Talk:2016 Nice truck attack/Archive 1

Article name

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.

---

I hate to broach this, but maybe "Promenade des Anglais truck attack" would be better. I know about convention, but maybe make an exception. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to Promenade des Anglais truck attack, maybe 2016 Promenade des Anglais truck attack even though it's not needed. I don't remember there being a convention that it must be the name of the city but if there is one, let's see how this is called. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  The policy at WP:COMMONNAME would support keeping it as "Nice." -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  Alright, the common name from the main sources does seem to be Nice alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as overly specific and even less clear. No reason to defy convention here. LjL (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Promenade is too specific, as you want to use the most generally recognizable name. If you want to be more specific, call it 2016 Nice truck attack, rather than going more specific with location. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – I would go with consistency here in naming conventions, those titles are a little too specific. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• support but should research news for other names. Fiona Gump (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think that is recognisable. It currently being referred to as a Truck attack in Nice. Also there are reports the perpetrator got out and started shooting. Rob984 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello You do understand the page move motivation here, right? It could turn into a joke where people refer to it as a "nice attack". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not here to prevent bad-taste jokes by dimwitted individuals, and certainly not to change standard and neutral headings in order to achieve that. LjL (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  Unless there's evidence that this is a problem, there's no reason to move away from our naming conventions. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  I think "Nice attack" is going to stick. Also the city is pronounced quite differently from the adjective. Rob984 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• There is no evidence it's an attack. 2016 Nice car accident. 107.77.231.101 (talk)

There is evidence that you're a troll. LjL (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as current reports indicate that there might have been simultaneous attacks in other parts of Nice. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• What about 2016 Attack in Nice. I agree that 'nice attack' is a bad article title in English. --Wester (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  I'm somewhat puzzled that people view "Nice attack" as being so problematic that we need to rename an article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  I would oppose that also, that's not very consistent to other titles about attacks. Besides, preventing jokes about the word "Nice" (which is pronounced differently) isn't what we're here for. Also given, a different name omitting "Nice" would move away from a WP:COMMONNAME. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  We are not autistics. There is a good reason for a different title. 'Nice attack' is just offensive. And not everybody is familiar with the French city (it's not a particularly large city, not the same recognition as Paris or Brussels). When reading the title it's also not clear it's about the French city. You simply read 'Nice attack' which is a weird title. --Wester (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Perhaps later if disambiguation is needed, but for now, people are not using the search term "Promenade des Anglais" for information. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support with Alternate Suggestion: Perhaps a specific name for the article, such as 2016 Nice Bastille Day attack? Thanks! FriarTuck1981 (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support with alternate suggestion in a week or so I think we could come up with a better name (Nice truck attack perhaps) but perhaps we can let the event settle and do this in a week or so.110.175.158.17 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove 2016' as n o other attack in Nice this year (yet?)Lihaas (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• 2016 Attack in Nice, France, sorry but the attack was "not" Nice....The title sounds like a joke, I think its what the terrorist intended it would be ..----Stemoc 01:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rephrasing of renaming nomination

To rephrase the move discussion nomination: Nice and nice are homographs in written English, which makes 2016 Nice attack a suboptimal title. Because en.wikipedia is a written English medium, we should come up with a formulation for a title that is unambiguous, as discussed at WP:PRECISE. I will move the article to 2016 attack in Nice as a WP:BOLD move to address the immediate issue with this highly visible page, with the understanding that it will probably be moved again soon, once we can settle on a better title that reflects all of our naming criteria. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Wanna mark the above as resolved for now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. My goal wasn't to supervote an active discussion that contains multiple different valid ideas, but to address the one unusual, easily circumvented problem. WP:IAR and all that. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No, "Nice" and "nice" are not homographs, because you can clearly distinguish them in writing due to the capital letter. Only someone actively wanting to make a bad-taste joke on this would "confuse" them. Other attack pages I'm aware of use the format this article previously used, and I don't see a serious reason to do otherwise. Pranksters aren't one. LjL (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And if consensus agrees with you I'm fine with that. All I ask is that we accept the unusual step of accepting a different status quo while we settle on a permanent title. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I definitely hope when calmer discussion can be had, everyone involved will play fair and not try to claim that the current title was the original one or that there was consensus to make the move to it. LjL (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2016 (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.

Homepage

Should we put this on the top of the home page? Its is top on twitter and yahoo.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's in Portal:Current_events right now. That's at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#July_14. - Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Can we please get protection on this page? There are random IPs inserting blatant info that is largely speculation, particularly because this event only occurred today, and news headlines are continuing to provide new info. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just filed at WP:RFPP for temporary semi. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's pending changes protected now for 24 hours. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's try it with page protection. There's a lot of new good editors as well but we don't want nonsense public. I picked just one day and if the reverting is still too much work, then we can semi it as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Can someone confirm, that the article is protected from editing by new and unregistered editors? -Mardus /talk 01:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's only pending-changes protected. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a bad idea for a current article. Pending changes is little used because you can have multiple editors stuck behind one IP, and with so much happening it's vital for editors not to be looking at obsolete versions while deciding what to update; it'll waste their time. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, feel free to ask for semi-protection if you think it's needed. Pinging Ricky81682, the protector. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Their edits do not be appear unless approved. If people are going to approve of the changes no matter how terrible they are, semi protection is slightly better but we can try that if it's needed. WP:RFPP is still an option. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes. PC is, after all, intended for "infrequently edited articles" (per WP:PC), which this one clearly isn't. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 02:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: It looks like the most recent rejected IP changes are actually in good faith, e.g. [1][2] and [3] back up the edits rejected at [4] and [5]. Their sources didn't check out, but it is very possible they are being retroactively revised on account of errors or for other reasons. I'm not sure if there's really a call for any kind of protection here, especially when the page is being so intensively edited. Wnt (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for 12 hours. Also page-move protected just in case. In the future, non-admins should not page move these kinds of pages since they can't move the editnotices. IP editors can still come here and discuss things, it should calm things down for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Background

need a section on the attacks, the De Gaulle shipped into the ME war zone AND that the state of emergency was JUST announced to be repealed.Lihaas (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Got reliable sources? What you're describing sounds like original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

One is here but it needs to be fleshed out a bit. It is related but we don't have the sources connecting it to provide the background yet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

BACKGROUND to the state of emergency that has now been hypocritically changed. Perfectally logical.Lihaas (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

and good job too.Lihaas (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Secondary attack on "unidentified night club"?

