Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qrsdogg (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 23 July 2011 (→International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks: m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm aware that we have several such articles, but I believe that they are at odds with WP:NOTNEWS. Misplaced Pages's job is not to reproduce what are (in such cases) routine and expected statements expressing condolences and condemnation in nearly identical terms. All of these statements can easily be summarized with little loss of relevant information in a paragraph in the main article, perhaps highlighting the more peculiar ones, such as the Libyan statement.  Sandstein  11:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree A paragraph of truly notable reactions will suffice. By the way, the link to this page appears red in the article for some reason. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/) 12:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep There are plenty of International reactions articles. The reason we have these articles is that the main article becomes too long if we keep International reactions section there. Kavas (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge back with 2011 Norway attacks. If the main article becomes too long, I would rather spin out the two attacks separately which are more notable and significant than the international reactions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. And just per common sense; most of these are not notable. EU, UN, NATO, neighboring countries, maybe English-speaking superpowers. Not Chile, Singapore or Lithuania. -RunningOnBrains 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Who's to say which countries are most important and are notable in term of Norway's relations? You may as well keep all of it or take out all the countries except supernational bodies.YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep a reaction list within the article of the event is only drawing attention away from main news story. Whilst a reaction section may be repetitive it is notable and rewriting it into a paragraphed format in the main article is not helping the section's repetitive nature. YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as WP:NOTPAPER. The section was spun off from the main article to accomodate the international reactions. The text is very well referenced. It is problematic to mention some of the reactions and redact some, because all are surely valueable. --hydrox (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Very well referenced article which is growing speedily and is informative and useful. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now; when this terrible incident is no longer a topical news story, start a centralised debate about whether such lists, in general, are appropriate for Misplaced Pages (either stand-alone or as sections of main articles), belong elsewhere (Wikinews; Wikisource) or should be done away with altogether. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I'm afraid this is a snowball; there's too much precedence with these kind of sections/articles. I'm really just glad it's not cluttering up the main article. Lampman (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It's well referenced and I'd rather have this on a seperate page than just wasting space on the main article. --Veyneru (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I've seen lots of "international reactions" articles come up for deletion before, and the extent to which they were useful has varied depending on the event. In this case, there was no variation of opinion among the countries as to their reaction -- they all expressed condolences. And no countries are listed as having sent money or supplies or relief workers, because this wasn't the kind of disaster that required such aid. I just don't see a need for this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. If it becomes merged with the 2011 Norway Attacks article that particular article will be too long. Its better to have it as a separate page. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge in to 2011 Norway attacks.82.27.19.246 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Leaning Merge at the moment, without prejudice towards spinning it off again in the future. Have the reactions themselves received coverage? At this point I don't see the need for a separate article, but there may be eventually if such coverage emerges. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates