Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


King of Belgium's Message

[edit]

Should the King of Belgium's address be moved to the main article page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD3C:CB70:B9B0:456A:72E1:987E (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

This is to thank User:Gareth_E._Kegg for moving this pap to its own dedicated page, detoxing the original article. XavierItzm (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly don't need a lengthy list of quotes on the parent article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally see the point of this parent article being anywhere on Wikipedia. In fact, one could place a few of these quotes on the actual article, say for example Britain and France (not all of them as this is a lengthy list), and delete this parent article per WP:PROD. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a lengthy list of quotes anywhere, they are largely repetitive and have little encyclopedic value. Reywas92Talk 17:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 - should I tag this article per WP:PROD? Would you be in agreement? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the PROD tag. Feel free to propose a "keep" if you do not agree. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This debate again? Shouldn't we just have a single discussion about all of the articles/lists in Category:International reactions and Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, that may not be a bad idea. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've just had this conversation so many times... ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Another Believer. If you feel a discussion about the categories is relevant, feel free to start one. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't have a problem with the categories. I am talking about the articles themselves. Every time an attack like this occurs, we create similar reaction articles and debate whether or not they are necessary. It would be nice if the community established consensus and came up with some standards for these sorts of articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have this debate every time; the precedent is 'keep'; I have no idea why people keep wasting everyone's time by deletion tagging. Obvious keep. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If you say so, I'll remove the tag. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the tag should be removed, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only because (a) the AFDs are usually held while the article is still in the news, (b) too many people think that because there are so many of these articles they must be okay, and (c) there are too many people who think 'But sources exist for the quotes therefore they must exist here forever!!!!' without taking the encyclopedic value and notability of the list concept into account. The only reason they exist is because this excessive material doesn't belong in the main article and someone rightfully clears it from it, but unfortunately creates a separate one rather than just removing the useless content. Reywas92Talk 17:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree with Reywas92, mostly. Now is not the time to debate this because there's too much editing going on and too much emotion involved. I will note that not all of these pages are mere indiscriminate lists of statements. Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks has the potential to be a reasonably good article in its own right, because there is scope to discuss some reactions that were unique to those attacks, e.g., the lighting up of buildings and the Peace for Paris symbol. It's not clear yet whether the Brussels attacks will give rise to anything similar. Perhaps, rather than trying to establish general rules through one big debate, it would be more productive to try to knock that article (or some other article; Reactions to the September 11 attacks would be the obvious one) into an acceptable shape, so that it can serve as a standard against which to measure similar articles? Cmeiqnj (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I think this article should be kept. We need a larger discussion here. This article is not problematic when you see that it is consistent with many similar articles/lists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I admit I made a mistake. Tag removed. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Foreign Ministry speaker

[edit]

Note that User:Potorochin already twice removed her comments which are negative towards EU) saying they are not official. I believe it is irrelevant, she was giving an interview in her official capacity and made a comment that EU got these attacks because it has a policy of double standards (which actually made some noise in Russian internet). Hence, they belong here. She is the only official speaker, and removing the comment means whitewashing the lady.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think any politician's statements are fit for this page. Don't see why anyone would try to filter whose comments are OK to include and whose are not. XavierItzm (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for her commentary on the official website of the Russian MFA, to check whether the translation was correct, as the provided source was in Russian. Earlier I had to correct the Vladimir Putin's statement, as the provided citation was different from the official one, which I found on his official website. Unfortunately, I didn't find any such commentary of Maria Zakharova on the MFA's website and concluded that it was not the official statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry. Daniel (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overused condemn

[edit]

Again with the word condemn. I brought this issue up at the article for the 2015 Paris attacks. The word condemn is being overused. Can someone please fix that? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-national UK reactions

[edit]

