Talk:Paris police headquarters stabbing

nominated for deletion?
Unless some tie to terrorism or bigger issue involved, this looks like just another psycho who lost his beanie-weenies. Don't see it as encyclopedic.50.111.22.69 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Four people were stabbed to death in the middle of Paris at police HQ. That's easily notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia even without any terrorist link. Jim Michael (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The investigation was taken over by the french anti-terror group on 4 October. Alexpl (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Religious beliefs
Religious beliefs of living or recently deceased people are subject to the higher standards of required sourcing mandated by WP:BLP (in the latter case, see WP:BDP). In particular, note WP:BLPSOURCES (The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.) and WP:BLPGOSSIP (Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.). While this is not a category but an article, the spirit of WP:CAT/R is also worth keeping in mind. TompaDompa (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strange. The original edit in question by User:Gianluigi02 seemed ok. And Le Figaro isnt "tabloid journalism". Alexpl (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Googling in French it took me a minute to find this source which attributes the inquiry along jihadist lines to procureur national antiterroriste, Jean-François Ricard. In this case, religious leanings is not irrelevant to the attack. And no, Le Nouvel Obs isn't a tabloid. Anonymous aren't an issue. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only since Saturday afternoon that a government source (Ricard) mentions Islamism. Before that, it was indeed right-wing anonymous/neighborhood sourcing and tabloid speculation. Wakari07 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It could still be weeks until a potential relevance of religios motivation for the attack is officially confirmed. If that happens at all. Alexpl (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well ... French authoritiees are probably going to confirm it as soon as they know, terrorism isn't exactly something that can be swept under the carpet in France. It does happen that knife attackers which initially are suspected terrorists are instead described as having a troubled mental state, like happened with this attacker stabbed two soldiers and a police officer in Italy. There has been one such attack in the UK too. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources for the religious beliefs of the perpetrator is, from one side, Le Monde, a newspaper of record in France; from another side, the head of the terrorism unit, i.e., a high-ranking officer in the Government of France. WP is not censored and further attempt to remove the WP:RS sources is quite questionable. XavierItzm (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hearing
There is disagreement between sources about the perpetrator's hearing. Most say that he was deaf, but The Local says that he was only partially deaf. TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Local is generally good, but imho the WP:BESTSOURCES are probably French-language ones. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mostly wanted to raise it because this is still in the early stages of reporting, and a clearer picture may emerge. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it is hard to understand why deafness is worthy of debate. Has deafness been listed as a possible motive behind the crime? A Thousand Words (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a biographical detail where sources disagree. We want to get it right. There's no need to read anything more into it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert of DeFacto's revert
[Moved here, where discussion about the content of this article belongs, from my talkpage -- DeFacto (talk). 08:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)]

Hi DeFacto, in regards to this edit, it has been confirmed by French authorities that the suspect was motivated by radical Islam to carry out the attack (see here). Your edit summary of it being "a long way confirmed" is therefore incorrect per the most recent reports. This is still a current event, hence the fast pace of changing information, but for now per the recent sources I feel that it is safe to lable the attack as Islamic terrorist. Thanks Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * as you say in your comment, all we know if that they only 'suspect' it. That isn't enough to support the category addition, and I'm glad to see your reversion has now been reverted by another editor. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it is good if you would monitor developments so the article ends up in the corret category once more information is available. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the only way to make sure it is monitored to comply with your expectations is to monitor it yourself. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of injured
As of my writing this, the infobox says that one person was injured, whereas the WP:LEAD says that two people were. The WP:LEAD likewise disagrees with itself about the total number of victims (killed and injured combined), five or six. TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Quotes in cites
, in support of this edit, perhaps you could document those requests for quotes here, so they can be reviewed, and perhaps have the quotes either removed or moved to the talkpage to avoid unnecessary clutter in the article. Also we need to decide what to do about the foreign quotes with outstanding requests for English translations. See also WP:CITE, WP:NOENG and Template:Request quotation for context about quote requests and when to consider adding quotes to cites and/or talkpages as I'm still not convinced we need all these inside the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At least for the religious beliefs of the attacker and the beheading videos, whether the sources verified the claims was questioned (see here and here, respectively). For the number of victims and their genders, the sources contradicted each other and the best source was quoted (see here ). I admit that I did not check all the rest. It is generally helpful to quote and translate WP:NONENG sources; when that is done, readers do not need to rely on machine translations to check that the material is verified by the sources. I don't see how the quotes add clutter to the article, seeing as they're in the references rather than the text. TompaDompa (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So for those where verification was asked for, fair enough, but I think that discussion, and evidence, should be on the talkpage. As for the others, and especially those without English translations, there is no need for quotes in the cites. They do add clutter, and make editing more difficult - wading through tranches of unnecessary text. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't consider clutter when editing, since I predominantly use the VisualEditor myself, but that can be resolved by using Help:List-defined references for those references. I take the opposite view with regards to the ones that lack English translations – I think we should add translations rather than remove the quotes. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I support TompaDompa on keeping foreign-language quotes in the cites, they are essential in WP:V verifying information which might otherwise be needlessly challenged. No idea what other editors think, but searching and finding quotes and information in a foreign language is challenging, quotes helps with that. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that list-defined references are tidier, I have used them in a few articles recently, but most editors continue to add inline references regardless. I suppose the way forward is to find online English language RSes (which are preferred by WP:VER anyway) which wouldn't need long foreign-language quotes. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)