Talk:2015 Thalys train attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC Discussion

Flag use or not? See above.

Should we separate the incident and put some stuff, like the train crew running away, at the end separated from the article or is a more logical chronological style better. You could put a few facts chronologically and then have an analysis at the end.

In U.S. history, that would be like having a chronological history and not excluding World War II for the end.

For example...History of the USA 1776-1941 and 1945-2015, then discussion of geography and transportation and education then stick in history from 1941-1945. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a history article, though. Chronology is not the most important thing to consider in the article; it's the attack and its after-effects. Also, creating a separate article about the controversies and other stuff is not only bothersome, but completely unneeded. Versus001 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on 'train crew' The question of where content should be, cannot be answered in the abstract, it depends on the content. In the case cited above of an accusation having been made of the Thalys 'train crew running away', in this instance a) the accusation has only been made by a single individual, (and in the heat of the moment) … b) has been contradicted by several other witnesses closer to the event … c) the accusation has been withdrawn by the original sole accuser, since the people he accused weren't even train crew … d) the only sources speak of 'a claim' rather than 'a fact', which would be the weight given if the information were placed within the main factual narrative, (rather than in a 'criticism of the crew' section later). I think in all those circumstances, this content cannot possibly be included within 'the logical chronological order', partly, because the accusations were not made until the event was over. What is effectively being asked with the misleading analogy of the proposer of this RfC, is can we present weak, (later withdrawn) accusations as fact, the answer, strangely, is NO. for the background discussion see this section. Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on 'flags' , flags are at the discretion of each page, as to whether they serve a useful purpose there. In the case of a short list of 3 or 4 countries, what purpose would they serve? What is the case for including them? None is made above. … for the background discussion see 'flags'Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose flag use. It looks like you are asking for two things in the RfC. One is about the flags and for those that need the example you can find it here. The other is about the article format which really should be another discussion. For the flag question, the flags don't fit as the section is written. It distracts from easily reading the section. Summoned by feedback request service. Inomyabcs (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Investigations section is short

It is way too skimpy. However, it may take some time (months?) to fill up. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It's maybe a bit short, but not by much.

I initially created the Investigations section by copying and translating the first sentence or two from each of the ongoing investigations (France, Belgium, Thalys Corp.) that existed at that time in the French article so that at least we'd have something. In the French article, only the paragraph about the investigation in France has more than one paragraph currently. Feel free to beef up the Investigations section to the same level as the French article if you wish. (Don't forget to include references--English if you can find them, the original French ones if you can't.)

Also, somebody changed the subsection name from "French investigation" to "French and Spanish investigations", but that's a bit of a stretch--as far as I can see, there has been no Spanish investigation (why would there be? The train did not pass through Spain), all they did was execute a search at the request of the French Police. It's really just part of the French investigation, with the Spanish police acting on their behalf because it's in their jurisdiction. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion, why not just 'Police investigation',(or similar) if there is a need to include results of both Spanish/French/Belgium police investigating collaboratively? Pincrete (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, the man used to live in Spain and his parents' house there was searched. "Police investigations" would be best. Mezigue (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about "Police investigations". I suppose there may be communication among police departments in different countries, but unless we have a source for that, it's WP:OR. I'm conjecturing here, but mightn't it just be a request from the French Public Prosecutor's office (parquet) to their Spanish equivalent, which in turn then delegates to the Spanish Police? We don't really know that it's multiple police departments collaborating directly, do we? If we have a source saying so, then by all means.

Further, regarding the section headings: we already have "Investigations" as the main (H2) section name, any (H3) subsections under it don't need to repeat the word "Investigations" but simply identify further to distinguish from other H3 subsections; these could be national (French, Belgian), transnational (Interpol), corporate (Thalys Int'l) or agency (BEA-TT). If there are some that are "Police" investigations and some that are other kinds, then by all means label one of them "Police Investigations".

Then there's also the complication that French jurisprudence and police investigation is different than in Anglo-Saxon countries, and the Juge d'instruction en France (Brittanica) has a much more active role in directing investigations, and is kind of a cross between a grand jury prosecutor and a police investigator, so we should be a bit careful what we label "Police-anything" on our side, when referring to French institutions. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I did say 'or similar', knowing that the process was different. I'm only looking for a term which allows Fr+Esp+Bel+?? into the crime itself (evidence gathering). … … 'Criminal investigation'? … 'French investigation' is a bit meaningless as there may also be govt. investigation of security etc. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, and am open to various wordings. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed the name to "French and Spanish investigations" because Spain was involved. I didn't know what else to call it and wasn't sure if the information should stay or not, so that was the best I could do. I think that the Spain info would be best moved to a more appropriate section or deleted indefinitely due to relevance. As for renaming all the subsections, I'm all in for any suggestion. Versus001 (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of train crew section too long

The section currently named Criticism of train crew is too long, and more properly named "Controversies" (as it used to be, and as the French article still is). It could and should retain a subsection header concerning crew actions. The main section concerns controversies, complaints, and questions after the fact. That includes J-H Anglade's complaints about the train crew, it concerns Khazzani's complaints about his treatment by authorities (covered in the French article, but not yet here), and any other post-event controversies or questions. I will re-add the Controversies section name in its original place, above the current one, in prep for adding additional subsections.

The section is way too long and needs to be cut down, possibly by moving quotations to references or removing them. In its current condition, the section is nearly 1/5 of the article (615 words in 17 paragraphs, of total 3279 in 142) and that's an undue amount of weight for post-event complaints, especially when compared to the French treatment which accords it 7.6% of their article (195 words in 2 paragraphs of 2564 total). I think the main culprit is the long quotations imported into the body of the text, from references which already contain these quotations. This article is about an armed attack on a train, and the efforts made to subdue the perpetrator. We don't all need to read lengthy in-line post-event recollections by third parties not close to the action collected by various magazines as part of the media frenzy to get a scoop or one-up their rivals. There are three direct quotations, and three more as reported speech, and to the extent that any of these are relevant at all, they could be included in the ref tag, but I would argue against including the quotations wholesale in the references, as they can be readily consulted by any interested party by simply following the link in the footnote. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved snippet of this thread concerning Skarlatos to section Skarlatos and crew intervention below. Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Do NOT destroy Wikipedia but build it up.

There appears to be 3 controversies, two to cover more. The controversies are: train crew running away, lack of train security, and a known bad man (fiche S rating) not watched. There are references out there for all of this.

As far as being too long, the final investigative report is likely to be 1000 pages. So having one long page here is not too much. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, also the general observation that a controversy was sparked regarding 'train security', was removed as uncited, however we could legitimately include that controversy, (EU collaboration), which is the more general discussion about 'Schengen controls'.Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, I must caution you once more to assume good faith and not make nebulous accusations against other editors, named or unnamed, about their motivations with respect to their activities on Wikipedia. You have been warned about this before, both here, and on your Talk page, and on French Wikipedia (1, 2) where you chose to bring your complaints about activity on English WP. Treating others with respect is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and seeking consensus is one of the core principles. So just stop the attacks now, and concentrate on content. If that doesn't work, maybe disengage for a bit, and perhaps look into articles in one of your other areas of interests. I'll comment on your responses regarding content soon, but this takes priority. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, so far, I only see the two controversies. I wouldn't call lack of train security a controversy, but an issue that comes up in the aftermath of an event like this. I don't know what you're trying to say with your comment about the final investigative report likely to be 1000 pages--first of all, do you have a crystal ball? Secondly, what if it is 1000 pages, so what? That in no way affects what we write on WP in a "controversies" section. If anything, the results of the 1000 or 10,000-page report or however long it is, is likely to be summarized in a sentence or two in section Investigations but it certainly won't affect this section. So, yes--having one, long page here is too much.

How would you feel, for starters, about moving Anglade's comments into the references instead of quoting him at great length in this section? I fail to see how a person who was not present for the shootings or the scuffle in the other car, deserves to have a longer section than the attack section itself, and be quoted at much greater length than the principal actors. It's out of all proportion; the quotations from the principal actors or even from the perpetrator himself are more important than those of a bystander (Anglade) who only heard about the events second-hand, in another car, wouldn't you agree? Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree calling Anglade a bystander. He was participating in it much as some of the victims of September 11th United Flight 93. Maybe only Todd Beamer and two others fought with the hijackers to try to regain control but many are rightfully quoted in the article. What really is happening with this article is that the Anglade incident was reported in Wikipedia early so it seems big but, with time, other areas will be further developed (such as train security in Europe). I don't need a crystal ball. Incident reports from commissions are always very long. They are never just 25 pages long. They are hundreds or thousands of pages. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the long quotes could be pruned without any real loss of content, and we don't need to know Anglade's feelings in such detail, nor in block quotes. However, even if it was a '3-minute wonder', the accusations against the staff were a significant part of coverage in the early days and should not go in their entirety. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if we could dispense with the irrelevant comaprisons to e.g. Flight 93 and 9/11. It adds nothing to and augments not the argument. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree, especially since Anglade's (and other's) injuries, were non-fatal, comparing a cut hand to a horrible violent death, is grotesque. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the long, non-criticism by Skarlatos, and incorporated the factual element in 'attack'. Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

By way of comparison, the Controversy section in the French article is three paragraphs, one dealing with Anglade, one (slightly longer one) dealing with the response by Thalys Int'l, and the last paragraph is about treatment of the suspect. Here is the paragraph from the French article concerning Anglade as of today, in its entirety:

The French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who was present in the train along with his children and partner, suffered a minor hand injury when he attempted to access the emergency hammer for breaking the train window.[ref][ref] In the hours that followed, he blamed the train crew for their attitude[ref], claiming that they had abandoned the passengers to the assailant.[ref][ref] The French magazine Le Point questioned the relevance of his remarks[ref], as well as the credibility of the conductor's account of the events.[ref]

We don't necessarily have to translate from the French article, my main thought is that this proposed version is about the right length, and there's no reason not to follow the French article if it hits the main points, which it seems to. Naturally, we'd continue to use English references where available in preference to French ones, and we can arrange it so that all the quotes currently appearing in-line will be covered by one (or more) of the references, so that no quotation currently in the section will be lost to the reader.

