Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

Sanctions template

@WWGB and Kendrick7: as well as everyone else who keeps on the dance of removing Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions just to see it re-added later... I know you and several other people are against the sanctions existing at least on this particular article, and yet, very few people (among which, not you) provided their view in the AN motion about these sanctions that I had started and clearly advertised on this talk page. To be honest, just removing the template without saying a word there seems silly and almost like disruption at this point. You don't build "consensus" by edit warring, especially when it comes to Wikipedia-wide sanctions. Take it to the proper place, and maybe we'll eventually accomplish something: if "most here do not want it", then say it for heaven's sake! Right now, I feel silly for even having started it, since I thought a few people would follow up, but instead, everybody was too lazy or something. People get what they deserve. LjL (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, @LjL: I simply don't believe in WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and I won't be goaded into such behavior. I appreciate your point of view, but nevertheless, rules are not the purpose of the community. This page is getting along just fine without the WP:JANITORS slamming their boot down upon anyone who crosses some imaginary line. Take a chill pill, count backwards from 100, and relax! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking things to their proper venue is not "forum shopping", please don't accuse me of that for no reason. Someone has actually ended up on WP:ANEW and almost been blocked for a breach of WP:1RR that was only technical (the reverts involved were perfectly justified), and I've been forced to self-revert myself even though I had made a change that was in line with consensus, because the one editor who disagreed put the 1RR dagger on me. But whatever. The sanctions apply whether the template is there or not, anyway, as long as no one has the guts to actually challenge them. LjL (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The sanctions apply whether the template is there or not Pfft. Nonsense. We have a consensus here that the 1RR sanctions do not apply. Any rogue admins attempting to breach this consensus risk losing the mop per WP:DICK. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The page for the Syrian Civil War/ISIL general sanctions clearly says: "Pages may be tagged with {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used to indicate that articles are under general sanctions. The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned." and "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice, with the following specifications is imposed:" Since an attack planned by ISIL is obviously related to ISIL, broadly construed, the sanctions would apply regardless of if the templates are present. Given the direction of the discussion on AN linked above, these sanctions still have the support of the community. Yes, it is tedious to have to follow 1RR at times, but it also saves a lot of time from having to deal with POV-pushers. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

LjL is correct. All communities since the beginning of civilization have seen the need for rules, since that is how communities survive. The problem is with the bad-faith use of rules as weapons, and I have seen no evidence that LjL is doing that. WP:BURO is not a license to be disruptive. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IP is right. What LjL did in no way constitutes forum shopping. After a contentious debate on this talk page, he talks it to the only forum where the sanctions can be officially overturned for discussion. I see no problem with this. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I also note that WP:Local consensus cannot trump global consensus, so just because there is consensus on this page that 1RR should not be applied, sadly, that doesn't make the sanctions go away. Whether the template should stay or go is a slightly separate issue (the template can scare editors off, which was part of the rationale for originally taking it away), but Kendrick7's insistence that the sanctions can and should be challenged by the local consensus right here is simply out of place. What I do note, however, is that the local consensus on here is formed by almost as many editors (if not more) as the ones who took part in forming the community consensus for the sanctions in the first place: so how about challenging them properly? LjL (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I consider removing the template 3 times + mocking comments to be edit warring. If you don't like the sanctions, go change them in the appropriate forum. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I don't have an account, so I can't edit the article myself since it's protected. But I would like to suggest an edit to correct an error. One of the perpetrators is named as "M Al-Mahmod" in the article. To match what the source says, this should be "a person travelling under the name M. Al-Mahmod." It is fairly likely this is a false identity, so Wikipedia should not be claiming that this is the perpetrator's real name. I hope someone will make this correction.96.46.197.13 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not create an account? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove category

• Please remove Category:Current events from November 2015 from this article (non-current event already). 178.94.166.186 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sub-article about victims

I have started a deletion discussion about an article that was created to list the victims of these attacks, something which was previously rejected on this talk page. LjL (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rklawton: I appreciate your concern for giving the AfD the attention it deserve, but reinstating the link to the victims list directly contradicts the comment that comes immediately below it inside the article body, which had strong consensus on this talk page. One shouldn't get to override consensus just by creating a separate article: that's called a WP:POVFORK. LjL (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. A link is not the same thus as long as the fork exists it can be linked inline or as is.--TMCk (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
(E.g. you can't have consensus prevent linking of "Eagles of Death Metal" in the same paragraph).--TMCk (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that folks don't want a list in this article is not the same thing as a consensus that the list shouldn't exist - and have a link here. Rklawton (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the actual consensus you will see that it is not about having it within the article specifically, but about the general concept that such a list shouldn't be present on Wikipedia. There is a reason while, in general, it's not allowed to let WP:POVFORKs WP:GAME decisions.