The article suggest that a secondary attack has taken place ("Eyewitnesses reportedly...") but I can't find any info in support of this statement, not even in the referenced news articles (BBC and Daily Mail) or anywhere else. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrator?

The infobox mentions ISIL as the suspected perpetrator, with a bogus reference to an article that says nothing of the kind. I tried to fix this but I'm not sure my edit went through. Is there an actual ref for this claim? 2601:644:1:3E52:D0A6:CD05:3685:95F4 (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it went through; thanks for the catch IP! VQuakr (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Death toll

So far the reported death toll is "dozens", with some saying 30, other saying 60. These all seem to be estimates. They should not be added until we have some firm numbers. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This source, quoting a public official, is saying "tens, possibly thirty" dead, with "maybe a hundred injured, but the outcome is still very uncertain". Best not to speculate now; I would remove and readd later when things are more certain. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In any case, no one is speaking from authority. No one has counted the bodies. It's all just estimates. So we should wait. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For many tragic events in history the death toll is never known with any confidence. That doesn't mean we don't include the best estimate. While this issue is already receding, I want to say in general that it is best for reliable sources to be cited now, being sure to convey the level of precision felt by the source. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

At the moment it appears to be over 80, so we can use 80+ for now. It is correct and doesn't necessitate constant edits to update uncertain media reports.Mozzie (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nightclub attack?

Good evening. My prayers go to the victims of this atrocious act. Still, I checked the sources for the alleged nightclub shooting - I know it's alleged but at least one of them doesn't seem to mention anything regarding that, or perhaps they removed it. I understand it's a bit too early to get a precise summary of the situation but, any other sources available? Dynamo128 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I heard people in the truck shot th cops but nothing on thenightclub. I was there 2 years ago and all night casinos, etc are on that strip (not far from the airport).Lihaas (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There's two citations added at the end, numbers 8 and 9 but i'm not sure about them. If you find something, you should add it. Otherwise this is going to be missing information since we focus on following the sources not the other way around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked up both articles, none of them has anything about a night club having been attacked. There had been rumours of a hostage situation, which have since been denied. May have something to do with this.Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Making sources wrong"

@Ricky81682: if you don't mind, don't make claims like that I "made sources wrong" when I changed a number according to what the already present Le Figaro source stated at the time, which was, additionally, the one original source that I had put there to back the number, before people decided it would be appropriate to add a couple more sources for the same thing because hey, why not. Le Figaro, that very page, now says 80. LjL (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Do you really think CNN and ABC are at the same level of Le Figaro when it comes to up-to-date news about the situation in, you know, France? LjL (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: No but then remove those sources. Policing them all is a nuisance and if you think replacing them all with an updated one is better, go ahead but remove the ones that say something else. That discussion is past now I can tell. People shouldn't have to read and re-read the same sources to figure how which are actually used and which are just changes in numbers (based on your edit summary). If you changed that it was one perpetrators to two and kept the same source, I'd question you as well. One reason not to link to a live blog but to individual posts instead. Believe me, I find that kind of stuff in articles where the sources were changed years ago and then you have to figure what in the world happened. Even a few hours is a nuisance with the number of changes here. My apologies though, I should have said something more like "please remove the sources you aren't citing if you are going to change the number." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• In advanced liveblogs, each section is anchored, and the anchor is openly linked usually where the section timestamp is. Like this.

In less advanced liveblogs, an anchor can be looked up from the page source code. In Firefox-based browsers, select the last (body) text of a section and the first (body) text of the next one, and select to view selection source from the conext menu. Anything with a numbered ID above a section containing body text of that (next) section can be accessed with a hash # at the end of a URL in the address bar. Test it out first.

Note, that live blogs often refer to original articles and sources, so these can instead be referenced. A liveblog of a reputable new outlet is also useful to confirm a tweet or a Facebook / social media post. -Mardus /talk 02:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, two of the sources are now updated to 80 (and meanwhile, someone else restored the 80 figure); I have removed the third, out-of-date source (CNN). LjL (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I see that ABC was also being screwy since the title would changed but the link didn't (somewhat good I guess). As such, I updated the ABC News link. Besides, within a few days, the numbers should merge and we can be more definite on what the actual death toll today was. :-/ Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Domestic reactions

We need to prepare for it. National Front and UMP (Republicans) will come. le president is blabbering now (considering whats on his watch). All notable.Lihaas (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC) There's more here. We may have to reorganize the French reaction to expand it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Change title of infobox on the right to match title of article

The article was moved to 2016 attack in Nice, but the infobox title on the right remains 2016 Nice attack. Can someone please make this minor edit to ensure consistency? Thanks, 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:89CE:9ACA:EFA6:5427 (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Done! And thanks for catching that! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems someone changed it. 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:89CE:9ACA:EFA6:5427 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done It appears that someone changed it back to your suggestion. De88 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Reactions to attack

Something to add to the article - the Mayor of Montreal Denis Coderre says that flags are being flown at half mast and has used the hashtag #JeSuisNice Luconst 23:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I previously added a section for this, but it was removed because the response of mayors aren't considered notable. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 23:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

They are notable an now that Trudeau is there it can be a subsection. (as a Francophone unit it s more so than portgal)Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Except for those public figures with direct authority and connection to the effected area I don't think it is necessary to include. It will just be some kind words and support. Nothing that elucidates the story.Vegemighty2 (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oui. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It just wouldn't be the same without a list of condolences and flags. Once again, this will be pruned at some stage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator section

The article currently has a brief section on the perpetrator, which claims he was a 31-year-old French-Tunisian. The problem is that the referenced source is Sputniknews, which is widely regarded as a propaganda outlet of the Russian government. I move that the section be deleted and not restored until reliable sources are giving information on the perpetrator's identity. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

More sources indirectly report this, like The Independent, The Guardian. Currently the section at least says 'According to' rather than stating it as a fact. Gap9551 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of deaths

User:Mozzie reverted my edit, claiming 80 were killed before the perp was shot and killed. Is there confirmation of this? I just read that 80+ people died and imagine some must have died after the perp was shot. Gap9551 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the two separate sentences were a bit short and staccato. I was just trying to make them read more smoothly, but didn't think about that aspect of using the word before. Happy for you to revert. Do you have any suggestions for making it read more smoothly? Mozzie (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I understand now what you intended, and I agree my quick fix doesn't sound great. I don't have a good idea right now to improve it. I also don't know if children should be singled out, it's a bit dramatic, and maybe obvious anyway given the total number of deaths and the type of event. That would change if a specific (large) number would become known. Gap9551 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Precise death toll

I don't think including a precise death toll (73) is helpful yet. It isn't confirmed by authorities. "at least 70 estimated" is sufficient. They can't know for sure considering the condition of many victims. Rob984 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. If you go with 75+, we can cite 3 sources. If we go with the exact number, we're literally picking the highest number I'd guess and that's probably less likely to be accurate than taking a more conservative approach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources now saying at least 84.[6][7] 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The motorcyclist

There's news reports and a video which shows/talks about a motorcyclist who tried to stop the truck, but the motorcyclist got ran over. Does anyone know wether he/she survived or not?--62.30.81.236 (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Link with Recep Tayyip Erdogan

There are allegations about a link between the terrorist attack and Dictator Erdogan of Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidefamation (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you linked the wrong story. If not, elaborate. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Suspect

The name of the suspect, was recently released, "Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel" (born 1984 Source of Birth-Year in Tunis, Tunisia) Source</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.144.187 (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

Every reliable source is reporting this incident as a terrorist attack. Except Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia is a few minutes out of date, it isn't the end of the world. I suspect the media is just stating the obvious, but I think we should wait for direct evidence before changing. If it were up to me, I'd change it, some editors will insist (probably correctly) on more evidence.Mozzie (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the scope of the situation, I think there still needs to be an investigation done to know what motives the perpetrator had. We just know an unidentified individual drove a truck that caused the deaths of over 80 innocent civilians. Also, the perpetrator hasn't even been identified so it's too early to tell. De88 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The attack happened a half-day ago. It was reported as a terrorist attack committed by a Muslim from Tunisia. There is no investigation needed nor is there any question about a motive. It's called Islamic terrorism. This exact attack strategy was featured in the 2010 issue of Inspire magazine, so everything is already known and taken into account.

I agree with you, but since this is Wikipedia, others will have different opinions. I would change it too, but there are rules on here that I do not want to violate. I know how tough administrators on here are. De88 (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

CNN covered the "mowing machine" terror tactic six years ago.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll bet if I asked you to show me three sources calling it terrorism, you'd show me two that say terror, and one that quotes someone's guess. But prove me wrong. 10,000 Wikidollars. Six years ago has nothing to do with today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What if those three sources all quote the French president Hollande stating this event was an act of terrorism? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Then that would be the same source, recycled. I'd count it as the one that quotes someone's guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, for Wikipedia, when it is France, and the president says it is terrorism, that is just someone's guess. When it is the U.S., and the president says it is workplace violence, it is a fact! (go check the logs for the Fort Hood attack, it took years for Wikipedia to call "terror" that attack). XavierItzm (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You're confusing me with someone else (or speaking generally, I suppose). I've argued against Obama's guesses, too, and had nothing to do with Fort Hood. I wait till I hear it from police, with a motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So when does it actually become fact versus a guess? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

When we hear it from the (non-anonymous) police, with a (political) motive. If he's found to have done it (directly) for a terrorist group with clear goals, those goals are a fine substitute for his own. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Language for the driver

I would like to seek other editors opinions on what language we should use to refer to the man who drove the truck. At the moment, editors are changing references to perpetrator, but this feels a bit loaded to my ears. My preference would be for attacker. It is a more general and a more common term that is more neutral in tone. I would welcome any other suggestions. Mozzie (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? A Muslim from Tunisia drives a truck filled with weapons and grenades over 80 people and shoots them to death and he is something other than a terrorist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)

As per WP:TERRORIST "'Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject,'". This is part of avoiding loaded words. I am from the school of thought that we should use neutral terms where possible.Mozzie (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, are you joking? Every reliable source refers to this Islamic terrorist as a terrorist. What else would he be, a freedom fighter for the white van division of people killing? Do you even understand the material you are citing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Mozzie is correct. The neutral term is attacker. Wikipedia has neutrality as one of it's core pillars and must be upheld at all times. It cannot be called a terrorist attack in Wiki voice. However, it can be stated that e.g., Hollande called it a terrorist attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Mozzie is incorrect. "Terrorist" and "Islamic terrorism" are the words used by current reliable mainstream sources. "Terrorist" and "terrorism" in this context are accurate and neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)

I changed one "the perpetrator" to "he". That often works. Where it doesn't, go with "driver". Shorter. We'll know his name soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Victims section

What's the idea of giving only victims from foreign countries in this section? Frankly, I find this thoroughly sick. I know it is customary to give a breakdown of victims according to their nationality but couldn't we wait until that is known and withhold that section until then? Also, the title should read "Nationality of victims" because they sure had other characteristics apart from bein Ukrainian, Russian etc. --2003:86:2619:3101:51E7:FCE1:BE45:5932 (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We will add the number of French people who have died once it is given in the news. Only the foreign dead have been reported so far, partly because they're in much smaller numbers. Otherwise, i suggest changing the name of the section to something like "Foreign victims" or "Victims from other countries" etc. But i would keep it as it is for now.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've added "As well as the many French people killed, several foreigners were also killed" to the beginning of the "victims" section. This seems fair and good for now.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Confusing bit

"... the truck travelled at least 100 m (330 ft) before it hit the crowd, and then continued to drive two kilometres (1.25 miles) into the crowd...."

