Talk:2016 Brussels bombings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relevance

"The explosions took place the day after the arrest of Salah Abdeslam, prime suspect in the 2015 Paris attacks."

This purports a connection, but that is pure speculation. For all we know it could be a coincidence. I don't think it belongs in the lead yet; at least not until prominent sources specifically link them. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sky News, at least, is speculating. Seems more prone to TV than print at the moment though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The context of such incidents and the likelihood of something being warned is relevant. As above, RS is making the contextual reference. Already 2 on the same day is like Paris too. Further the article cites that Arabic was allegedly heard (oe speculation)..Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps rephrase it along the lines of "Media x, y, z speculates that the attacks may be a response to the arrest of Salah Abdeslam."? --Xover (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I took out what was there because the cite given in the article didn't actually make any connection at all (it was from before the current event). Given the subject, I'd prefer to wait a bit even given the above until there is something more than heat-of-the-moment speculation from front-line news reporting. DMacks (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We should wait for an RS to specifically say "This may have been related" rather than the way this is currently being worded. Sam Walton (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with DMacks, but I very much expect it to get reinserted by other editors. I've seen/heard that speculation from so many sources that it's bound to take hold (and temporal correlation tends to strongly suggest causation to the average person). iow, I very much suspect we'll eventually need to report the speculation (as speculation) even absent a RS making a real case for the connection. --Xover (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this sufficient? Sam Walton (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

BBC states: "The blasts come days after the capture of Salah Abdeslam, the main suspect in the Paris attacks in November" I think we can use this in quotes. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And the Guardian as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Have a background section to cover this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Including this in "background" would make a definite link, which is not what we should do right now. I included this in aftermath linked to the terror alert level. What do you think? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm using the November 2015 Paris attacks as an example. There's WP:NODEADLINE with this, but I suspect this (section) will be expanded over the next few days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Misquote

The article says "Belgium's Interior Ministry announced that the terror level in the country would be raised to the highest level following the attacks."

The source article says "raised the nation's terror alert to its maximum level" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.9.10 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Smaller Explosions at the metro station were controlled explosions

The article doesn't yet mention that multiple explosions took place at Maelbeek metro station but this BBC live feed [1] @ 10:53 indicates that controlled explosions also took place. Is this important enough, and sourced enough to add into the article? CaptRik (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

BBC article

This has a lot of useful info. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Article/category/templates connected to ISIS/ISIL/Islamist attacks etc.

American Airlines has said it was not at their ticket counter: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-rebuffs-brussels-blast-reports-as-shares-fall-34-2016-03-22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.126.53 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed a few of these in the last 30mins or so purely to keep the article neutral until an official confirmation and source is provided confirming the links. I think we all know this is likely to happen but we don't have to be in a rush to put this in while unconfirmed.

I'm happy to be overruled though and stop removing them if we get consensus here, so feel free to discuss and provide sources. CaptRik (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

it's an obvious ISIS attack. VC19 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree - however, this is an encyclopedia. Until it's official, we shouldn't be linking to it. CaptRik (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ref#4 in the infobox backs up the ISIS claim. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Title

I'll probably look like an idiot for writing this...at present the word "bombing" is unverifiable as per title. The more neutral "explosions" is being used. Probably won't need to be moved in about 6 hours, though. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, although I find it rare that we get the title right the first time around, especially once more news comes out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the initial comments, but its being confirmed now, incl. a possible suicide bobming..Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"March 2013 Brussels attacks" might make sense, as per November 2015 Paris attacks. 81.108.18.234 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

I want to include Swedish reaction. http://www.news24.com/World/News/brussels-blasts-attack-against-democratic-europe-swedish-pm-20160322 Canome (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Ugly Ketchup (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Swedish Head of State, the King of Sweden: http://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamiljen/aktuellahandelser/aktuellt/kungenomhandelsernaibryssel.5.274e83ca152f4410091324c.html

213.89.166.161 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 16:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Brussel bombings from Brussel Bombings

@Jd52102: renamed back with "bombings", please see other attack bombing/attack pages, none uses capitalization for "attack"/"bombing" (e.g. International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attack, International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, etc.) Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly as a result of the move, the semi-protection status was reset. Spirit Ethanol please reinstate. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to request from an admin to semi-protect, can't do that. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Sam Walton (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Weapon

I can't edit the article, but can someone put the type of weapon in the infobox (Bombs with TATP explosives)? Thanks--Stefanvh96 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a suitable reference to support that claim, Stefanvh96? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Many sources saying it, here's one: http://www.today.com/video/explosive-used-in-brussels-attacks-reportedly-identified-as-tatp-649953347982--Stefanvh96 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefanvh96 - much appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Stefanvh96, my major qualm with this reference is that the title explicitly says "reportedly TATP explosives". I won't use that reference until the usage of TATPs is confirmed. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Schuman metro station

The Schuman metro station article says another bomb went off in the Schuman metro station after the one in the Maelbeek/Maalbeek metro station. Is this a mistake? Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll look in to it.79.77.220.42 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been dismissed. 79.77.220.42 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Schuman and Arts-Loi stations were not bombed

79.77.220.42 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Update required

• A nailbomb was found at 18.30 UTC in Brussels city center.
• The 14.00 UTC report of a shoe bomb exploding and killing a security bloke as well as the bomb him self in Oostend's Harbour was false and the site was then quickly shut down. Schuman and Arts-Loi stations were not bombed.
• A glass ceiling partial shattered and caved in to the airport lounge as the walls cracked. The central train carriage was wrecked, the windows shattered, the seats were flung about and the doors were blown off.
• 3 American and 1 French Mormon servie the train blast.
• A Belgian government representative told CNN that 20 people died at the Maelbeek metro station and 130 were wounded, plus 10 more were killed and 100 wounded at Brussels' international airport. Jeffrey Edison was near the gate, several hundred yards from where the explosions occurred. He didn't hear the blasts but "suddenly saw" 200 to 300 people rushing toward him from a security checkpoint. There were cracked walls, broken wall pannels, collapsing ceiling panels and shattering glass windows.
• 31 dead at 18.30 UTC.
• Video feeds that shows frightened travelers cowering as dust and smoke fill the air as sirens blare and people swearing.
• The airport attack began after a burst of gunfire and yelling in Arabic, according to Belgian media outlets.

79.77.220.42 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• The explosions hit near the departure gates, collapsing ceiling panels and shattering glass windows at 07.00UTC. The blasts sent smoke billowing from the airport and set off a panic as people ran from the airport with whatever they could carry.
• 18.00UTC-The British government is warning Britons against all but essential travel to Brussels in the wake of the bomb attacks.
• 17.00UTC German Chancellor Angela Merkel has pledged Belgium's prime minister her country's "full solidarity" following the Brussels attacks and says her Cabinet will discuss the bombings on Wednesday.
• Maelbeek station was inaugurated in 1969 and was on one of the first lines to be opened in the Belgian capital.
• French authorities had soon increased security measures at Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle airport.
• British Prime Minister David Cameron soon wrote on Twitter that he was ‘shocked and concerned by the events in Brussels’ and would be chairing a Cobra meeting later this morning.
• The Belgian health minister said 11 were killed and 81 injured in the airport blasts.
• In a statement, the prosecutor's office said police had conducted raids in the Schaerbeek neighbourhood of Brussels and found a nail bomb, chemical products and an Islamic State flag. Earlier on Tuesday, police were reported to have found an unexploded suicide vest at Brussels airport as well as a Kalashnikov assault rifle.
• 32 dead at 01.30.
• The head of Europol said in February that 5,000 jihadists are at large in the EU having slipped in from Syria.m"There are 94 returned jihadists currently living in Molenbeek, Brussels. This fact alone should alert people to the fact that open borders are putting the lives of European citizens at risk."

• More sources if needed-

1. https://www.rt.com/news/336536-brussels-metro-bombing-maalbek/
2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-attacks-maalbeek-maelbeek-metro-explosion-live-updates-zaventem-airport-a6945401.html
3. http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/backgroundmaelbeek-metro-in-the-heart-of-brussels-european-zone_445515.html
4. https://www.rt.com/news/336527-brussels-airport-terror-bombing/
5. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/mar/22/brussels-airport-explosions-live-updates
6. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/why-was-belgium-targeted-by-bombers
7. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reported-explosions-at-brussels-airport-in-belgium/
8. http://www.joe.co.uk/news/video-footage-shows-the-aftermath-of-belgium-airport-bombing/48250
9. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/brussels_airport_explosions/index.html
10. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-brussels-attacks-by-isis-have-exposed-belgiums-failings-as-a-society-a6945761.html
11. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35869985
12. http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/22/brussels-airport-blasts-explosions-heard-at-three-metro-stations-5766996/#ixzz43fCq0tGs
13. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35869985
14. http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/22/brussels-airport-blasts-explosions-heard-at-three-metro-stations-5766996/#ixzz43fCq0tGs

79.77.220.42 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated sources

Updated sources:

1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/22/how-america-should-not-respond-brussels-attacks
2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/brussels-terror-attack-us-reaction/
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/22/presidential-candidates-react-to-brussels-attacks-trump-cruz-call-for-policy-changes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bw2217a (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Gun and nail bomb found

Brussels airport - cops found a a Kalashnikov assault rifle. A nail bomb was found in a suspect's house.

References

Muslims in Brussels

Eventually, when we know more, we'll have to say this (from the Brussels article): Brussels has a large concentration of Muslims, mostly of Turkish and Moroccan ancestry. Belgium does not collect statistics by ethnic background, so exact figures are unknown. It was estimated that in 2005 people of Muslim background account for 25.5% of Brussels' population, a much higher concentration than those of the other regions of Belgium. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Unless you want to try and imply that their presence directly co-relates to Daesh carrying out an attack, I don't really see why you "have" to mention it. Unless you know how many of these people specifically practice conservative Islamist versions of Sunni Islam, then it seems like it's a non-sequitur that's specifically trying to push a certain conclusion. Shah massoud (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's the first question I had when I heard about it: Why Brussels? New York Times has a subsection specifically answering that question: Brussels has a high proportion of citizens who travel to Iraq, insular Muslim communities believed to have helped shield jihadists, and security services that have had problems with their counterterrorism operations. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Daesh doesn't need to have any specific reasons outside of "retaliating" against the international coalition that's combatting it. There's no particular reason why they'd target Brussels or Belgium outside of having a handful of operatives there.

Secondly, "traveled to Iraq" doesn't equate to "is sympathetic to/belongs to Daesh". It just means that they're of Iraqi background, unless you want to allege that there's a "high proportion" of international jihadi war tourists hiding in plain sight, which is nonsense.

Thirdly, if there are segments of the Muslim community that are especially insular or more importantly suspected of being sympathetic towards international Jihadism or Daesh, then you ought to right exactly that. "Some of them" or "a segment is believed to be". Just shoe-horning "this is how many Muslims there are in Brussels" actually makes it painfully obvious that you're trying to tie them in as a collective to this particular attack or to the phenomenon of international Salafi jihadism, regardless of what their politics or religious beliefs or lifestyles actually are. Shah massoud (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And I know that they're not strictly speaking "your questions" alone. But just because some columnist for the NYT asked them doesn't mean that I'd change my response in any way. Shah massoud (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Shah Massoud here. The relevant question here is not "How many muslims are there in Brussels?" but "Who are these jihadists (in Brussels) and why are they there?" The latter question is now covered in the Background section. The former question is WP:SYNTH at best, and comes into conflict with WP:NPOV. Cmeiqnj (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That's exactly my point, and it would be foolish, to say the least, to try and use wording that seems dangerously close to being permissive of a witch-hunt against people who have nothing to do with and don't want anything to do with the people who carried out the attack, or with the jihadis in general. Their both being ostensibly Sunni Muslims doesn't mean anything, due to how many different kinds of Sunni Muslims there can be. Shah massoud (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't need to mention its demographic data.

But can, and should, mention in background (along wth abdelsalam) that the highest proportion of Europeans in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war come from Belgium.

There were warnings of blowback (especially from Assad 2 years ago), and it came to Belgium after france and Germany, but its notable.Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

International reactions

@The ed17: I don't really see the "International reactions" section as violating WP:NOTNEWS. There are many similar articles (e.g. International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attack, International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, etc.) that talk about international reactions to something. epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a change like that really needs a discussion. I've restored it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that they should be included here (see also WP:REACTIONS#Problems and other stuff exists). We should be focusing on the tangible aftermath. If those reactions are really notable, they can be placed in a daughter article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I say just make the daughter article as it will only grow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should wait a day or two and see what the long-term effects of the attacks are. I have no problem with keeping it now, but it seems like the impact of these explosions will carry on for the near future. epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Epicgenius's statement. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel like these sections tend to violate WP:UNDUE (regarding "aspects" rather than views) since this one for example is at the moment largely a list of non-notable "thoughts and prayers" statements, but it seems the sections are so established now there'd need to be a wiki-wide discussion to alter the practice. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want you can always take the issue to the WP:PUMP. Every time this happens we have a group of editors saying "well maybe we shouldn't..." but in the end nobody does anything about it. I am for the reactions myself but we need at the least an essay linking to a solid consensus if one doesn't already exist on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Move content to International reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No just to Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings, no need for the International part as that narrows the scope (See: Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the move. I'm despair at half of every breaking news story article in the days following (before the in-depth journalistic work has been written) consisting solely of "X said Y". Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Every time there is yet another terrorist attack by the usual suspects we have the same discussion.
Do we really need the usual pap from the mush? These are essentially PR releases from politicians, to "show" "how much" they "care." I say, take to a dedicated subpage of politician's mush.XavierItzm (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said you are welcome to take the discussion to the WP:PUMP for a broader consensus, we don't need an AfD that's for sure as we had this discussion way too many times now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gareth E. Kegg. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

See also: The "Thanks" section at Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings re: the necessity of similar "reaction" articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with knowledgekid87 and Another Beleiver. It IS notable. Per the former, the solution is also easy.Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nationalities

Can someone update the nationalities of the dead and injured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.187.165 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This is in progress in line with findings from reliable sources. A half-filled table with incomplete information is worse than no table at all. There is no need to rush on this. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The incomplete table has been removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please update the nationalities of the Westerners of none Arab or Islamic descent or heritage, murdered by these hate filled individuals. Please do not remove my inquiry. Please do no sanitize, sterilize, or remove or attempt to shape this question in support of the murderers or what ever their deranged ideology is rather than those innocents who were butchered in the bombing, until we have details of the victims origins. We are concerned about our fellow countrymen here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.187.165 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If we ever have a table again, we will obviously include all nationalities of victims and not just Western victims, and will not be excluding any victims of Arabic descent or heritage or "Islamic heritage". At the moment the details are limited so if we did add a table it's likely to be serious incomplete. Note that there's a good chance the table will only include nationalities, not whether the victims of Arabic or any other descent or heritage. Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to sanitize but to provide reliable information to the general public. As more details come in, then a table would be appropriately completed. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record...

