to include those who were injured -- in one attack, 15 were injured and 0 killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvh96 (talkcontribs) 01:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The infobox already details that for those who have died and could be modified for those who are injured. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    french version

    In the french version of the article they included the arrondissements in the headings under each attack, i think it should be done here too.--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    There can be a reasonable assumption that (some) French Wikipedia readers will be familiar with them, while the same assumption doesn't generally hold true for English-speaking readers. LjL (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think we can assume that all readers of the French Wikipedia are French and all of the English Wikipedia are English; the majority of first language speakers of those languages lie outside of those countries, for the sake of accuracy and completeness they should be included. Mtaylor848 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think all Parisians are fluent in English, either. The current format is okay. epic genius (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    French victims 'non applicable'??

    At the moment we are listing French victims as 'non applicable'. Why? They may be unconfirmed, uncertain, unverifiable but they are most certainly not 'non-applicable'. Mtaylor848 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's a bad choice of terminology. LjL (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)@Mtaylor848: N/A also stands for not available, which was the intended use here but it seems General Ization went ahead and changed it. We have no known details on the number of French nationals killed/injured, which is why there's an "unspecified" row. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    We should make a note of that next to France then. Kiwifist (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's been changed again to note TBC (to be counted) so I think that suffices for the time being. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The actual meaning of TBC (as explained at its linked article) is To be confirmed and agree it is appropriate. General Ization Talk 03:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's also a streetcar in Bordeaux. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, November 16, 2015 (UTC)

    Locations needs to be updated

    Updated list of locations
    The address of the Brasserie Le Comtoir Voltaire is 253 boulevard Voltaire.
    In the section Boulevard Voltaire, the statements, Another attacker detonated his suicide vest on the boulevard Voltaire near the Bataclan theatre. At about 21:40, he sat down in the cafe Comptoir Voltaire ... are incorrect.
    • It is not a "cafe", it is a "brasserie".
    • The brasserie in not "near the Bataclan theatre", it is near Place de la Nation
    The listed source L'Express calls Comtoir Voltaire a brasserie, and lists the attack as close to Place de la Nation at 253 boulevard Voltaire, which is not close to the Bataclan theatre.

    A better section would be:
    Another attacker detonated his suicide vest at 253 boulevard Voltaire near the Place de la Nation. At about 21:40, he sat down in the brasserie Comptoir Voltaire and placed an order before detonating his suicide vest and killing himself. About 15 people were injured.

    Toll include or exclude the attackers?

    Just to make sure: does the death toll 129 include or exclude the eight attackers?
    -- (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    According to the current infobox, it includes them. Kiwifist (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    That isn't how I read the notation "129 (+8 perpetrators)", and I think the IP was looking for a more definitive answer based on something other than our infobox. General Ization Talk 05:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I believe the 129 excludes them (or should, if it doesn't), from how I'm reading media reports. I had it formatted last night to more clearly differentiate the two—[number] civilians<br>[number] attackers—but it was changed to the current style while I was offline. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    I read the "+" as "including". Maybe we should clarify by saying "excluding 8 perpetrators" instead. Kiwifist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    The notation is already clear. "+" is the plus symbol, and it means exactly that: "plus", not "including". 129 victims plus 8 perpetrators. —Lowellian (reply) 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, the symbol is plenty clear. Whether it reflects reliable sources, I don't know. LjL (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Only seven attackers killed now?

    Recent reports (like [16], [17]) are only mentioning 7 attackers killed - including some sources we are using to show eight. I think some updating is required but which attack location has one less attacker? Rmhermen (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, most articles speak about seven attackers but there might have been one more who escaped. Or at the least, it should be mentioned as to what area this eight one could have been included; there also were other activities in Belgium, which should perhaps be in a separate article that connects to the article here. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Please fix the translation in reference

    "Երեւանը սգում է Փարիզի հետ" [Yerevan is trying to come to Paris.]. (in Armenian). 14 November 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
    "Yerevan is mourning with Paris" is the proper translation. "Trying to come to Paris" -- who came up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C43C:E460:183F:3FC9:B74:41F6 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like the work of Google Translate, I've corrected the translation accordingly. Thanks for letting us know! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Worst terrorist attack in France

    These terrorist attacks are the worst ever in France (not since Second World War). I don't know how to edit sources, but here it is (in French): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkestra (talkcontribs) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Worst" doesn't always mean "deadliest". Our article says these are the deadliest since then. These scared more people, because news travelled slow then. So this was worse than then, like that. No clear contradiction here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, November 15, 2015 (UTC)
    Our article also doesn't specify deadliest terrorist attacks. If this is called the deadliest terrorist attack in France somewhere, that might be worth noting, but wouldn't change the fact that deadlier general attacks happened in the old war. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, November 15, 2015 (UTC)
    Or even earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    That was in Paris, but Paris wasn't in France yet. The Battle of Octodurus seems pretty nasty, if we're playing loose. 10,000 suspected terrorists killed. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, November 15, 2015 (UTC)
    Time says they are the deadliest terror attacks in France in many decades. Whether they distinguish between terror and terrorism, I don't know. I know CTV treats them as the same word. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

    Stade de France bombings timeline

    The times given for the first two of the Stade de France bombings in the "Timeline of Events" box are different from the given source:
    • page: 21:16 (first explosion), 21:20 (second explosion)
    • Reuters: 21:20 (first explosion), 21:30 (second explosion)
    This needs review. --Vachovec1 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    HI. That's right, its neither in line with the French not the German interwiki chronology.
    • (French and German) À 21 h 20, une première explosion retentit rue Jules-Rimet près de la porte D du Stade de France. À 21 h 30, toujours rue Jules-Rimet, porte H, un autre kamikaze porteur d'un dispositif similaire se fait sauter. Une troisième et dernière explosion aux abords du Stade de France, avec le même mode opératoire, a lieu à 21 h 53, rue de la Cokerie, devant un établissement de restauration rapide, McDonald's. À nouveau le corps d’un kamikaze est retrouvé25. Quatre personnes sont mortes, dont trois terroristes26.
    • 21:16 – First suicide bombing near the Stade de France.[43] 21:20 – Second suicide bombing at the Stade de France.[43] 21:53 – Third suicide bombing at the Stade de France.[43]
    Cordialement Serten Talk 15:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    November 2015 Paris attacks and Template:Saint-Denis

    I notice a user keeps removing this incident from Template:Saint-Denis from the history section. I don't understand what the problem is. This is history, isn't it? @Debresser: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    @WhisperToMe: I don't see a problem with your addition: it's in the right place, and it's appropriate. WP:CRYSTAL seems unrelated here. I have reinstated it. LjL (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


    Archive 3:

    Age mention

    Currently the article states "French Police confirmed that the three men who attacked the theatre were:" and one of the three listed there has the age mentioned. I think, for reasons of symmetry, either all of them should have the age be mentioned, or none. (I'd probably be in favour of everyone, since this gives extra information, compared to none). As it now stands, it feels a bit awkward to see that some individuals have more information associated with them than the others. Since the age is known of the other ones, I would like to suggest to add this as well. 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


    1. Get daily ideas and methods for generating THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS per day FROM HOME for FREE.

    2. SwagBucks is a very recommended work from home website.


    Seega kuidas siis nii on.. anna meile teada
    So let us know.. how is it..