Is it just me, or is that confusing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Completely confusing. The first part fails verification with the source given; the article should just be changed to mention the 2 km part per [9]. That source appears to have done some analysis based on photos so there is a least a little bit of reason to think the information is reliable. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, a hundred metres from where? The odometer will tell the whole truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We've got thousands of people an hour reading that and being confused. It should be in and understandable or out, I think. Or, we could split up each statement and quote them and qualify them with "unclear" and "sources say" and "sources also say". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I've removed the entire reference to the 100 m. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Live updates

Hi, I'm /u/LeGurnster from Reddit. Just wondered if it would be appropriate to post a link to the live updates temporarily? The link is https://www.reddit.com/live/x99pqdwudg0l.

Thanks, Wikipedia, for your up-to-date editing as usual! Con. 86.157.52.222 (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Reddit users aren't a reliable source. If someone sees something missing from a reliable source, the talk page is available however. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We're only posting official information at the moment and we have a limited number of contributors. Thanks for the heads up though, Ricky81682. 86.157.52.222 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't link to Reddit, but if we missed some reliable information (with a solid reference) feel free to send us a tip here on the talk page, thanks! Syced (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This could be used as a reference or external link, but the proper way to have some reliable source citing it first; then it's a primary source linked directly to supplement a secondary source. Basically, we don't want to be used to funnel Reddit karma to some random Reddit poster simply because he came here and posted his thread, but if the news outlets allow themselves to be used that way we can join in with them. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The Live Reddit would be nice to use to get fresh news to add here, if the news updates contained links to the sources... but unless I'm missing something, they don't, rendering them pretty much useless. LjL (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a big emphasis in Wikipedia to make the content as encyclopedic as possible, even when events are in progress. As useful as this link is, this isn't really the place for it. But thanks for asking anyway. Mozzie (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Try to avoid live blogs (even from the reliable folks) unless you want to clean them up when they die or change a day later. Best to stick with traditional news stories. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@86.157.52.222:, Reddit isn't considered a reliable source, but if you want to post the sources you are using to update the live feed that could be helpful. TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Loss of international reactions — possible disruptive editing

If you're looking for international reactions, then user IndelibleHulk removed International reactions wholesale in this edit. -Mardus /talk 05:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And the edit summary was: "Everywhere a quack-quack. Old MacDonald had a quote farm, not us," linkting to WP:QUOTEFARM. -Mardus /talk 05:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear to some, I was suggesting they're mostly duckspeakers, not quacks or actual ducks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And I WP:BOLDly restored them at International reactions to the 2016 attack in Nice, as per fr:Réactions internationales aux attentats du 14 juillet 2016 à Nice. Seemed like a good compromise to me. FourViolas (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

...which is exactly what so many people have been trying to prevent. There is little notability in every repetitive, predictable expression of condolences. Reywas92^Talk 06:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

InedibleHulk is right. No quote farms, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Better there than here, though. History says it'll be nominated for deletion soon enough, and kept as "no consensus" when enough people cite precedence. I will once again vote to burn them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just open up a separate page so the feely goody can put the evidence of the world's politicians virtue signaling somewhere. XavierItzm (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I see it's been done. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Good. Soon the international reactions would have been longer than the article alone especially when the Kardashians all weigh in Heyyouoverthere (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The fork article may actually be better suited to a Wikiquote page. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

Increase the images of the attack, not generic maps and tourist photos. There are some very intense photos that express the severity of this attack.

71.95.97.174 (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Have such images also (legally) been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? Gap9551 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There are some CC-BY license images here.[10] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't public-domain. -- Veggies (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nationality of the perpetrator - born in Tunisia with residency rights in France

The lede decribes the perpetrator as born in France. Sources, however, describe the perpetrator as born in Tunisia with the right to reside in France.[11][12]. "L'homme est un Tunisien de 31 ans, né en Tunisie, titulaire d'une carte de séjour et habitant à Nice." "The man is a 31-year-old Tunisian, born in Tunisia, holding a visitor's permit and living in Nice."

The reference to the Observateur in the lede does not describe the perpetrator as a Tunisian born in France. It reads, "Selon nos informations, le chauffeur du camion a été identifié comme étant Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, un Tunisien de 31 ans titulaire d'une carte de résident et domicilié à Nice." That can be translated as follows. "According to our information, the driver of the lorry has been identified as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, a 31-year-old Tunisian holding a resident's card and living in Nice." Like many residents in the South of France, he was born in a former French colony in North Africa and has obtained residency rights in France. That does not mean he was born in France. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename article title

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.

