Talk:Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack

Original Research / Synthesis warnings

Both the "Target" section and the "Other Islamist attacks" sections only state facts that can be found in the cited articles. There is no conclusion reached or implied that does not exist in the actual sources. Please discuss here before continuing to re-tag these. Rationaledit (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Rationaledit, why would you want to include some random company president in the article? Sources didn't say that he is the target or explain how he is related to this attack. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"On 26 June 2015 two Islamist militants burst through the factory gates an Air Products factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier near the city of Lyon in a moving vehicle." I feel the most pertinent information, such as this being a attack or that someone was killed, should be stated in the opening sentence. How the fellows got there is less important. Yes?--Anders Feder (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yacine Sali's age

Tweet cited by Telegraph says 30, but Guardian reports 35, and appears to have a written copy of Cazeneuve's statement. 12:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yassin or Yacine?

In French white pages there is a Yassin Salhi in St Priest, not a Yacine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.18.102.48 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Surveillance

The police opened a file on the attacker. There are files on millions of people. This is not "surveillance". If there was active surveillance, which was stopped in 2008, when did this start? It is unlikely that this person would have been under surveillance for two years.122.59.167.152 (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Reactions" section

I don't know why, Drmies, you think this section is unencyclopedic. "Reactions" section is standard for every event, like the Iranian nuclear deal (aka Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). --George Ho (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I explained to you, quite carefully and now for the second time, why I think what I think. Please explain to me how the responses by the government of the Philippines or Vietnam are in any way relevant here. Please explain to me why absolutely predictable content ("terrible...condemn in no uncertain terms...not representative of religion X...hearts and prayers") should be included in an encyclopedic article. This seems like a game of flag planting, and including everything that can be verified--when the article itself has such obvious problems that you seem unwilling to address. Your flags are cute (and some alternative time zone, "07:30 UTC", properly wikilinked, for reasons I can't fathom), but the lede is wholly inadequate. The section on the company contains irrelevant information (how many employees? who cares?), there's a section called "victims" in which only one victim is discussed, and there's nothing that suggests editors have followed up on events. For instance, more important than the PM of Singapore expressing sympathy may be what phone data delivered, or the publication of a photograph of the body, first published by a cop. Also, what other articles have is less relevant than what you might think. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

Alfred Nemours (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.