Wikipedia still refers to the terrorist group Daesh as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Please do not change it to Daesh; this is a name commonly used by the media, and, as I have said before, it is not the name used within its Wikipedia article. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion, but I think the first step would be to rename the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I have no objection to the article being renamed. If the article is renamed, then one may refer to ISIL as Daesh within this article. Just seems logical enough. Are you in favour of renaming the article? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion, but it should be discussed at that article talk page, not here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. I never heard of "Daesh" before. Is that the same as ISIL?--Nowa (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course, Ymblanter. My apologies. I do not have a strong opinion on it myself and will therefore not participate. Until another editor does decide to start a discussion, then let's just refer to ISIL by the name used on their Wikipedia article. Nowa, Daesh is a name for ISIL being used by some media outlets who feel as if calling the terrorist group "Islamic" implies that they are committing acts of terrorism due to their religious beliefs, and that this draws negative attention towards the Islam faith. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.--Nowa (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Nowa. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is blatantly false that "Wikipedia" refers to the Islamic State terrorist organisation as "daesh" (the French government's politically correct term) or as "isis" (the U.S. government's politically correct term). Most of the Wikipedia avoids being servile to the U.S. and French governments and call the Islamic State what the Islamic State calls itself:
Spanish Wikipedia: Estado Islámico https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Islámico
Italian Wikipedia: Stato Islamico https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stato_Islamico
German Wikipedia: Islamischer Staat (Organisation) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamischer_Staat_(Organisation)
French Wikipedia: État islamique (organisation) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/État_islamique_(organisation)
It is well known, for instance, that the BBC calls the Islamic State "Islamic State," for example. http://www.bbc.com/news/24758587 XavierItzm (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm sure you'd love to scream "politically correct!" as it's the new fad to moan about when it comes to certain circles, but the fact is that the French started calling the group "Daesh" strictly because the Arabic world does and because it's considered to be an especially insulting term by the organization itself. Shah massoud (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said that, XavierItzm - in fact, I said the opposite; I said that Wikipedia doesn't refer to ISIL as Daesh. The BBC calls them "the so-called Islamic State", I suppose in a way in an attempt to steer away the negative attention towards the Islam faith. Furthermore, one could easily see the word "Daesh" as an NPOV violation, based on the fact that Daesh is considered to be an insult to the organisation (thanks Shah massoud!). Therefore, of course we should be calling them ISIL on Wikipedia. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that the BBC's use is not entirely consistent, in the overwhelming majority of cases of the time in the last 12 months or so the BBC refers to the Islamic State as Islamic State. It is only on occasion that the BBC uses, somewhere along an entire article, the expression "so-called." XavierItzm (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Najim Laachraoui's name

Currently the article reads "Najim Laachraoui (correct spelling: Necim Laachrawi....)"; a google search of "Necim Laachrawi" returns no result at all, so where does this "correct spelling" come from? Sofeshue (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

5 suspects

There's another suspect involved with the Metro bombing. [2] Please add to the infobox. 199.195.226.171 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Arrest in Turkey, deportation.

Most media reports about the so-called deportation are inaccurate. The Dutch parliament was supposed to have a debate about it, but the letter from the government arrived late. In short, the letter says:

the Turkish authorities asked Ibrahim El Bakraoui to leave the country and arranged a ticket on a flight from Istanbul to Amsterdam for him. The reason was not known to the Dutch authorities. At 14 July, 10.14, a message was posted on the portal of the Turkish foreign Affairs ministry in the mailbox of the Dutch embassy in Ankara, marked "very urgent". The message only mentions that Ibrahim (and a German national, name redacted on request of the German authorities) "will be provided a departure from Istanbul Sabiha Gokcen Airport to Holland/Amsterdam on july 14, 2015, at 10:40 hrs with a Pegasus Airline plane, flight number PC671." (screenshot) No other info was given, no action was requested. Similar messages were placed in the mailboxes of the German (July 13) and Belgian embassies (July 14). This was not the standard procedure used in such a case, normally the police services contact each other via the direct policeline(?). There have been about 40 cases that year, in only six of them the portal was used, in all but one (this one) there was also direct contact between police services. In such cases the Turkish authorities always inform them about any terrorism or radicalization related issues.

The portal is primarily used for "normal" messaging, the only way to know that a message is urgent is by opening and reading it. The police and immigration services did not see the notice at the time. Bakraoui did indeed arrive on the flight. The next day the Belgian police liaison contacted his Dutch colleague in Ankara, saying he received the message from the Turkish authorities. The Dutch police checked their databases, no info (warrants, notices?) on the individual was found. Since it was a Belgian national, there were no outstanding warrants, and the flight had already occurred, no action was taken. The German officials never contacted the Dutch services about "their" passenger.

Turkish officials told the Dutch government that the statements made by the Turkish president were based on the message posted on July 14 on the portal.

So in contrast to what the article claims, there were no warnings, neither was Ibrahim "released" by the Dutch authorities: he arrived in Amsterdam as a normal passenger and there was no contact with the Dutch police services. The letter from minister van der Steur: http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/sites/default/files/content/documents/2016/03/24/brief_steur.pdf Prevalence 01:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dates of birth

@LowSelfEstidle: I'm not sure if the perpetrators' dates of birth really add much to our knowledge of the event. Firebrace (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, @Firebrace:! Feel free to remove them. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

First two sentences in background section

Belgium is an active participant in the ongoing military intervention against ISIL in Iraq. Proportional to its population, Belgium has the highest number of foreign fighters of any Western European country, with an estimated 440 having left for Syria and Iraq as of January 2015.

This is easily misunderstood. The fighters of the second sentence have nothing to do with the intervention of the first sentence, in fact, they fight on the other side. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reword it. This is, after all, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". --Elektrik Fanne 18:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of template

@WWGB: I would like to know why you removed the November 2015 Paris attacks template. It's been judged to have some connection to those attacks because some Brussels suspects were also involved in the planning stages. Also, I did try to remove the Brussels bombings from the template, only for that to be reverted, so I'm assuming it's important enough to be included in that template. Parsley Man (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

background

In the article is stated that Belgium provides most foreign fighters (citate needed); the correct way is saying most fighters per capita. Source: ICSR (through BBC  :http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35870957) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.106.92 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

The names of the brothers have been confused. "Khalid died in one of the suicide bombings at Brussels Airport, while Ibrahim committed the bombing at the metro station, in which he also died." should be changed to "Ibrahim died in one of the suicide bombings at Brussels Airport, while Khalid committed the bombing at the metro station, in which he also died." Allmogen (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Source says: "The siblings were identified Wednesday by prosecutors in Belgium who said Ibrahim, 30, detonated a bomb at Brussels Airport while Khalid, 27, blew himself up in the city's subway system." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No shootings, no weapons

The procuror reported today around noon that no evidence of any gun/rifle was found, see https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_attenats-de-bruxelles-et-paris-un-suspect-interpelle-a-anderlecht?id=9249575 ("Frédéric Van Leeuw confirme également qu'aucune arme de guerre n'a été trouvée à l'aéroport." -> "Frédéric Van Leeuw also confirmed that no war weapon was found at the airport."). Please remove the references about those. 217.136.252.185 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Does "arme de guerre" translate as "weapon of war" or as "firearm" generally? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Firearm" is "arme à feu". "Arme de guerre" refers to weapons used in a war, like the AK-47 that some newspapers initially reported. In today's recaps on all the main Belgian TV channels, both Flemish and French-speaking, none mentioned firearms of any kind:only bombs. The shoutings in Arabic were also confirmed, but no firearms at all. Also, the way the sentence is written is kind of a denial of what was previously reported in the way that they felt necessary to deny that piece of information. 217.136.252.185 (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeline is incorrect

Timeline says "8:15 am : threat level raised to max". I understand the timeline is local time. The reference for that piece of info speaks in UTC, making it 9:15 instead of 8:15 for the increase of threat level. This is mirrored by Belgian sources who say 9:15 local time. 217.136.252.185 (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Firebrace (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Bombings

I'm sure it was 30 people who died in the Brussels attack not 31. Hs2107 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Find a source to back up that claim! Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying for definite it was 30, I thought it was at first, these articles about the Brussels attacks say figures such as at least as 30 [3], I did presume that when it said at least 30 I thought it was exactly 30, but maybe not since this article says 31 [4]. Hs2107 (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, as time passes, the figures will become more accurate, and then we'll have an exact number. If sources end up contradicting one another (some say 30, some say 31), form a further discussion on this talk page explaining the situation. Cheers! Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Brothers arrested after having escaped from the raid, then released

March 16 article here says so:

"Police in Brussels hunting terror suspects linked to last November's ISIS massacre in Paris earlier detained two men after a dramatic raid on an apartment in which the Algerian accomplice was killed and four officers were wounded.

All three of those arrested or killed are thought to have links to the deadly ISIS-inspired attacks on the French capital, which left 130 dead.

At a press conference this morning, the prosecutor said one of the detained men had been arrested after arriving at a Brussels hospital with a broken leg.

Brothers Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui, who were named in Belgian media, are believed to be the two men detained after fleeing the scene yesterday afternoon.

The men are reportedly known for their links with violent crime in the Brussels area"

Both are named in this March 16 article. They were apparently arrested, then released, even though authorities had been looking for them after the raid. 45.72.144.60 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Toto

Did you also read: "one of the detained men had been arrested after arriving at a Brussels hospital with a broken leg"? Would have been a miraculous recovery, if it was indeed one of the brothers... Prevalence 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

References

King's Address

Should the King of Belgium's address to the people after the attack be added here? It's on the response to brussels bombing attack, but I feel like It shouldn't be lumped together with all the other responses from heads of states. 2602:306:CD3C:CB70:A06B:DC03:6823:14CF (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think King Philippe's Speech should defiantly be added. He is the head of state for that country. Arg Matey (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any objections, so I moved it here, under the heading responses Arg Matey (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the "Timeline of attacks"

I believe we should try to keep the timeline in this article short and concise, like the one in the November 2015 Paris attacks-article, but instead of deleting relevant details, I think we should move them into a new article. The article can be called "Timeline of the 2016 Brussels bombings", and will look like the Timeline of the 2005 London bombings-article. WP:PROSPLIT recommends a "Split" discussion, so, is it ok to split the timeline, leaving only the most relevant part of the timeline her? Erlbaeko (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with reducing the timeline. 8:00, 8:40, 11:50, 13:36 and 13:57 can be deleted. No to creating a timeline article... Firebrace (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I take that as oppose. What's your problem with a timeline article? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose because the timeline box can easily be trimmed. A short stub is not needed for such a short timeline. 100.12.87.210 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I have no opposition to the concept of a timeline article. There doesn't appear to be any policy/guidelines on it and I'm not sure to what extent our "list article" guidelines can be applied. Anyway, as others have pointed out, the timeline needs to be trimmed. I was expecting the timeline to be just about the attacks (because of its title), but it also includes the aftermath. IMO the exact times of the aftermath events and press released are not as relevant. It should probably end somewhere at 9:11. At this point, the timeline doesn't need to be auto-hidden and a split would be pointless.
  tl;dr the timeline of events in the aftermaths (post-9:11) should be moved as prose into the aftermath section (if it hasn't already). Jolly Ω Janner 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The timeline we have right now is already particularly short to begin with, and its length is obviously not enough to support a full article. I also second the suggestion of reducing the timeline. Parsley Man (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted 8:00, 8:40, 11:50, 13:36 and 13:57, and removed the auto-hidden option. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there's not enough material to split the timeline. Kiwifist (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Location of impact

Is the location of the bombing in the airport correct? Standaard.be mentiones one near the Starbucks/British/Brussels Airlines (these are very close to each other), and the other one in the other departure hall. Looking at the images, It seems Standaard is correct. http://s3.standaardcdn.be/Assets/Images_Upload/2016/03/22/160322_DS4_Zaventem.jpg?maxheight=416&maxwidth=568&format=jpg 2A02:1810:9420:2E00:206D:4435:2710:5E1F (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure, but the coordinates are based on this map form BBC. I believe Standaard published an updated map, on 23.3. Ref. OVERZICHT. Wat we weten over de aanslagen. That seems to be consistent with this map form The Wall Street Journal. Shall we change it to 50.8985197°N 4.483012°E / 50.8985197; 4.483012 (Brussels Airport first explosion) and 50.8974438°N 4.4840848°E / 50.8974438; 4.4840848 (Brussels Airport first explosion), using the WSJ-article as the source? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Description 1 should be in the Starbucks/British/Brussels Airlines triangle. The other one is in the other departure hall, where low-cost and tour operators are.2A02:1810:9420:2E00:1CBA:B2D1:17AF:2633 (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment originally in a new section but moved here...

This shows that the comment below is not a reaction but independently thought of and thought to be of concern.

infobox coordinates is original research and not wikipedia compliant

The infobox has coordinates. This seems to be original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. I looked up the references and the BBC News article doesn't give the coordinates.

I suggest removing the coordinates but identifying the spot as much as we know. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have left a message about this at WP:OR/N#Coordinates. Firebrace (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the coordinates are transfeered from a drawing onto a map. Guess that is or. You can use this map instead, if you like. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL

Can an editor who works on terrorism-related topics take a look at this new page that discusses the dead in last week's Brussels bombings as casualties not of ISIL terrorism but, rather, as Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui

Just bringing this page to editors attention to query if it should be merged or re-directed here. Ibrahim el-Bakraoui and Khalid el-Bakraoui already re-direct here. --220 of ^Borg 09:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I redirected it, since all that info is already in the section about them here. Looks like the author didn't realise this when making the translate, since FrWiki have a spin-off article about them. Jolly Ω Janner 09:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, (too bad I was trying to clean it up a bit at the same time ;-D!) If all the info is here then a redirects' likely the best. 220 of ^Borg 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

opinion

Год назад, когда произошли теракты в редакции "Шарли Эбдо", эта новость застала меня в Донецке, где как раз началось самое серьезное обострение со времен первого "Минска", которое я в тогдашнем репортаже охарактеризовал как "кровавое Рождество": каждый день горели дома, каждый день гибли люди. Но вся Европа вешала на себя ленточки с надписью "Я Шарли!". Шарли назвал себя и президент Украины, на чьих руках крови в тот момент было уже поболее, чем на руках всех террористов, когда-либо что-то взрывавших в Европе вместе взятых. И европейские лидеры жали эти руки.

http://ren.tv/blog/84346 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.198.164 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Пожалуйста, обсудите в русской википедии

Translation: Please discuss this in the Russian language Wikipedia. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This is soapboxing and should not be discussed in any Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I only know a few bits of Russian and cannot understand the original edit in Russian. But, if soapboxing, I agree. My comments above were only because I couldn't understand it. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of Dead

Please correct the casualty figures. 28 victims, with 3 suicide bombers, equals a total of 31 people dead.