---

I think it would be better to change the title from "2016 attack in Nice" to these following suggestions: "2016 attack in Nice, France", "2016 Bastille Day attack" or "2016 truck attack in Nice, France". Although I know the location of the place, as do many people, I do think there are people who have probably never heard of this city. It would be more detailed to the reader. What are your thoughts on this? De88 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Similar headline by a live report article posted by The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle De88 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the suggestions of some editors, I think 2016 Bastille Day attack is the best alternative to the current title. De88 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not done for other articles I know of. There is no disambiguation necessity. People looking for this article know what happened, and people randomly stumbling upon it will learn from it where Nice it. Same way as every other article. Please consider the possibility you may be suffering from slight geographic bias when making these suggestions. LjL (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this article is meant to educate, I just thought it would be better to provide detail on location, my apologies if it came another way. De88 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main article title is Nice so there's no confusion. I think location is generally preferable than non-inclusion and 2016 Nice Bastille Day attack seems unneeded right now. However, let's wait and see what comes of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What about 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – I am not a fan of this current title. However, even though I don't personally like it, I think it is the best thing at this point. No need now to get into a title war. I do agree that just "Nice" is okay, and that disambiguation isn't necessary. United States Man (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - In total agreement with the above post by United States Man. I think the title is cumbersome. It is a reference to an event instead of a name. Let's give this some time and work it out when there is more clarity. Thanks for suggesting De88 and keep up the good work. Mozzie (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support "2016 Bastille Day attack", better title than the current one. Beejsterb (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Anything except Nice terror attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• 2016 Bastille Day is probably best. If necessary, put in Nice at the end of the title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Link to previous discussion about this - Talk:2016 attack in Nice/Archive 1#Article name Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Wait a couple of days. There is no rush to move and a common, natural name may be more apparent then. VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• 2016 Bastille Day Attack since "Nice" is ambiguous in an article title, and can be understood as an adjective, like "Nice hat." Edison (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support anything but current title. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:00, 15 July 2016 (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.

Infobox image

This edit replaced File:Nice-night-view-with-blurred-cars_1200x900.jpg with File:Hôtel_Negresco_04.jpg. Not improvement in my opinion, for two reasons.
1. The focus of the new photo is a hotel which does not figure into this event. Only a short segment of the road is shown.
2. The new photo is a daytime shot, and the event occurred well after dark.
The new photo may be more visually appealing, but the other considerations are more important. I am reverting per WP:BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misinformed. Parts of the attack took place just outside the Hotel Negresco. The vestibule was later transformed into a hospital for the victims.[13][14][15] I presume that's one of the reasons the French wikipedians chose this image for their article. So the Hotel Negresco did and does figure in this attack. I have heard it mentioned several times in BBC News reports on the 24 BBC News channel (e.g. one minute ago). I don't see the particular relevance of having night-time images. There are plenty of them, e.g. File:Negresco_de_nuit.jpg. I thought this image was useful because it showed the wide pedestrian pavements and traffic lanes, pedestrianised at the time, which unfortunately were significant aspects of the attentat. Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The infobox image was changed to one that I think more suitable. Following your suggestion, I included a night-time image with caption. Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The news reports state that the lorry came to a halt near the luxury hotels. Here is an image.[16] Mathsci (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we don't include both images. --PanchoS (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The non-free image of the heavy goods vehicle (poids-lourd) seems to have been deleted on Commons. I agree with Mandruss that night-time images are more appropriate and informative. The attack ended next to the Palais de la Méditerranée on the promenade des Anglais. That is the current image. Somebody else wrote a helpful caption. Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use image?

Unless free images of the attack can be found, this article is a prime case for Fair Use. There are shots of the truck and the aftermath at PressTV's site, for example. (I think this page is the source of embedded video that is seen at LiveLeak, but to play it I'd have to enable Flash playback from a random IP (217.218.67.231) located in Tehran) I think a cropped frame of the truck would be well in order for Fair Use, and of dubious copyrightability anyway; it is vastly more respectable than picking out a vaguely similar truck, mostly because it's painted the same color, and putting that up as if it documented something as proposed above. The scene of the aftermath would also give a sense of the attack - it is actually not what I expected, because the dead and wounded were spaced fairly widely over a very long distance rather than being in a pile, though the PressTV photo shows a particular concentration of them. However, if free alternatives exist then we're supposed to use them. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The current image is certainly the most suitable so far. Mathsci (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The non-free image was deleted. Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any image of the attack at all. This isn't a tourist brochure, it's an article about a massacre, and we need something more than shots of the beach and the hotels. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

Editors, please add link to this murderer and similar older attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Hepnarov%C3%A1 77.48.225.5 (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Could work as a see also? TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

UK non-reaction

@Lihaas: keeps re-adding, including without any explanation, something about the UK that I removed from the "Reaction" section because it mainly consists of a WP:QUOTE (not) attributed to an "unnamed" source. Unnamed source are not acceptable per policy when giving direct quotations, which must be exactly attributed in-text. I explained this in my edit summaries, and I also explained that the British PM having being "briefied" about the attack doesn't constitute a "reaction" and cannot possibly be construed as notable. In any case, I would like to point out to Lihaas that when they re-added the whole thing again on the basis that they thought the "briefing" was valid information, that didn't justify just reverting me and re-adding everything else too in the process. LjL (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And here you go with another revert (third?) that doesn't address my explanation or the request to take it here (which I did instead, but obviously not fast enough). LjL (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks like an edit war. -Mardus /talk 02:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Lihaas has been warned; let's hope it doesn't come to a block. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 02:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To make sure Lihaas understands what I'm talking about: WP:QUOTE clearly states about direct quotations that Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn who authored the quote. This means that the actual author of the quote, not just the secondary source that reported it, must be state in the article body. If that is not possible, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. About the "briefing", the fact that the British PM was told about the attack is utterly non-notable. Of course she was told, duh. So I'd like the previous state of things with no UK reaction until there is an actual UK reaction restored. LjL (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal. Let's get an actual quote from a UK official with a name attached. They'll be coming anyways, so let's be consistent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur wrt reaction from named officials. -Mardus /talk 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• OTOH, if a UK reaction was added and cited as having come 'from Downing Street', and if the said reaction was reported by a reputable source, then I don't think it should have been removed in the first place. Since a statement from a named official would come anyway, the reaction can later be edited. I like the current version as it is — that is, with the brief UK reaction kept in. -Mardus /talk 03:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Is the "New Prime Minister Theresa May was briefed on the attacks" even relevant? Obama was briefed as well but there's no reason for that. Technically May is included as name-dropping. If you take that out because it is kind of obvious that it would happen, you have prime minister, prime minister, king, governor-general, president and then anonymous spokesman from 10 Downing Street. I similarly expect that's quotes from Jay Carney today but those weren't included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal without replacement An official spokesperson, although unnamed, is completely different from a reaction from a quote from a confidential source "close to the case" that we always see in journalism. The latter is definitely questionable from an encyclopedic standpoint. The former is not the spokesperson's opinion, but the official statement of the organization he or she represents. Thus the quote is attributed: No. 10 is the source, and the statement was made via an agent of No. 10. We should replace it with something better when it becomes available, but until then this is fine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then feel free to blatantly ignore clearly-cited Wikipedia policy about need for attribution of quotations. Might as well WP:IAR in the context of a subject, long lists of international reactions, that is already consistently fought about, right? LjL (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about re: "consistently fought about". All I know is that an official spokesperson for a governmental agency should be treated as speaking for that agency. If you have some cause to believe that official spokesperson is not an official spokesperson or that his statement was made without authority, that might be relevant. To my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, a statement made by "Downing Street" is a statement of the organization at the head of the UK government's executive authority.