At many other of these "Reactions to..." articles the reactions of political figures from sub-national parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar etc are included. Previously the comments of Nicola Sturgeon, first Minister of Scotland were included under the broader UK entry. These have been removed now entirely. I'm wondering if any editors have views on this matter? AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally when the officials are not part of the government a double asterisks should suffice (it still has representation there after all).Lihaas (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: As you have raised it, none of their comments are official. For example, in the USA governors of various states would also utter their reactions at various events, but that doesn't mean their reactions are representative of the USA as a whole; except as the government gives leave. Such is simliar in the case of the UK; only the British government has mandate to give an official reaction; therefore, in appealing to common sense Scotland's views are not taken into account. Vormeph (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland may be a "country" under UK domestic definitions, but it does not constitute a "country" in the international community or United Nations sense. Then again, neither does the autonomous region (but not country) of Iraqi Kurdistan, whose reactions some editors consistently seem to try to add to each one of these reactions article. That said, I don't think Vormeph's rather WP:POINTy move of adding California and so on under the justification that they may also be considered "countries" (they can't) was appropriate, so I reverted it. I think these articles are already more than comprehensive enough with listing each actual country's reactions, and they're going to become Wikipedia's joke (and eventually be wiped en masse, like the current Village Pump proposal requests) if we make them utterly ridiculous by adding every possible sub-national response. LjL (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why trimming down the list according to who said it rather than what is being said is bad practice. The "reaction" from Sturgeon was a mere fleeting mention that the attacks existed. She said nothing meaningful about it. I'm very much looking forward to hearing from Nauru and Tuvalu next as per some arbitrary rule of which quotes are notable. Jolly Ω Janner 16:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder:, @Jolly Janner:, @LjL: I hope this discussion will also clear the fog surrounding what is termed by a 'national reaction' towards an event. In which case, an official national reaction would have to come from the head of government of that country. Places like Scotland or Iraqi Kurdistan are not countries by their own constitutional right and are only constituents where there is a degree of autonomy. Such places do not warrant an official national reaction and so on Wikipedia their views are not regarded as important or representative of the entire nation. For future 'reactions to..' articles, this protocol ought to be adopted to prevent unnecessary flooding. My point with the addition of US state entries erewhile was exactly to emphasise this. Vormeph (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with such a list is that if an event occurred in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon's reaction would be omitted and that of Naura's head of state would be included. There is no shred of common sense in this indiscriminate list. I prefer assessing reactions on the basis of what is being said, along with how widely reported they are among reliable sources. These are entirely routine condolences and do not substantiate what someone with common sense would associate to a "reaction" to a terrorist attack. Lists of quotes belong on wikiquote:2016 Brussels bombings. If one analyses Sturgeon's response, you would realise it is nothing more than a fleeting acknowledgement that the event happened and shouldn't be included on that basis. Jolly Ω Janner 21:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have this article?

[edit]

Could someone please explain the encyclopedic value of this article, because I fail to see it. --bender235 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Cmeiqnj (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For some reason, that slipped past me. However, in that discussion I see no explanation whatsoever, other than "we have similar articles for 9/11, Paris attacks, etc." Articles of these kind are mere laundry lists of condemnation. Zero encyclopedic value. --bender235 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I very much support the community having a discussion about these "reaction" articles. Where would be the best place for this discussion to take place? We should establish some standards, and perhaps have an example of an ideal article / list (assuming we decide they have encyclopedic value), so we have a template for future similar articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned on the main page I would also support a discussion, and there seems to be broad support for one to be held at some point. The best place is probably WP:VPP. It might be best to hold off for at least a week or so so it's less of a kneejerk reaction, though. —Nizolan (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've always hated reactions on Wikipedia, always will. But better in their own little bubbles than in the main articles. People are compelled to write them because the news cranks a bunch out each time. If sources exist, it must be notable, they figure. There's no stopping that. Only containing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To be fair WP:EXIST and WP:NOTINHERITED are already a thing and usually seem to be policed fairly well. If a community consensus develops to trim back these articles/sections then it can probably be enforced. —Nizolan (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to bandwagon, but I've edited some of these attack articles and I would strongly support a discussion about the value (or, to my mind, lack thereof) of these reaction lists. With all due respect to the good people of Micronesia, I can't imagine who needs to know that the President of Micronesia condemned the attacks. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I wasn't specific enough; I mean, I would support a big group discussion at the policy level, or at least at the category article, for people interested in these articles to hash the issue out. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you start the conversation and share a link here? There's no stronger show of support than driving the bandwagon. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times in its main article about this event, noted that "world leaders reacted with horror and calls for solidarity", but selected only the reactions from France, US and Russia for more in-depth analysis. Maybe we should also be more selective and provide only the most notable reactions, not the usual "my country also condemns..."? And then we may incorporate this article into the main one. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly be my preference—I don't think we need to get rid of reactions entirely, just the long and (IMO) pointless list of flags and rote statements. Something to bring up at WP:VPP probably. —Nizolan (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia is part of the world, it might be prudent to step in line with that solidarity our leaders reportedly called for. Let's select the one most notable source to cite for the one best sentence to say how they say they're all (excluding the silent crowd) anti-terrorism and pro-humanity. Then put that in the main. It might be the only way. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't have to be only one reaction, but: 1. It should be a notable reaction. 2. The reactions provided should be clearly different from each other, it should be a variety in reactions, if we can find any. If not, then one reaction will do. Daniel (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While searching for previous discussions of this, by the way, I found this comment by Black Falcon, which I think summarises my own position and dovetails with yours: essentially remove the non-notable comments and prefer prose over list format. —Nizolan (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and support. Black Falcon's suggestion that you mentioned looks very reasonable. Daniel (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article exists because of Wikipedia culture. Same as why there are articles about porn stars, high schools and TV episodes but authors are not so easily considered notable. It would take a big effort, probably impossible, to change this culture. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mogherini

[edit]

Mogherini was poignant in Jordan (And most rational), she wrote a weblog too.Lihaas (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also The FOr Min statement is mots important. Surprised its not here (I got it from tv so not seen online here). Both and moreLihaas (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama in booth

[edit]
Resolved

That picture of Obama sitting in a soundproof booth - what purpose does it serve? It adds nothing to the article; he could be talking to anyone about anything. I suggest it's removed. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The caption was also wrong; in the photo in question Obama isn't talking to Belgium's Prime Minister, as we were saying, but to an advisor. I've removed it. Cmeiqnj (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 141.6.11.25 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxing

[edit]
Resolved

I have just seen that the supposed reactions from the Federated States of Micronesia and the British Indian Ocean Territory are both similar and unusual. For the Federated States of Micronesia "President Peter Christian condemned the attacks as "not good", and sent a letter to ISIS and asked it to stop" while for the British Indian Ocean Territory the entry states "'Responsible Minister' James Duddridge called the attacks "not good" and told reporters that something should be done but he is not sure what." - this is sourced to "The Ocean Times pg 6, dated 22/03/16" clearly unlikely to have been in print at that time. Can others editors assist to discover who initially added both of these entries and whether they are certainly hoaxes? AusLondonder (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed. WWGB (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the Federated States of Micronesia entry was added by an IP, @190.96.41.74:. The British Indian Ocean Territory entry appears to have been added by @Outrøsk:. This editor has made four contributions. This one also appears to be a hoax citing a false source. Should this be moved to ANI? AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Thanks for spotting.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, @Ymblanter: AusLondonder (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump discussion on the usefulness of articles like this

[edit]

Greetings, Wikipedians! I have opened up a discussion on the usefulness of "world leader response articles" at the policy section of the Village Pump. Your input would be greatly appreciated (and your advice if I've botched the procedure for this sort of thing, as it's new territory form me). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the ball rolling. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States election material

[edit]

Regarding this disputed material, I'm not sure it really belongs in this article. It seems to go beyond reaction to the attack per se. The statements from Cruz and Trump, in particular, are not reactions. They are just instances of politicians taking advantage of recent events to make a political point. If this material belongs anywhere, perhaps a subpage of United States presidential election, 2016 would be a more appropriate venue? Cmeiqnj (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The US-centric emphasis is undue, especially opinions of unelected candidates. WWGB (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I find amusing is that the sole user who keeps advocating the inclusion of that material in the article thinks that the WP:UNDUE stance is a "lame front excuse", that the reversions are actually motivated by dislike and hatred of that material, and that it should be included because "America is a big player on the world stage, whether you (or I) like that fact" (a reasoning he/she has consistently made). I do not deny the fact that America is a big player on the world stage, but so are a few other countries (like Russia, for instance) and we don't see this user creating a separate section for reactions from Russian politicians. The WP:UNDUE stance has validity, since we have statements from one or two world leaders/organizations per country (even the U.S. already has a representative statement from Obama in that list), and suddenly, we have an entire section dedicated solely to reactions from politicians who are not Obama and presidential candidates. Parsley Man (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It was not just "presidential election", but also Vice President Biden's remarks, and also other US politicians (that if given the chance would have been eventually put in and expanded upon). The section name is NOT "presidential candidate reaction"...but United States political reaction IN GENERAL. So the premise if this section here on Talk is wrong from the get-go, and shows either dishonesty or ignorance or sloppiness of what the point was. And there's no WP valid rationale to wholesale remove entire sourced section, with front excuses, of "undue" (without really giving clear solid reasons just how it's so "undue"), but really for "WP:I DON'T LIKE" reasons.
It's a fact that America is a big player on the world stage, whether we like that fact or not. And the information is quite notable, as well as sourced. And to repeat, it's not just "election" or "candidates" but US political reactions in general. Also...can it be helped that this attack in Belgium happened in the middle of an important US presidential election season?
And, no, Sorry, Parsley Manbut bringing up "Russia" won't work. America (and England) are considered (and are) different than any other nation on earth...and major super power.
For Parsley Man to say "Most, if not all of this information doesn't seem to be notable anywhere" makes me wonder what his criteria for "notable" is. Everything is referenced in reliable sources, and stand-alone and copiously mentioned. Not sure how it can be considered by anyone "not notable". Again, with the dishonest front excuses, for really "I don't like" reasons and suppression.
Also, the name of this overall article is not just "reactions of other nations". But reactions overall, in general, with whatever nuance or situation. Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings. Nothing in the article name precludes a section like this being in it. (And again, ti's not just about "elections", but US political reaction in general.) The material is well-notable and well-sourced, and valid, and this is a Wiki. No one owns any one article, and shouldn't remove stuff they don't like. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps we should also include the Very Important Comments from Kim Kardashian? After all, she has more followers than Cruz, and her comments are Reported In Time Magazine so they MUST be important and notable! WWGB (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your WP:IDL stance would definitely be valid if opponents weren't mentioning WP:UNDUE. But it has been consistently mentioned by me and WWGB, so maybe you should check it out and see what we're talking about. For starters, WP:UNDUE clearly states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Your material definitely fulfills the latter. And there's more. Parsley Man (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can Kim Kardashian control or do foreign policy or wage political wars or order air bombs? Twitter followers are not the issue, and you're the only one bringing that nonsense up. We're talking about players on the world stage, and those who can influence or public and political policy and actions. WWGB, your nonsense vapid dishonest comment here shows and confirms more so how the only editors who want this section removed have no real credibility or rationale. But are WP suppressors of information THAT THEY DON'T LIKE. Thanks for confirming what I already knew about you, man. lol... That you had to resort to that idiocy about "Kim Kardashian" shows that you're actually failing, and can't give an intelligent or mature or WP valid anything on this. So when it comes to your rationale for removing sourced and notable section regarding US political reaction (not just candidates, but US politicians in general), you....FAIL. Redzemp (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, what part of WP:UNDUE do you not understand? Also, your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is not helping your position. Parsley Man (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Parsley, I told you to not engage me, especially not with rude nonsense like this. You have no solid reason as to HOW it's "undue". Simply saying "undue undue undue" with no real good explanation does not magically make it so. By desperately bringing up "Russia"? When it's a fact that American forces have intervened in Iraq and the Middle East a lot more. Claiming "undue" a million times with no solid explanation or substance does not magically make the claim true. Especially not when the matter is copiously mentioned and copiously sourced. You actually said in your other comment above that you don't see how this is notable!!! Your handle on WP policy and veracity is weak, we know, as you thought you could restore old stuff on my own talk page, and control what I have and don't have on it, treating it as a regular article talk page. Who does that???
And nice how you dodged the point that this "Kim Kardashian" idiotic comparison (talk about "Jesus Christ"!!) is so dishonest and lame in that Kim can't influence foreign policy (sighs and double facepalm). Sorry, Parsley Manbut bringing up "Russia" won't work. America (and England) are considered (and are) different than any other nation on earth...and major super power. Again, Parsley, who has been warned by other editors for constant warring and suppression, and even tells me to not remove stuff from my own talk page, you and your equally mendacious partner "WWGB" all you want, but if there's no solid proof or explanation as to just how it is, then it's just an empty claim with no substance. Assertions are not facts. Again, we know you dodge things, but try answering this one question: Can Kim Kardashian control or do foreign policy or wage political wars or order air bombs? Twitter followers are not the issue, and you're the only one bringing that nonsense up. We're talking about players on the world stage, and those who can influence or public and political policy and actions. Redzemp (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been explaining why WP:UNDUE applies ever since this conversation started. Here's a recap:
"The WP:UNDUE stance has validity, since we have statements from one or two world leaders/organizations per country (even the U.S. already has a representative statement from Obama in that list), and suddenly, we have an entire section dedicated solely to reactions from politicians who are not Obama and presidential candidates"
"For starters, WP:UNDUE clearly states, 'Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.' Your material definitely fulfills the latter. And there's more."
I also urged you to read the WP:UNDUE article for more info.
As for that whole Kim Kardashian thing, I had absolutely nothing to do with that, so I can't see why I should be responding to that. But I will agree it was a bit of a stupid comparison to make. Also, WWGB and I are not conspiring against you, if that's what you're thinking. This is not some campaign to suppress your voice. Parsley Man (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, Parsley Man but bringing up "Russia" won't work. America (and England) are considered (and are) different than any other nation on earth...and major super power. And also, it was America's involvement in Iraq etc, that is arguably part of this whole mess. So considering American political reaction, in an article about world reactions, to these bombings, as "undue", with lame desperate "well about Russia" type arguments, does not work. Redzemp (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are the only one here holding this opinion. Everybody else in the thread opposes it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ymblanter, that is obviously true, but it's not like we have 10 or 15 contributors here giving their thoughts and votes either. It's only like 3 or so. And also, the vote even by them is not to delete completely, but more so to "move". And also the rationale that it doesn't belong here, in this specific article, seems weak and problematic at best, and totally wrong at worst. Because there's definitely due notability, references, and important discussion, in outside reliable sources, as a stand-alone subject and matter, copiously, and also that America (and England) are important big players on the world scene and situation, and involvement, and also that the section name was NOT JUST about the "candidates" (the section was to be more developed and expanded if given the chance), from the US, but politicians and governors etc in general, not only candidates. America is not Slovenia or Trinidad or Malta...that's just a fact. Whether we like that fact or not. And also, it can't be helped that this bloody horrible terrorist attack in Belgium took place in the middle of primary presidential elections in America.
But also, that the name of this article is about reactions in the world in general, and America (to repeat) is not Slovenia or Finland in this matter, regardless of the crowing against "American exceptionalism". There is a certain type of "exceptionalism" (whether for good or for ill) in the matter of pertinence, relevance, involvement, and importance...regardless of whether you (or I) am thrilled with that fact. We can't deny it as being a fact. I'm unbiased because I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THE USA AND MANY OF ITS WAYS...so it's not like I'm trying to promote America, as being some fan of the USA. But we have to be fair and factual as to what the heck goes on here.
Everyone in the world, particularly world leaders of other nations, are interested in what the next potential US president intends to do or say on what happened in Belgium. But again, as I said, I abide by WP policy, that (even if wrong) what consensus ultimately determines. But it can't be logically factually contended that this is so "undue"...as America is extremely important, whether I personally like that fact or not. And it's simply a fact that it's copiously abundantly sourced and discussed in reliable sources and places. As a stand-alone subject. So "notability" is not even a question. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, since you mentioned England, then why not also have a separate section detailing the reactions of all English politicians? If they're with the U.S. as a superpower, then surely that guarantees a separate section of their own by your logic. Also, can you give a reason why Russia is a superpower? If it's considered a leader in the Second World then I don't see the denial about it being a superpower. Also, just because three or so people are contributing to this discussion doesn't exactly mean those people are the only ones who care about this. I doubt that everyone just knows what's going on here. Parsley Man (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transfering to Wikiquote

[edit]

I understand many users here are unfamiliar with Wikiquote and even fewer familiar with how an "article" should look over there. I recently made a transfer to wikiquote:Bacha Khan University attack, so this can be used a guideline. The end result after the transfer has been made is to add {{wikiquote}} somewhere in 2016 Brussels bombings (ideally reactions of aftermath section) and then to remove the listed quotes from this page. After that, depending on the amount of prose left in this article, a deletion/merge review may be appropriate. I may be able to help out, but based on the huge quantity of quotes here, will not be able to make the full transfer alone. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that nobody wants to expand the scope of the article, this can just as easily be like Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Given the WP:POTENTIAL I would oppose a deletion or merger. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion/merge review may be appropriate after a Wikiquote transfer. It would only make sense to cross that bridge after the transfer, as that was not the intention of this topic. Jolly Ω Janner 22:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added reactions

[edit]

This article is about reactions, not about Reactions of Heads of Government and foreign ministers.

Therefore, there should be a Daesh/ISIL reaction (exists) as well as certain big people, like Hillary Rodham Clinton and famous actors. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These types of articles are becoming more like newspapers than encyclopedia articles. Quotes from "famous actors"? C'mon. Jolly Ω Janner 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable statements from non-state actors should be included. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt at quantifying notability to quotes

[edit]

I've realised that these types of articles will never go away. Rather than fight it, I propose a second alternative to the Wikiquote transfer above. I think virtually everyone agrees that these lists need to be trimmed? The problem is quantifying what is and what is not notable without bias. The sources of information used are newspapers (or online equivalents). What is interesting is that most of these newspapers have readers from only one country and therefore a quote from that country would be relevant. Wikipedia takes an international stance, but this shouldn't mean we should weight every country equally. So how do we assess how notable a quote is? Well, if it's being reported from an international news source or a news source from outside of the home country, then that goes a long way. So here is the proposal:

Quotes are only deemed notable enough for inclusion if they are covered by reliable secondary sources outside of their home country.

As it currently stands, that would wipe out almost all of the content, so maybe we should give time for editors to search for better sources before sending down the hammer. I am interested in other's opinions. Jolly Ω Janner 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposal.
This is probably not the place where to make it.
Wikipedia has places for development of that sort of thing
XavierItzm (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make it a wider-impacting proposal at this stage, as it would pretty much wipe out any historical articles of this nature. AFAIK, this is the only article of its type that is still being actively edited and thus there is a chance to find widely reported quotes. Many proposals start out on one article and because of its success are then proposed at a wide scale. There's no reason that we can't form a consensus on this talk page. Jolly Ω Janner 07:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice proposal Jolly. In the AFD discussion I tried to highlight the need to find a way to differentiate between notable and non-notable quotes and your proposal is certainly in this direction. I would add that this proposal also allows quotes to be inserted at later times when secondary sources review the incident and reproduce them. I think that this proposal could be also discussed in the Village Pump and possibly tested to be adopted as a policy. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming international reactions

[edit]

Any suggestions on how "international reactions" should be trimmed? In my opinion any trimming should preserve list of countries that issued statements and preserve any statement that is not "pure" condolences/with policy implications. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say we need to preserve a list of countries that issued statements? Are you suggesting we remove the content of the statements and just list the countries? How is that better than a simple sentence stating something like, "Many countries issued statements of condolence", with a suitable reference? Cmeiqnj (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What possible relevence to anything is the condolances of Botswana or Bahamas? Delete anything completely predictable. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to remove countries that are just giving condolences without policy implications, then one can delete the entire list. This is exactly why I removed it. Jolly Ω Janner 19:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would tentatively suggest (for this and similar articles) to condense all the reactions that are simply condolences into a statement saying that most countries issued them, and then leaving any statements that say something different - any further thought - as a separate highlight, but ideally, in prose, as Wikipedia generally favors, not as a list of little flags, which it doesn't. LjL (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The uncomfortable reality for everyone is that community consensus consistently supports these articles in their current form. No credible rationale or criteria can be used to remove the reaction of one particular country, especially per WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following statement is not true: "community consensus consistently supports these articles in their current form.". Jolly Ω Janner 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to do away with including world leader responses to terrorist incidents has not closed yet so please no chicken counting yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's true about WP:Local consensus on these articles, if these articles in their current form (as I believe) contravene policies and guidelines such as those asking for prose and discouraging collections of quotes, those take precedence, until community consensus is obtained to change those guidelines. That's how it has always worked on Wikipedia, regardless of what AusLondonder may suppose. The WP:GEOBIAS essay is only relevant if some countries are left out due to geographical bias (I personally don't like that "Botswana or Bahamas" comment; there are no first-tier and second-tier countries), not if their reaction simple happens to be the same as other countries and is listed as one. That is in no way discriminatory. LjL (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly Janner: Have you missed the repeated AFD's? Some of which have resulted in snow keep? Unless we are engaging in some post-modernist, non-conformist thinking, that seems like me to consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs has been completed with snow keep and Keep as result. We can not then start removing information and huge chunks of the article wthout discussion and consensus. BabbaQ (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, it is being discussed, and at length, and consensus is being assessed at the Village Pump, no less. I was among the ones !voting keep on those AfDs, but that just means that I didn't consider the article subject inherently unencyclopedic, which is what AfDs are about; it doesn't mean that I agreed with the exact layout and contents of the article. That goes for everyone who !voted in the AfDs while understanding what an AfD is. So, it is not automatically an endorsement of the current content in any way. If an AfD ending in keep somehow meant that the content should be frozen and could never be trimmed for sound policy-backed reasons, that would sound pretty absurd. LjL (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the entire basis of these articles are reactions, mainly from world leaders. AusLondonder (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are rather technical and are not discussions of an article's content. I voted to keep this article in the discussion too. Discussions of article content occur on the article's talk page. AusLondonder, if you think the entire basis of these articles are a list of world leader's reaction, then would you support the removal of the sections of prose?

I completely agree with LjL's proposal to trim them by what they are saying rather than who is saying it. If anyone can show me some reactions, which go beyond condolences then I will keep them. If not, the rest will be removed and preserved in the article history. Jolly Ω Janner 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can show me some reactions, which go beyond condolences then I will keep them. If not, the rest will be removed and preserved in the article history. - What? Did all what we wrote just pass you by. BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are using previous AfDs to different articles as a consensus on how to write this article. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process "A keep outcome reflects a rough consensus to retain (i.e. not delete) a page, though not necessarily in its current form." Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you are playing policy games to override consensus. Given that the entire purpose of these articles, most of which have been to, and survived, AFDs, is to give international reactions, I think it's pretty clear consensus stands behind them. AusLondonder (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a policy game is. You cited AfDs as a reason to decide how to write these articles despite LjL pointing out that is not what they are there for. As a result, I quoted the deletion review's policy on the matter. Anyway, the village pump discussion is garnering less frequent comments now, so I would expect it to become final over the course of next week. I will be back. Jolly Ω Janner 03:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only named Botswana and Bahamas as examples because they are not directly impacted, are no where close to Belgium except alphabetically, and have no involvement in fighting ISIL,are not in NATO etc. France however, might say something notable being a direct neighbor, bombing partner with Belgium, fellow NATO member, links to Paris attackers with this attack, manhunt happening in France too etc. That is not GEOBIAS or suggesting some countries are second tier, it's just pointing out that these countries are not involved at all. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to keep something, that part about Aquino of the Phillipines increasing airport security seems somewhat tangible. If there's another I missed where something actually happens, that's probably alright, too. Might want to trim some "shock". Eighteen times is a bit horrific (and 62 "condolence"s is shocking). My first choice is still deleting this entirely, and all the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

I propose that:

  • A. per WP:MOSFLAG, the decorative flag icons need to go. (and)
  • B. The quotes/comments need to be put into prose.

How does B happen? There are bound to be numerous people saying the exact same thing, things that governments do to honor the victims though would be noteworthy. An example is Romania where they declared a national day of mourning, or Poland where as a result (yes this counts as a reaction) of the attack it will not allow 7,000 refugee quota ordered by EU to be settled in Poland. My recommendation is to look for these types of reactions that stand out. I also want to point out that I see no government reactions, this article is titled "Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings" where are the reactions by the Belgian government? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them say the same things though, is there a reason why we cant make the article like Reactions to the Panama Papers or International reactions to Fitna? The latter breaks down the responses into regions like Africa, and North America. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, a list of quotes in response to an event or a person is the job of Wikiquote. Wikipedia is meant to contain encyclopedic entries. Until those wishing to keep this article as it is acknowledge this, I don't see how a consensus can ever form. Jolly Ω Janner 15:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So would you be willing to accept a prosed by region format for the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds good. So long as it isn't styled like "Governments from Europe expressed condolensces including France, Italy, Germany... [arbirtrary list of every single country]." There needs to be some meaningful reactions as you outlined in your opening statement. Jolly Ω Janner 02:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both Complete misunderstanding of WP:MOSFLAG. The guideline states "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials". Reactions should be kept as quotes, this is a long-standing practice in hundreds of articles. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any reasons other than because other articles do it that way? Have you considered the reason they do it that way is because it's the easiest way of doing it rather than the best way of doing it? There have been numerous deletion reviews in which many people have suggested that their format is wrong. Also, Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles lists articles which were deleted or transferred to Wikiquote. If it's converted to prose, flags are not compatible. Jolly Ω Janner 02:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact you are comparing the Brussels bombings with any of those articles deleted/transferred is laughable. Reactions to Mel Gibson drink driving? Reaction by actors to the 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike? The only two comparable ones are the New Delhi bombings and Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. However, WP:GEOBIAS intervened and editors rushed to delete two articles with wording problems. Anyhow, why not compare it with the literally dozens of similar articles kept? Regarding the flags, that was part one of the proposal and not directly linked to converting to prose. The proponent here falsely claimed MOS:FLAGS required removal of the flags when it specifically supports their inclusion in the context of government officials. AusLondonder (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, I've updated Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles for the benefit of all. AusLondonder (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any thoughts on the two questions I asked above? Jolly Ω Janner 03:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's the best, most WP:NPOV, most comprehensive and most and user-friendly way. AusLondonder (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at [1] "Very few editors supported indiscriminately listing all reactions from world leaders, and those who did failed to reconcile their position with WP:INDISCRIMINATE." Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Reactions to the 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:

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) 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_2016_Brussels_bombings&oldid=1252359680"