This is stated in the following CNN article: "The rally was set to mark the terror attacks that killed 28 people from various nations. (Belgian authorities said Saturday that the widely reported death toll of 31 included the three suicide attackers, putting the victims' tally at 28.)" Link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/27/europe/brussels-investigation-main/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.109.238 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've also changed the injured from 340 to "over 300" as that's what the source goes for. Jolly Ω Janner 19:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Careful editors, 3 errors found

I have found 3 errors and a 4th imprecise statement. Please be careful when editing! Thank you. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC) ~ Found and corrected more errors. Please be careful. There are probably several more errors. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please use reliable sources to back up your "corrections". Jolly Ω Janner 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not make "corrections". I made corrections. It is very alarming to come to Wikipedia, read an article quickly and see a bunch of errors. This is bad for Wikipedia. eople who correct errors should be applauded, not attacked or belittled.

There is no ambassador to the UN. It is a Permanent Representative. See http://www.un.org/press/en/2013/bio4451.doc.htm

There was no mention of the 3rd bomb, just 2, at least in the beginning. This is an error which was corrected.

The video is in the article. It shows men pushing carts not suitcases. The suitcases are on the carts. Very easy to see. No reliable source says they were pushing suitcases, except Wikipedia, but no reference.

Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to belittle you, but to help. Sorry if you took the quotation marks the wrong way. Jolly Ω Janner 05:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Whiskeymouth: Before adding "new" information it helps if you read the entire section to see if it's already there. Please be careful. Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

general direction for article

The pace of improvement of this article isn't like some articles which a lot of editors fix up right away as soon as the news breaks. Therefore, I ask that you keep the following things in mind because I do not want to enter a battleground right now.

1. There should be improved summarizing of the events as they happen. Too often, the prose on Wikipedia is similar to "On 6 June, this happened". Next paragraph, "On 8 June, that happened>"

2. Some specific info that is breaking news. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/world/europe/brussels-attacks.html?_r=0 Police Misidentify Suspect as Brussels Airport Attacker

3. Try to settle the contentious names. Some settled matters in Wikipedia is that both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan claim the name of China. Wikipedia should be neutral even though the People's Republic of China has been very aggressive and successful to get many people to think of them as China. Another matter is the Flemish/French names, such as Maalbeek/Maelbeek. There, the French speakers have been able to push their way with the American audience due to a greater number of French speakers in the U.S. and few Flemish speakers. However, we should abide by the Wikipedia rule to be as neutral as possible. Luckily, the Irish question is not a part of this article.

3. The airport bombing is a little short on details. Location of bombs, how it affected the airport (Brussels Airlines started a hub in Liege, Antwerpen/Anvers, Frankfurt, and Zurch). Jet Airways is ending its hub at Brussels early as a result. They are leaving town, in other words.

4. The metro bombing details are a little short compared to the terrorists' bios.

5. There should be more free use photos, if at all possible.

6. Consider having an infobox on the dead at the airport and the dead at the metro station. It is not clear now.

7. The number of dead should be consistent in the article. This is different info in the article versus the infoboxes. 34, 35, 38, etc.

Good luck! I am not here to debate so take these suggestions if you agree, but do not take advantage of me not being here to criticize them. If you don't like them, just let it go.

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 20:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Death Toll Revised Lower - Please Change

The Belgian authorities have lowered the victim death toll to 32 not including the 3 murderers. Link - http://news.yahoo.com/belgium-resumes-hunt-airport-suspect-criticism-mounts-004723635.html;_ylt=A0LEVy031fpW2TIAyaJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNmJjZWttBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE3OTJfMQRzZWMDc2M

Or http://news.yahoo.com/belgium-resumes-hunt-airport-suspect-criticism-mounts-004723635.html if that first one looks suspicious. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There are inconsistencies between the prose and the table regarding deaths and injuries. I understand that the official information may change with time, however, whoever makes a change should validate the complete article, not just a table. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Trivia

"Hours after the attack the French-language hashtag #JeSuisBruxelles (#IamBrussels), the Dutch-language #ikwilhelpen (#iwanttohelp)[96] and images of the Belgian comic character Tintin crying trended on social media sites."

This seems like trivial information that should be removed. It doesn't give any context as to why it's important to the bombings. If this occured before the time of Twitter, it would be akin to claiming "news of the attack was a much-talked about topic among nearby residents". The Tintin story is rather odd. I would normally be bold, but these highly visible articles have a habit of attracting a "keep everything" mentality as well as 1RR. Jolly Ω Janner 05:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep, Expand, and possibly move to Reactions page or standalone page (Crying Tintin/Je suis Bruxelles). Encyclopedic content documenting social reaction. For similar phenomenon, see Je suis Charlie. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete A good rule of thumb is that if content won't stand the test of time, it should go. Anyone reading the article in 10 years' time – probably even 5 years – isn't going to care what the social media reaction was on Twitter (a by-then-obsolete medium). Few people care in 2016... Firebrace (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The "Je suis Charlie" phenomenon was the one that started an infinite wave of "Je suis something" copies, including this one, but those are infinitely less notable than the original. Something that starts a long-term popular "meme" may be notable, but not every subsequent incarnation of it is (more often than not, none is). LjL (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete What hashtag is used is irrelevent, of course this event will trend on social media. If high quality RS comment on this over time then it would be possible to revisit the matter but until then this is useless trivia which has no place in an encyclopedia. Jbh^Talk 00:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep, Expand. Talking about the reaction on social media is a very good idea - this is a good nucleus to grow a more detailed section about that from FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• 3O request One of you requested a third opinion on this dispute. However, I'm afraid that since a) there are a large number of editors already involved, and b) the dispute has not been discussed in detail, a 3O would not be appropriate right now, per the 3O guidelines. I would suggest discussing this issue in more detail, and if the dispute persists, an RfC might be helpful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, Vanamonde. When I originally requested the 3rd opinion, we only had two opinions here, but I forgot to take it down after others commented. Jolly Ω Janner 02:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like most users have had a chance to express any points on the matter. One editor has suggested that the material is "Encyclopedic content documenting social reaction" while another that "Talking about the reaction on social media is a very good idea". As there is clearly no overwhelming consensus to remove it, I think the best way forward is to ask if there are any underlying reasons for its inclusion. As of yet, these seem to just be opinions rather than rational reasoning based on Wikipedia's objective. Jolly Ω Janner 02:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion there is sufficient consensus to move to Reactions page for the time being, perhaps wait sometime afterwards to assess if social media response is of encyclopedic value, which to the best of my knowledge, is. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the reactions article, so I've just removed it. Hopefully by using the reactions article as a dumping ground for non encyclopedic content, we can delete it all in one fell swoop. Jolly Ω Janner 21:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Disproportionate emphasis placed on the attacks in Brussels compared with similar attacks in other countries

So, the 5 or 6 citations for the above statement currently included in the article (overcite much?) seem to be all based on editorial articles on what otherwise may or may not be WP:RS. Funny, in other articles the WP:Police always seems to show up in a nano-second to delete/expunge/obliterate/nuke-from-orbit anything and everything unless it comes straight up strictly from the "news" section. Never mind of course that the reason why the Brussels attacks are of interest is that these were Islamic State (IS) attacks on Westerners, a subject that tends to resonate more with Western audiences than, say, the old Kurd-Turk ethnic war. XavierItzm (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it and would suggest we use a tertiary source instead of a collection of our own cherry picked secondary sources. Jolly Ω Janner 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it was at the very end of the article, cited from sources that are generally considered reliable (maybe too many, but that can easily be solved by pruning them), and it's something that has definitely echoed in the media when comparing attacks on the West with, particularly, ones in Turkey. In general, also, Wikipedia favors secondary sources over tertiary (or primary) unless the tertiary ones can provide a broad summary in a way that secondary source can't (see WP:ANALYSIS), but in this case, the statement was already a short summary of an issue. LjL (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My own understanding of it is that it has occurred among many news sources, so it might actually be notable enough for inclusion in the article. The only problem I have is proving this and that's why I suggested resorting to a tertiary source, because it will help decipher what belongs only in news and what might be relevant to an encyclopedia. And yes, we would only ever need a single sentence of this discussion so a tertiary source would provide the minimum amount of detail. I might be inclined to support a sentence if is linked to a single secondary source that devotes itself to something other than Twitter. Jolly Ω Janner 18:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What about this? The publishing platform isn't too orthodox, but since we don't want newspapers and books are some time in the future, this sort may have to be considered. It only has an online presence but it isn't a blog, it appears to have editorial control, and the author of this specific piece appears to have decent credentials. It can be called an opinion piece, but at least it doesn't try to be something different from an opinion piece by citing Twitter and Facebook as "sources". LjL (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this opinion piece. It seems to exaggerate the facts "Three terrorist attacks in five months just in Ankara alone and no global sympathy to show for it." or be US-centric "One of these European capitals received significant media coverage in the United States and one did not." I'd prefer an article from a news source which isn't so "newsy" shall we say? Independent, CNN etc. seem much better than the original sources we had. Jolly Ω Janner 20:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Erm, the way you put it sounds funny because you say the Independent seems much better than... the Independent. But yeah, I get the difference in POV. LjL (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And we need more on Mali and Ivory Coast 2016 attacks.79.77.200.253 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the 2016 Bamako attack, it gets more ink here than the 2016 United States Capitol shooting incident does. Score one for the little guy? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

UKIP is rapped

UKIP 'used' the Brussels Attacks to Make Brexit Case. Nigel Farage is called "shameful" by David Cameron for using the Brussels attacks to make the case for the UK to leave the European Union. Mike Hookem said the attacks illustrated that freedom of movement in the bloc was a 'security threat'. UKIP called for the ethnic cleansing of all immigrants, the closure of all borders and leavening the EU. 79.77.220.42 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And if Britain left the EU: how would that change the freedom of movement within mainland Europe? Not one bit, so it's a non argument. --Elektrik Fanne 17:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

David Cameron has slammed UKIP's extremist views on it. 79.77.214.229 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

Add to the end of section "Background" a sentence summarizing this article, https://www.yahoo.com/news/belgian-suspects-lawyer-plans-action-against-prosecutor-111632455.html.

Example: The captured suspect, Salah Abdeslam, confessed to authorities about planned attack in Brussels for which he had several weapons.

Add Salah Abdeslam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Abdeslam) to "See Also". klubalj (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: I see nothing in that Yahoo article stating that Abdeslam was planning attacks in Brussels, but only "operations from Brussels" (which sounds reasonable since he was living there). Even less does the article claim that the weapons found were for any specific attack. LjL (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Table detailing nationalities of deaths/injuries?

8 French were injured in the bombing. Shouldn't a table be created detailing the nationalities?

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/03/22/97001-20160322FILWWW00331-attentats-de-bruxelles-8-francais-blesses.php?link_time=1458673668#xtor=AL-155-[facebook] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanvh96 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep!79.77.220.42 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Other articles include a table of the nationalities of the dead, not the injured, e.g. November 2015 Paris attacks#Casualties, Casualties of the September 11 attacks. There's no reason why we should list the nationalities of the injured here. Better to wait until we have more information. Cmeiqnj (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Overview

A number of countries, national leaders and international organisations expressed comments or lit monuments in reaction to the 2016 Brussels bombings.79.77.214.236 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Victims

Nation.	Dead.	Wounded.
Peru	1
Morocco	1
USA	2	13-15
Turkey		1
UK		2-4
Italy		3
Colombia		2
India		2
Ecuador		1
Belgium		1
France	1	8-11
Netherlands	2
Unknown	24	Circa ~220

References

79.77.214.236 (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Most nationalities are not known, so it really isn't helpful. Also, considering that the data is compiled from so many different sources, it would suggest that the nationalities isn't documented profusely among reliable sources. This further deceases the notability and thus weight that should be applied to such a table. Brussels is a cosmopolitan city and a range of nationalities is to be expected. AFAIK, these attacks were not targeted at any specific nationalities. Jolly Ω Janner 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful to know nationalities at the metro station. Were they all Belgian?Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources about American missionaries, relative of former U.S. Ambassador, etc. Surprisingly, unlike many Wikipedia article, not in this article. If you want proof that it is in other Wikipedia article, then look. Not hard to find. I am not looking for a long list, merely some people that were covered somewhat extensively in the press. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've checked several sources (RPT, CNN, The Guardian and even Buzzfeed) and it seems there are no Swiss deaths. Maybe once all the nationalities are released, we can update/correct the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.188.59.122 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Image for Locations

Location of the metro station in Maalbeek (marked red)

I have just added this image to show the location of the station in the subtitle Maelbeek/Maalbeek metro station, but was removed by the user without consensus (and left no comment at his talk page), and only the argument is no English-language text (there is also English text in the thumb) the text that is showed in the picture is not the most important but the specific place , it is an idea, no obligation. BerendWorst (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Re-add it, Sir; readd it!79.77.220.42 (talk)

I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the map itself, regardless of language, should be included; however, I think that just the legend not being in English isn't enough grounds for removal. Check the rough consensus here: the reasoning seems sound to me that images (including maps) are mostly important for their visual content, so while added-on text may be translated if someone steps up to do it, it is not compulsory. LjL (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't whine about stuff being removed "without consensus" if you didn't even seek consensus to add it. Thanks. What point are you trying to illustrate with this map? Firebrace (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The specific location in the area, in the European area, clear map (otherwise I would still make it clearer with Paint if needs) and I find you rather play the boss on the article, regards BerendWorst (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The location (centre of Brussels) is mentioned several times in the article. Firebrace (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

this is only for the subtitle of the subway station, again (see here and here). it is an idea not a form of sentence by nagging what you want to believe, BerendWorst (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias have their own styles. The French article has a PR photo of Barack Obama talking on the phone (like we can't imagine how that looks) as the lead image, for instance. Maybe that's just how they do things over there but I find it ridiculous. And I'm not the one who's nagging... Firebrace (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new map to the infobox. Any suggestions/comments are welcome. -- Veggies (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Change the lead?

I feel that this article's lead should be reworded, but I'd rather have consensus established first, given the high level of activity here.

Right now, the lead states the "three explosions occurred in Belgium." To me, this doesn't satisfy the actual significance of the event; these weren't just explosions. They were deliberate terrorist attacks, a fact which should be presented as such. I suggest a change to this, or something like it:

"On the morning of 22 March 2016, three coordinated bombings occurred in Belgium..."

