Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:13, 2 December 2015

A news item involving November 2015 Paris attacks was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 November 2015.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France: Paris Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / French This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

This was the 2nd most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of November 8 to 14, 2015, according to the Top 25 Report.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Reminder: WP:GS/ISIL sanctions apply to this article

This is a reminder that this article falls within the scope of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL community-authorised discretionary sanctions, meaning that the WP:1RR per twenty-four hours rule applies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess that means that despites Fuzheado's best efforts, I will actually leave this article. I find it pretty questionable to enforce 1RR on a piece of still fast-changing news like this, where there's even still a "current event" template acknowledging the high traffic. LjL (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I find the whole Syrian War thing questionable. That's not to say I disagree, I just can't understand why it exists at all. Something about Israel and Arabs? There are many controversial topics. Is there a short summary of why this one needs special protection, or related to the other one? I've tried following the links. Didn't help. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

As you will see at the page that I linked, a community discussion determined that such sanctions should be established. Therefore, they were. They are separate from the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. Users cannot be sanctioned unless they have been notified in line with the procedure specified at that page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Community" meaning "less than about 10 editors", as far as I can see from the discussion links above. As I said, oh well. LjL (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, RGloucester, I get it, you're very set on having these sanctions applied (even though an admin boldly remove the notice before), and now because I'm objecting to them and pointing out you're the first among perhaps ten people who really wanted them to exist, you're making very sure I can be sanctioned at the first misdemeanor you spot. LjL (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Indeed, I was not involved in the drafting of the original sanctions from 2013. I have no reason to want anyone to get sanctioned. I'm just issuing informative notices, that's all. I gave them to those currently editing the article. That's the standard practice, specified at WP:AC/DS and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. They do not imply misconduct. No one gets sanctioned unless they do something to get sanctioned...they're just supposed to encourage good practice in dispute-prone articles...no need for bad faith. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What faith should I assume when the template and restrictions were boldly removed by an admin whose action was applauded by pretty much everyone on this talk page, then I find them reinstated and myself somewhat bullied after slightly objecting to them? LjL (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not wondering what or how. That much is apparent. Just why. But that's a question for another talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Based on prior discussion and consensus on the talk page from 14 November 2015, I am AGF removing the {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} template at the top of this Talk page. Please see the previous archived discussion about this for context. Followup conversations can happen below this message. However, please respect the fact that the community of editors have created a decent working dynamic without 1RR enforcement, given this is a current events article with issues that are not primarily Syria and Islamic State-related. Let's maintain a level of WP:COMMONSENSE. (Fuzheado | Talk 14:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)).

Courtesy notifications (LjL—RGloucester—InedibleHulk—Legacypac—WWGB—Kendrick7—Greyshark09) -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You can remove the template all you want, but the sanctions still apply. Volunteer Marek  16:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as it remains off and doesn't scare away contributors, that's the most important immediate outcome. The next step would be to formally challenge the entire legitimacy of those "broadly constructed" sanctions. As @LjL: pointed out, it was a side discussion section on WP:AN with fewer than a dozen voices chiming in. It was not an RFC, and even had pushback from users, yet it was declared "consensus" that we're living with today. How can a small set of voices in an obscure corner of Misplaced Pages get to impose blanket 1RR sanctions, "broadly constructed," on entire categories, including the article that is the #2 most visited page this week ? I cannot recall seeing a dragnet this broad and punitive in the history of Misplaced Pages, and I've been around a long time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, it means new contributors will be unaware that they can land in trouble really quick. Are we really doing them a service by withholding this info from them?

And the sanctions themselves were actually authorized by ArbCom. The idea that the Syria-related sanctions also cover ISIL was made at AN. The reason why participation was low was because it was pretty damn obvious. In fact, Syria related sanctions would still apply to any ISIL related article EVEN IF that AN discussion had not taken place. That discussion just spelled out what was already true. Volunteer Marek  16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What was true, "broadly construed" (hehe). I can probably count more members of the "community" here who showed an opposition to these sanctions, than members who supported them on AN to make them apply to an indefinite number of articles. LjL (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, AN is NOT where this decision was made. AN is where it was decided to clarify the wording of the DS notice template. Volunteer Marek  17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually let me be more precise. The idea that Syria related sanctions apply to ISIL related articles was NOT made at AN. It was made by ArbCom. In the AN discussion one user just asked for clarification and suggested making this fact explicit in the DS notice. Volunteer Marek  16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are neither imposed by "the community" nor are they removed by "the community". It's all ArbCom WP:AC/DS. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Marek. There are indeed "community-authorised discretionary sanctions", and these particular sanctions have nothing to do with ArbCom. They were originally authorised in a community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, and subsequently amended at that board. This is specified by the community-authorised discretionary sanctions procedure. Once again, ArbCom has nothing to do with this set of sanctions. Indeed, if editors here are so unsatisfied with their existence, they are free start on discussion at WP:AN on the revocation of the community authorisation.