Can I get some feedback on this paragraph, or feel free to offer your own formulations of it. I'd probably start by shortening it, as the part about his partner and kids is irrelevant, for starters. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, regarding your previous comment about Anglade "not being a bystander", you said, I respectfully disagree calling Anglade a bystander. He was participating in it much as some of the victims of September 11th United Flight 93.

I agree with Pincrete here, this is an absurd comparison. May I remind you that all of those on board United Flight 93 are dead. Anglade received minor cuts to his hand. He did not face any attackers, armed or not. He didn't attempt to knock down an assailant holding a loaded gun pointed at him. He wasn't shot. He wasn't even in the same train car. Anglade was a bystander. No amount of fear felt in his gut, makes him anything but a bystander in this situation. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on French version. I agree that it is about the right length and weight, only difference I would make is to include half a sentence from the later 'retraction' by Anglade, which we currently have, and possibly lose the last sentence (criticism of him, unless this is 'big' in France). There are Eng refs for the initial accusation, but as far as I know not for the retraction, I don't think that matters, French refs are OK here. This story appears to be a 3-minute wonder in which a frightened man said things in the heat of the moment and when overwrought, which were only reported because of his fame. Giving the story its proper weight, is not only the right thing to do, it's also kinder to him. The story actually had near zero coverage in Eng sources, as far as I can see, after the first day. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

So I've gone ahead and made a change as discussed. This vastly streamlines this section into a paragraph of rendered text, and beefs up the references using the quote parameter with portions of the quotations previously rendered inline, as well as a select few others. Ironically, though the paragraphs is vastly shorter and more digestible, the actual wiki markup is 291 bytes longer than it was. Honestly, I don't think the references need to be that fat with quotes, and Sandra, this was done this way largely to please you, so I hope you can appreciate that. Before I remove the {{inuse}} banner, wanted to get some feedback from anyone interested to see if we should tweak anything before calling it a day.

By the way, something new came up doing this: multiple news sources disagree on whether JHA cut his hand breaking the cover glass on the metal hammer, or trying to pull the emergency brake. I left it as the former, because there seems to be independent witnesses to that (but in the end, I don't really care how he cut his hand and it seems a trivial detail to me).

Finally, and this is mostly for you, Sandra, because I wanted you to appreciate the amount of effort that went in to taking your PoV into consideration: this was far from a quick operation replacing a large section with a short paragraph, it was carefully planned and executed, as follows:

1. Start with the French article passage and translate it (as above) with placeholders for the references (this was the easiest/quickest part of the whole thing)
2. Extract the French {{lien web}] references
3. For each French reference (1..7) in the passage:
   1. Transform the French reference into an English wikipedia {{cite web}} reference by changing parameters
   2. Translate the French title, and add it to a |trans-title param in the cite web
   3. Extract the url from the ref and open it in a browser and read the story in French
   4. Find the part of the story which supports the statement preceding it (i.e., why is this ref here?)
   5. Take the most relevant supporting snippet from the story and translate it
   6. Add a new |quote= param to the English cite web template, and plug in the translated snippet
4. Go through the current English #Actions of train crew section; For each reference in the section:
   1. Decide whether to: replace a translated French reference, add it to the passage, or drop it as duplicate or unnecessary
5. Incorporate talk page suggestions into the paragraph

So if we could discuss any major changes to it here, before going on a slash-and-burn expedition, I'd appreciate it. I'd actually like to reduce the |quote= params in the refs since I think they're overdone as is, but I'd like to hear from others. If no comments in a day or so, I'll start by removing the {{inuse}} template, and put this back in the pot for general stirring. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

One other thing: the equivalent section in the French article has an additional paragraph that we don't, namely, the reaction of Thalys Int'l to JHA's allegations, including by their Managing Director, and their CEO. We could add something about it, if there is consensus to do so. If we do, I'd reduce it to a single sentence or two at most. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete: And I couldn't find the "retraction" by Anglade, or maybe it's elsewhere in the article? Appreciate it if you could point it out, or just edit it in. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The "retraction" was in a paragraph that talked about a "joint statement". As a quick note, I think we need to apply WP:BLP to Anglade and therefore, the article in Le Point must not be used as a reference because, as I said when I removed it (13:51, 29 August 2015‎), it's a humoristic piece. That Anglade was called a liar seems very marginal to me - he may have had a few facts wrong, like confusing a caterer with a conductor, but that was clearly not intentional. I think what we need to say is that Anglade initially made a few harsh statements and later (in the joint statement) relented to some extent. In that respect, the section (although I agree it was much too long) was in my opinion better in content before your change. Biwom (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Late reply, yes the 'retraction' was at the end of the long-ish joint statement as Biwom says. It is technically a 'modification', rather than retraction. From memory he says the people who 'ran away' were catering staff and 'the crew behaved … heroically'. I agree that criticism of him is marginal. He made some very emotive accusations in the heat of the moment, they were reported for a few days, then corrected, 3 minute wonder. … … ps his whole involvement is IMO, a very minor sub-plot, less said the better unless this story remained important in FrancePincrete (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both comments, but since you see better what he relented on than I do, can you (either of you) fix it up the way you think it should be? I'll take out the non-BLP-friendly Le Point reference, which you're right shouldn't have been included. Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. I removed the LePoint ref and prior sentence which leaves the "retraction/relented" issue for somebody to look at and fix. Also, what about the stuff about Thalys' Int'l's response, and him meeting with them (as in the Fr article), do we want to add a sentence about it? I removed the edit banner, so if you know what needs to be done, just jump in and do it. Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

strong objection to what could be vandalism

Huge, huge sections are being removed. These provide good information. I have been patient to allow change without commenting but when the article section is gutted, it is too much. This refers to the train crew running away. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not have two efforts? One effort to slash and burn it and the other to build it to high quality. Then compare. The slash and burn effort will result in a few sentences so this can be above the high quality effort. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me redirect you to here. Versus001 (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, I strongly object to you using the term "vandalism" in connection with changes that were made following extensive discussion on the Talk page. Referring to efforts of other editors as "vandalism" shows patent disregard of the core WP principle of assuming good faith. This is starting to become a pattern on your part, as you've been warned about this at least twice before. Please just stop it. Having disagreements with other editors is fine, talk them out.

Secondly, please respect the organization of this Talk page by making your comments in the section to which they pertain. The talk page is already getting pretty unwieldy, and it's disruptive to the clarity and flow of a discussion thread to fragment it by opening a new section and expecting other editors to be able to follow what you're talking about. Your comments here all concern the section "Criticism of train crew section too long" (to which Versus001 kindly offered a link just above). Please either copy/paste or restate your concern in the appropriate section (minus any inflammatory comments about vandalism) and I'm sure you'll get a response there. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not like the term vandalism but it is used very loosely in Wikipedia so my use is not overboard. The new version guts so much out that it harms the article. I was in the process of putting the whole section in AND then removing selected sentences when Versus jumped in and took it all out. I let it go yesterday but will commence fixing it. The end result will be a shorter section that you seem to want but not gut it. Thank you. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, 1) 'Vandalism' has a fairly precise meaning on WP, (which includes repeated editing against consensus) 2) the discussion about this material is in the section above. Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to gut the train crew running away controversy. It's just you, Versus, and Mathglot. Please don't gut Wikipedia. I count 4 editors that support ideas similar to mine. They are above but it takes effort to find their comments among the huge text. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Which part of the discussion about this material is in the section above is too difficult for you to understand? Pincrete (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You just ADDED material so that means you support a longer section, not a shorter section. Thank you for supporting me. We have consensus! Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, read the discussion above and you might find out what consensus is. Do NOT use my name to invoke a spurious 'one-person consensus'. Your edits do not have the agreement of ANYONE on this article apart from SPAs. Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, you are clearly being disruptive and accusatory, and this is not helping the article or this talk page at all.

First off, I don't think I participated in the discussion to shorten the train crew controversy (and if I did, I probably didn't have much to say about it) and therefore only Mathglot and Pincrete have a true opinion on the matter. I barely had anything to do with the discussion other than reverting your edits because: 1) There was a discussion about it on the talk page that you could've at least contributed to first before making the edits you made. 2) You didn't even edit the original section; you just put a new one in (which is completely redundant) and worse yet, you put it in the Attack section, which disrupts the flow of the article (for more information on the topic, GO HERE). 3) If not for the discussion, then for the fact that the original section was very blocky with too much quotes.

Second off, we are not gutting this article or Wikipedia itself, nor do we intend to. If we were trying to do what you claim we're doing, do you think we would've taken the time to discuss edits and content in this talk page? The length and number of sections in this talk page should be enough to indicate how seriously we're taking this. You're making some strong accusations there and all because, what, this article isn't what you're expecting it to be? If you really have a problem with the content, then it sounds like the issue for you shouldn't be about the editors, but about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because that's what we've been following.

Third off, I gave you a LINK to the appropriate section, yet you continue to post your opinions and complaints on THIS section which should not have existed, which tells me you are disregarding it even though you could just post on there to restart where the conversation left off.

With all of that said, I HIGHLY urge you to have a review of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, because you seem to be disregarding them from left to right in favor of self-interest. Versus001 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction, there are at least a couple of other editors besides Mathglot and Pincrete contributing to the discussion above, and more importantly, since it went on for about a week, everybody had the CHANCE to contribute. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected. Versus001 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Flags

I didn't bring this up until now because there is enough controversy around this page but I see another user backed me up on this recently so I will now. There is no need to put little flags next to the names of countries in the "reaction" section. Editors who have insisted on them claim that they are "standards" which is neither accurate nor a good reason. The style manual (MOS:FLAGS) recommends focusing on words and applying common sense to each situation. A list of five countries' reaction is not enhanced or made clearer by little flags ; it just makes it look like a sport results board. Mezigue (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you on all of your points 1) they aren't standard but some editors like them, so they are common 2) in general (here and elsewhere) they add little IMO 3) I wouldn't get upset about them, but - given the choice - would rather they weren't there. Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) … … ps I think flags and 'headlines' only become seriously offensive when they are s substitute for text, I don't think that is the case here. Pincrete (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I lean towards having flags because it seems to be the Wikipedia way. That's just the way we do things here, much as the way we do the first sentence. A hypothetical example would be "The MURDER OF JANE SMITH was a murder in Anytown, USA on January 1, 2015." For now, as a compromise, I'll reinsert half of the flags. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How is reinserting half the flags a compromise? That just makes the article seem visually unbalanced, in addition to offending half the nations listed. Also, a compromise isn't a compromise unless it's actually agreed upon. For example, if I right now said, "As a compromise, I'm going to delete all of your flags." and then deleted them, well, you'd be upset, right? Glitch82 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Though the flags are commonly used in articles doesn't mean they are required as a standard. It seems to be optional if nothing else. Versus001 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what 'it seems to be the Wikipedia way' … … That's just the way we do things here', means, it's up to each page whether they serve a useful purpose, they are commonly used on both sports and military conflict pages. While I don't have strong feelings either way about their use on Obama's, Cameron's etc's comments (these people are after all speaking on behalf of their state), I regard adding them to passenger names as grotesquely inappropriate. Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Pincrete is partly right. Flags are not grotesquely inappropriate but putting them is part of the Wikipedia way of being bold. However, having seen it, I think it shouldn't be done because the people were not government officials doing official business. I do think that the reactions are better with flags, though. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Flags are not grotesquely inappropriate but putting them is part of the Wikipedia way of being bold." I don't see how THAT is part of ANY way of being ANYTHING. Wikipedia has standards and guidelines, but putting in flags is just not one of them. There are a number of articles that do not include flags on them. Versus001 (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Versus has put an edit summary that this subject is being discussed in the talk pages. I agree. I agree that we should continue discussion. However, the static version must keep the flags until there is a new consensus, not remove them and wait for the consensus to reach that conclusion. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, not really... Versus001 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone has made a single comprehensible argument that there is a need for these flags. Mezigue (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I echo Mezigue, and Versus001, the onus is on those who wish to include the flags to establish a good reason for their presence. Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good reason: clearly shows multi-national reactions, not just local. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

We're already mentioning the names of the countries. Flags are just simply superfluous. If anything, I think we should link the country names to make them more distinguishable in the otherwise link-empty bullet list. Versus001 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to highlight and link United States. If someone doesn't know what United States is, they need to read Simple Wikipedia. However, if you want to make a decision that we want lots of links, this can be done very easily. See the previous sentence.Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Tell that to the other articles that have linked the U.S. and other recognizable countries elsewhere. Versus001 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't see the difference between linking up random words inside a sentence, and linking up the first and main word of each item of a bulleted list, this is really hopeless. Mezigue (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Subjects are, of course, only linked once in an article, normally at first use.Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mezigue is absolutely correct on the flag issue. Ms. Sandra, you're making a point about overlinking (see WP:OVERLINKING); the same point applies to flagging. Or overflagging. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no flags.12:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC) comment added by Hickley80 (talk

That's because they've all been removed due to consensus. Versus001 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Breaking news! Nelson Mandela was a great man. See Death of Nelson Mandela. There are flags next to the countries. Therefore, we should have them. Wikipedia is supposed to be consistent. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I edit 'Mandela' sometimes, there are several hundred countries listed, the people quoted are all speaking officially on behalf of their countries or organisations, what is the comparison being made, 4 leaders speaking officially, or 7 individuals? Every article is free to establish it's own consensus based on judgement, a few editors here appear to be equipped with brains of their own and don't see the advantage of including. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, when you call an RfC, you are meant to have a concretely phrased proposal, and a section in which to discuss it, and present your arguments, otherwise you get some really pissed-off editors who think you are a fool wasting their time. Perhaps you'd like to put your proposal in the section below. … … ps 'Thalys' is neither History nor Geography Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG seems to support flag use as opposed to no flag use.

It says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams."

Here, we propose it for government officials. I support flags. I also consider it a secondary topic because there are many more problems with the article that needs fixing. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, you already asked this question on 'Manual of style the answer you got from an admin, is here. Which part of the answer don't you understand? Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Government reactions, need for update

The Govt. reactions says : "Stone, Skarlatos, Sadler, and Norman were each made Knights of the Legion of Honour on 24 August. Moogalian, an off-duty French train crew member, and a French passenger who wished to remain anonymous are to receive the honor later.[79][80]"

This is out of date (Moogalian at least has been awarded L.d'H., I don't know about others), it is also a repetition of content in the 'Involved passengers' immediately above it. I suggest removal and inclusion of all info and refs in the 'Involved passengers' section, at the same time it would make sense to establish WHO among the list has been/will be honoured. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as Moogalian, just write a sample sentence and provide the reference here. After we get 2-3 different facts, we can start a new section of changes. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would a sample sentence or refs be required to remove or merge text? Pincrete (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the LoH stuff shouldn't be in "Government reactions", but I'm not sure it should be in sec. "Involved passengers" either (though I wouldn't object to seeing the information briefly duplicated there). I think there's a missing section in the article, not sure what the name should be yet cuz not sure of the central focus, but maybe "Praise and awards" or something.

There was actually a brief discussion previously about a missing section about "massacre averted", and possibly these two ideas could be combined into one section? Mathglot (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The French press just exploded in praise and relief after the news broke, and I remember seeing tweets before the day was out, that if the men involved didn't get awarded the LoH there was something seriously wrong. I remember thinking that the LoH awards seemed almost too soon, but the pressure and discussion of it was intense in France, almost as soon as the news was out about the aborted massacre. I think the two topics are definitely related and could be easily combined into one section, as the LoH clearly resulted from the overwhelming sense of gratitude and relief among the French public of a massacre averted. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

More editors need to be involved

Someone suggested this earlier as a solution to what's been going on for the majority of this article's life. I don't know who, but at this point, I concur. Everyone who has done a lot of contributions to the article (including me) is at this point caught in an emotional, personal feud, and this does leave our credibility challenged. Fresh sets of eyes should help clear up any and all situations regarding the article. Versus001 (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please speak for yourself regarding any feelings of emotion or feuding; also, I'm not sure what you mean about credibility, unless of the article itself. However, your suggestion about more editors is nevertheless a good one. There are ways to publicize an Rfc and I imagine there may be analogous ways to do so for an article as well, more generally. I would think a word on the Talk page of some relevant WikiProjects would be a good start. Since this article doesn't currently have any Projects, maybe we could find one or two relevant projects with which it could be associated, and add them. Once that's done, then post the request for new eyeballs on the Project talk page. Probably there are other ways, too. Just my 2c. Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

At your service. Can you name which issue exactly caused the article to be locked? I've been following this for the last 6 hours on ANI and everywhere else. Glitch82 (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion mainly about user behaviour
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Glitch82, actually the majority of editors have not had any significant issues and have worked very cooperatively. We have the advantage of several French editors, which has helped. If you look at the two 'RfC' sections above and if you have read parts of the ANI, you will see what the problems have been, if I am unable to identify specific 'issues', it is largely because no arguments have been presented for including disputed content, except 'I like'. I know the two RfC's are very poorly worded, but any contribution there would be valuable. The advantage of the article being locked, is that we are none of us going to be any longer 'going round in circles' to restore the (broadly agreed) version of the article. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC) I honestly don't know which specific article issue caused it to be locked, that's really a question for User:Guerillero, but I think they were pretty clear in their reasons in the close statement. From my PoV, the underlying reason for the difficulty we're having is a pattern of editing by one user, which is sometimes constructive but often disruptive and who often views other editors with suspicion, especially when there seems to be a universal or near-universal consensus for a position she is opposed to. This can devolve into near-paranoia on occasion, as when she states that some editors "hate the French" or "Americans hate [French actor Jean-Hugues] Anglade" (a train passenger). She is not usually overtly aggressive (to your face at least, although she'll occasionally name-call in a different venue when she thinks you're not looking) but she seems to have a pattern of sometimes engaging on an issue, but other times just quietly waiting for the acute disagreement period to die down on the talk page, or for the statements of consensus against her to become a bit stale, and then goes and does whatever she wishes on the article page (and sometimes both simultaneously) while hiding the nature of her edits with misleading summaries which generally causes a flare-up all over again. Compounding the problem is a very confusing argumentative style, which sometimes seems to be based on a fuzzy kind of logic, with non sequiturs, misdirections, addressing some point other than the one in question, bizarre asides and comparisons, and just generally a style of argument that one hardly knows how to respond to, and so you end up with walls of volley and response where nothing really matches up or ever comes to a conclusion, because how can it, if there are no agreed upon rules of logic and debate at the heart of it. Add in dashes of forgetfulness whether real or contrived, and it makes for one big mess. The disagreements flare up now here, now there, like brush-fires in a semi-contained forest fire, which smolder but never really go out, but die down for a while and pop up somewhere else, causing you to divert your attention in various directions sequentially, or all at once. Meanwhile, you end up spending your whole life fighting fires rather than building anything. I've never been directly involved with something like this before, and I'm finding it exhausting to deal with. I can feel the symptoms of others' frustration all around me as well. Looking at the possible remedies available, I see that a properly formatted ANI might be the likely next step, but I can also see the amount of work necessary to acquire careful diffs and other evidence to support it properly, and it's daunting; and I question whether, even in collaboration with others, I have the energy for that, and I question whether it's a good way to spend my time as opposed to all the other articles I could be happily and productively contributing to at the moment, instead of fighting endless fires here that never really entirely go out. I feel I did my part recently, by documenting as carefully as I could various specific problems with this editor's behavior as I saw it, and adding them to her Talk page. Bits and pieces of the story are elsewhere, at ANI, on a couple of Admins' talk pages, and even on Jimbo's talk page. But actually, it's just the tip of the iceberg, and I really want to just go do something else for a change. I don't even care about what happens to this article that much, it's not the kind of article I often work on, it can go to hell for all I care, but there's also a principle involved about not giving in to this kind of misbehavior from a single editor, or perhaps better stated from WP's PoV, to not let the quality of the article degrade by ceding the article out of sheer exhaustion on the part of editors trying to improve it, to someone who has a PoV they wish to impose, irrespective of the carefully worked-out consensus of a group of other editors which keeps getting cavalierly ignored and overturned. But coming back to your "at your service" offer, I'd like to hear whether you've seen anything like this before, and how you handled it, and what your recommendation might be both to advance WP's goals of better articles and a better encyclopedia, but also my own goals of contributing to the encyclopedia in a way I find personally fulfilling, without feeling guilty about "abandoning" an article to the wolves. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC) I agree with nearly everything that you have stated. The larger issue is primarily with one user, User:Sandra opposed to terrorism. While there is general or near general consensus that Sandra truly believes she is contributing to this article in a positive way, those same editors also question whether there is a relevance or pertinence to the added information, and several editors have clearly stated they have issues with her formatting and categorizations, and even re-categorizing information that had already been categorized in a satisfactory fashion. While her intentions might be good, her methods, clearly, are not, and I can see evidence of a clear inability to teamwork in a typewritten medium. I'll be blunt; her logical fallacies are perhaps indicative of a lower level of intelligence. But what it really boils down to is this: she doesn't care if 10 editors think her ideas are awful. She'll make the changes anyway. And then when you take issue with them, she'll state perhaps one supporter and ignore the other 9 individuals who don't support her changes. This is either willful disregard, or, less likely, a clear lack of understanding of group teamwork principles. There's also the challenge some individuals face when working with others in a non face-to-face medium. But ultimately, if she can make edits in the sections she wants, she can also read when others don't think they belong. So the burden is on her to make sure that she doesn't make the edit when there is a clear indication that the majority of users don't feel the edit should be made. And because there are too many instances where exactly that happened, I think she ought to be banned, without question. I'll support your work regardless of where you start, let's bring this issue to light and get this article back on track. No pun intended. As for your other questions... Honestly, I've never seen anything like this. It's hard to ascertain whether this sort of issue can be resolved without moderation in the future. Perhaps for novice editors, there ought to be some kind of system that would list the weights of those in favor and those against a proposed change within a section, and then green light the change if the vote is in your favor? I know it sounds absurd, but I imagine some people just can't see what they hope to ignore. But that, we have seen before. You know what, I actually am more interested in those other questions... Give me some time to really think and I'll get back to you on it. You're right, it's not about this article. Something greater is at stake here. Glitch82 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) My apologies for the way I worded my first message, everyone. My head was aching from all the nonsensical chaos going on and I just wasn't in the right mood right now. What I'm just trying to say is, at this point, I've realized that this has gone on for far too long and there needs to be a point where it all just STOPS. I wanted a solution, any solution actually, and new editors was the best way I could put it. But an article lock works too, so thanks Guerillero for doing that. Let's see if everyone can work out something from here. Versus001 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Hm, not sure what to do here. In my previous post (09:42 1 Oct) I was simply trying to answer the question posed by uninvolved editor User:Glitch82 (07:43) about the closure and lock, with some background since they are new to the situation. But in light of later comments (in 'Locked', by HighInBC, and later Pincrete) I'm unsure whether I should leave my response above, move it to Sandra's talk page, delete it entirely, "hat" it like Pincrete did below, or what, exactly. On the one hand, it doesn't deal directly with improving the article, but on the other, it's a response to an admin offering help about lock issues for this article, which is indirectly about improving it, so if it doesn't go here, then I don't know where it goes. So I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Locked