Anyone have any thoughts? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Ugly Ketchup (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Do it. LjL (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Just changed it. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough but just source the coordinated so its not construed as OR. houldnt be hard.Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The many sources used for the rest of the article show that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks, and that they were planned to occur on the same day. I think that satisfies OR in proving that the attacks were coordinated, but feel free to add a reference if you still feel one is needed. Over and out, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 17:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

A timeline has been added to Location of the bombings. It takes up a lot of room, and spans the entire page on the mobile version of Wikipedia. [5] I feel the timeline should have its own section lower down the article. What do others think? Firebrace (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it needs its own section. It could stand to be shorter. There's no need to list the precise times when each transport system stopped operating. Cmeiqnj (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The information in the timeline should be converted to prose; some of it is already discussed elsewhere in the article. A new section should be added for the attacks, like the one in November 2015 Paris attacks. Do away with the timeline altogether once this is done. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The section you refer to in November 2015 Paris attacks has a timeline. Cmeiqnj (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right; it has a timeline, but the timeline is not as expansive because the information is in prose form adjacent to the table. While the table is acceptable in either case, it seems a bit redundant in my opinion to include the same information twice. That is, however, just an opinion; if consensus dictates otherwise, I'm for keeping the timeline. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the timeline can be converted to prose, and the information in the box condensed. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Cmeiqnj (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Support prose, especially now that its not breaking news.Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this article only need a short timeline with the most important events (like the one in the November 2015 Paris attacks-article). A separat article should be created to allow more details. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stats presentation

@Parsley Man: I always think it is unfeeling to put the victims and attackers together like that. They're not really in the same boat. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That is completely subjective. What about all the mass shooting articles? Every single one does that and I don't see any arguments there. Parsley Man (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Please see the discussion here which in turn links to previous discussions on other terrorism-related articles. Do we need to argue the same thing over and over again, including with false claims that "no other article does it like that"? No, Parsley Man, not every single one does that. LjL (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, judging by the discussion you linked, we need to rename the "Victims" thing, because it is not very insightful if the article leaves out the perp as a fatality. Parsley Man (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "Deaths" IS being used in this article and not "Victims", just like every mass murder article there is on Wikipedia. So, I don't see what the problem is if we're not calling the perps "victims" here (which they are not, I will agree on that). Parsley Man (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two aspects to what was discussed. 1) Should "deaths" of "victims" be used? 2) If "victims", then should the perpetrators be included?

My take is that "victims" should be used and the perpetrators should be kept separate. "Deaths" would lump two categories of affected people that most consider very different together. Yes, Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, but that doesn't mean it should lump the murderer and the murdered together just because if you don't do that, you may be accused of showing a non-neutral "feeling" about it (hi InedibleHulk). LjL (talk)

Actually, it does. Calling people victims and leaving the perp out of official numbers seems more emotional than lumping the perp and the deceased together under one shared number. Parsley Man (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you insist on dragging me to bombings, sir? What's good for Istanbul is good for Brussels, in my book. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: because if I only "dragged" the editors who favor my point of view I would be accused of canvassing, for starters. So I called everyone who had been involved in the discussion. I'm not a fan of having this discussion in various places either, but according to Parsley Man, this is the only article where it's not done like you'd both like, so I think if we've had this discussion in other places or even if other articles actually do it differently, it must be only in your/my imagination ;-) LjL (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we can all agree there are just too many damn articles about mass death lately. Hard to keep track of the style in each, indeed. Sometimes I think we should just list everyone in one, solid article about the conflict between good and evil. But that, of course, is stupid. Thanks for explaining! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As I tried to say above, avoiding something that makes sense for most readers just out of fear that it "seems more emotional" is undesirable, and not quite what the guidelines about emotions say. What is desirable is to avoid doing things that would be only done because of emotions, which is quite different; but here, there are pretty common-sense reasons to keep perpetrators and victims separate: the fact that most sources would do that, and that most readers would expect it. LjL (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As it stands is surely best; and user:Parsley Man it matches many other pages. The most objective way is to place the two numbers separate; civilians and attackers. It removes ambiguity over the total deaths too. It looks respectable; can't we just leave it as is? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not common sense, that is out of emotion. I have seen the discussions about it; people cry over lumping all of the dead together and think it's some sort of insult to the people who were murdered. See the discussion you just linked to! That's exactly what is happening! And what ambiguity, De la Marck? Also, "respectable". SEE! THAT'S what I mean about emotions! People think they're respecting the murdered but there is no need to do that because we're not using the "Victims" part of the infobox. If we were, then I guess this conversation would've ended a whole lot sooner! Parsley Man (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether we're using the "Victims" entry is a technicality. Are you saying that you would agree to use it and only list the number of victims (not including perpetrators) in that entry, and the perpetrators separately in the "Perpetrators" entry? If so, then I would certainly agree with that solution (but it's the same as now, except implemented with a technical difference...). LjL (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If that makes everyone shut up about the whole thing. But we're going to have to do the same thing with every other mass murder article in Wikipedia if it comes down to this. Parsley Man (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

By respectable I only meant what you'd find in a respectable journalistic presentation. Why can't it stand as is? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, you're talking about a huge overhaul of many articles... Parsley Man (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? Or impossible?Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary, because if one article is not the same, then it's not perfect. Parsley Man (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is time and you shouldn't fret just because other articles are different. Let's argue on merits and consensus instead. LjL (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Tell that to this guy. But seriously, don't. I'm planning to hire a robot to do the job all at once. Automation might be an option for all these articles, too. Once there's consensus for the program, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Then it's not perfect" – subjective. Firebrace (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect getting every article to be the way Parsley Man favors would involve "a huge overhaul of many articles", too, since I really do not believe there isn't a single article that follows the victims/perpetrators paradigm; in fact, I believe there are many, especially those including suicide bombers. LjL (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, everything needs to match up, because perfection is key. Parsley Man (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing matches up now - why must it? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Whose idea of perfection are we using here? Firebrace (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

:'( :'( :'( Parsley Man (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Most people who read this article are never going to see the others. It doesn't matter if they look different. Firebrace (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. We're not here today because a bomb went off. We're here because Western terrorism is sexy as hell (in a front page sense). People will read what the news tells them to read. And, oh God, will they edit! Same deal it ever is. The general rule is that most people who read this article will read it this week. Next week, they'll read the new one, and if it doesn't follow the formula of the last one, it'll gnaw at their subconscious (or just overtly bug them). Can't have that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Background section can give support to Daesh/ISIL

We must be cautious to have this background section because it can give an excuse to wny Daesh would be justified in the bombing. They have not a shred of excuse for it.

I will think of an alternative. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If the background section contains inaccuracies or unverified material, it can be challenged, but Wikipedia doesn't suppress information just because it could be interpreted as favoring parties you wouldn't like seeing favored. LjL (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia neutral towards IS? Or are we allowed to be against what the human race in general is against?Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that whether you like it or not, members of IS are also members of the human race (and given what other members of the human race have done in the past and will likely do in the future, I'd find it pretty hypocritical to try and get away with their actions by disclaiming them as part of our "race"); we have to follow sources and Wikipedia guidelines, and we have to be an encyclopedia, which means not being "for" or "against" anything since that's not its purpose. LjL (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We must be neutral. The entire human race is not against ISIL, as its very existence indicates. We are striving for verifiability, not righting great wrongs. epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We must be neutral. ISIS is a terrorist organisation. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot of things. Seven hundred sources there, and many sections are tagged for expansion. Can't boil all that down to "terrorist scum" anymore than you can sum up Belgium with "waffles". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Separate into 2016 Zaventem airport bombing

This would allow links to various airport attacks, such as Rome and Vienna 1985, New York LaGuardia, etc. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this. The attacks were clearly concerted and part of a single event in everyone's minds, and should be kept as one article at least unless/until enough notable details emerge about each of them to warrant a WP:SPINOUT. LjL (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this, too. It isn't solely the airport that was bombed. Why do you want airport bombing links anyway? You can put them in this article's See Also section. epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with both above. Maybe a consolidated see also to address the OP concerns?Lihaas (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this too. The bombs at the airport are within scope as shown by reliable sources covering the event. It is also not too large to require splitting (at this point in time). The editor requesting the split as also expressed concern that they do not wish to overwhelm the article. My advice would be to continue adding relevant material. If, after such edits, we feel there is too much useful content (let's say at least triple its current length?), we can return to the discussion. How does Ensign Hapuna feel about removing the tag until then? Jolly Ω Janner 19:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The text below was copied from a different sub-heading, but duplicates this topic

• For splitting the airport bombing article Eventually, the article will become too unwieldy so the airport bombings should be a separate article. If not now, then certainly a few weeks from now. If it is not a separate article, it inhibits writing (at least by me) because I don't want to overwhelm the current article. It already has a reactions article and the airport bombing is more important to the reader than reactions. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You already suggested it here, and guess how everyone reacted? I oppose this for the same reasons as above. Parsley Man (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone else put a tag suggesting spilt and link to talk. Since I didn't see any talk, I started this section. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Really don't know why, then. Only one person wanted it and that was obviously you. Parsley Man (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose because this is about two closely related bombings, one of which is the airport article. 100.12.87.210 (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose part of same event. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag from the article, because of such overwhelming opposition. Also, this talk page is highly visible, so we don't need to advertise the discussion on the article page. Jolly Ω Janner 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Arrest of Salah Abdeslam

"Did arrest of Salah Abdeslam accelerate a planned atrocity?" [6] This is not even suggested in the article. It seems very obvious and many analysts are suggesting it. 217.38.159.206 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait till they answer that question. This law says it's "no". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable in context of raids preceding (and paris, etc) but logically 4 days for a coordinated operation (and one escaped attacker to probs wait for a raid in a few days and grab headlines again (or months?)) is too short in planning.

Ive studied this in my masters and bachelors thesis.Lihaas (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

NOTFORUM. Cool story, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoa. That timestamp wasn't on purpose. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Man, what you fating ;)Lihaas (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

1RR

@Parsley Man: You have made 8 3 reverts since the one-revert rule was imposed: [7], [8], [9]. "Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users". For a detailed explanation of what this means, see WP:1RR. Firebrace (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Since when was that implemented? Last I checked, it was still under consideration. Parsley Man (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

21:32 UTC. So you're at three now, not eight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Consideration? No, you were actually notified of the discretionary sanctions on articles involving Syria and ISIL, and this article falls under that umbrella since the perpetrators are ISIL. There is no procedure to "consider" an article to fall under these sanctions; it automatically does based on its topic.

I don't particularly like the way the sanctions system works, but we're all on equal footing. LjL (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Aye. Fuck this fair system! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A system that decrees "everyone will be shot dead with no distinctions" is fair. LjL (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In theory. Hard to enforce it online, and if we managed, dial-uppers would have far more time to duck. Can you imagine the edit conflicts on recent terror articles if the survivors were all still partying like it was 1999? It'd be downright brutal. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I misread it then, because I thought it was notifying me that it was under consideration. Either way, I get the message now. Parsley Man (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll certainly get a message... Firebrace (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Parsley Man (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that you were notified by User:RGloucester it is likely that he will soon report you at WP:AN/3. Firebrace (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I admit I screwed up on that, and it was bad, but I didn't mean it because I misread the damn notification. Parsley Man (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Give Peace a Chance! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not after a so-called friendly, merely informational notice is issued. After that, there is no going back: the editor shall be sanctioned. LjL (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: Now you're up to 4 reverts in 24 hours. [10] Firebrace (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What? It's been a day since I last reverted! Parsley Man (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't been 24 hours; even if the 1RR wasn't in place, you would be in breach of the 3RR because that's four now, and it was eight yesterday. Firebrace (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just going to stop editing for the moment now, because I'm honestly confused by this sanctioning thing. Parsley Man (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Firebrace: I think you should read WP:1RR a little closer yourself... Ref. [11][12]. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Luckily for everyone who is guilty of "undoing other editors' actions", the rule isn't being enforced. Firebrace (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Explosive: TATP?

The infobox lists TATP as explosive, without reference. Do we have a reference? AxelBoldt (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but I'm checking around. If there is no verification soon, I would suggest removing the information. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet; unless we receive a source within the next few hours, I would change "TATP" to simply "explosives". Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw a news article where it was described that it was "reportedly" TATP, but no real confirmation. epicgenius @ 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That article was an op-ed, which means it's not the most reliable source of facts. While it might be best to get consensus first, I'm for changing "TATP explosives" in the infobox to "Explosives (possibly TATP)". It might even be better to remove the mention of TATP altogether, as the only reason it was discussed in the article mentioned was that it had been used in previous terror attacks, and thus might have been used here. That's speculation, not information, and should be removed accordingly. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 16:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The claims of the use of TATP seem to based on the reports that TATP was found at the bombers residence(s) and not any official source. NBC were claiming that the explosive was ammonium nitrate, but they don't seem to have an official source either. The photographs of the bomb damage show no fire damage, which suggests that whatever was used was an entropic explosive was used. TATP is an entropic explosive, whereas ammonium nitrate is not. But without access to the site, this is just speculation on my part. --Elektrik Fanne 17:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jet Airways

Im not editing this, but here are some sources (and proposal):

• Response section: Jet Airways, whose European hub between North America and India is in Brussels, said that all its four aircrafts were safe.
• Either in response or victims: Jet Airways said that two crew members from Mumbai were injured in the airport.

O.K.79.77.214.229 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jet Airways is an Indian airline based in Mumbai. It is the second largest airline in India, both in terms of market share and passengers carried, after IndiGo. The families-of-two-jet-airways-employees-to-be-air-lifted-from-india79.77.214.229 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Schaerbeek is not a suburb of Brussels

The article refers to "Schaarbeek". This is the Dutch spelling. Please use both French and Dutch: Schaerbeek/Schaarbeek. Further, Schaerbeek is not a suburb of Brussels. It is part of Brussels itself. It is a "commune", or municipality, of Brussels. Grammar police and thieves (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed suburb to quarter. As for the name, our article is Schaerbeek and I believe this is how it should be referred to here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@ user Ymblanter: if your article only refers to "Schaerbeek", this should be corrected as well. The dutch spelling "Schaarbeek" has just as much official status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.70 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are unacceptable references for anything.