While a statement from the person of the head of state would be more relevant, and should displace the official statement made by Downing Street (so as to comport with WP:UNDUE), it is relevant and appropriate to display such a statement in spite of the fact that we don't know the personal name of the human being who wrote, uttered, semaphored, or otherwise conveyed the words of that official statement to the media. Again, the quote is attributed to the government agency qua agency, which is a routine mode of attribution on Wikipedia. If there is some policy statement that, as written, appears to require an explicit attribution to a named human being for any quoted material, the correct response is not to slavishly adhere to a policy with such absurd consequences, but to clarify the policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Downing Street statement appears in this form in the morning issues of several UK papers (e.g. The Telegraph). Boris Johnson, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has also made a statement on twitter about the attacks.[17] It would not be appropriate to remove the Downing Street statement. Mathsci (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Then add the Johnson statement, remove the "unnamed" statement from quite possibly a Downing Street janitor. See cited Wikipedia policy. LjL (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Downing Street statements on behalf of the Prime Minister are not made by janitors. Why make comments like that on the talk page of an article about an ongoing national disaster? Mathsci (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a discussion page for exactly this sort of thing. And I'm not impressed by your feeble attempt at making me feel guilty for making a slight hyperbole. Move along. LjL (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Allahu akhbar" in lede

The reports of the attacker shouting these words were added back to the lede by Septate after I had removed them, under the reasoning that they are important because they indicate the motivations of the attacker. However, this is pure original research, as we have no factual knowledge of why he shouted them. On the other hand, the words he allegedly shouted are completely WP:UNDUE as a prominent feature in the WP:LEDE meant to summarize the events described in the artile; they are already mentioned (in a better formatting) further down in the article body, and that's where they belong. Please remove them from the lede, where they are unnecessary and gratuitous. LjL (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this and discussion for it's inclusion should take place here. I have argued far above that this is a fairly obvious violation of WP:DUE. Besides this, I agree with the assessment of LjL that it is contrary to the spirit of guidance in WP:LEAD. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@LjL first of all he didn't 'allegedly' shout those words. It's confirmed per sources that he shouted those words which are provided!

Secondly you said that it amounts to original research original research which is wrong. It would be original research only if someone says that the Islamist nature of the attack is confirmed as he said Allahu Akbar but this not mentioned in the lead. By mentioning his last words in the lede we leave up to readers to draw conclusions about the nature of the attack. Septate (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out, the sources are careful to say "reportedly" and "was said to have shouted", so yes, it's "allegedly" until you add sources that state it in a much more certain tone. Secondly, if you want to go against normal WP:LEDE customs, then you need a good reasons; if you reason is that you personally think it explains the motivations behind the attacks, then your reason isn't good because it's your original research, regardless of whether we're spelling out the inference in the text. LjL (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I checked the refs given by septate and they do mention that the terrorist shouted the Arabic slogan without any doubts. The fact that the perpetuater mentioned those words during his rampage highlights there importance and they deserve a mention in the lead. However, if the involvement of ISIS is confirmed then they are of secondary importance. Mingling2 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely "allegedly" has no place in these articles about suicide attacks. When the attacker is dead there are no criminal charges, there is no trial, hence there are no allegations and hence no "alleged" anything. There's just what people think happened. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly! The refs given to support the claim leave no doubt that the terrorist indeed shouted Arabic slogan. Mingling2 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the major aspects of the article, and should harmonize with the relative WP:WEIGHT of the subject in the body, as the body reflects treatment in reliable sources. Currently this sentence would not summarizing a major aspect of the article, but would be nearly a 1-to-1 transcription of a sentence said in passing.

If this gets serious and substantive treatment in the sources, such that a substantive portion of the article can give it WP:DUE treatment, then that coverage should be included in the lead. This is currently not the case, and so it does not belong in the lead. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with the above.--Type 59 (Glorious Mao's Mangoes) (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Images

I've found this image and this image from the aftermath of the attack, but I can't find a suitable place to put them in the article without bunching up the text. Can anyone find a place to incorporate them? Also, it may be best to use one of them as the infobox image, as they're directly related to the attack, but perhaps consensus should be gauged first. Thanks, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 18:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The shoe photo doesn't look like encyclopedic content to me. The truck photo has been added to the article. Neither is really suitable for the infobox, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This article about an event has four pictures of a setting and none of the event. That's a bit odd. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hashtag

I'm sick and tired of the #JeSuis hashtags being featured prominently. The first time it was a notable phenomenon, now #JeSuisEverySingleThing is just not. LjL (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@LoudLizard - I see what you mean. There are so many reactions emerging and they need to be condensed appropriately. Luconst 23:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@LjL - yeah the hashtag seems to be becoming passe now. Have seen a few more reactions from Obama among others but won't let this page get clogged up with it, letting experienced editors do the work. Luconst 00:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's dumb. There's a citation here but it feels silly. Remove? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is breaking. It can be discussed down in a day or two.