This isn't forking or gaming. The vote was to not include a list in this article.[1] There is no wording that says such a list should not exist, and there was no concensous. People voted both for and against the proposition of including a table directly in the article with most voting in favor of not including a list. Construing this as a mandate against any list anywhere is simply not appropriate because it was not how the discussion was framed. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

1) There was no "vote", because we don't "vote" on Wikipedia. 2) You're linking to the wrong non-vote, because that was about a breakdown of victim numbers by nationality, without any names; then there was a sub-section about the names, and every opinion there was "no"; but that was just a reinstatement of the previous consensus here. Your claim that there was no "concensous[sic]" is entirely surprising because the exact opposite is very apparent. LjL (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

TBA

Are the actual French casualty figures still awaiting announcement, or is this overlooked?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing all victims

I thought we had solid consensus about this (see 1, 2, 3), but according to some it may not apply to linking to a separate sub-article such as this one I nominated for deletion.

Should we list the individual victims of these attacks (their names and/or other information like age), either directly inside this article, or by linking to or transcluding a separate article? LjL (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (as nominator): Wikipedia is not a memorial or obituary where we should list non-notable people just because they tragically died; it's not something you expect to find in an encyclopedia. Even though these people may have been cited in passing by newspapers, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and they have generally not received the in-depth coverage which would make them notable. LjL (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - show me a page with all 3000 names from 9/11 and I might my change my mind... - ^theWOLFchild 17:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, WP:NOTMEMORIAL was created with precisely that in mind, but that concept keeps being impugned on the deletion discussion for the article in question. LjL (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And the 100 million victims of WWI and II... Firebrace (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

or the hundreds of thousands killed by ISIL in Syria and Iraq, or those on the Metrojet flight days before. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging everyone contributing to previous discussions mentioned (The Anome—Firebrace—92.16.213.2—XavierItzm—Kieronoldham—Legacypac—Thewolfchild—Nsaa—John—InedibleHulk) LjL (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support linking.
• First of all, this discussion is redundant to the AfD and need not take place here.
• Second, I haven't seen a mass shooting article that didn't include a list of victims.
• Third, we're only talking about including a link to a "List of..." article. If the article survives the AfD, then it would be absurd to not include the link herein. If the article doesn't survive AfD, then this discussion will be moot.
• Fourth, If you read WP:Memorial, you'll see it doesn't apply in this case. Memorial references individuals and not groups made notable by repeated media coverage.
• Fifth, a list of victims in this article would make it overly long, so a simple link to an existing article makes a lot of sense.
• Sixth, the last "consensus" wasn't a consensus as several people wanted to include a list herein. Furthermore, the discussion only revolved around including a list within this article. The proposal did not consider a simple link to a separate list that would do little to disrupt this article's flow.
• TL;DR: as far as I know ALL mass shooting articles DO contain victim lists and WP:Memorial doesn't apply to lists. Rklawton (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you please edit your comment so that it doesn't seem like it makes up several responses in the bulleted list? That said, this discussion is not redundant since it's asking whether we should have a list (or a link to the list) in this article and you were yourself the one saying that consensus that had formed about this article was not relevant to the AfD (even though I believe that's not true at all). So make up your mind, it can't be both one and the other. Your other points are mostly addressed in the AfD (or even here just above). As to your "sixth" poin, that's simply not true: the consensus was overwhelmingly against the list and that can easily be seen, it's one click away. LjL (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons given at AfD. Firebrace (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• oppose WP:NOTMEMORIAL AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose current practice is to only list victims if they have or likely to have a wikipedia article by being notable before the event. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - actually, current practice is to list all the victims of mass shootings. Check it out for yourself.
    1. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
    2. 2015 Colorado Springs shooting
    3. 2015 San Bernardino shooting
    4. 2015 Chattanooga shootings
    5. Charleston church shooting
    6. 2015 Lafayette shooting
    7. 2015 Tyrone shooting
    8. 2015 Harris County, Texas shooting
    9. 2015 Waco shootout
  • I'm curious, why would you post something that is blatantly false? wp:memorial clearly doesn't apply in the case of victims lists for mass shootings. Rklawton (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would call it "blatantly false" when it's stated both above and at the AfD that [WP:MEMORIAL was created explicitly with a terrorist attack like 9/11 in mind. Why single out "mass shootings"? How is that different from other incidents? It has been pointed out above that the Metrojet Flight 9268‎ incident doesn't include a victims list. It almost seems like you only see what you want to see. I think you should let both this RfC and the AfD play out without telling people they're telling lies when they are not. LjL (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - @Rklawton:, obviously some articles have "slipped through the cracks", listing non-notable victims when they shouldn't have. This is likely due to the fact that these lists are within main articles, and not separate lists - something you repeatedly fail to mention. But thanks for doing all the leg work of identifying them for us... obviously they will have to be addressed as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, as well. - ^theWOLFchild 13:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose either list. That's too many names. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, December 13, 2015 (UTC)
• Support including list of victims. The victims of analogous cases are all listed, why the effort to discriminate against the victims of terror in Paris? XavierItzm (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not "discrimination". Stop calling it that. That's just a needless, baseless and inflammatory accusation. - ^theWOLFchild 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support in separate article. As demonstrated above, the current practice is to list those who died, but for the case of this article, we need another article because of the number of names.Bod (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose including a full list of names in either this or a separate article per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per reasons given by LjL. Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor an obituary. Yes - these people were tragically killed, but they are not notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. If we listed every single person who ever tragically died in an accident or attack like this one, Wikipedia would be overflown with names. I don't think we should include a list of names in either this article or a separate article, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - should absolutely not be on the main article per WP:UNDUE and many other reasons like the sheer number of victims. However, if there is an article with victim names, we could have a link for it until it is deleted. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