As I said in my ANI closure, I have locked the article. When there is a consensus, please find an admin to unlock it. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist. My talk page is open to anyone if there is a clear consensus for an edit, or for trivial corrections I can fill edit requests. HighInBC 06:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @HighInBC and Glitch82:. I'm not at all unhappy about the lock (WP:ANI ar 900) as the ANI itself was a confused mess (just like the Rfc above is, and pretty much this whole Talk page is). I look forward for the first time in a long time to be able to spend some time on other articles of interest, instead of sapping most of my energy on the Talk page here. Thanks (Glitch) for the offer to help (didn't notice till after the lock). Thanks (High) for the offer of edit request aid: when the time comes, how does one "find an admin" to unlock it, any best procedures for that? Secondly, other than the cooling-off period, which I hope, rather than expect, to be helpful, do you have any suggestions about what one might do to try to work with editors on the talk page (or elsewhere?) during the month, to avoid the likelihood of the same problems reawakening from suspended animation and simply picking up where they left off one month earlier? Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have a suggestion. For one week, do NOT post on this talk page. Try not to look at this page. All of us should follow this. After one week, slowly discuss things. Maybe even start with fresh sections so we have a fresh start. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion unconnected with article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HighInBc, please ensure there is consensus for requests from Sandra_opposed_to_terrorism no matter how trivial. She will likely test you (and others). -- GreenC 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC) This is not my first rodeo. I see that coming a kilometre away. HighInBC 15:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC) See how bad some editors are? They are slamming me. In contrast, I do not slam them on this talk page. Furthermore, some are following me and reverting everything to the point that it is harassment. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC) In the same post you say you are not slamming them on this talk page, and accuse them of following you around and reverting and harassment. This is exactly what I talked to you about earlier. It is getting disruptive. HighInBC 15:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Look how Mathglot goes into an 8 paragraph tirade against me. That is extremely disruptive. In contrast, I do not respond with an 8 paragraph response but I simply WP:HORSEMEAT. I have suggested that others horsemeat, too, but they don't. It's mainly Pincrete, Versus001, and, to a lesser extent, Mathglot. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Sandra I am not going to continue this discussion here, you may talk to me on my talk page if you wish. Please stick to the topic at hand and stop talking about the contributors. HighInBC 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Sandra, a "tirade" implies anger, whereas my post was merely descriptive and utterly without animus. It was written for the benefit of the new editors coming on board to try and help us resolve these issues. There's a difference between dispassionate criticism and disruption, but I realize that it cannot be easy to read something like that and feel happy about it, so I'm sorry if you were upset by it. Though it may not seem so to you, I am not against you, and I bear you no ill will whatever, and only hope that you take various recommendations to heart so you can become a better editor. Let me ask you a couple of questions, which are motivated by a desire to help. You have been admonished several times now on this talk page or elsewhere about various things, sometimes by the editors you named (including me), and more recently, by a few editors who are fresh to the scene. When you read a critical statement from a "fresh" editor, such as HighInBC above, do you believe that they are neutral and dispassionate? When they say, "This is exactly what I talked to you about earlier. It is getting disruptive," how does that make you feel? Do you believe that HighInBC has some preconceived notion about you, is "against" you in some way, or do you believe it's possible that coming in and looking at things from a completely fresh perspective, that they might be right? That would be a hard pill to swallow, I'm sure, because if they are right, that means that you are getting disruptive. What do you think the chances are that they could be right about this, and if you believe that they are right, then what do you think should happen next? Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Oops, sounds like I should switch to User Talk page, too, for questions like that. What HighInBC is reminding us, I'm pretty sure, is that the article talk page should talk about improving the article, and my previous post isn't directly about that. If no objections, I'll move my previous post to Sandra's Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Solution to problem re 1 month page protection

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
changed section title above to depersonalize it. Excerpt: ...avoid the likelihood of the same problems reawakening from suspended animation and simply picking up where they left off one month earlier? Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Solution: For the next day or two, we can check this page to verify others' behavior. For the following week, do not post and try not to look on this page. After that week, slowly discuss one topic at a time. Reach consensus. Forget the past. Bury the stick. Start a new section on this talk page so we can start fresh. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Sounds a little creepy to me. If we can all just assume good faith, I don't think we need to either avoid posting, or to "check on" each other. As I understand it, during an article block, one is free to contribute on the Talk page. If consensus evolves about some point, we can then make an "edit request" to an Admin. I don't see how not posting here for a week would help anything, but if there's consensus for that, I would go along; but for right now, I'm opposed. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC) key

Manual archiving and 'hatting'

I've manually archived some of what seemed to be 'dead' discussions and 'hatted' some of the off-topic stuff below. If I've been over-zealous in archiving, apologies and please bring back from the archive to this page. Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Alek Skarlatos coincidence

In a crazy coincidence, Alek Skarlatos is an alumnus of Umpqua Community College, the campus where the Umpqua Community College shooting took place. He just left for his family home in Roseburg, the town where Umpqua is located. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Government reactions

    Edited by Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC) to add H2 hdr above to separate this topic from previous one, and outdent.
Suggest also amend 'Government reactions', removing out of date info, moving any other info.Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Versus001 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to implement this before the block expires, please post at least the 'after image' of your proposed change, so we can agree (or not) and then submit to an admin as a proposed "edit request". Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit: ... 1) Remove entirely from Govt reactions 'Stone, Skarlatos, Sadler, and Norman were each made Knights of the Legion of Honour on 24 August. Moogalian, an off-duty French train crew member, and a French passenger who wished to remain anonymous are to receive the honor later.[79][80]' .... 2) ... incorporate into 'involved passengers' 'an off-duty French train crew member, is to receive the honor later'. Or if somebody can update this, the updated text OR no mention if the matter has been dropped.Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stone has been stabbed and in critical condition

• Hero in French train attack reportedly stabbed, -- GreenC 16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let us be very careful with this. Further developments in the lives of all these people are only noteworthy in this article if there is a known connection with the Thalys attack. Mezigue (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Video Reportedly Shows Spencer Stone Getting Stabbed Outside of Gay Nightclub

It seems to be a random gay-bashing incident unrelated to terrorism. He was apparently leaving a gay nightclub located deep inside Sacramento’s “Lavender Heights” gay quarter. FivePillarPurist (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(Of course gay-bashing could be called terrorism itself; I just meant unrelated to the train attack). FivePillarPurist (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Moogalian

All medias state he teaches at the Sorbonne but

1. It's been 40 years "the Sorbonne" doesn't exist anymore, having been divided into a dozen of universities ;
2. I couldn't find any reference about him on the website of Paris I-Panthéon Sorbonne, except on the Faceboo page « Formation continue Panthéon Sorbonne » (the continuing education branch of this university) ; it seems Mr Moogalian must be « vacataire », that is an part-time instructor employed on a short-term contract to teach a few hours a week, not a faculty member. Encolpe (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So? Mezigue (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's partly why we say 'teaches English at the Sorbonne', to avoid any problems of his 'rank'. Early coverage described him as 'a professor' (small p), which you probably realise has a different meaning in European/Anglo countries.Pincrete (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Bottle of petrol

In the infobox in the list of weapons, we have "bottle of petrol". Anyone object if we change this to "bottle of gasoline"? Elsewhere in the article we have made minor changes to AE per MOS:RETAIN. As it is, petrol is a redirect to gasoline anyway. Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources use petrol, and petrol is the local term for gasoline last time I heard. Versus001 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, though. Articles need to show a consistency in which kind of English is used in the article, except for quotations within quotation marks which are copied verbatim from the source. So how the source uses the term is irrelevant; what matters is which variety of English is used throughout the article, and then we stick with that. So far, we've been following the convention of AE, probably because that's how it started out. Sometimes there's a reason to switch mid-stream, for example if it were a British train, that would be considered strong national ties to a topic which would militate for a switch to BE. Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would gladly do something about this if the article weren't still locked. Versus001 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In view of developments, suggesting peace for two weeks, perhaps an unblock request would work? Have no feelings about gas/petrol, Mathglot is probably right.

Yeah, that'll work. Things have settled down now so I think an unblock request would work too. Versus001 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

An unblock request is not the way to go. The admins locked this for a reason, and also spelled out how to make changes during the block, namely, an edit-request. That is, we work out a consensus here, and when everybody is agreed, we give a very specific request (word-for-word instructions, or before and after images). For example, we might say:

Edit request:

In the Infobox, under section Weapons where it currently says:

* Bottle of [[petrol]]<ref name=BBC.Prepared/>

Please change this to

* Bottle of [[gasoline]]<ref name=BBC.Prepared/>

If all agree, we just pass that to an admin, and they will perform the edit per instructions. Is everyone happy with the above? Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree? Disagree? @Pincrete and Versus001: Otherwise, we can just wait out the block, and anyone can place it. Feel free to ping other editors, if you think it would help. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Since we don't have other responses, let's just wait out the block, and then make the change ourselves. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 October 2015 because blocked

A train employee told Spencer Stone to stop choking the terrorist and told Alek Skarlatos to put the AK down. Alek Skarlatos told him to get out of the way.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/08/28/thwarting-terror-on-tracks-in-1-american-hero-own-words/ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Attentat_du_train_Thalys_le_21_ao%C3%BBt_2015#Article_de_Fox_News

Roger Mumok (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find this information on the wikipage in English. It was discussed at the radio and at the television on Belgium. The French train employee tried to stop the American heros. I can't add the information because it is blocked. This is not cool. The reason to add the information is that it is not nice that the train employee did not help.

Roger

Roger Mumok, the full version of that story is that the train employee spoke no English, the Americans no French. Once the Englishman translated, for them and the 'train man' understood who was who, he helped them tie up the alleged gunman. You can hardly be expected to help 'the good guys' until you understand who the gunman IS (not the man holding the gun, he's a US soldier, but the guy on the floor who they are hitting). Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) … … ps Skarlatos does not EXPLICITLY, make any accusation, (he simply says 'it was insane'), therefore we could not make such an accusation.Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus for the change before using this template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible that the train employee spoke no English on Thalys which is an international train that I take often for my international work. The train employees all speak fluent English. You cannot be hired by Thalys if you do not speak fluent English very good. The Flemish and the Dutch train drivers all speak at least Dutch, English, French and German fluent, eventually more langages. Last but not least «insane» means «gek/fou». The gunman was a marokkan with no shirt, whereas the American GIs look very nice with a Bayern and Barca football Champion shirt. I never said there is an accusation, I said that a train employee told Spencer Stone to stop choking the terrorist and told Alek Skarlatos to put the AK down and that Alek Skarlatos told him to get out of the way. This is true because I heard it at Flemish radio in Belgium and I researched thoroughly the internet and found the best reference. You can look. See you! Roger Mumok (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Roger

I have read the original interview, many times, Skarlatos says quite clearly that Norman translated for them, whether this was literally because neither spoke the other's language or because accents/idiomatic English prevented understanding, I don't know, but Skarlatos quite clearly says everything was OK AFTER Norman had translated, so there obviously was briefly SOME failure to understand what exactly was happening. If it isn't an accusation what is it that you want included and why? Our reading of this is it was no more than a momentary failure of understanding. What 'insane' means doesn't matter, how it is used is 'it was crazy, the situation', them trying to beat the gunman unconscious, having over-powered him and a train man saying 'stop','put the gun down'. That it happened is probably not in much doubt, but how should we represent it, taking into account other's testimony? No one, inc. Skarlatos suggests that the 'train man' was somehow trying to stop them, maybe he did mean them to stop beating the gunman with the rifle, 'enough is enough', we don't know, but maybe that was good advice. Skarlatos also says in that interview that they tried to shoot the gunman with his own weapons (which didn't work), we also don't bother to include those details. Why is the 'train man' incident important? As far as I know it has not been picked up by any 'Anglo' media. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Princrete for the nice answer. I don't know how you should represent it. If the train man did not understand English, then he should not work for Thalys. I speak fluent English for my international work and also German and French and Japanese. But the Walloons and the French they don't speak English and they don't make the difference between a terrorist without shirt and an American hero with a Barca shirt! A kid 5 years old can do that. I think Skarlatos said that it is insane that the train man does not understand English. Is this international train or what? I did not know that Skarlatos tried to shoot the gunman, this is very interesting. The Anglo media have not picked up but the Flemish media have picked up. The Flemish radio think it is highly insane. Next time the terrorist attacks me on the Thalys I want the train man to understand English other wise I don't have my calm. Roger Mumok (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Roger

I've just re-read the interview, Skarlatos says 'nobody spoke English on that train.', in context he probably means no more than 'we couldn't make ourselves understood'. As you probably realise there can be all the difference in the world between the sort of 'standard English', normally used to answer passenger enquiries and the heated, accented, idiosyncratic English that these three young men may have been using. There is another incident, which I had forgotten, and which is also not referred to by other witnesses. Skarlatos claims of the initial fight between Damian A and the gunman (the first thing to happen):- 'apparently, a train employee, I don't know if it was the same one that ran past me or not. But a train employee came and broke them up thinking it was just a regular fight'. This is also 'insane' once you know the full story, but Alec Sk himself is attributing it to the employee's misunderstanding of what was happening. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Skarlatos does clearly say he tried to shoot the gunman with the hand gun, but also says Then I grabbed the AK-47 which was at his feet. I don't remember this, but I apparently tried to shoot him with that as well. So even he couldn't remember whether he tried to use the AK-47 on the gunman! Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The main reason from a WP point of view that we don't include the 'train man's' involvement, is because it is a single source, not verified by others, and because it isn't clear what Skarlatos is saying, is he criticising the 'train man', or is he describing the 'chaos of the situation'? We interpreted it as being more the latter. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN did the right thing in rejecting the edit request, as there is no consensus for it. (In addition, there is some history about the topic that you may not have seen that is available on the Archive page of a previous discussion about this which failed to reach consensus when the page was not locked.)

All the speculation about who does, or doesn't, or should, speak this or that language, or whether the train man should work for Thalys is just that—speculation. Reliable sources are required about what happened, regardless of private knowledge about the qualifications for Thalys personnel or their likely language competence. Any proposal for including it should start with some independent, reliable sources, preferably not primary sources, and then we can take up the discussion based on that. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source you are missing: the train man himself, I did the translation from the French for you because I am bilingual as well in French: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/tirs-dans-un-thalys-le-controleur-du-train-temoigne-23-08-2015-5029283.php. "We heard some noise. I went to see. At the toilet I saw two men bickering . At first I did not really reacted, fights happen on the train. I thought it was a drug problem.". So the train man said himself that he did nothing. He was thinking that the guy with no shirt and with an AK was only dealing drug and the fights on the train they are normal. This is a primary source on more than what Skarlatos said. I think you could add the information that because of langage problems the train man could not understand that the man with the AK was a terrorist and not a drug dealer. He was lost in translation :-) I think we all have a consensus on that, not true? Greetings and have a nice evening Roger Mumok (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Roger

It doesn't say he did nothing, it says he went to find out what was happening and initially misunderstood, but I'll let others judge whether this should be included in the 'story' part of the article. It is not useful for 'criticism', because there is no criticism in the source, that's speculation on your part, that he OUGHT TO have immediately understood. It doesn't say anything about 'language problems'. We have several 'native' French editors btw, though not me. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Roger, first of all, I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia works. When people speak about "reliable sources" here, they do not mean an eyewitness account. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia sit at the top of a series of policies and guidelines which govern what should be included in an article and how to support it. One of these pillars is the concept of neutral point of view, and eyewitness accounts are notoriously not neutral (and also not accurate, but that's a separate issue). Part of NPoV are two core principles of Wikipedia, which include verifiable accuracy and citing reliable, authoritative sources. In fact, a direct quotation of an eyewitness is generally not a reliable source because it is considered WP:PRIMARY. To avoid original research, which is forbidden, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, although one can, in some cases, included a primary source in an article, but only inside quotation marks, and only when quoted by a reliable source. Read the cautions against using primary sources.

For the record, here's my translation:

We heard some noise. I went to have a look. I saw two guys quarreling up by the toilet. (Editor's note: likely the 28-y.o. Frenchman and the shooter, if one believes the accepted version of events.) At first, I didn't react much, fights on trains happen. I just figured it was a drug problem.

Then I saw one of them holding a handgun, and what seemed like a machine gun around his neck. They were fighting. "I tried to move, I was knocked down" said the conductor, who admits not having had a good view of what happened next.

"The one who opened the WC door (Ed. note: the French man) went off in the direction of car 13, and I stayed opposite the guy. He aimed his revolver at me. Then he walked into car 12. It all happened very fast. Having a quick peek inside, I saw some guys jumping him," apparently the French-American man, the three Americans, and the Brit who disarmed him.

Now, as to the meat of your comment:

• The comment you quoted in translation is WP:PRIMARY and not the best source; see cautions above.
• "So the train man said himself that he did nothing. He was thinking that the guy with no shirt and with an AK was only dealing drug and the fights on the train they are normal." - This is original research thus forbidden; i.e., it is your interpretation of what he said, rather than the interpretation of a published, reliable source and you cannot use it to support your argument.
• "This is a primary source on more than what Skarlatos said." Yes, it is. And that's another reason not to use it; you're arguing against yourself here.
• "I think you could add the information that because of lang[u]age problems the train man could not understand that the man with the AK was a terrorist and not a drug dealer." Do you have a printed, reliable source that makes that claim? If yes, please supply it. Otherwise you cannot use it, as it is original research on your part—i.e., it's your theory of how events went down.
• "He was lost in translation :-) I think we all have a consensus on that, not true?" - I bet you know by now what I'm going to say next. Yep, find a reliable source that said he was lost in translation. And no, we do not have a consensus on that. WP editors do not form consensus about what happened—they find reliable sources for that—they find consensus on what to include and how to word it. Only the reliable sources count as far as determining consensus on what happened; my opinion, your opinion, Pincrete's opinion are all irrelevant on this score even if we all agree it's still irrelevant: only the reliable sources count.

That doesn't leave much intact, I'm afraid, from your last comment. That doesn't mean you are wrong, it only means you haven't supplied any support for your thesis. I would be happy to support you, if you follow WP guidelines and assure that your point of view is verifiable by showing us some reliable sources for them. They can be French or English, the latter is preferred of course. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and you'll make a better argument to support your PoV. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible involvement of Abaaoud in Thalys attack

I've flagged the statement in #French and Spanish investigations claiming "In November 2015, French authorities implicated Abdelhamid Abaaoud in the attempted attack" as disputed, because I haven't been able to find a news source that has reported that Abaaoud is 'implicated' in the Thalys attack. Having scanned the betterFrench MSM (Le Monde, Figaro, NouvelObs, France24) the most anyone will say, is that Abaaoud is "strongly suspected" of involvement, or that they are "investigating" a possible connection. I removed the comment, but it was immediately reinstated by another editor.

Imho, we should wait until the investigations stabilize and the purported link is either borne out or refuted before reporting it here. Police investigations routinely go through an evolution in which all sorts of people are "investigated" or "strongly suspected" of something; Wikipedia is not a news source, and we don't have to report every shift in the wind, every breaking bit of news, or change of opinion on the part of one bureau or another, as the investigation continues. My preference would be to remove this statement, but if it is kept, it should be toned down to use words like "suspected of" or "investigated", and not "implicated" as no official source has claimed that.

The remainder of the paragraph includes factual information about Abaaoud's involvement in the November 2015 Paris attacks which however seems irrelevant or confusing in an article about the August train attack; I don't know what this information is doing here. Wikilinking his name, if consensus supports including him at all, would be sufficient to find out his involvement in other events. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't the one who put in that implication info in the Abdelhamid Abaaoud article in the first place, and I didn't look over the source, so I just merely took its word for it. You're probably going to have to ask one of the users who developed the article in its first days, or Antrangelos/Aikiangelos, who has been extremely active in the article. Parsley Man (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mathglot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Thalys_train_attack&diff=prev&oldid=697417445 Antrangelos (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That works for me; I'll remove the disputed tag. Thanks, all. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, this slightly understated text, works better. Pincrete (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw: users Aikiangelos and Antrangelos have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment - section 'Actions of train crew'

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.

---

Summary: The stable version of the article for 3 weeks included a controversy over train employees running away. The owners of the article, Pincrete and others, appear to hate Anglade and want to gut it. I propose a compromise medium length version. The controversy is real as it was widely reported worldwide. The gutted version doesn't convey the controversy that happened. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Version 1: Stable version for 3 weeks

Jean-Hugues Anglade, a French actor traveling with his partner and children in the No. 11 car (the last car before the rear engine), was critical of the train crew for locking themselves in the engine car and not coming to the aid of passengers. Anglade told Paris Match that they heard gunshots and screaming in the next car, after which several crew members rushed past them to the engine car, opened it with a special key and locked themselves inside. Anglade, who cut his hand when he broke the glass shielding the hammer used to break the train windows,[100] said he saw the gunman through the door between the cars. He described feeling that they were all going to die, and said:[59]

It was impossible to escape from this nightmare. We were trapped in a mousetrap! It's a terrifying feeling of helplessness.

Anglade stated that the dozen passengers in his car were pressed against the engine car door, banging on it and begging the crew to open it:

We shouted for staff to let us in, we were yelling, 'Open up!' in vain.... Nobody responded to us. Not a squeak. This abandonment — so much distress, loneliness — it was terrible and unbearable! For us it was inhuman. The minutes seemed like hours.

Anglade stated that Anthony Sadler came into their car searching for blankets and a first aid kit for the wounded, and told them the assailant had been subdued. Sadler also banged on the door of the engine car to no avail, said Anglade, who expressed his gratitude:[59]

We are shocked, but we are alive, and that's the point. We were in the wrong place, but with the right people. It's a miracle. We were incredibly lucky to have these American soldiers. I want to pay tribute to their heroic courage and thank them; without them we'd all be dead.

Anglade's claims of "abandonment" by the crew were denied by the Thalys corporation.[17][95] Agnès Ogier, director-general of Thalys, defended the train employees, who she said "have fulfilled their duty" and were unaware the terrorist had been subdued.[101] She also reported that a male employee took five or six passengers with him while seeking shelter in the baggage car.[38]

On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company. He added: "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behavior." The statement went on to say that Anglade's testimony would be taken into account in the internal investigation conducted by the train company, and that no further communication would be made on this particular topic.[102]

On 28 August, Alek Skarlatos recounted on Fox News, "There was one train employee that came up to us right as it was getting over and told Spencer to stop choking the guy, which was insane because he was not even fully unconscious, and told me to put the AK down, which again was insane because I hadn't even looked through the train to see if anybody else was there. I don't know what he was thinking, but I just told him that I was military and to calm down and get out of the way, and then Chris translated for us, and that was really it."[103][104]

On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company. He added: "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behavior." The statement went on to say that Anglade's testimony would be taken into account in the internal investigation conducted by the train company. [107]

Version 2: Current version

(renamed to remove inflammatory diction) Versus001 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Actions of train crew[edit]

The French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who was present in the train along with his children and partner, suffered a minor hand injury when he attempted to access the emergency hammer for breaking the train window.[104][105][106] In the hours that followed, he blamed the train crew for their attitude,[107] claiming that they had abandoned the passengers to the assailant.[108][109]

On 23 August, Anglade acknowledged that the crew members who "abandoned the passengers", by locking themselves in the engine car, were not Thalys staff, but employees of a catering company. He added, "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behavior."[110]

Version 3: Compromise version

Actions of train crew

Jean-Hugues Anglade, a French actor traveling with his partner and children in the No. 11 car (the last car before the rear engine), was critical of the train crew for locking themselves in the engine car and not coming to the aid of passengers. Anglade told Paris Match that they heard gunshots and screaming in the next car, after which several crew members rushed past them to the engine car, opened it with a special key and locked themselves inside. Anglade, who cut his hand when he broke the glass shielding the hammer used to break the train windows,[100] said he saw the gunman through the door between the cars.

Anglade stated that the dozen passengers in his car were pressed against the engine car door, banging on it and begging the crew to open it:

We shouted for staff to let us in, we were yelling, 'Open up!' in vain.... Nobody responded to us. Not a squeak. This abandonment — so much distress, loneliness — it was terrible and unbearable!

Anglade stated that Anthony Sadler came into their car searching for blankets and a first aid kit for the wounded, and told them the assailant had been subdued. Sadler also banged on the door of the engine car to no avail, said Anglade, who expressed his gratitude:[59]

Anglade's claims of "abandonment" by the crew were denied by the Thalys corporation.[17][95] On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company.

Discussion

• Compromise Version - I support It is the best of the 3 versions. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• I added another sig to top of section, so too many details won't appear in another page. Also, you are told to make the RFC post neutral and brief. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, best in what way? Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Current Version - I support The Compromise Version is still a bit blocky and could do without the quote and a couple of paragraphs (do remember that the information is disputed and mostly retracted later on). But for now, the so-called "gutted" version will do. Also, I will repeat, we do not hate Anglade, otherwise we would've done MUCH MORE than just remove certain details you perceive as major. In addition, the controversy has since been retracted. Versus001 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Current Version , if there are any additional pertinent facts they can be added, but devoting about a fifth of the article to a controversy which 'blew over' after a few days, which the man at the centre of withdrew all his accusations, and who was not even in the relevant part of the train, is WP:UNDUE. It goes without saying that the presentation of this RfC is neither brief, neutral nor accurate, nor is any case made for including so much material peripheral to the event. … … previous discussion on this subject is mainly here, and here, and here. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Also nb Almost the same topic is included in a (still open) RfC above, initiated by the same editor. Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The other RFC is to incorporate all of the events chronologically. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Since when? Versus001 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The other RfC is about 'Flags' and the same subject, ie Anglade's account. Though it is so ineptly phrased and presented, one would need to be a mind reader to know what the issue for comment actually was. Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Versus001 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The subsection Actions of train crew under section "Controversies" is an account of a famous French actor who scratched his hand breaking an emergency glass and used his fame to trumpet accusations about purported actions of train crew on board the Thalys which got wide coverage in newspapers and glossy French magazines. As it happens, he later retracted his accusations after meeting with train company executives; is Wikipedia to be a spinning weather vane reporting the latest version of the changing opinion of some non-participant in a current event?

So I vote delete section entirely as non-encyclopedic and mostly WP:PRIMARY. This is despite the fact that deleting it would nullify the significant time and effort I've spent on this article section trying to accommodate the Rfc originator's wishes, without success apparently. If there's an argument to be made for keeping the section at all, it would be due to the fact that the actor's fame gave him a wide public forum for a drumbeat of accusations of malfeasance such that the train company Thalys and the French national train service SNCF could no longer ignore him and were forced to issue public statements and ultimately meet with him, at which point he retracted his accusations, understanding his error. Other than that, this is all a tempest in a teapot about a non-participant with clout creating a media furor for a couple of days, before it died down. Nothing about his comments and opinions, before or after, do anything to improve the article. The section should be deleted. My "compromise" version is if the section is retained in any form, it should state that a famous French actor made accusations about train crew that achieved wide coverage in the French media, which were later retracted after he met with Thalys and SNCF. It could probably be done in one sentence, with two or three refs, perhaps something like this:

Among the passengers was well-known French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who made accusations widely quoted in the French media accusing the train crew of "abandoning" the passengers and saving themselves, but he later recanted aftermeeting with Thalys and SNCF officials and praised the crew for "heroism".

That would be my "compromise version". Anything more would be vastly WP:UNDUE. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC) edited by Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC) to add the one-sentence compromise version above

• Comment - I find it ironic to say the least, that the Rfc originator, an WP:SPA who is clearly highly invested in this article, provides three options for discussion including laying out for the rest of us what the "compromise" version is. Compromise is what is achieved by talking it out and arriving at a consensus with other editors on the Talk page, it is not dictated by one person. But then, this is an amusing microcosm of what has been going on here, so worthy of mention. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You may and have suggested a 4th option. Complete removal of the topic from the article. This is a really bad editorial choice. How about removing the Battle of Britain from World War II history because it is just a little part of it? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it is a personal attack to call me a SPA. I have edited many articles. Editing only one article is not forbidden, either. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

So removing Anglade cutting his hand, and being unable to hide in the engine car along with the caterers, and whingeing about it afterwards, is comparable to removing the Battle of Britain is it? Well I suppose it makes a nice change from 9/11 analogies. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am actually not in support of removing Anglade's account, even if it is disputed. I have seen a number of other articles that have mentioned facts from initial reports while addressing them as such, as well as addressing points of confusion regarding conflicting accounts, and I don't see why this article has to be any different. I think it's noteworthy to mention Anglade's account, albeit reduced to maybe a sentence or two given Mathglot's argument to delete it.

Onto more pressing matters, Sandra opposed to terrorism, you are setting up a poor analogy. Anglade's account and the Battle of Britain are two completely different things. Anglade's account is just an eyewitness account whose credibility was disputed and later disproved. The Battle of Britain, despite its "little part" of World War II history, was an event in a history-defining war, which has been cited as "a crucial turning point in the conflict" (see the article header for more info). As much as I am not in support of removing that account in its entirety, I will agree that you are making a bad case for yourself. Also, you have edited many articles. So? I have as well, and my edits are disputed every now and then and eventually sometimes do not make it in. The difference between us seems to be how we handle such decisions. Versus001 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I think the present (or slightly clipped) version is the proper weight, a frightened man said some slightly foolish things, they were widely reported for a few days then withdrawn, the 'story' died. Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Compromise version This talk page is so long, few will read it. The original version is long, which is not bad, but has details unrelated to the event, like Angle feeling like a mouse. The next version in way too condensed and does not adequately describe the controversy or event. The compromise version needs some work but is on the right track. It is the track we should pursue but nobody should think it is the final static version. In fact, the whole article could use some work. There seems to be a lot of disagreement. Consider asking editors who don't come here daily to inject inspiration.Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This RFC is improperly worded and should be withdrawn (and, optionally, rewritten properly).

Please read WP:RFC on how to formulate an RFC; see especially point 3. Please also see WP:RFCQ#Neutrality about how to write a neutral request, especially avoid rhetorical constructions and wording choices that indicate preference towards a particular outcome, and the "Rule of thumb", both of which are massively violated by this Rfc. I'd write an alternative unbiased statement myself, only the current one is so long and fatally flawed, that I fear that any attempt at moving toward concision and NPOV would be such a radical departure that it would be viewed by the originator as an attempt to "gut" the Rfc, and I have no wish to engage in yet another pointless discussion where an attempt to follow policy is seen as an attack. It would be better to simply withdraw this Rfc, write a new one (if still needed) following the recommendations, and publicize it properly.

Responders should also read about how to respond. Responses which simply say, in essence, "This one is best" without offering any reasoning based on WP guidelines or policy are not helpful, since an Rfc is not an opinion poll, or a voting system where you count up the "votes" to see who "won". Finally, we're spinning our wheels here; there isn't sufficient outside input. Consider publicizing it according to recommendations if/when you create a new one, properly formulated. Mathglot (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism, what is ref 59 in the 'compromise' version? Making judgements without access to the sources is 'dodgy', the other sources I am familiar with. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The way the "versions" as listed above in the Rfc by the originator are gives a misleading and self-serving impression to Rfc readers. In particular, the way the "current version" (the one originally called "Gutted version" by the originator) is displayed misleads because it appears to show a section far shorter than what was there before (roughly, Version 1, aka "stable"). However, in fact that's only true for the rendered article text, whereas if you include the refs, which include some long embedded quotations containing material previously found in the rendered section text, it's actually 291 bytes longer. That version was built up in steps following a Talk page discussion, with a few further changes resulting from ongoing discussion. By total byte/word count including refs and |quote= params included, the "current" version is longer than the previous one. Not that I approve of it at that length, but it was an attempt to compromise with the Rfc originator's objections in some fashion. A step-by-step discussion of how the "current" version was created out of the previous one can be found here (look for small blue-green font). Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Compromise version works for me, having regard to WP:UNDUE weight of the long "stable" version, and the too sparse "gutted" version. The article is full of information and I see no reason to remove a well-known part of the story. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Compromise version is good. Covers the controversy adequately, including what he retracted (which is not nearly as much as some anti-Anglade editors are suggesting; the only thing he seems to have corrected was his assumption about the exact employment status of the workers), but it does not ramble on and on like a move plot summary. The short version is both too short and inaccurate (for one thing, Anglade did not criticize their "attitude" but their direct actions), and reads like it was written by the company. But the long version reads like it was written by People magazine. The compromise version is encyclopedically informative, reports properly on Anglade's claims as claims, and the company's response, not narrating Anglade's claims like a story, and is sufficiently concise. I decline to look further into the inter-personality pissing match going on above, I'm just looking at the content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, among the claims which Anglade withdrew, was the claim that they were actually Thalys staff, in fact they were catering staff employed by an independent catering company. So the people who sell coffee on trains aren't heroes and hide away from danger in the broom cupboard, not much of a story, … … also, for the record, the same person drafted all three versions above without consultation. In fact, other witnesses 'closer to the action' than Anglade, contradict him. We omit those accounts too and also accounts criticising or satirising Anglade. Far from being 'anti-Anglade', most of the regular editors take the attitude that an upset man said some upset things which he withdrew within days. The story was big news for a few days in France, then got dropped. It was not reported at all virtually after the first day by 'Anglo' media. Devoting more than a short paragraph to it, in my opinion, is giving it undue weight. Last time I looked, French WP took the same attitude (and the story was much bigger there). Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An Rfc isn't about vote-counting, it's about assessing the merit of arguments based on WP policies. Comments like "I see no reason to [do X]" or "[it's] too short" should be expanded so they are based on policy, and not mere personal preference. Comments about "pissing matches" are uncivil and do not help further the aims of an Rfc, and comments such as "anti-Anglade editors" demonstrate a total lack of good faith and are needlessly antagonistic and disruptive; don't do it. Please refer to the suggestions for RPC responders for more ideas. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not version 2 That version is way too short and harms the quality of the article. The compromise version is probably best but the long version isn't so bad either. Hiwiki123 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References for Rfc - Actions of train crew

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.

Improper closure

Improper closure, per WP:RFC and WP:CLOSE.

• Rfc should have been closed as improperly formatted, with an invitation to try again, taking care next time to make the opening statement neutral and brief (the current one is neither).
• The closing editor acknowledged the multi-problematic nature of the Rfc in closure notes, but closed with consensus anyway.
• The closing editor identified a consensus which does not exist; Rfc discussions are not a vote. Well, they closed "for" a particular PoV; I guess actually typing the word "consensus" into the closure notes created too much cognitive dissonance for them to tolerate. Please see WP:CLOSE#How to determine the outcome, in particular:
  • Consensus is not determined by counting heads
  • The closer is there "to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." Most votes in this Rfc were unsupported personal opinion.
• Editors should take care with closures which "may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous"; see WP:NAC section Pitfalls to avoid.
• Editors who have over a dozen previous edits on the article Talk page including opinions stated on a previous Rfc should recuse themselves as too involved.

Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• GreenC, I am also baffled by the logic of your closure. Even 'counting heads' does not suggest a consensus or significant majority. One voter has made a total of 10 edits on WP. The presentation of the RfC is diabolically non-neutral and confusingly misrepresents essential pertinent facts. Very few editors have left 'policy based' edit reasons and, strangest of all, you are an involved editor with a clearly (and very recently) expressed antipathy to the proposer. You should re-open and/or request admin closure. The article is locked anyway, so there is no rush. Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I had some prior involvement but none with this content. The wording of the close is in-effect support of both Version 1 and Version 3 because it leaves open the possibility for normal editing, it doesn't lock in any particular text. Mathglot's single Delete vote the close implicitly rejects (and version 2 no one wanted). That leaves version 1 and version 3. Version 3 had 5 support and Version 1 had 2 (or 7 out of 8 !votes). I understand this is not a vote but opinions carry weight so long as they are justified in some way, for example saying "I like it" for no reason. Contrary to Mathglot's assertion, opinions supported with an explanation, regardless if they cite rules or not, do carry weight, unless it's a violation of policy or clearly wrong. The edit history of Hiwiki123 is brief but does show long-term editing of WP and not a SPA. -- GreenC 23:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Green Cardamom said,

"...but opinions carry weight so long as they are justified in some way, for example saying 'I like it' for no reason".

I've already quoted the reason why this is incorrect, perhaps you missed it. I'll bold it for you here: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious,... --source: WP:CLOSE. What this means is, you take all those votes which are solely personal opinion and ignore them, before you even begin to consider whether there is a WP:CONSENSUS among the remainder.

Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mathglot, and how is any version 'locked in?'. We don't require votes necessarily to cite rules, we ask them to be clear that their reasons are based on rules. 'I like' is wholly invalid unless attached to some reason. You ARE involved with the article, before I in fact. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hiwiki123 said "too short and harms the quality of the article" which is a WP:WEIGHT argument. SMcCandlish said "The short version is both too short and inaccurate" which is a WEIGHT and V argument. Pete gave a WEIGHT argument. Tough sailor ouch gave a WEIGHT argument. Sandra opposed to terrorism gave no argument at all, and would be discounted, however since she gave her argument in the RfC itself ("The gutted version doesn't convey the controversy that happened") I included her position as a WEIGHT argument. Look I'm sorry you disagree but I can't ignore these editors arguments. If you still disagree you can ask for a review. -- GreenC 14:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

GreenC when editors are making their assesments without access to the full facts (little details like these WEREN'T actually train crew, you have to look hard to find in the presentation). When the RfC is abysmally presented, with no attempt at neutrality. When no editors say WHAT is missing from the short version, which is pertinent. SMcCandlish claims it is inaccurate, how? His point seems to be based on him not realising 'all charges were dropped' with full withdrawal from the actor. I have no objection whatsoever to extending coverage of the 'controversy', (though there is little to say except it fizzled out after a week). But this isn't an attempt to cover the controversy, it's an attempt to 'tell a story', that throws in at the end that the actor withdrew the accusation (and omits to say that he then described the actual Thalys staff as 'heroes'), where is the coverage of the controversy?

I'm sorry, I have no reason to think you acted in bad faith, but you WERE closely involved in the article and should have seen it was improper for you to close this RfC. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Likewise definitely assuming good faith, I just think the closer was sucker-punched into a bad decision that was largely the result of the highly self-serving and extremely non-neutral point of view of the original Rfc, which should never have been allowed to run its ccourse.

Didn't know you can ask for a review of closed Rfc's but in any case I don't think it would be a good idea to ask for a review of the closure, because that would imply 1) that my main objection is to the closure, which it isn't, and 2) an acceptance of the terms of the Rfc as opened, which I do not accept.

As stated previously, the Rfc was fatally flawed, and if there's to be any review at all, it should not be about the closure but about the opening, which should have been shut down immediately for not adhering to WP:Rfc in its construction. But, it wasn't shut down. Instead, the voters and closing editor were faced with a biased proposal, and in good faith, did the best they could with an extremely biased jumping-off point. This is exactly why we have rules about Rfc construction and NPOV, that is, to avoid situations like this.

Really, how is one supposed to vote, or to think about different voting options, when they are given as the "gutted version" and the "compromise version"? (The originator even provided a "long version" which just makes the "compromise version" look even more reasonable of a "compromise", doesn't it?) The closing party fell victim to this as well partly for the same reason and partly for a lack of initiative in actually looking into arguments, rather than merely accepting that "too short" was a valid weight argument just by dint of typing the words. Claims of WP:WEIGHT do not hold up, if you look into them. Count the words in even the "compromise" version, and measure them against the ones in the "Attack" section which actually recounts the events of the gunman attack and subduing, and you will see that the former, dealing with the retracted testimony of a famous actor who did not see the attack, is slightly above 50% of the 'entire attack story including train identification and trajectory, gunman, weapons, Damien, Moogalian, conductor, Stone, Skarlatos, Sadler, and Norman—i.e, the actual events that newspapers reported on around the world. If that's wasn't enough, the closer could also examine the proportion of space given to Anglade in the French article (1 paragraph, 79 words) compared to the main Attack section (79/688 words, or 11%). That is the proper weight for this section, not over 50% as the "compromise" version would have it. The only gripe I have with the closer is in allowing themself to be manipulated, but that can happen to any of us, and thus burned we merely have to learn from that and look more carefully the next time, and to be wary of attempting to close Rfc's on consensus that are that flawed in the first place. This Rfc was problematic from the very beginning, and does not further the aims of the project, rather it hinders it by wasting all of our time.

If the Rfc can be reviewed post-closure not for its closure consensus result, but for its very permissibility as a valid Rfc in the first place, then in theory, that is what ought to be done here. However, at this late point in the game I think that would just be throwing more good words and time after bad to no good end. I can live with this article section being wildly out of proportion to its weight, I have other fish to fry. Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I endorse almost everything Mathglot is saying, if information is not presented within a RfC in a reasonably complete and neutral fashion, how can a response to it be meaningful? Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of Rfc

Although I don't agree with it, I will not interfere with editors wishing to apply the Rfc result to the article. However, you still need to comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines in doing so, and removing reliable sources from the text without explanation is not permitted, and no explanation was given. Therefore, I have reverted the article to the version of 1 November.

I am not arguing against the good faith of the edit attempted by User:Tough sailor ouch to comply with the Rfc but only that it was improper due to wholesale removal of References that were previously in the article for the agreed-upon text. User:Green Cardamom already tried to explain this to you here but you reverted to the version with references removed from the source, thus doubling-down on the mistake. Please listen to what Green Cardamom is trying to tell you. A longer explanation, which wouldn't fit in his edit summary, is this:

In attempting to follow the Rfc results, you removed all the sources and citations that previously were present in earlier versions of the article, by copying the Rfc source including the literal bracketed numbers like '[59]' instead of the source references that used to appear there. This is very probably because you copied text out of the Rfc page itself, rather than from the wikitext of the earlier version which contains the references intact. The Rfc text was copied not from the wikisource, but from the rendered page, which both removes all sources, as well as removes all wikilinks. You must copy not from the Rfc, but from the article wikitext containing the version agreed to.

If you wish to apply the "agreed upon" source from the Rfc, do not copy the Rfc text with the obliterated references. Instead, use the History, to find the version of the article from which the Rfc text was originally copied. Edit that version, and copy the wikitext corresponding to the agreed-upon text. This will now include all wikilinks and sources into your copied snippet. Then exit that version, edit the current version of the article, and apply the copied wikitext to that version in the proper location in that section. Preview it, to ensure you've done it correctly and that all the source references are appearing, and then hit Save.

Please try your change again. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tough sailor ouch: Hm. With no edit summary, and no explanation on the talk page, you simply reinstalled your version again, wiping out all the references once again. I undid your change and restored the Nov 1 version of that one section (Actions of train crew) for now, but I have no objection to your implementing the results of the Rfc. However, you may not wipe out pre-existing references when you do so.

Please feel free to try your changes again in a proper manner. If you don't understand, or if you need help implementing the Rfc results, please ask for help from other editors here, or from an administrator. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, I understand what you're trying to do. Some information to be aware of: 1) Anything unsourced can be removed by anyone at any time per WP:V. The RfC can not override Wikipedia policy. 2) Two of the most vocal participants in the RfC have been blocked so are no longer involved. 3) The RfC close states: Therefore as noted by Tough sailor ouch, "nobody should think it is the final static version", the section remains open to normal editing procedures and talk page consensus. So there is as always room to continue refining the text, it is not "static". -- GreenC 16:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, we're on the same page; my point was more the converse—namely that things that are sourced already should not be removed (except by consensus) but in fact multiple source refs were wiped in the attempt to implement the Rfc because the wikitext was not used (as you already pointed out in your edit summary). Of course, going forward, anyone can make whatever changes are needed per V and RS; my point was simply about not going backwards by wiping out existing sources for material that has not been challenged. Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the error by painstakingly fixing the references. Therefore, the rfc should be deemed as closed and repaired. Happy New Year. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the one portion of the "agreed upon" text that might be considered damaging to Anglade's case was left out of the implementation of the Rfc, namely: On 23 August, Anglade and his partner met Thalys director Agnès Ogier and SNCF president Guillaume Pepy. In a joint statement released after the meeting, the actor confirmed his testimony and accusations of abandonment, but acknowledged that the two crew members who locked themselves in the engine car with a handful of passengers were not Thalys employees but contractors from a catering company. He added: "The French conductor and the other Thalys employee present in the coach where the assault took place showed [...] heroic behavior." I will add this back. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Stone invited to 2016 State of the Union

Spencer Stone has been invited to attend attended the 2016 State of the Union Address by President Obama to be given before Congress on January 12, 2016 as one of Michelle Obama's guests. I'm not sure that a mention belongs in this article, but information about the invitation is available. Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC) edited by Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it probably doesn't belong in the article.Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

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.

---

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

Alfred Nemours (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2017 (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.

Perpetrator listed (wrongly) as "suspected."

I am new to posting at Wikipedia, and have never done so. Forgive me in advance for any error on my part. I see the bar in the upper right of the article lists the perpetrator of the attack as "suspected" perpetrator. The perpetrator was clearly identified, convicted, and even confessed ( http://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2016/12/19/attentat-du-thalys-le-projet-raconte-par-le-terroriste_5050943_1653578.html ).

It is laughable, let alone misleading, to label the perpetrator as "suspected." "Suspected" would be appropriate in a news report where the person is still a "suspect" and not convicted. It is not an appropriate term when the person has been convicted, particularly when a confession and multiple witnesses come into play. I suspect that the author was trying to sound like a journalist, but his or her intent does not excuse the mis-use of the terminology. Journalisticaly and legally, the perpetrator in this case is a "perpetrator" and not a "suspected perpetrator."

left unsigned by IP.

References

Yes times change and the article should be kept up to date. Fixed. There ae still some places in the article where suspect makes sense since they are in the context of evolving events before it was determined his guilt. -- GreenC 16:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:GreenC are you sure about the source? My French wasn't good enough to assess, but I looked at FrWP, which still says 'suspect' and doesn't mention the trial, so I 'googled' and could find no mention of trial or verdict. Confessing is of course irrelevant unless in a court. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No I assumed the IP user was correct about a conviction. The LeMonde piece says he confessed but that's all. This article from December doesn't say anything about legal status.[1] He's probably like many terrorists being held in legal limbo. I'll revert but "gunman" is a better word in a few places, regardless of his legal status. -- GreenC 19:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)