I have deleted a raft of references which all linked back to a blog run by the Guardian newspaper. Any blog must be considered unreliable because the posts to it are by definition self published and not reviewed in any way. -Elektrik Fanne (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What if it's a journalist's blog from The Guardian? How is that any different from the same journalist posting it in the news section of said site? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

How is the "blog" self-published when the authors have been updating it in the course of their employment at The Guardian? Firebrace (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If it was, that might be fine. But it isn't. The invitation to readers of the blog site to, "Share your eyewitness accounts" is a clear indication. Indeed, if you follow the link to the replacement blog site, you will find that is exactly what is happening. --Elektrik Fanne 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If they're on the Guardian's payroll and subject to editorial guidelines and policies, and the laws by which journalists have to abide, then I don't think you can really say the "blog" (not really a blog) is self-published... Firebrace (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: - In the spirit of collaboration, it would be more useful if you either included diffs to your edits so we could see these, or provide links to the blogs in question. Otherwise, we're all left to trudging through the edit history individually to figure out what you're referring to. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Original blog now replaced [13]. Replacement blog [14]. --Elektrik Fanne 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing to read is WP:NEWSBLOG. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NEWSBLOG, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". Since anyone can contribute to this particular blog, it does not meet that critereon. --Elektrik Fanne 13:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, anyone "affected by the explosions" can attempt to contribute to the blog. Whether or not their contribution makes it onto the blog is decided by the professionals. It isn't Wikipedia... Firebrace (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: This matter is clearly in dispute, and you haven't waited for consensus to emerge before reverting. Firebrace (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, we do not know the criteria that is used to determine acceptance of any contribution. It might be that an acceptance depends on whether the contribution can be verified, but that is rather unlikely given that news media seldom bothers to check the accuracy of contributions from journalists. They are seeking contributions from anyone affected by the events. It is more than likely that acceptance is based on screening out 'undesirable' contributions rather than inaccuracy. Several UK newspapers (and TV channels) operate blogs of this type and there is certainly no evidence of verification of factual accuracy. --Elektrik Fanne 14:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the low number of contributions that actually have made it onto the blog, I doubt your opinion is correct. It's obvious what you're doing here but I'm not going to take this any further; Wikipedia gets the editors it deserves... Firebrace (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Most blogs of these types get low numbers of contributions that make it to the page. What do you believe I am doing here? I am removing an unreliable source. Unless you have any evidence that contributions are screened for accuracy, this blog has to be regarded as unreliable. --Elektrik Fanne 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

more info on the bombs

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brussels-attacks/tools-terror-details-brussels-bombs-revealed-n544141--Stefvh96 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It might - if there was anything at the end of that link. --Elektrik Fanne 17:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's here. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, NBC. The only news channel that until last night was claiming that three bombs were detonated by the terrorists. It is still the only source claiming ammonium nitrate. All the others are claiming TATP, but to fair this seems to be based on the discovery of TATP at the perpitrator's place of residences. However, I would point out (and it is just my opinion for what it is worth) that the photographs that I have seen of the damage to the interior of the airport are not consistent with the use of ammonium nitrate. I have no opinion as to the metro bombing as I have not seen any photographs of the interior damage to the metro train. --Elektrik Fanne 16:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Maelbeek usage

We have to make sure we don't take sides.

The station name is Maalbeek/Maelbeek or Maelbeek/Maalbeek. We should never just use Maalbeek. Perhaps alternate between which one is first. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To be as uninvolved as possible, I will not do this change now. Please indicate when the corrects are made. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We should really just pick one term and stick with it. Maelbeek has 1,520,000 results on Google News and Maalbeek has 650,000 results. Obviously it's possible that since there are more French than Dutch news sources, this gives some weight, but I expect a fair chunk of them are English sources. So I'd go with Maelbeek. There are 40,500 results when both terms are used, so using both is clearly not a good route. This should be taken in much the same way as British vs US spelling. Whereby, we take one side, stick to it, and don't have a discussion on the matter. Jolly Ω Janner 21:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it taking sides if we pick one at random? Firebrace (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the article already consistently uses Maalbeek so there's no need for discussion. Jolly Ω Janner 22:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, we can find and use the common English name for this feature, regardless of its local single or multiple names in other languages. LjL (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We can certainly try to find a common name, but from my own searches on Google news, it looks like English language sources are split on which term to use. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort in determining which of the two truly is most used. Jolly Ω Janner 02:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Who cares. Both spellings are correct and neither is English. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Millions care. The language issue is very contentious in Belgium. There is no English word (such as Malebock) so we can only use Flemish and French terms. We must support Wikipedia ideals and be neutral. This is very important for editors. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the word commonly used in English may end up being the same as either the French or the Dutch term doesn't mean "there is no English word". Wikipedia uses the common name in English. That's policy. The contentiousness of language issues in Belgium does not concern Wikipedia policy. LjL (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate further, it would in fact be far from neutral to give the Belgian language disputes WP:UNDUE weight by redundantly repeating a name twice on every mention, on an article that is not about them, on the English Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@ LjL using both dutch & french names woumld certainly be more neutral than defaulting to the french version. As is claiming that Belgian language issue are unimportant. If you have to choose only one version, it would be better to choose the dutch one, as dutch is the majority language in Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.70 (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Update

I have looked at the English version of the Brussels metro website and it shows Maalbeek Maelbeek. See http://www.stib-mivb.be/irj/go/km/docs/resource/Plan_tiny/index-en.html Therefore, to comply with Wikipedia rules of neutrality, I recommend use of both terms and in that order (Maalbeek Maelbeek) Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The WP:OFFICIAL name is hardly important. Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME, and I would find it most awkward to mention both names every time the station is mentioned (even though it makes sense to mention both in the lead section of its article). LjL (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

See this Wikipedia article...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunst-Wet/Arts-Loi_metro_station. The station name is Kunst-Wet/Arts-Loi, not Kunst-Wet. Not trying to pick up a fight but to think carefully what is the best way. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Further information: Maalbeek/Maelbeek metro station. This name has been used for years. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Further information: in 2009, there was an extensive discussion and consensus on what to do. Therefore, we must comply with it and use Maalbeek/Maelbeek. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Belgium/Brussels_naming_conventions Note that I do not have a personal opinion except that being one sided is bad. So I consulted the extensive discussions and consensus reached already in WP Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Both words mean the same thing in English (mill brook). Firebrace (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is debeteble what is the most common name of the city quarter, but I do not see how the most common name for the metro station can be anything but Maalbeek/Maelbeek. I believe the station was only ever known under this name.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny then how almost no English-language news sources about this bombing call it using both names. The common name in English as used by sources matters.

About the alleged consensus on Brussels/Belgium naming, the only consensus I clearly see is this guideline (not its talk page, which is just a discussion), which says: "If the subject has no English name, or cannot be easily anglicized: Find out which name is used the most often in English. In practice, this will almost always be French. Then: Use the French name in the title Use that name throughout the article."

So Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy, while I'm sure it's not intentional, I do believe you are misrepresenting consensus on this matter, to the point of claiming it's completely opposite to what it really is. LjL (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My own research also suggested the French term was the most common. It wasn't the best research, but no one else has got anything better. I suggest we change it to the French term, so that this discussion can finally be closed. Jolly Ω Janner 18:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

English-language reliable sources tend to use either Maalbeek or Maelbeek. As a reader I don't want to process Maalbeek/Maelbeek constantly when I'm trying to read the article; it's distracting... Firebrace (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If the conclusion is that one name only is used then I believe it should be Maalbeek. Look at the Wikipedia article infobox for the station and on the right is Maalbeek on top. On the left of the photo, it is Maalbeek only. It may be in the Flemish part of town. The Wikipedia article says the name is from the Maalbeek stream. Therefore, if only one name is to be used, it should be Maalbeek. I am not convinced it shouldn't be two names but if one, then Maalbeek for the above reasons. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Jolly Ω Janner 19:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care which version is used. There is a one-letter difference in spelling and no difference at all in meaning when the names are translated into English. You might as well toss a coin, which, I would guess, is what the media have been doing... Firebrace (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Flemish part of town"? Brussels used to be all Flemish. Now it's mostly French, but that mostly didn't change the toponyms. Please refer to Francization of Brussels for details. "Maalbeek" and "Maelbeek" are both Dutch words, only, the orthography changed from the latter to the former in modern Dutch, while French speakers continue to use the latter. LjL (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I copy here the message I left on the talk pages of the Brussels naming convention and of the metro station :
For some unknown reason, Maelbeek/Maalbeek station and Arts-Loi/Kunst-Wet station are the only ones of the Brussels metro where the Dutch names ("Maalbeek" and "Kunst-Wet") are written before the French ones ("Maelbeek" and "Arts-Loi") here on Wikipedia. As a reminder, Maelbeek metro station is now (unfortunately!) famous because of Brussels terrorist attacks, and Arts-Loi is the most frequented station of the network: those two stations are therefore the most "famous" stations of the Brussels metro network.
Surprisingly, the changes in the names happened a few days ago, both made by one user. The same user edited the 2016 Brussels bombings article to make sure only the Dutch name "Maalbeek" appears in the article.
Is there any discussion somewhere about the name convention for the Brussels metro station names? As for all the other station the "French name/Dutch name" convention is used, shouldn't we standardize it that way?

In addition, I should precise the use of bilingual names by STIB/MIVB (Brussels Intercommunal Transport Company).

• On its maps and signage (and vocal announcements in the metro), STIB alternates French and Dutch names for its bus and tram stops and metro stations, in such a way that some stations allways shows their French name before the Dutch one, and vice versa. "Maalbeek / Maelbeek" is therefore always written first in Dutch then in French. And it's the opposite for Arts-Loi / Kunst-Wet.
• On the other side, STIB doesn't want foreign-language speakers to be confused about the language (French or Dutch) of its stations and stops. That's why STIB allways uses straight letters for French names, and italics for Dutch names. The Dutch name will always be in italics even when it's placed before the French one. Eg., you'll find "Maalbeek / Maelbeek", "Arts-Loi / Kunst-Wet", "Park / Parc", "Gare centrale / Centrale station"... (And when there are no need for translation, because the name is the same in both language, then it's written in straight letters : "De Brouckère", "Schuman", etc.)

The topic is not just about the spelling in Wikipedia. Actually, as Wikipedia is the most accessed encyclopedia of the internet, using one language rather than the other one for Brussels places is about image!! With all the political (linguistic) problems we have in Belgium, you could imagine how important it must be for some/many(?) people to make sure its capital is internationally perceived as a more Flemish or francophone city... (And I'm 100% sure that's why a user changed the names of Maelbeek/Maalbeek and Arts-Loi/Kunst-Wet metro stations in Wikipedia.) In other words: it's a sensitive issue!

In my opinion, all of this should be discussed on the talk page of the Brussels naming conventions. Rather than a discussion about the futur usage for Maelbeek/Maalbeek only, I think there should be an agreement (and an extension of the convention, if needed) about the names of all the metro stations (or even of all the names of Brussels places). Though I'm not sure the agreement about the naming of Brussels municipalities is perfect (using Dutch names for two municipalities and French names for all the others is a bit confusing), at least there's a rule everyone must follow. MisterQ (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@MisterQ: The naming convention applies to article titles. In the prose, we can use either Maalbeek or Maelbeek. Firebrace (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Naming is a very contentious issue in Belgium and we should be very sensitive to this, not taking sides. In Belgium, you will find Flemish speakers who also speak French, but prefer to speak English to visitors because of personal feelings toward French.

I agree with MisterQ is that there needs to be agreement about the entire issue in Wikipedia, not just about Maelbeek/Maalbeek. However, for this article, in the interim, I support using the joint name the first time and all the time. If there must be one name only (which I believe is wrong), then we should look at the metro signs which show Maalbeek, first, and then use Maalbeek. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Wikipedia should reduce the quality of its article to avoid hurting people's feelings? I've yet to find an English language source which uses both terms together. I do however agree you should have the discussion elsewhere. Good luck with the crusade and please feel free to come back here once it becomes a unified convention. Jolly Ω Janner 03:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Look harder. It is right under your nose. Maalbeek/Maelbeek metro station Also look at the photo in that article's infobox. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source of information. The picture in the infobox doesn't show the slash and is a sign from Brussels (is English the official and only language in Brussels?). What term do major publishers use? The BBC, New York Times, CNN, the Guardian etc. Do they use both terms? Of course not and neither should we for the exact same reason. Jolly Ω Janner 05:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Check you sources.79.77.200.253 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Shall we call them El Bakraoui or el-Bakraoui?

Seems to be split about 60-40 in Google News, "el-Bakraoui" leading. The more esteemed English news (New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, NPR, Wall Street Journal) go with "el-" (and "Bakraoui brothers"), though not all that use "El" are rags. INTERPOL say "El", but that's French, as is likely the alleged passport. Seems we should use the COMMONNAME per secondary sources, despite primary sources, but I could be wrong. Is anybody here familiar enough with Arabic to let us know what's proper there? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Either one works for me, personally. The only thing I'd prefer is the "el-" part staying. Parsley Man (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Then I think you want the second one. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe we had this change going back and forth since the article initially started. This change originally introduced the question, and the passport supports that matter. So I believe, since secondary sources are mixed and use both, we should stick to the official one. Lordtobi (✉) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice to finally see that thing, but note that it's clearly described as "A picture which is said to show a page from the passport of Ibrahim el-Bakraoui." I trust the editorial staff there to properly parse an all-caps foreign document. Also note that machine-readable passports omit apostrophes, which is essentially what this sort of hyphen is in an Arabic name. Not so much a "real name" as a standardized one, like how Belgium isn't actually called BEL. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Where'd my question go?

Intresting.. my question about how many days had elapsed from the Parisian attack and this one has been removed?

