Talk:2015 Saint-Denis raid

Duration

4.20am-8.25am is not "nearly seven hours". Where is the error? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, 0425 is when the "full-on assault" began but the police first began the raid in the vicinity of 0100 ("In the early morning"). General Ization ^Talk 16:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statements by Paris prosecutor Francois Molins, which were the source of the "5000 rounds" figure, indicate the actual gunbattle lasted about an hour. I have removed the "nearly seven hours" claim. Perhaps that was the total length of the operation, including logistics and staging. General Ization ^Talk 17:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The prosecutor was probably referring to the 0720-0820 interval (according to our content) that concluded the siege. Clearly there was gunfire and explosions prior to this, but still nothing that would explain the "nearly seven hour" claim. General Ization ^Talk 18:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Name of female suicide bomber

I have reverted the edits that introduced the name of the suicide bomber, as she is non-notable per BLP1E and her name is not needed in an encyclopedic article. Also, the edits use the Daily Mail as a source. The DM is a tabloid, and it is often regarded as an unreliable source, certainly for hard news. The information about her spine and head being ejected from the window are most certainly not needed. Also note that DM will be flogging this story intensely, because of this. General Ization ^Talk 18:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@General Ization: There is no rule that prevents tabloids from being used as reliable sources. Besides tabloids do not always use gossip as a source. Also the National Post was also used to cite her name. And as she is related to the Paris attack mastermind and was an involved combatant in the raid, she is notable. But still if you think she is non-notable, then you have to explain it how she is non-notable. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If the question was brought to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, as it has time and time again (e.g., recently here), you'd be informed that the Daily Mail is a generally unreliable source, and many attempts to use it as a source have been reverted on that basis. Regarding the notability of the suicide bomber, did you read WP:BLP1E (also WP:BIO1E)? Other than her having allegedly detonated herself during a police raid, a fact that can be (and has been) presented in its entirety without ever using her name, what makes her notable? In addition, it is far too early to characterize her action as voluntary, a deliberate attempt to lure police, and she may just as well prove to be, effectively, a victim of her cousin's militancy. We should neither vilify her nor reinforce her as a martyr (depending on your perspective) by publishing her name in an encyclopedia until and unless her role in this event becomes more clear and she proves to be the subject of a significant amount of coverage in mainstream media that establishes her notability.General Ization ^Talk 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also see point #3 at WP:NOTNEWS. General Ization ^Talk 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@General Ization: I don't understand how you're taking naming her on this article as villifying or being a martyr. She was a combatant in the raid and she should be named along with all the other militans including the ones who were captured. In actual the suicide bomber's role has already been confirmed as far as I've seen. She was just faking it in order to lure the police accordingto reports. Additionally the reasons you have given here do not justify your view of how she is non-notable, all of your reasons actually seem to give further support that she was noticeable. Also as I already said, there is no rule against tabloids being used as a source. But still if you feel Daily Mail isn't reliable especially in this case where the same infofmation has been cited by many other sources as well, then you need to explain how it isn't a reliable source including in this case. Just because others might have removed it as a source from other articles, doesn't automattically means it's completely unreliable. And in your original comment you gave Daily Mail being a tabloid as a reason for it not being reliable, not it being removed by others from other articles being deemed unreliable. But even if it is unreliable, then there are other sources besides Daily Mail that can be used in its place. And one of them, National Post has been used here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Since reports now indicate that Aitboulahcen played, if unwittingly, a greater role in this event (since police used her tapped cell phone to determine Abaaoud's whereabouts), and she has now been extensively identified and discussed in mainstream media, I withdraw my objection (though I still maintain it was appropriate at the time, and that the Daily Mail should be consistently rejected as a source of content for this article). General Ization ^Talk 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@General Ization: I've just read on Telegraph that she didn't blow herself up according to AFP reports here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12006988/Mali-Bamako-terrorist-attack-170-hostages-Paris-live.html. Other news sites haven't reported anything about this so let's wait and see whether the report is correct. If this report is correct, then she can't be considered a combatant, she would be considered a victim/casualty caused by the militants. Possibly then there might be a case that she isn't noticeable to be mentioned even though she is a victim. Let's wait and see. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Curiously, I'd now argue that she remains notable even if she proves not to have been the suicide bomber, since the tracking of her cell phone apparently led authorities to conduct the raid, because of the extensive publicity she has already received, and precisely because of the misidentification. (As an aside, this makes more sense to me, given what some sources have described as a lack of religious ideology on her part that one would assume is a prerequisite for being a suicide bomber.) Agreed, however; let's wait until there is coverage of an official statement. General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood your comment but it seems you might not have understood what the report said. The report doesn't say that she wasn't the suicide bomber. It just simply says she didn't blow herself up which might mean that she was blown up by the militants. But still anyway let's wait and see if the report is correct. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The report I read at your link said that the suicide bomber had been determined to be male, which would mean that Aitboulahcen was not the suicide bomber (and presumably the female body found today in the rubble is hers). General Ization ^Talk 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah you're right. Didn't read the report completely, sorry about that. But do you think she should be mentioned here. If she is not a combatant, then I don't think her name is noticeable enough to be mentioned. She was given attention by the media because she was (or mistakenly thought to be if the report is correct) the suicide bomber. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY (not noticeability) and WP:NBIO. Once determined to be notable, a person cannot be made non-notable, even if notability is the result of a mistake (and as already explained her role in the incident is now known to be greater than originally reported, and not exclusively linked to her identification as a suicide bomber). Notability is determined by a number of criteria (discussed at those policy pages), which have now been satisfied with regard to Aitboulahcen. General Ization ^Talk 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@General Ization: Alright but I don't understand what role are you talking about. The only other thing she did was shout for help and say she was not Abdelhamid's girlfriend. She could have either been geniuely asking for help or could be luring the police so they could be killed by the suicide bomber (whoever it was). KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments above. She played a pivotal role, though not by choice and before a single shot was fired, in the initiation of the raid and the location and killing of Abaaoud. General Ization ^Talk 20:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