{{edit semi-protected|First page to be deleted|...|answered=no}}

Whitetigirl100 (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

International reactions images

Is there currently some sort of consensus regarding which images should be used in the International Reactions section? There seems there could quickly become a little bit of a dispute between Chronus and LjL regarding this edit - I've reverted back to how it was solely so it can be discussed. So, any thoughts? -- samtar ^whisper 16:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The image in dispute is of Christ the Redeemer (statue), which is in Brazil - this is also where Chronus lives, which could introduce a bit of a WP:NPOV issue -- samtar ^whisper 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I had already previously expressed my belief that the statue of Christ shouldn't be prominently featured in preference to other images that are adequate to show French-colored features here. It seems apparent to me that showing a Christian symbol in "response" to an attack by Islamists introduces undesirable undertones. It's not Wikipedia's place to declare that this is a war of religions (especially not to declare Christianity one of the religions at war). LjL (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: I agree with your reasoning that alternative non-religious images exist. @Chronus: any thoughts? It would be useful to hear from both sides, as well as any other interested editors -- samtar ^whisper 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't censor ourselves either. Images are supposed to illustrate points made in the text. From the current text, I draw no preferences between the Sydney or the Rio picture. It's simply stated that "Many heads of states" (from the world over) sent their condolences. The Cairo picture, on the other hand, is justified as there is a whole section dedicated to reactions in the Muslim world. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Who's censoring anything? It's just that when there is a choice between a neutral image and a somewhat more controversial one, there is absolutely no reason to prefer the latter. Besides, the Opera House was the status quo before this editor started pushing their local landmark instead. LjL (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, for an additional reason to favor the Sydney Opera House over the Rio statue that's not related to religion, the former is pretty obviously in the colors of the French flag, while I'd say that looks very non-obvious about the latter. Since this is meant to illustrate that some buildings were lit up in the French color, this matters. LjL (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with LjL here, the Sydney Opera House photo is clearer than the Christ the Redeemer photo and is thus the superior choice, without even considering the (valid) point that Wikipedia should distance itself from portrayals of this as a Christianity vs. Islam scenario whenever reasonable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Sydney Opera House based on the quality of the image and clarity of the colors. Bod (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominate the Vegreville egg. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Support Sydney Opera House due to high quality and emphasis on French colors, clearly depicting support and condolences for France. Fraulein451 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Sydney Opera House, per Fraulein451. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)