Seems like a dick move to me, WP. --84.105.83.223 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's been archived. But 30+31+31+29 (a total of 121) from Nov 13 to Mar 13, then 9 days from Mar 13 to Mar 22. 121+9=130. So 130 days. Is this being placed in the article? If not, it may not be relevant. 100.12.87.210 (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd expect it was removed, because it didn't suggest any improvements to the article. Talk pages are not a Q&A on events. Jolly Ω Janner 01:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Its relevant as numerology might be involved .. especially with the date 3/22 (us american format) which is the number under the scull&bones logo (3/22 from genesis) .. which would hint at another false flag - besides other things like the media build-up before anything happened (ominous warnings from erdogan) and the immediate finger-pointing afterwards etc - stew webb a whistleblower comes to similar conclusions in his analysis (hinting at a gladio b operation .. sibel edmonds / daniele ganser are references for gladio ..) --Ebricca (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Numerology is not science. Ugly Ketchup (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Story checks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is still in "Arrest of Salah Abdeslam", though. Just hidden away, befitting magic. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ebricca. I think that you mean "American format". In England it is 22/3. Davidships (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

thx changed it to us american.. date format dot vs slash notations always bite - me likes ISO 8601 :) --Ebricca (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And if an unfortunate chap breaks a looking glass on Thirteen o' Friday, he gets seven years of jolly good luck! Or so the unnamed sources say. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Want more meaningless connections? Sure, you do. My timestamp was 19:54. Friday the 13th killed a Greek-American WWI veteran in 1954, born on the same day as Jesus. The next day, a strange new phosporescent slime was introduced to New York. Thirty years later, who you gonna call, brother? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

On Halloween 2011, the green slime company was absorbed into Spectrum Brands, a descendant of The French Battery Company. Some say you can still see it glowing, when the moon is right. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

i know numbers are somewhat circumstantial no need to be cynical .. though our whole scientific/economic system is built on it .. statistical voodoo - just saying some deeply believe - i don't .. i'm just critical of things - that gladio existed is proven - no good/bad idea dies - so gladio b most likely exists .. a few historians/politians/lawyers said state (sponsored) terrorism is the elephant in the room - i think we shouldn't exclude it - geopolitics 101 --Ebricca (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If there were no need to be cynical, there'd be no need for WikiCorners like this. Those are the places to whisper about voodoo, gobbledygook, hoo-ha and Donald Rumsfeld's secret stew. This page is mainly for improving this article, with reliable sources and the like. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The London Financial Times banned as a WP:RS from Wikipedia

So, someone removed a perfectly good WP:RS using the following pretext:

 Pay-for sources such as the financial times cannot easily be checked and therefore are unusable on Wikipedia

Is this a joke? XavierItzm (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Predictably, Wikipedia has a guideline about it: WP:PAYWALL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of PAYWALL, sorry. If you wish, re-add the source. Lordtobi (✉) 15:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I think you should re-add the source. By the way, there is a typo in your display name. Firebrace (talk)

@Firebrace: Ok, will do so. Also there's nothing wrong with my display name. Lordtobi (✉) 16:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see you have fixed the typo. Firebrace (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You changed it in the first place, not sure why tho. Re-added the source now. Lordtobi (✉) 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure how that happened while I was adding the reflist-talk template. Firebrace (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For further clarification, even without the need to read the WP:PAYWALL guideline, I think most editors clearly understand that WP:OFFLINE sources like books (which are usually not free) are not only acceptable but particularly welcome; for ultimately the same reason that books are acceptable, sources behind a paywall also are. LjL (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox on airport deaths removed

This is removing useful information.

Since it has been removed twice by the same editor, I will insert the information, but not in the form of a box. This is really stupid but Wikipedians want it so that is what they get.

The nationalities of the airport deaths are far different from the metro. Contrary to what most people think, lots of nationalities died in the metro, only a few countries were represented in the airport. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record I think I removed it the first time and WWGB the second. This is important as there is a one revert rule in effect on this article. I am glad you have brought the issue here rather than edit warring. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia cannot hold everything and anything and our articles have scope for what is and is not relevant. We also have guidelines on the manual of style of articles, which have shown that tables are often best avoided if they can be written in prose. The point you make about the difference in nationalities may very well be true, but is it important? Do we have multiple sources dedicated to the issue you raised? If not, that would suggest it's not very important and to try to squeeze it into our article would give WP:Undue weight. If it is widely covered, then maybe you could write a sentence on it instead of a table. Jolly Ω Janner 07:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The information is valuable as this article deals with two separate but closely-linked events and disagreggation is useful - indeed, it would have been essential if the article were split, though that looks unlikely now. However I think that the better approach is to add appropriate columns to the existing Victims table (if redundant space is used, it would not grow much horizontally). The data will then speak for itself. Davidships (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I presume that its value is only your opinion. This is why WP:BALASPS exists; it prevents the floodgates of every single aspect of the event from appearing. Maybe you would be able to find sources that dedicate themselves to this issue? I'm sure that shouldn't be difficult for something that is so "valuable". Jolly Ω Janner 18:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I consider myself sort of emeritus editor or consultant editor to this article in that I have decided not to edit it for the time being but feel like giving well thought out advice from time to time. With that said, consult the merits of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linate_Airport_disaster#Victims and look at that table. See how it breaks down the countries of the victims on both planes? Here, it is more applicable because of the varying countries unlike the Linate Airport collision where one plane had only 2 countries represented. Other than to point out this example, I will give no opinion at this time in order to limit my comments only to the most profound subject matter.

Nationality	SAS 686		Cessna		Ground	Total
	Passengers	Crew	Passengers	Crew
Denmark	16	3	–	–	–	19
Finland	6	–	–	–	–	6
Germany	–	–	–	2	–	2
Italy	58	–	2	–	4	64
Norway	3	–	–	–	–	3
Romania	1	–	–	–	–	1
South Africa	1	–	–	–	–	1
Sweden	17	3	–	–	–	20
United Kingdom	2 *	–	–	–	–	2
Total	104	6	2	2	4	118
* One passenger listed as a Briton by SAS held United Kingdom and United States citizenships.

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, JJ, it is only my opinion, just as your interpretation of Balance is only yours; I do not know what "issue" you are referring to. My concern is only to present summary information on the victims of these events in a way that will enable readers to learn what happened at the airport and/or what happened on the train. At present, it does not even tell us how many died as a result of each event (no doubt that will be added in due course). I do not think that adding two columns of disaggregation to the existing table would alter the balance the article to any significant degree. Davidships (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is purely bad judgement or insanity that anyone is opposing putting a box or written description of the airport dead. It can be done in several ways and also have metro data, if desired. But to hide the number of airport dead is lunacy. Davidships, you are correct. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, but can I add my voice? (Rhetorical question.) Personally, I don't care either way about the inclusion of such a table, but I do feel that if it does indeed make the cut, then there should definitely be also be a separate table detailing the nationalities of the victims at the metro station. If not, then a table of nationalities for overall victims and a table of nationalities for the airport-only victims together just screams WP:UNDUE. Parsley Man (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree, PM. Hence my suggestion of a single table, based on the existing one.Davidships (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(I was wondering what that table was. XD) Yeah, that works too. Parsley Man (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of a seperate table, we could use ! colspan="2" | Airport and ! colspan="2" | Metro station inside that one table for that matter? Lordtobi (✉) 15:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've copied the latest version of the table to Draft:2016 Brussels bombings. Please work on it there until it is ready to be used in the article (the inline citations are virtually impossible to verify). Based on its size, I would strongly recommend using the auto-collapse option. The less sources used the better. Jolly Ω Janner 04:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on the draft. There is a discrepancy of one in the total. I wonder whether this is the unnamed French casualty that was mentioned early on but in none of the more recent sources I found. Can someone with better knowledge of French sources check for current French info (possibly another dual nationality, of course). Also, I've left the ref sources in a footnote - when the table is ready to go into the article they will need to be properly integrated. Davidships (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Victims

Hello. According to what I read in French sources ([15] [16]), the French victim of the bombings is André Adam, who was also (and arguably, "mainly") a Belgian national. So the table with the flags would need to be updated. Further, "Sixteen of the deceased were Belgian nationals, while the remaining twelve were from eight different nations." doesn't add up to 32. I think there would be a need to review the entire section and table based on more recent sources (for example [17] would be a good starting point). It might also be worth checking the French Wikipedia article, which has fairly different figures. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We have something going on at Draft:2016 Brussels bombings, which may or may not be an improvement. Not sure if work is still ongoing with it. Jolly Ω Janner 07:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in Infobox on airport deaths removed, this French detail seems to be the last loose end. Thanks to Biwom I can now try to insert an updated version of the table, if there are no objections. Davidships (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A few points before moving it to the article. Based on how wide it is, I would suggest using a collapsable table and moving it under the victims section rather than to the right. It's quite disruptive to the article on my screen's resolution. Second point, would be to either merge dual/tri nationals into their own section or to remove the flagicons. Using more than one flag inline together looks awful. If the location of two of the US citizens is not known, why is it claiming that 3 were killed at the airport and 1 was killed in the Metro? Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 00:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. A test shows that the table fits into the same horizontal space as the existing one and I strongly believe that the table of victims should be on the face of the article. I tend to agree with you re flags, but not that strongly - as the current one in the article has them I have tried to keep the changes to those necessary to show and reference the airport/metro data breakdown; with/without flags is usually contentious so that can best be decided when the basic format and position of the table is settled. So far as the Americans are concerned, without the third at the airport there are only 14 and nobody is suggestion that the official figure of 15 is wrong; I think working out that 15-14=1 does not constitute OR; if there is better way of explaining that please edit the note. - we do not, I think, know whether the third airport victim is the named or unnamed one. Davidships (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Basing the style for this article isn't best. Currently the victims table sprawls into the suspects section (actually most of it is in the suspects section). Surely you cannot think this is the best? Again, my issues with the flags applies to both the article and the draft. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to explain. I've also noticed the Metro numbers add to 18, not 17 and the total is 33, not 32. If we're still relying on WP:Synthesis, this long after the attack, one should really question not only the validity, but the usefulness of this chart. Jolly Ω Janner 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The current table has been in the article for some time without concern until now that it extends beyond the short Victims text. That text could certainly be expanded with prose information about the victims - there is much that could be written. That can follow if there is consensus for change, perhaps others would comment.

So far as the table content is concerned, I do conclude that it still needs some further work and verification, so it remains a draft (I will not be able to do more on this until returning from travel next week). Compiling a list of verifiable data on the individuals who died, even if from more than one RS, is not WP:Synthesis per se; summarising this in a table, bearing in mind that it is not the WP practice to name individuals in events with multiple killings or deaths unless they are themselves notable, is a helpful way of presenting this kind of information, provided source references are there for verification (unlike the present table). Davidships (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Street celebrations following bombing

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/31/belgian-minister-reveals-that-after-brussels-attacks-there-were-street-celebrations-in-belgium/

Why is there no section on this? We shouldn't be keeping people in the dark on anything happening, even if political correctness is hurt in the process. This article needs to acknowlege that many Muslims in Belgium celebrated the terror attacks. This isn't to be anti muslim, but to reveal how divided of a society Belgium is. We can only make sense of these attrocities if we look at the mindset of some Islamic Belgians. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There is such little detail on the matter, that I think one should question how valid the claim is. By the way, the Blaze is reporting it from this article by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, which again lacks any detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 20:00, April 7, 2016‎

Agreed. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Since The Blaze is just re-reporting on what JTA said, we basically have only one source making this claim. We need more than that. clpo13_(talk) 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

[18][19][20][21]

Celebration by muslim Belgian Schoolchildren is mentioned in this article, and this is NPR, a very VERY reliable source. We need to let people know about this. This reveals part of the problem in Belgium. It's a very divided nation. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, same issues. It doesn't matter how many sources you throw at it. We need something descriptive on these celebrations. Jolly Ω Janner 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I sense an anti-Islam motive at play here... Parsley Man (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me considering the sources. Jolly Ω Janner 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that this user is an unsigned IP (and the fact that most vandals I've seen are unsigned IPs), I wouldn't be surprised either. Parsley Man (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Terror cell article

I've started ISIL Brussels terror cell and suggest we merge the other short articles into it. If a better common name emerges we can rename it. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I find this arrangement just magnificent. It is a very useful presentation and a compromise mid-way solution of great value. The individuals are not just "burried" in an already very long Brussels article, but are still given enough prominence as individuals, to be developed further without having to establish a separate page for each and every one of them. I encourage fellow editors to develop further and add more relevant information on all the separate sections found on the page and perhaps add more individuals involved in the cell. werldwayd (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

At some point we are going to have to awkwardly integrate Salah Abdeslam. The article is obviously too large to fit in there on its own, so needs to be summarised with his involvement in the group prioritised. Jolly Ω Janner 20:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just a little summary and link out to longer article. Any identified ringleaders should go to the top, and people that don't have much info go to the bottom in the Other suspects section. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem articles

Both of these articles seem to fail WP:BLP1E and are notable only towards the bombings. Parsley Man (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. For instance we have article on each of the 9/11 hijackers and an article on the group (Hijackers in the September 11 attacks) as well. Rmhermen (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't as big as 9/11, though. And we don't have articles for each individual attacker in the November 2015 Paris attacks. We don't even have articles for the El Bakraoui brothers or Najim Laachraoui, now do we? Parsley Man (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Not yet. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So you're implying that each of these guys are notable enough for an individual article of their own? That is just not true. Parsley Man (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. Per Rmhermen.Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment The notability guideline says that "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.". However, it continues with: "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." I believe the media coverage of both the event and the individual's is huge, so separate articles about the individual's is justified by the guideline. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment since he don't have significant coverage for any of those, why one create a separate article likewise to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks ("Perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings"?) and merge information into there? Lordtobi (✉) 18:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, hold on. With that reasoning, why don't we have an article for Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks then? Parsley Man (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know; but I did not participate in the Paris attacks article either. Lordtobi (✉) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm liking the idea of Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks or maybe even ISIL Brussels terror cell which could cover the Paris attacks too since they are all in a larger related group. [22] Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I guess we could make an entire article about the terrorist cell. But we probably shouldn't call it ISIL Brussels terror cell. I believe we should group both the Paris attackers and the Brussels bombers together in the same article since they're connected to each other and both sets of attacks. Parsley Man (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)]

• Actually, I think that is probably the best name to use (not sure whether we go by ISIS or ISIL though). Brussels was at the heart of the terror cell involved in the Paris bombing as well. It refers to the location of the terror cell, not the location of the attacks. Jolly Ω Janner 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree - Krayem's activity is not just for his role in the specific 22 March 2016 but stretches much earlier to Sweden, to Syria etc. and had been center of media attention for many years. Putting him in a sub-section in a page for 22 March 2016 diminishes these other activities. Being caught alive, there will certainly have more developments that will be revealed. werldwayd (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note werldwayd later endorses the merger into the terror cell article in the next section so don't count this as a disagree. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree - I agree that both articles fail notability grounds and should be merged or deleted depending on the quantity of useful content. This article seems to contain a lot of details on the suspects already, so an article about the terror cell is not a bad idea. There's certainly evidence that they are all part of the same group. Just because one article does it differently does not make it right. There are many things on Wikipedia that go uncontested. I recently made the bold move of redirecting an article on Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakaouri (feel free to copy any material from its revision history, but please give attribution). Jolly Ω Janner 00:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ISIL not ISIS because ISIL matches the main article. Brussels because the terror cell that hit Paris seems to be centered in Brussels. I could not find a common name developing yet for this group but that was as close as I could come from the different terms I found across BBC, CNN etc. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Victims

Hello. According to what I read in French sources ([23] [24]), the French victim of the bombings is André Adam, who was also (and arguably, "mainly") a Belgian national. So the table with the flags would need to be updated. Further, "Sixteen of the deceased were Belgian nationals, while the remaining twelve were from eight different nations." doesn't add up to 32. I think there would be a need to review the entire section and table based on more recent sources (for example [25] would be a good starting point). It might also be worth checking the French Wikipedia article, which has fairly different figures. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We have something going on at Draft:2016 Brussels bombings, which may or may not be an improvement. Not sure if work is still ongoing with it. Jolly Ω Janner 07:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in Infobox on airport deaths removed, this French detail seems to be the last loose end. Thanks to Biwom I can now try to insert an updated version of the table, if there are no objections. Davidships (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A few points before moving it to the article. Based on how wide it is, I would suggest using a collapsable table and moving it under the victims section rather than to the right. It's quite disruptive to the article on my screen's resolution. Second point, would be to either merge dual/tri nationals into their own section or to remove the flagicons. Using more than one flag inline together looks awful. If the location of two of the US citizens is not known, why is it claiming that 3 were killed at the airport and 1 was killed in the Metro? Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 00:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. A test shows that the table fits into the same horizontal space as the existing one and I strongly believe that the table of victims should be on the face of the article. I tend to agree with you re flags, but not that strongly - as the current one in the article has them I have tried to keep the changes to those necessary to show and reference the airport/metro data breakdown; with/without flags is usually contentious so that can best be decided when the basic format and position of the table is settled. So far as the Americans are concerned, without the third at the airport there are only 14 and nobody is suggestion that the official figure of 15 is wrong; I think working out that 15-14=1 does not constitute OR; if there is better way of explaining that please edit the note. - we do not, I think, know whether the third airport victim is the named or unnamed one. Davidships (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Basing the style for this article isn't best. Currently the victims table sprawls into the suspects section (actually most of it is in the suspects section). Surely you cannot think this is the best? Again, my issues with the flags applies to both the article and the draft. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to explain. I've also noticed the Metro numbers add to 18, not 17 and the total is 33, not 32. If we're still relying on WP:Synthesis, this long after the attack, one should really question not only the validity, but the usefulness of this chart. Jolly Ω Janner 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The current table has been in the article for some time without concern until now that it extends beyond the short Victims text. That text could certainly be expanded with prose information about the victims - there is much that could be written. That can follow if there is consensus for change, perhaps others would comment.

So far as the table content is concerned, I do conclude that it still needs some further work and verification, so it remains a draft (I will not be able to do more on this until returning from travel next week). Compiling a list of verifiable data on the individuals who died, even if from more than one RS, is not WP:Synthesis per se; summarising this in a table, bearing in mind that it is not the WP practice to name individuals in events with multiple killings or deaths unless they are themselves notable, is a helpful way of presenting this kind of information, provided source references are there for verification (unlike the present table). Davidships (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Street celebrations following bombing

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/31/belgian-minister-reveals-that-after-brussels-attacks-there-were-street-celebrations-in-belgium/

Why is there no section on this? We shouldn't be keeping people in the dark on anything happening, even if political correctness is hurt in the process. This article needs to acknowlege that many Muslims in Belgium celebrated the terror attacks. This isn't to be anti muslim, but to reveal how divided of a society Belgium is. We can only make sense of these attrocities if we look at the mindset of some Islamic Belgians. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There is such little detail on the matter, that I think one should question how valid the claim is. By the way, the Blaze is reporting it from this article by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, which again lacks any detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 20:00, April 7, 2016‎

Agreed. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Since The Blaze is just re-reporting on what JTA said, we basically have only one source making this claim. We need more than that. clpo13_(talk) 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

[26][27][28][29]

Celebration by muslim Belgian Schoolchildren is mentioned in this article, and this is NPR, a very VERY reliable source. We need to let people know about this. This reveals part of the problem in Belgium. It's a very divided nation. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, same issues. It doesn't matter how many sources you throw at it. We need something descriptive on these celebrations. Jolly Ω Janner 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I sense an anti-Islam motive at play here... Parsley Man (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me considering the sources. Jolly Ω Janner 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that this user is an unsigned IP (and the fact that most vandals I've seen are unsigned IPs), I wouldn't be surprised either. Parsley Man (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem articles

Both of these articles seem to fail WP:BLP1E and are notable only towards the bombings. Parsley Man (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. For instance we have article on each of the 9/11 hijackers and an article on the group (Hijackers in the September 11 attacks) as well. Rmhermen (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't as big as 9/11, though. And we don't have articles for each individual attacker in the November 2015 Paris attacks. We don't even have articles for the El Bakraoui brothers or Najim Laachraoui, now do we? Parsley Man (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Not yet. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So you're implying that each of these guys are notable enough for an individual article of their own? That is just not true. Parsley Man (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. Per Rmhermen.Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment The notability guideline says that "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.". However, it continues with: "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." I believe the media coverage of both the event and the individual's is huge, so separate articles about the individual's is justified by the guideline. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment since he don't have significant coverage for any of those, why one create a separate article likewise to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks ("Perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings"?) and merge information into there? Lordtobi (✉) 18:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, hold on. With that reasoning, why don't we have an article for Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks then? Parsley Man (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know; but I did not participate in the Paris attacks article either. Lordtobi (✉) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm liking the idea of Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks or maybe even ISIL Brussels terror cell which could cover the Paris attacks too since they are all in a larger related group. [30] Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I guess we could make an entire article about the terrorist cell. But we probably shouldn't call it ISIL Brussels terror cell. I believe we should group both the Paris attackers and the Brussels bombers together in the same article since they're connected to each other and both sets of attacks. Parsley Man (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)]

• Actually, I think that is probably the best name to use (not sure whether we go by ISIS or ISIL though). Brussels was at the heart of the terror cell involved in the Paris bombing as well. It refers to the location of the terror cell, not the location of the attacks. Jolly Ω Janner 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree - Krayem's activity is not just for his role in the specific 22 March 2016 but stretches much earlier to Sweden, to Syria etc. and had been center of media attention for many years. Putting him in a sub-section in a page for 22 March 2016 diminishes these other activities. Being caught alive, there will certainly have more developments that will be revealed. werldwayd (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note werldwayd later endorses the merger into the terror cell article in the next section so don't count this as a disagree. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree - I agree that both articles fail notability grounds and should be merged or deleted depending on the quantity of useful content. This article seems to contain a lot of details on the suspects already, so an article about the terror cell is not a bad idea. There's certainly evidence that they are all part of the same group. Just because one article does it differently does not make it right. There are many things on Wikipedia that go uncontested. I recently made the bold move of redirecting an article on Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakaouri (feel free to copy any material from its revision history, but please give attribution). Jolly Ω Janner 00:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ISIL not ISIS because ISIL matches the main article. Brussels because the terror cell that hit Paris seems to be centered in Brussels. I could not find a common name developing yet for this group but that was as close as I could come from the different terms I found across BBC, CNN etc. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Victims

Hello. According to what I read in French sources ([31] [32]), the French victim of the bombings is André Adam, who was also (and arguably, "mainly") a Belgian national. So the table with the flags would need to be updated. Further, "Sixteen of the deceased were Belgian nationals, while the remaining twelve were from eight different nations." doesn't add up to 32. I think there would be a need to review the entire section and table based on more recent sources (for example [33] would be a good starting point). It might also be worth checking the French Wikipedia article, which has fairly different figures. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We have something going on at Draft:2016 Brussels bombings, which may or may not be an improvement. Not sure if work is still ongoing with it. Jolly Ω Janner 07:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in Infobox on airport deaths removed, this French detail seems to be the last loose end. Thanks to Biwom I can now try to insert an updated version of the table, if there are no objections. Davidships (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A few points before moving it to the article. Based on how wide it is, I would suggest using a collapsable table and moving it under the victims section rather than to the right. It's quite disruptive to the article on my screen's resolution. Second point, would be to either merge dual/tri nationals into their own section or to remove the flagicons. Using more than one flag inline together looks awful. If the location of two of the US citizens is not known, why is it claiming that 3 were killed at the airport and 1 was killed in the Metro? Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 00:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. A test shows that the table fits into the same horizontal space as the existing one and I strongly believe that the table of victims should be on the face of the article. I tend to agree with you re flags, but not that strongly - as the current one in the article has them I have tried to keep the changes to those necessary to show and reference the airport/metro data breakdown; with/without flags is usually contentious so that can best be decided when the basic format and position of the table is settled. So far as the Americans are concerned, without the third at the airport there are only 14 and nobody is suggestion that the official figure of 15 is wrong; I think working out that 15-14=1 does not constitute OR; if there is better way of explaining that please edit the note. - we do not, I think, know whether the third airport victim is the named or unnamed one. Davidships (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Basing the style for this article isn't best. Currently the victims table sprawls into the suspects section (actually most of it is in the suspects section). Surely you cannot think this is the best? Again, my issues with the flags applies to both the article and the draft. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to explain. I've also noticed the Metro numbers add to 18, not 17 and the total is 33, not 32. If we're still relying on WP:Synthesis, this long after the attack, one should really question not only the validity, but the usefulness of this chart. Jolly Ω Janner 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The current table has been in the article for some time without concern until now that it extends beyond the short Victims text. That text could certainly be expanded with prose information about the victims - there is much that could be written. That can follow if there is consensus for change, perhaps others would comment.

So far as the table content is concerned, I do conclude that it still needs some further work and verification, so it remains a draft (I will not be able to do more on this until returning from travel next week). Compiling a list of verifiable data on the individuals who died, even if from more than one RS, is not WP:Synthesis per se; summarising this in a table, bearing in mind that it is not the WP practice to name individuals in events with multiple killings or deaths unless they are themselves notable, is a helpful way of presenting this kind of information, provided source references are there for verification (unlike the present table). Davidships (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem articles

Both of these articles seem to fail WP:BLP1E and are notable only towards the bombings. Parsley Man (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. For instance we have article on each of the 9/11 hijackers and an article on the group (Hijackers in the September 11 attacks) as well. Rmhermen (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't as big as 9/11, though. And we don't have articles for each individual attacker in the November 2015 Paris attacks. We don't even have articles for the El Bakraoui brothers or Najim Laachraoui, now do we? Parsley Man (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Not yet. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So you're implying that each of these guys are notable enough for an individual article of their own? That is just not true. Parsley Man (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. Per Rmhermen.Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment The notability guideline says that "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.". However, it continues with: "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." I believe the media coverage of both the event and the individual's is huge, so separate articles about the individual's is justified by the guideline. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment since he don't have significant coverage for any of those, why one create a separate article likewise to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks ("Perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings"?) and merge information into there? Lordtobi (✉) 18:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, hold on. With that reasoning, why don't we have an article for Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks then? Parsley Man (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know; but I did not participate in the Paris attacks article either. Lordtobi (✉) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm liking the idea of Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks or maybe even ISIL Brussels terror cell which could cover the Paris attacks too since they are all in a larger related group. [34] Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I guess we could make an entire article about the terrorist cell. But we probably shouldn't call it ISIL Brussels terror cell. I believe we should group both the Paris attackers and the Brussels bombers together in the same article since they're connected to each other and both sets of attacks. Parsley Man (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)]

• Actually, I think that is probably the best name to use (not sure whether we go by ISIS or ISIL though). Brussels was at the heart of the terror cell involved in the Paris bombing as well. It refers to the location of the terror cell, not the location of the attacks. Jolly Ω Janner 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree - Krayem's activity is not just for his role in the specific 22 March 2016 but stretches much earlier to Sweden, to Syria etc. and had been center of media attention for many years. Putting him in a sub-section in a page for 22 March 2016 diminishes these other activities. Being caught alive, there will certainly have more developments that will be revealed. werldwayd (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note werldwayd later endorses the merger into the terror cell article in the next section so don't count this as a disagree. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree - I agree that both articles fail notability grounds and should be merged or deleted depending on the quantity of useful content. This article seems to contain a lot of details on the suspects already, so an article about the terror cell is not a bad idea. There's certainly evidence that they are all part of the same group. Just because one article does it differently does not make it right. There are many things on Wikipedia that go uncontested. I recently made the bold move of redirecting an article on Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakaouri (feel free to copy any material from its revision history, but please give attribution). Jolly Ω Janner 00:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ISIL not ISIS because ISIL matches the main article. Brussels because the terror cell that hit Paris seems to be centered in Brussels. I could not find a common name developing yet for this group but that was as close as I could come from the different terms I found across BBC, CNN etc. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Complete Topic:Reactions Main article: Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings

European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor about acts of terrorism in Brussels.

..."We can no longer ignore the fact that radical Islamists declared war on Europe and all Europeans, therefore, we call on governments and law enforcement agencies of European countries to act accordingly - said Moshe Kantor. - We have for too long been in the role of victims, now we have to strike back at terrorist infrastructure, including those who support them, and finances. "...Moshe Vitalievitsh (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Stick it in Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Better yet, wikiquote:2016 Brussels bombings or wikiquote:Viatcheslav Mosh Kantor. Jolly Ω Janner 19:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Post merger discussion

I note that both the articles that were proposed to be merged have seen the merge reverted. One by an editor claiming no consensus. I see no discussion here about why they feel that way. Given the 1RR restrction we really should talk this out. Legacypac (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The merge proposal is discussed above. Here: Proposal to merge Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem articles. I see no consensus in that discussion to merge the pages, so why did you? Btw, I am fine with having an article about the ISIL Brussels terror cell. That article should be about, well, the ISIL Brussels terror cell. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That was about merging it to the Brussels bombings article. Myself, Parsley Man, Legacypac and Lordtobi all agreed on merging them to ISIL terror cell. The only opposition came from werldway, who now supports it. The definition of consensus is a group of editors coming to a point that we can all agree on. I'm willing to hear out your reason for not merging them, but please don't revert a consensus without giving a reason! Jolly Ω Janner 19:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree, specifically Mohamed Abrini (I haven't researched Osama Krayem yet), subject has received ongoing coverage for multiple attacks. He has also been the center piece dubbed "Man in the Hat" by media. I am reverting the Mohamed Abrini merge per lack of consensus. During merge discussions, pages should not be merged until consensus is reach. There is clearly no consensus here, which defaults to keep in that case. Further discussion necessary also this is a current event much too soon to merge. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Mohamed Abrini only has three short paragraphs of content. All of which (aside from his previous "petty" crimes) is related to the Brussels terror cell and its coordinated attacks, so is suitable for merging. Jolly Ω Janner 02:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Invalid rationale for merge, AfD is better for determining consensus in this type of merge. The individual is clearly notable and accused of involvement in multiple attacks. Expand the article there is a ton of information out there on him not included. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Do note that the Brussels ISIL terror cell article is covering people connected to both the Paris attacks and the Brussels bombings. Which Abrini obviously falls into. Parsley Man (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• The rationale is based on WP:SINGLEEVENT, although in this case the single event is the terror cell as the two attacks are closely related. AfD is just going to overload us with more burecracy and our deletion policy specifically lists merging as an alternative to deletion reviews. It's also not needed, since the redirects will likely be used. WP:BURO suggests "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Jolly Ω Janner 03:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD is not an appropriate place to debate a merge. No one wants to delete any of the articles and all names need to redirect to Brussels ISIL terror cell so there is nothing to delete. We can always split of an individual later and leave a summary in the terror cell article if one person's info grows too big for a section. We can discuss that if required. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the only opposition did NOT come from werldway. Both Rmhermen and I disagreed to the "Proposal to merge Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem articles". So did werldwayd, even if he later accepted a compromise. And today Valoem have disagreed to the merge proposal too, so it is still no consensus to merge the pages. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup we all found a good solution that was not to merge the short articles into the main bombing article (making it too long) but create a spinout terror cell article. If ISIL Brussels terror cell does not cover the people in it, it will be a pretty short article. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. (Still against merging the pages). Of course the article must cover the people in the group, but that can be done with focus on their role in the group. A main article can point the reader to more information about the individuals. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Updated per Erlbaeko (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

*No merge (don't vote twice) merging is a violation of WP:GNG as this pass guideline with flying colors. There is too much information on Mohamed Abrini to be merge. That article can be expanded massively. Also application of WP:BLP1E does not apply to ongoing political or extended violent struggles. Abrini is known for more than 1E. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are working against consensus established above. You can't go against concensus just by incorrectly claiming it does not exist. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

GNG says "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". Consensus overrules bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I was able to get zero hits on google news when searching "Brussels ISIL terror cell", there are 1,070 hits for "Brussels ISIS terror cell" vastly less than the individuals mentioned alone. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are few google hits for the new title - we made it up on this page as a merge-spin out article. There is no established common name for this group yet but if one emerges we'll move the page. There are TONS of news coverage of the topic usually discussing these people as a group, rarely individually. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying the current name is WP:NEO or WP:SYNTH? I am seeing the mention of these people as a group ("Brussels terror group") currently yield approximately 15,000 results other variations of the search such as replacing or adding ISIL or ISIS yields 1,000 to 5,000 on average, compared to the individual names yielding over 100,000 results. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Google hits is a great arguement for current events. Coverage among news sources is very different to coverage among encyclopedic sources. Anyway, the merge is more about organising content than notability. No one's suggesting AfD (suitable for notability concerns) or preventing someone from splitting off individual articles if they become too large. Jolly Ω Janner 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Counting hits for the individual names is pointless. They are fairly common names so you will get a lot of noise. I agree they are being talked about as a group - which is why we have an article about this terror cell of a terrorist group. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Parsley Man, there is no consensus for merge, if you or Janner would like to merge to can have either a neutral administrator or further discussion. As it stand the vote count is 4 to 2, if we included PM's vote it's 3 to 4 in against merge. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was a consensus. All of the people involved (except you, but you came in right after the merge happened) came to an agreement to create a new article and merge Abrini and Krayem's articles into it. Also, you seem to have missed what I said. You said Abrini was involved in both the Paris and Brussels attacks and therefore warrants his own article, and I said that the terror cell article covers people involved in the Paris and/or Brussels attacks. Abrini was clearly involved with both, and given the amount of info we have on him, it's much better if there is just a section of him on a larger article. Parsley Man (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Both articles have alrady been merged into Brussels ISIL terror cell, therefore this discussion may be closed. Lordtobi (✉) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Lordtobi (✉) I see the merge is complete, do you see consensus so close as merge complete but no consensus to merge? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem, I did not do the merging, and the consensus seeked for in this discussion is if Abrini and Krayem should receive one merged article, as both fail WP:BLP1E and just slightly pass WP:SIGCOV due to the popularity of the even in a whole and all media thorwing themselves onto the available media. I see the redirect was now undone by you, but feel that it is not worth it, especially for WP:BLP1E, to have one article per person if there is no SIGCOV on each individual. Lordtobi (✉) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus they fail BLP1E. In fact I have highlighted reason why they do not. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the merge into the Brussels ISIL terror cell article. If some parts of that article get too big, we could later create a new article for that person. IngenieroLoco (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Regardless of outcome, consensus should be reached before any redirects are placed. At the time of this edit and this edit there was no consensus to merge. I believe the term Brussels ISIL terror cell (0 results) as it has not been widely used by media compared to Mohamed Abrini (1,600,000 results). This is using Google News any mention of Mohamed Abrini under Google News is certainly specifying this individual and not another. People such as Abrini have been singularly identified. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Update, "Osama Krayem" yields (132,000 results) also vastly more then the mention of "Brussels ISIL terror cell". This may be a neologism. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple sources dedicated to the terrorist cell: Guardian, NDTV, Sputnik and more... Jolly Ω Janner 01:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Valoem your continued posting nonsense about there being no consensus before the merger or after is disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to continue with this, I certainly don't see any agreement if Rmhermen, Erlbaeko and Werldwayd have agreed with the merge then merge is fine, I did not see this from my reading of the discussion. Legacypac, Jolly Janner and Parsley Man if there was an agreement then carry on. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what people were expecting when we decided to create a spin-out article during a merger discussion, but thank God it's over, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I find your continued posting of nonsense about there being a consensus for a merge to be disruptive. I have NOT agreed with the merge, nor have Rmhermen, and both Valoem and Theslimefish (ref. diff) are against it. So is werldwayd, ref. diff, even if he later accepted a compromise, ref. diff. For the record, I think it is ok to have an article about the "Brussels terror cell", with a short description of the group’s members. I do not agree to merge the Osama Krayem page or the Mohamed Abrini page to that article. Nor should we merge the Salah Abdeslam or the Abdelhamid Abaaoud page to the article about the terror cell, but yes, a short description of them and their role in the group should be included. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You lost my faith in your ability to interpret other editor's comments when you said someone that posted "I find this arrangement just magnificent" is opposed to this. Reading about this terror cell in one place with links amd roles all noted is way better then a bunch of seperate short articles. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You lost my faith in your ability to determine consensus. 4 users (or 5 if you count werldwayd) are against the merge. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, we would currently be duplicating content if we had separate articles on Osama Krayem and Mohamed Abrini. I guess it depends on how long you consider a short summary to be, but at the moment we do have summaries of them on here. I think everyone is open to splitting them off if they become considerably larger sections. 09:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jolly Janner. We will be duplicating some content. I am thinking something like this. As I said above, a short description of Salah Abdeslam and Abdelhamid Abaaoud should also be included. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Did someone suggest we merge Abdelhamid Abaaoud in - that page is too long and includes activities outside this cell. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, there was no discussions to merge Abaaoud and even Abdeslam into the terror cell article. There was discussions about just putting short summaries of them in their sections, though. I think this guy is just being ignorant now. Parsley Man (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Abrini seems to be stand-alone enough. No warrant (yet) to merge, in my opinion. Redzemp (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Reopen merge discussion as AfD

• Comment, I see my interpretation of consensus was correct (no consensus). When merge discussion get so heated AfD is generally preferred to make clear and stronger outcomes (no consensus defaults to keep). These terrorists are unfortunately notable particularly Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem, both are still alive and receiving continual international media coverage. As per out GNG principles, this passes. It is especially important that these articles be expanded while they are current events. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think with this issue, a RfC could be used first and closed by an uninvolved administrator, since it's likely to garner plenty of opinions. I myself have had troubles with such procedures by trying to redirect Syed Hamid Hussain. I've tried talk page, third opinion, and RfC. I'm currently at RfC, which seems to be going nowhere, so AfD is probably the last option. Jolly Ω Janner 03:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"The rate of anti-Semitism in Europe is so high that for the first time in its history the UN General Assembly had to hold a special session on anti-Semitism in January 2015.

Having been persecuted for centuries, burnt in the furnaces of the concentration camps, Jews feel the threat at the genetic level. But the problem here is more than just anti-Semitism. The attitude to Jews is the barometer of a society's health, of its socio-economic and political sustainability and the social contract." /Speech by EJC President Moshe Kantor at the Annual European Commission Colloquium on Fundamental Rights in Brussels, 1 October 2015/A mina233 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Street celebrations following bombing

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/31/belgian-minister-reveals-that-after-brussels-attacks-there-were-street-celebrations-in-belgium/

Why is there no section on this? We shouldn't be keeping people in the dark on anything happening, even if political correctness is hurt in the process. This article needs to acknowlege that many Muslims in Belgium celebrated the terror attacks. This isn't to be anti muslim, but to reveal how divided of a society Belgium is. We can only make sense of these attrocities if we look at the mindset of some Islamic Belgians. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

the comment was removed: Avoid personal attacks & This is not a forum for general discussion about 2016 Brussels bombings. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. 107.77.218.169 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There is such little detail on the matter, that I think one should question how valid the claim is. By the way, the Blaze is reporting it from this article by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, which again lacks any detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 20:00, April 7, 2016‎

Agreed. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Since The Blaze is just re-reporting on what JTA said, we basically have only one source making this claim. We need more than that. clpo13_(talk) 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

[35][36][37][38]

Celebration by muslim Belgian Schoolchildren is mentioned in this article, and this is NPR, a very VERY reliable source. We need to let people know about this. This reveals part of the problem in Belgium. It's a very divided nation. 108.208.70.47 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet another example of you pushing a particular narrative over anything else. Again, the latter part of your post betrays you. Shah massoud (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, same issues. It doesn't matter how many sources you throw at it. We need something descriptive on these celebrations. Jolly Ω Janner 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I sense an anti-Islam motive at play here... Parsley Man (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me considering the sources. Jolly Ω Janner 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that this user is an unsigned IP (and the fact that most vandals I've seen are unsigned IPs), I wouldn't be surprised either. Parsley Man (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• More on this as an interview of Minister Jan Jambon is published 16..18 April,

citing Interview  Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Jan Jambon to De Standaard ‘Dansen na de aanslagen. Stenen gooien naar de politie. Dát is het echte probleem’ / 16 APRIL 2016 OM 03:00 UUR | Bart Brinckman, Marjan Justaert /

References

I too believe it's important to add this piece. 2015.ww (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Jan Jambon did not specifically refer to the attacks on Brussels Airport and a metro station last month" from the Independent that you linked. How many more reasons does one need that this is not important to the attacks? Jolly Ω Janner 05:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Victims (again)

Help from editors would be welcomed in finding RS that confirm details of the number and location of the US victims. This is needed to complete the draft table with proper citations, and to avoid suggestions of WP:Synthesis - see previous discussion here and the following 'Victims' section. Even the total numbers is difficult - the article currently states or implies different numbers. Leaving aside the three perpetrators, 28 (15+13) bodies were recovered from the scenes (airport, metro respectively). Initially the Belgian authorities gave a total of victims' deaths as 35, but reduced that to 32 on 29-30/3 after removing double counting of victims who died at the scenes and at hospital.

There are reliable sources for 15 names who died from the bombs at the airport, and for 16 from the metro bomb and for the nationalities of 32 victims. There are reliable sources for there being 4 United States victims though only three have been named (these three all at the airport), but I have not seen a confirmed location for the un-named one nor any RS confirming any US deaths at the metro. Also, I cannot find any RS suggesting that there are any other unnamed victims. Perhaps I have missed some more recent sources that would help. Davidships (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. From an NPR source, I see that the four American victims that are in question have the names. Stephanie Shults and Justin Shults. Gail Minglana Martinez. Andre Adam. The link for that information, and more details regarding them, is http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/26/471982262/what-we-know-about-the-victims-of-the-brussels-attack. Not sure if this helps. But I agree that the article should deal more so with the dead victims than it currently does. Redzemp (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

André Adam was not American, but a Belgian diplomat who is also referred to as French. Davidships (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Really. Davidships. ok. Redzemp (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting today ([39]), La Libre Belgique and Le Monde are going to publish individual "portraits" of the 32 victims. That will probably help, although "certaines familles n’ont pas souhaité y participer". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The names of the 32 victims are here. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The fourth American victim: Bruce Baldwin. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Sixteen of the deceased were Belgian nationals, while the remaining twelve were from eight different nations.". With 32 victims, that sentence leaves out four. Fences&Windows 12:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

For us, the problem is that the NATO staff members were killedNATO Stab Securite Officer (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Zou het kunnen er een plaats delict Mujahideen? Maar wat deden ze gewroken? Het is niet duidelijk. Verbessern sie bitte der artikel via verklaringen. (Om het meer uniek!) Dank u.WikipediaUser54323456786543 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

From the circles closer to the NATO headquarters. In this house https://www.google.fr/maps/@50.8713594,4.3972859,3a,15y,355.75h,87.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s81pAlgOhmXKrUFFLPZf3Aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Lives under the protection of her anti-terrorist police a mutmaster terrorist. Involved in 4 terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris. A turkish turk. With a wrong Turkish passport (meanwhile, stale pass). His delicate face profile, refined manners also allow him to continue to operate heroin trade and heroin free distribution, to play with cuddly toys, to surf the Internet locally. Anti - drug police are watching the house 33 from disstance of 100 meters. Try to drive out all the Newgirian Wikipedia users from the neighborhoods (as if we could have had something against it, of course! These previntieve poisoning (immediately before the terrorist attacks).))) 

It was pretty prezis! Koloteral damage to Belgians is minimized. The lives of the Second Assassins were cleansed. We (Wikipedia User's) could not want more than the police, yes!

News from the newspaper <Metrotime.be> ...

…A third recommendation is that foreign victims should receive the same financial assistance as Belgian nationals or residents. Former US ambassador James Cain, whose son-in-law died in Zaventem, alerted Commission President Patrick Dewael over the aberration of the Belgian system… Another important recommendation is that the state should advance the payment of damages, ... "It is abnormal that people have to wait months and months to receive assistance to which they are entitled," says André Frédéric ( PS), member of the Commission of Inquiry. http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/un-guichet-unique-pour-les-victimes-d-attentats-5908aee1cd702b5fbe563c7fAtelier du Web (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A, yes! And that's not all, sir, Mr. James Cain. For the victims who have a right (according to the judicial appellation court België) on a financial compensation. Did the Huissier de Justic (or International mafia?) Dubious barter to the payment. We are just thinking about it, what can come of it?195.244.180.59 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour. A, how has prepared a court suit. Because of delay in the court of law. Because of not payment for Terror Victime from Fond Aide Victime België. For 5 years .Victime de la terreur (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2016 Brussels bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20160322225552/http%3A//www.brusselsairport.be/en/alarm/69875/ to http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/alarm/69875/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405065311/http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brussels-airport-to-reopen-after-security-row/ar-BBrf5N7 to http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brussels-airport-to-reopen-after-security-row/ar-BBrf5N7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

---

2016 Brussels bombings → Brussels bombings – Considering that the 2016 bombing caused 35 deaths and hundreds of injured, this may be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, compare with the one in 1979. B dash (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing wrong with a bit of specificity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The title was first being moved by Unreal7 to the one without year on 4 November 2018, and then moved back to the initial one by UnitedStatesian on 6 March 2019. --158.182.178.117 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose since there have been other bombings in Brussels. Note that World Trade Center attacks has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even though one killed 6 people and the other over 2,000. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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