As for the actions of Fuzheado, they make no difference. He has no authority to remove articles from the scope of the sanctions. Indeed, as is specified at WP:GS/SCW, "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions", and hence his removal of the template does nothing but make the process more opaque. If he wishes to challenge the sanctions, he can do so as I said above, by starting a community proposal for their revocation or clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For my information, RGloucester, can you please point me to this community-authorized discretionary sanctions procedure? LjL (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

See the page WP:GS. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this situation is a bit more complicated because the Syria/ISIS sanctions originally were an extension of the Israel/Palestine sanctions. This extension was made by ArbCom in this motion and this motion also specified that extending the sanctions from 30 days to indef would be decided at AN. However, you are correct in that this particular set of sanctions can be challenged at AN. Volunteer Marek  18:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed quite a mess. For that reason, I just wrote a history of and guide to the sanctions system in my userspace. It might be useful to anyone struggling to understand this mire. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the SCW&ISIL sanctions apply automatically to this article, as mentioned by RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. The purpose of the sanctions notification on the main page and on the talk page is to warn the editors to evade edit-warring - this is one of the that the sanctions had been initiated in the first place (to make a sufficient deterrence). User:Fuzheado is making a bad service for the community for removing the notice. In any case, i will issue a personal warning and/or file a case for any violation of the sanctions, whether the warning appears here or not.GreyShark (dibra) 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For any violation, meaning any (possibly partial) revert that comes after another (possibly partial and unrelated) revert in the span of 24 hours? Way to be WP:POINTY. LjL (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

These 1RR sanctions are a joke. They were slapped on the Israel-Palestine conflict years ago. The end result is that Palestine is now nothing but a disambiguation page. That's not how you write an encyclopedia, by giving Point-Of-View pushers the weapons to carry out their agenda and to punish their "enemies" any time they step over some imaginary line. Those who have ears, ought to hear. -- Kendrick7 05:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe not, actually

• Nonsense. Events in Paris have nothing to do with a civil war half a world away simply because one of the two parties are involved. -- Kendrick7 04:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kendrick7, that's your opinion. ISIS thinks otherwise. In the meantime, you can challenge the decision to have ISIS fall under those sanctions, at WP:AN. User:RGloucester, thank you for bringing this up; it is a bit of a complication.

  In general, these sanctions don't exist to punish editors; they're here to prevent editors from getting in trouble; such articles often attract new editors and sometimes there's just too much zeal. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• And... that's also your opinion. I don't see the template on this page, so go harass some other group of editors committed to WP:5P if that's how you like spending your time. I rather prefer writing an encyclopedia. :) -- Kendrick7 05:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether the template is on this page or not, the sanctions apply. Also, will you please stop changing other people's comments or inserting sub-section headings into the middle of existing discussions? Volunteer Marek  06:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to your magical thinking, Marek, but some of us live in the real world. The ArbCom sanctions clearly don't apply here, and that is the actual consensus on this talk page. I've restored my sub header to where I would have put it, should I have known it was objectionable, in the first place. -- Kendrick7 04:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

First, nobody's "yelling". Second, I don't really care what you believe. You've been notified. That's all that's needed. Volunteer Marek  07:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing the template. You are doing a disservice to editors by misinforming them. Volunteer Marek  07:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you policing us?

That's sort of annoying. If you look here: Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#2015_notices, it's like a who's who of people majorly contributing to the articles on the Paris attacks. Who is this RGloucester? Also, whoever notified Kendrick forgot to list there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevant: this report. It mostly speaks for itself (if you look at the actual edits being put under scrutiny), but I commented on it anyway. Why am I nearly the only one (save an admin or two) trying to speak up against this in the proper places? LjL (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Stade de France explosions

https://fr.wikipedia.org/Attentats_du_13_novembre_2015_en_France#cite_note-incoh.C3.A9rence_avec_la_vid.C3.A9o-50

If you look above, the explosions happened just over three minutes from each other. Why do we keep perpetuating the idea that they were 10 minutes apart and nicely aligned with the :20 minute and :30 minute of the hour? I tried to update this ambiguity but my sources were thrown out as "too old". We should be accurate on this and at least have a note about it. Bod (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a note and linked to it. Bod (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The computer internal clok is nanosecond. -9. The speed of sound depends on weather. Given the FR/GE event was recorded on computer and usualy is it is possible to check the time aligment with presision: imo 10-5s (for higher frequency wave mor if superposition defourierized). If the precise locatipon of explosiaons is knows. 10 cm of position displacement give substantial part of second delay. If you say time is aligned then is remote detonation by kind of computer software, Terrorist may use this easy. But given fortunately for us low body cont of the explosions . Anyway seem this time this terrorist did not intended to maximize demage . What if they predicted more destruction will push Holande to Iraq in furius statew like war? Anyway they crosed the line doing enought destruction. 70.211.65.207 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

British English or American?

Just noticed we say "organised" and "radicalised". I think, given the lack of ties to any English nation, we should use American English. That's what the sources (at least the ones we use where we use those words) do, and in sheer numbers, more readers will be used to the Americanization, not the Anglicisation.

Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:02, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

• Nay. What the sources use has no bearing, unless it somehow establishes WP:TIES. Otherwise, WP:ENGVAR applies: the article should be internally consistent, but it doesn't matter which variety is being used (and American is certainly not the "default"). In case of disagreements, we MOS:RETAIN the existing variety, and I've always seen this article use British English. Policy aside, anyway, are you quite sure "in sheer numbers" more readers will be used to American English? India has the most English speakers, and they certainly don't use American spelling; in Europe and other parts of the world, "international English" is taught, which is often based on British spelling. LjL (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. There are indeed more English speakers in India than in the US, but the US media machine is a relative juggernaut, and their ESL program is nothing to sneeze at (according to a quick Google). I feel sure. This deal seems to be an offshoot of the American-led ISIS kerfuffle. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

Cough I bet you are American... England, though, had much more of a continent-spanning empire than the United States in the past, resulting in several countries who still speak "their" English or a closely related variant, and as ESL goes, in Europe in particular students are more likely to visit the UK than the US (and so are teachers), meaning that the British variety is often favo(u)red, even though, at least in my experience, the main differences between British and American English are simply presented to students without mandating a choice. But that's also the thing, really: most of the spelling differences are inconsequential, and people, including ESL speakers, will understand either way; when it comes to markedly different words, WP:ENGVAR tells us to try to find a "neutral" synonym for everyone's benefit (though if there isn't one, tough luck: we stick to the article's main style). LjL (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You'd lose that bet. I use Google.ca, and write things like "nationalized theatre" or "coloured truck". When I watched TV at all, I saw BBC stuff as often as FOX stuff. I use "chips" in my poutine, not "freedom fries". And so forth.

But yeah, it's not a huge deal, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

There is also British English with Oxford spelling. That one makes it pretty tricky sometimes to understand whether an article was "originally" using American or British spelling. LjL (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages's history books, this article originally said there was a bomb attack by a bar, not a pub. Does that count? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

I think "bar" is acceptable in British English, especially when referring to foreign establishments (which may in fact be called "bars" in the native language, at least they are in mine, which is definitely related to French), but I cannot be sure. Anyway is it worth insisting? This article has used British spelling for a long time, and there really is nothing compelling that makes Misplaced Pages prefer American spelling lacking a very specific motivation. In fact, it may be quite inflammatory to insist on a variety of English even though the article is using another... myself, I've insisted for using American English in other articles before, on the grounds that that was what they were using. For the same reason, I'm insisting on British English on this one. LjL (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly insisting, just stating my case. When I'm insistent, I typically make the edit first, then discuss if it's reverted. If "bar" does nothing, we can at least agree that the original use of "November 13" rather than "13 November" was clearly AE, till someone decided to unretain it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

Most countries, including France, use the DMY date format. Firebrace (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That the someone who changed it is the someone who added it certainly adds a wrinkle. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

Except that in the same version that had "November 13" there was already also "13 November" being used in the reference. The fact that very editor later changed them both to the latter format suggests they thought "November 13" was a mistake. Anyway, MOS:DATE treats date formats separately from English variants. LjL (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nay Too much to change now. This article has established that it uses English English. I also agree that it matches the date format. Bod (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous prevalently shown under international reactions?

All the content for the reactions section has been moved to the Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks page, with the exception of a one-line summary... and then a line about Anonymous. Shouldn't this also be moved to the reactions page? --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You'd like to move it, move it. I'd like you to move it, move it. Bod (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Seemed rather uncontroversial. Just wanted to make sure. Done! --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I know you want to feel it, cause I know you need to feel it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

In case that sounded very stupid to anyone, see Reel 2 Real#Discography. That should make it sound only rather stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

You're being too hard on yourself, it only sounded quite stupid. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Paris attacks - were they targeting President Hollande?

Did the terrorists who targeted the stadium in Paris on November 13th have advance knowledge that the President of France would be there? Why is there no discussion about this?

WP:NOTFORUM. If you have any source making this claim, then feel free to present it, otherwise, it's idle speculation. LjL (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

funerals

Please ad info on funerals. Why it has been here removed? 70.208.33.97 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO limited number of authorized editors. So the subject lag. Kind of logistic. Anyway the do good job kiping things by time order. the order of proceding is.

1. count victims
2. body identification
3. authposy
4. returnig decesed to family, last will
5. anoncing funeral
6. last farewall
7. main funeral.

some other depending on custom religion etc. Only the first is mentioned here. One (symbolic or real?) funeral was alredy hold in Benetki.

Bataclan anchor

What is its purpose? What articles link here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 December 2015‎ (UTC)

@EG, can you comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 December 2015‎ (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class France articles
• Mid-importance France articles
• Paris task force articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles