Talk:26 June 2015 Islamist attacks

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Kuwait Low‑importance

	Kuwait portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kuwait, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kuwait on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KuwaitWikipedia:WikiProject KuwaitTemplate:WikiProject KuwaitKuwait articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Somalia Low‑importance

	Somalia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tunisia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 26 June 2015 Islamist attacks, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it contains information on why several terrorist attacks have occured today and the reason behind it. --Alvaro B. (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be kept for now, until we determine that the attacks were coordinated by a single entity and interconnected.--Catlemur (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted because many news outlets are all linking these attacks as one coordinated terrorist event, which is looking likely so there is no need to speedily delete. --Tomh903 (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy because of the reasons explained by Tomh903.

Barjimoa (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it acts as a "hub" of sorts like with the 2015 Île-de-France attacks with multiple important and relevant events that make up this article as with the multiple articles making up the Île-de-France attacks article. --YingBlanc (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any clue what Ramadan is? That has nothing to do with the January incidents and there are many attacks that happened and will happen during 2015 Ramadan...as there has been for the past decade or so.

At the same time, we already have a link of 2015 non-state attacks which is a "hub" too.120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can change the name, maybe "June 26 Terrorist attacks". I mean, "2015 Ramadan attacks" can be perceived as a misleading name, that is true. However I oppose the idea to delete this article.Barjimoa (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe June 26, 2015 attacks to consolidate it all. That seems fair.120.62.27.54 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Ramadan attacks → Bloody Friday (2015) – Name given by western media [1] --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Jenda H. (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we should wait until after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Ramadan attacks AfD has been completed. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per NPOV, if it should go anywhere it should be in "26 June 2015 attacks" - not any collection of NPOV names that promote POV opinions on these attacks.-- Aronzak (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aronzak:, Out of curiosity, why do you think Bloody Friday is POV? "Bloody (day name)" is often used for massacre events. In France it's being called "Black Friday" (vendredi noir). —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bloody friday" sounds like a marketing buzzword. The 26th was chosen because it's the one year anniversary of ISIL declaring themselves a state (26 Jun 2014 - telegraph). Using the term "bloody friday" sounds like a catchy, promotional buzzword invented by a marketing expert. The title will likely be copied into a campaignbox template - despite the fact that these are inspired by ISIS, but not necessarily co-ordinated. ISIL has inspired a bunch of different groups to run bombings/attacks in their name - terms that imply that these were all collectively organised by ISIL seem like they are asserting a link that may or may not be proved - the article should discuss the links, not use assertions in the title that imply a link. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aronzak:, ISIL "anniversary" is 29 June, not 26 June. Note date of article you linked. Also it's not really our place to pass personal judgement on the name it's given. It would be like saying GamerGate and DeflateGate can't be titled that because they're too cheesy and buzzword-y. I don't see why it matters if they were directly coordinated by ISIS or not (nobody is arguing it should be called "The 26 June 2015 ISIS attacks"). The coverage is the important thing - the coverage on a whole (articles mentioning all three events) is significant - not just the articles, the single name and the quotes from policy people, but the governments issuing statements mentioning all three attacks and all three countries. That's why I took out the info on the Somalia attack - it's not being mentioned with the other stuff in reliable sources so including it is WP:SYNTH. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is heading for deletion. Moving the title is moot. WWGB (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A simple Google news search for Bloody Friday show this is how it is being called now, tying them all together. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is going to the trash. 174.113.217.132 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i agree that the discussion seems moot but, beyond that, a title as Bloody Friday seems to have commonname support. Greg Kaye 16:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: I would hope there is no rush to delete. I'm continuing to add information from RS demonstrating the coverage of all three together, rather than separate events. It's being widely called "Black Friday" in French (two attacks were in French-speaking countries). Calling it "Ramadan attacks" is negatively influencing the AfD I think. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a title as "Bloody Friday" as it has a reference in English to Bloody Sunday. I think the same inane pandering to the militants issues as with the title Jihadi John come back into play with "Black Friday". Jihad inappropriately references an actual doctrine on defence and has no connection to the decapitation of aid workers and journalists. "Black" I am guessing is at least partly an inappropriate reference to Black standard colouration as used by extremists. The delete discussion made similar reference to the gratuitous use of ISIL's Black Standard variant in the article. Greg Kaye 03:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Black" is a reference to ISIL's flag at all - it's very common to use "Black (day)" and "Bloody (day)" for tragic or destructive events (see disambig pages for Black Thursday, Bloody Thursday, Bloody Friday; Black Sunday, Bloody Sunday etc). Black = color of mourning. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article is no longer clearly headed for deletion. Improvements have been made and noted. The user who nominated it for deletion in the first place has now changed his !vote to keep.[2] GregKaye, WWGB does this change your input to this RM? I really feel "Ramadan" in the title is problematic (not NPOV). I'm going to ping some people from the AfD who suggested renames to 26 June attacks/Bloody Friday and ask them to weigh in here: @Greyshark09, Bellerophon5685, Rationaledit, RichardOSmith, Hello32020, and Lugnuts:. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say July 26, 2015 attacks would be an appropriate title. The notability is that three Islamist terrorist attacks occurred near simultaneously on this day and that has been noted WP:RS. They could be related, or it could all just be an incredible coincidence, the way things are going on in the world right now neither would surprise me. If Fatal, Bloody or Black Friday become well known terms for it, then it should be titled that.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "June"? George Ho (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats what I meant. Though I guess we have decided on "Bloody Friday"?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellerophon5685: That's what I think since it's the common name. Even though it's Bloody Friday/Black Friday, it doesn't exclude Kobani (like some people were saying on the Article for Deletion discussion). Kobani was June 25-29 but the main massacre was 25th. The coverage also refers to the Kobani attacks as part of the Bloody/Black Friday (on the basis that the day was darkened/bloodied by the knowledge of what had happened in Kobani the previous day). There is a separate article covering the details of the extended post-massacre battle in Kobani. I'm going to try to put together a section about what it's called. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly in favour of a rename, and then my preference is "26 June 2015 terrorist attacks" over "Bloody Friday (2015)". This is an encyclopaedia - name the article by what it is, not by some sensationalist term coined by the media and ISIS sympathisers. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That would also be my preference. Though if "Bloody Friday" becomes the widespread term that people coming to the encyclopedia will use then I guess we should adopt that. Like how "2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protest" became Arab Spring.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either 26 June 2015 terrorist attacks or 26 June 2015 attacks Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kobane

We should include information on the IS attack on Kobane, one day prior to the attacks as it was still ongoing during 26 June and it was undertaken by ISIL, making a direct link to the Kuwait Bombings and Sousse Attacks. Prohibited Area (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; IS is accused of massacring a significant amount of people on June 26th in Kobane. It should be added to the article. Leonnatus Chouan (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not being referenced together with the other events, and we have to go by RS. Do we have an article about the massacre in Kobane? I'll link it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is grouped together with the other events, though not by all sources. For example CBC puts it together with other attacks ("Friday's attacks came on the same day at least 145 civilians were reported killed by Islamic State militants in northern Syria.").GreyShark (dibra) 07:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kobani is definitely being linked now. It wasn't so much the other day. No problem with it staying in. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks on this page

Please keep this article focused to the coverage of the attacks linked together by reliable sources. It is not a catch-all for attacks all over the world happening during this time, ie Boko Haram etc, until they are either proved to be motivated by ISIL or they (like the others) are all being discussed repeatedly in the reliable sources. Throwing everything together is synthesis and what nearly got this article deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion

Why delete an informative article in the first place? 168.187.250.57 (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thwarted attack by Saudi MOI that was going to be carried on a Saudi Arabia Shia mosque by ISIS the same day

I found English sources that only say "In June", however this Arabic source says it was planned on the same day as these attacks. Kuwaity26 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leego

Put something in about Leego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottolads (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second title move discussion

Given that the last title move discussion ended with "no consensus" nearly a year ago, I assume it's perfectly okay to reopen this discussion. I personally would like 26 June 2015 attacks, with Bloody Friday coming in at second place. Other ideas and suggestions are welcome. Parsley Man (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 26 June 2015 attacks as it is more appropriate. Luke J.^talk 18:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 26 June 2015 Islamist attacks. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150630232233/http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/06/79-is-killed-in-ein-al-arabkobane-and-an-egyptian-captive-reveals-the-mission-details/ to http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/06/79-is-killed-in-ein-al-arabkobane-and-an-egyptian-captive-reveals-the-mission-details/

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) 11:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]