CNN is now covering a statement by the Paris prosecutor's office that "contrary to preliminary information from French authorities, Hasna Ait Boulahcen did not blow herself up during the raid on the apartment in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis on Wednesday. The prosecutor's office told CNN that it was a man who was wearing a suicide device that detonated." However, this is a round-up ("At a Glance") article, and I'd prefer to wait until there is a standalone article available at CNN or elsewhere that reports this (as otherwise the cited information at the link tends to get lost as new information is added, e.g. the 5000 rounds issue mentioned below). General Ization ^Talk 20:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The article at L'Express seemed to fill the bill, so I have revised the article. Note that the third body, found in the rubble and not of the suicide bomber, has now been identifed as Aitboulahcen's. General Ization ^Talk 21:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

5000 rounds?

I am unable to locate any references to "5000 rounds exchanged" at the source cited for this information, nor in any of the other cited sources. It may have been there at one time but was subsequently dropped from the CNN article. Since this is an exceptional claim, it requires a cited source (and probably should be attributed inline, perhaps to the Paris prosecutor's office). (It would also be interesting to note whether the source gives any insight to the number of rounds fired by the militants versus security forces. Thousands of rounds of ammunition are not very portable, and, if the militants fired a significant number of them, the presence at the apartment on Rue Corbillon of that volume of munitions might indicate that this location was more than a simple residence where Abaaoud sought to hide.) General Ization ^Talk 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Found a new source, with attribution to Paris prosecutor Francois Molins, and that indicates the "5000 rounds" were fired by security forces. General Ization ^Talk 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction of links to Google Maps and Daily Mail graphic

@Gary Dee: Please stop introducing these links. The Google Maps link is unnecessary and contrary to WP:ELNO (see point #15: "Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates", which is the function of the coordinates and link already present in the infobox). The Daily Mail graphic is presumably copyright and also presents outdated information, e.g., the identity of the suicide bomber. Also see above for comments regarding the general unreliability and use of the Daily Mail, a tabloid, for citations in articles here. (This discussion belongs here, not on your Talk page.) General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll add that it doesn't matter if you "pretend" it's a source by placing it in "ref" tags: since it's really not sourcing anything in particular, it's still a WP:EL. Form can't change substance. LjL (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL:

@General Ization:

Hello there. Nothing has been mistaken. If General Ization talks about Diskussion(Talk)Pages, there has to be the right (mentioned) Talk Page, as there are several Millions of Talk Pages on WP (Worldwide). The one who reverts without giving detailed infos about what in depth he means is the one who is in mistake, but in the case he was not precise, thefor i assume GF. And also that is in the sense of consensus. Be as precise you can be, because beeing that not enough (for ins. on References in a article) would not be the right way building up confidence. So even then, reverting something or more (especially when in this case, User General Ization, is not going with a essage on the articles Talkpage trying to explain the reason (and that is what i ment)) should be the first in adding a new section to the articles talk page about why and so forth, especially when it is a new relevant articles on changing matter in the case of the article. In future, it would be more helpful (for the User who reverts, to leave at least a message on the Talk page of the article(s), instead then making some reverts in so GF-Arguement) around it, and also on the further going.

However, i will change it back into, unless there wont be no further convicement upon the matter of the subject. Best Regards. --Gary Dee 02:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that User:General Ization should have instructed you on which talk page to use in the edit summary? Of course the talk page to use is the talk page of the article. You can't blame others because you don't know basic things such as this. In any case, General Ization went to this talk page before you did, so, if anything, you should address the above to yourself, since you repeatedly reverted without discussion.

Now, I'm not sure what you're saying at the end, but if you revert again, you will be clearly edit warring. Don't. LjL (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, a Talk page discussion is generally not needed if the editor who is reverted reads and carefully considers the edit summary/summaries provided by the editor doing the reverting. My edit summaries contained the same information set forth above (in a simplified form) and should have been adequate for you to understand the reasons for the revert. If they were not, it would have been perfectly appropriate for you to begin the discussion here, but not for you to repeat the exact same edit. Please see WP:BRD, as LjL suggested in their edit summary. General Ization ^Talk 02:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thx. It is not me being Silly. Plus: Are you seriously saying.... Yes, of course, he started the revert escapade, without leaving a note on the talk page (or at least notifying it in trying to avoid an editwar. That shows especially after the 2nd revert of him, no behaviour upon consensus. Seriously. Yes. And, do you seriously think i did not mean it seriously. You are yourself involved in edit warring, and trying to get someone else involved. --Gary Dee 02:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. You're wrong. Have you read WP:BRD yet? You added something; you were reverted (correctly); at that point, you should have started a discussion on the talk page. Instead, you reverted back: that was inappropriate. Stop trying to blame others: you're basically accusing General Ization of the mistakes you made. You've also been explained why your edit was wrong policy-wise, so why don't you drop it? LjL (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And if i am reading your posts correctly, you are trying to "get me" in a suburban way, and when i confront you upon your own behaviour (mirroring you, as i call it), you react panic: "Well, no. You're wrong....". Stop acting, be yourself. Please....my goodness... And you are pleading for Consensus. Oh My....Never. Thats the reason why i have EOD with you. Its weird that you gave more answers, although the origin has something to do with a General. Are you the same General...??? Noone would wonder... Gary Dee 02:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please limit your comments here to the discussion of content, and do not make uncivil and unfounded accusations against other editors. It has been explained to you why the changes you have proposed are against Wikipedia policy and are not constructive. If you persist in making them again despite this and in violation of WP:3RR (which you have already technically violated), we will take the matter up at the Administrators/Edit Warring noticeboard. General Ization ^Talk 03:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

I realized that User:General Ization and I were making an edit at almost the same time. Now, I cannot be sure what he intended; I see his comment about the lede not including information that is provided in a later section but I don't know how the edit that I did a few seconds after his affected all this. (I am doing edits in good faith but sometimes the edit conflicts become confusing to me.) Peter K Burian 16:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: Peter, appreciate your contributions to the article, but you are adding information and detail to the lead of the article (intended to remain a short summary) that is already fully summarized there and is covered in detail (and presented in the order events developed) in the body of the article. Please review WP:LEAD. What would be more helpful is if you were to keep your eyes open for new developments in this case and add them to the body of the article when they receive coverage. General Ization ^Talk 16:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, "fingerprint" appears nowhere in the article body, so a cursory search might not have come up with anything (it's because it talks about papillary prints). LjL (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; now I understand what you meant about the lede, and yes, I had not noticed that the fingerprint info was covered later. However, at 11am EST today, the lede was still saying that DNA testing would be required; that information had been corrected two days ago by the Prosecutor. So, I felt that an update was required; but I did so with too much information. I appreciate your revision. Peter K Burian 16:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see the next sentence after the one that discusses DNA testing. The prosecutor's comment about DNA was retained in order to try to retain some of the actual evolution of events as they unfolded, and because the cited article that supports the statement also contains other valuable information about the case. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 16:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Good point. "Papillary prints" (as they were described at the source) is linked to Fingerprints, but perhaps including that term parenthetically after the broader term (which includes foot and palm prints) would be helpful. General Ization ^Talk 16:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion. It does mention that it involves finger characteristics, anyway. I was only pointing out that one might miss it while Ctrl+F'ing the article to make sure it wasn't already there. LjL (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the current version is completely up-to-date and complete as of all the info we currently have. None of the many news reports that I had read spoke of Papillary prints, but that is outside my sphere of expertise. Peter K Burian 16:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Initial reports

@General Ization: taking a peek at this edit, while I don't disagree that if we're explaining what "initial reports" said, we shouldn't say what later reports said instead, I question whether it makes a lot of sense to include initial reports (with information that later turned out to be incorrect) in the lede. There's a lot of space in the article for all sort of information, but I'm not sure the lede should be about incorrect/partial content. LjL (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The misidentification of the suicide bomber, along with the ID correction, has become itself a notable event, especially since it was suggested that it was the first event of its kind in Western Europe (which it turned out to not be). It makes perfectly good sense to me to mention the misidentification and, immediately following it, the correction in the lead. General Ization ^Talk 00:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The first event of its kind, as in, the first misidentification of someone? LjL (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the first incident of a (successful) female suicide bomber. General Ization ^Talk 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well, okay. LjL (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If it subsequently never happened, it doesn't get to keep that notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just came here to post the same section. Initial reports are fine, in a "Media coverage" section or similar, but not in the lead after they've been debunked. Just makes it harder for readers to process. The two militants were three people, and the female suicide bomber was a dude? If the next round of reports is different still, do we keep all three and really screw with them? Seems fun, but not the Wikipedia way. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't get this reasoning. How is adding more horseshit about feminine firsts "toning it down"? Even though it's described as incorrect information, it's described at all, which is 100% worse than before. If we're going to cache everything until we overflow, we should really keep the fact and fiction in distinct places. Believe it or not, many don't consider incorrect information on par with the right stuff. Also, (some of) the very people writing the stories we use to verify claims are factchecking with us, because deadlines never end. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll throw a WP:RSBREAKING into the mix. LjL (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your guideline, and I'll raise you a proverb. Ignore the atrocious spelling. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we go even further by omitting more of that? The many media reports from highly respected publications definitely made a big deal of the first female suicide bomber, based on something a police officer initially claimed. That turned out to be totally incorrect. In my view, this error by the media is deserving of discussion but to what extent? Peter K Burian 22:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything has a place. (Or mise en place, if you're into that.) Again, start a "Media coverage" section or something like it. If the coverage itself has reached the point where the media start criticizing "the media" like it was the other outlets' mistake, that is. Otherwise, how would we know it's significant? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A Media Coverage section? Ok, that makes sense to me but I don't feel I am an adequately experienced editor to make such a large change to a page. But if someone did so, I would support that step. Peter K Burian 22:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll also hand this job off to someone else. I've been distracted from very important things for too long today. Maybe later, if nobody jumps on it sooner. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hasna Aït Boulahcen role

Here I report some part of a talk from an archived age; to answer it

This article is not clear about role of "Hasna Aït Boulahcen". She is presented as a suicide bomber by wikipedia, while newspaper give a different profile of this "partygirl" who like do drink vodka during the ramadan... For its side, police says she was not a suicide bomber! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.21 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There are now many News items indicating that she died when a male terrorist set off a bomb of some sort; not sure if it was a suicide vest. I think the current version covers that but will check. Peter K Burian 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

((...))

Are those details really needed here? We have a separate article on the raid. Aitboulahcen is not known to have played any role in the November 13 attacks, and her role in the location and killing of Abaaoud is already briefly discussed here and and in detail (including the police surveillance of them entering the apartment building together on Tuesday evening) at 2015 Saint-Denis raid. General Ization ^Talk 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that now we know that Hasna Aïtboulahcen was in contact with Mohamed S. — 25 years — who provided her some cocaïne and the contact with his jail-friend Jawad for the Squatting. And I belive that finding the Squatting flat is a key role.

She also has received 750 euros by Western Union from Bruxelles.

And might be there are also some links with Birmingham ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.98.63 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Video of Hasna's final moments and cause of her death

I notice this article doesn't the video of Hasna's last moments. Also her family sued the French police for murdering her. I read on BBC that autopsy confirmed she died due to asphyxiation, not due to the explosion or being shot. I think these details should be added to the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sex of Diesel

The individual page for Diesel lists her as a female. Most news articles cited reference her as a male, but the original tweet announcing her death used "chienne" rather than "chien". Should edit for continuity if nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Succynic (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)