And jst because someone is "sick and tired" it doesn't mean this is his website.Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm "sick and tired" of non-notable things like this being made prominent just because people are social media addicts even when it hardly really matters to the issue at hand or the actual event. It is not notable. And that isn't about this being "my website", but about this very website's policies about notability, which I didn't make, but which I'd like to see respected, especially when I see an article with a ton of dead people and the most important thing seems to be what hashtag people used on Twitter. Sheesh. This is an encyclopedia - which is also not my own opinion, but an obviously fact about this website. LjL (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That's youre opiniotn. doesn't make it Gospel.Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As he throws his fists into the air in a rage! But seriously, you have a point; let's see if there's consensus one way or another. Anyone have any thoughts? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sick of it, too. Not repeating it here would help it go away. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The reference to Twitter should be removed. The source is pretty WP:QS per "unsubstantiated gossip". The article linked to isn't even an article; it's just a collection of screen shots of people of no identified importance referencing the attack on social media. Nothing in the source even starts to make a claim that this would be WP:DUE weight. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with LjL, this is trivia and borderline indecent in the context.Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Format for international reactions

Rather than edit-warring, what should the format be for the international reactions sections, prose or bullets? Let's conduct a straw poll. @Lihaas, Colonel Wilhelm Klink, and WWGB: -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As usual, all the predictable comments from world leaders are being added as if they are meaningful, together with the expected flagcruft. This material should be written, very briefly, in prose. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer prose, but I mainly changed the format so as to get rid of the tag (quite ugly, isn't it?). Let's handle this at a later time; what's important now is getting the information about the event into the article at all. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And as usual there is no WP wide consensus. One can try at a project page but its not there.

Shortly we can also move to a separate sub article, per precedence. (as Colonel_Wilhelm_Klink suggests no need to rush)Lihaas (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Then add fancy flags when you move it, but in this main article, they create way too much graphical prominence in comparison with, you know, the actual events. This article is not mainly about statements of random heads of state and which flags they use. LjL (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you sought consensus for that?Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed Wikipedia ia gradually getting quicker at fixing these. Keep up the good work. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack in second paragraph of Background section

The second paragraph reads:

The Nice attack followed a series of vehicle attacks on civilians, including ones in Dijon and Nantes. Both the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda have encouraged sympathizers living in Western countries to carry out such attacks.[10] More than 20 ideologically-motivated lone wolf vehicle attacks have been carried out in Western countries during the past decade, including the aforementioned pair of attacks in France, one occurring the day after the other, in 2014.[11]

This info is rather tangential to the attack itself. Especially concerning is the attempt to link to Islamist groups before any such connection has been made. I've boldly removed the paragraph. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do think we should mention the fact that France is no stranger to vehicular attacks like the Dijon and Nantes ones, but the rest certainly should go. Parsley Man (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Title changed back to original consensus selection

I have undone the WP:BOLD move of the article, putting it back to 2016 Nice attack. The consensus in the original discussion did not support a rename: Talk:2016_attack_in_Nice/Archive_1#Article_name. @VQuakr: - Appreciate you discussing it further here. I should remind folks that a pleasant feature of English is the use of capital letters to designate a proper noun, marking a difference between "nice attack" and "Nice attack." -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It only gets weird at the beginning. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd go for Attack in Nice. There is no way to determine if 'Nice' refers to the city or good because it is the first word (and therefore capitalised regardless). The title lacks in precision with Nice as the initial word. Hollth (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The initial word here is "2016". It's technically OK. This hashtag is not, but they rarely are. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support 2016 Nice attack as I did before and for the same reasons as I mentioned before (same styling as other articles; shortest unambiguous name, per policy; "Nice" and "nice" are in fact not homographs; we don't cater to bad-taste jokers and change our articles due to them). LjL (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support 2016 Nice attack: In alignment with Fuzheado's comment, I support leaving the article name as is, 2016 Nice attack, because it upholds our naming convention. Opting for 2016 attack in Nice coddles English speakers/readers/editors; a redirect suffices. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose anything which says "Nice attack." This is in fact an English language encyclopedia, so it is appropriate to "coddle" the readers and editors..Edison (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, "to coddle" means To treat gently or with great care or even To exercise excessive or damaging authority in an attempt to protect. To overprotect. Why exactly does this being an English encyclopedia make it appropriate to exercise excessive and damaging authority and to overprotect? Are you implying English speakers are particularly clueless of stupid? I think that would be rude to imply. Or is the "coddle" definition being used To cook slowly in hot water that is below the boiling point? At any rate, this English encyclopedia is read by (and caters to) a large number of people who are not native English speakers (perhaps the majority) and who don't really care about your alleged English sensibilities about the term which happens to be the English and French legitimate and serious name of the city. LjL (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice sophistry. Edison (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any combination which contains "Nice attack". "Attacks in Nice" was way more reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support 2016 Nice attack; are we seriously going to change the title because a few immature jackasses might make insensitive jokes? Anyone who honestly cares enough about this event to read the article will not be confused or offended to see "2016 Nice attacks", because they're not so stupid as to take it in the context of "It was a nice attack." Even English language learners will understand that Nice was the location of the attack, not a description of the attack, because, again, our readers are not morons. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 17:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any "Nice attack". Seriously, when I read the headlines (I didnt know the city before (also because it isnt called Nice in German, but Nizza, and the name is not only different in german) and I really wondered what the people there were thinking and I think this is not only because of jokes but also because of confusion.

also @LjL you said that quote-on-quote: "this English encyclopedia is read by (and caters to) a large number of people who are not native English speakers (perhaps the majority)". as I said The city is not called nice in every language. we have 118 languages on wiki of the city (I took the data from wikidata -> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33959#sitelinks-wikipedia ) and out of the latin-alphabet using languages we have 46 that use "Nice" I can read Japanse Kana and cyrillic and I can say that Japanese is based on Nice but the cyrillic versions (15) are based on the italian Nizza. Then we have 34 Latin Alphabet Languages which dont use "Nice", leaving at the and 24 Languages where I can't identify how it's called.

Let's summarize:

• 46 "Nice"
• jp clearly based on Nice.

-> 47

• 15 cyrillic Languages based on Nizza
• 34 Latin not "Nice"

-> 49

• 22 Languages I cannot read (sorry someone else needs to help)

My1 19:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have a slight preference for 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice, but 2016 Bastille Day attack or 2016 Nice attack are acceptable names. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda

1. This terrorist attack was carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam but the only mention of the word "Muslim" is in reference to the victims, not the attackers
2. Every current mainstream reliable source refers to the attacker as a terrorist but Wikipedia refuses to do this
3. According to The Daily Beast, US officials think ISIS is the "top suspect" and local Muslims in Nice believe the attack "has all the earmarks of ISIS" but there is no mention of ISIS in this article
4. The denial of the attack as terrorism by Wikipedia editors contrary to sources, the denial of the motive as Islamic terrorism contrary to sources, and the denial of ISIS as the top suspect per the sources is part of a larger, systemic pattern of deliberate denial by Wikipedia editors found in almost every article about Islamic terrorist attacks on Wikipedia in just the last year
5. Wikipedia is supposed to be an independent, international project run by volunteers, but the "house" bias seen in this topic area closely reflects that of official US foreign policy, in particular, the continued denial of radical Islamic terrorism as the root cause of these attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this was absolutely a terrorist attack, and Islamism is most likely the motive behind it. Also, the attacker is likely (but not confirmed) to have been inspired by ISIS and their propaganda. If what you say is right about it not being classed as "Terrorism" on Wikipedia, then i strongly suggest someone change it and state it as a terrorist attack. However, i would refrain from adding ISIS as the perpetrator because we have no reports to say it was ISIS in any way, currently.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

See this. ISIS is the top suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that at the BBC] (scroll down to the 12:54 update) they say - "The daily radio bulletin for so-called Islamic State has made no mention of the attack in Nice. The terror group's Al-Bayan radio has been used in the past to claim credit for some attacks in the West, although its self-styled "news agency" Amaq is more commonly the first to report claims. " Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait. He's also been described as a "weird loner" who was "depressed". At present there is no certainty over his affiliations or motives, and we should wait until reliable sources publish information that we can use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The only systematic bias on WP is to be cautious when recording the details of new and volatile articles on new and unfolding events. Get used to it. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

totally agree with the issue of bias/propaganda on this topic

particularly on this bit "One of the first people killed was a Muslim woman, along the path taken by the perpetrator.[27] Many other Muslims are thought to be among the dead.[28]"

1. there is no evidence the first victim was a 'muslim woman' and the primary source for this is unclear. if it was, what is her name? we need details on her to confirm she existed. plus, the NYT source given does not even say that, the info is not in the citation given

2. the "many other muslims" is a clear exxageration for political purposes. the article qualifies that number as 'several' i.e 7 or less many other "muslims" is not appropriate phrasing for such a small number of victims and "several" is not a precise number, we actually have no clue how many, or who, these people were

3. whether any muslims wrre killed in the attack is irrelevant since the attack was targeting non-muslim french people, not muslims and non-muslim french people seem to be the majority of victims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to remain objective and neutral, by citing facts and factual statements. Afterwards, you may draw conclusions in some paragraph or article, but not without having first added the facts. At present much is unknown. 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"whether any muslims wrre killed in the attack is irrelevant since the attack was targeting non-muslim french people, not muslims" I'm curious about how you are able to draw that conclusion. 85.228.58.65 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"allahu akbar" might have something to do with it. But yeah, he might have been a non-white white supremacist hellbent on killing muslims. --94.13.15.116 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the mentions of Muslims specifically is non WP:NPOV and should be excluded as simply not relevant.

Having said that, I think the inclusion of Allāhu Akbar is also non NPOV. The phrase is very commonly used in a similar way that "oh god" or "oh shit" is used in English. TimothyJosephWood 14:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

'allahu akbar' being a common islamic phrase doesn't change the fact it is used as a battle cry and screamed by every single muslim attacker its impossible for it to be NPOV to simply mention any word the attacker used Dave8899 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is non NPOV if it is given WP:UNDUE weight, and included to imply that it was a battle cry, when that is not what the source says. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

simply mentioning it is not undue weight and there is no 'implication' that this was a battle cry, that is what allahu akbar has been used as by muslims ever since muhammad first used it in the battle of badr.Dave8899 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning it in the WP:LEDE is quite definitely WP:UNDUE weight as the lede should just summarize the article, not provide quotations of things allegedly said. It should swiftly be removed from the lede. LjL (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

i agree it shouldn't be in the lede and never suggested otherwiseDave8899 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently worded non-objectively. Take this: "There were reportedly many Muslims who were among the 84 people killed in the attack, according to an Iranian journalist who saw several people with scarves or speaking Arabic.". This indiscriminates other religions. It also has no number, so if you want to have all the religion, you would have to include them for all who died. And on what premise is said journalist (who is not even mentioned with name???) counting please? How does he know? How many are "many"? This is not a good wording at all. It should be reworded. If you really want to bring in religion, then do so for ALL victims including those without confession. 23:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk)

Rename article to "2016 Nice terrorist attack"?

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.

---

Sounds like a better title. FabulousFerd (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blanket oppose all renaming proposals today. They are a waste of time 14 hours after the event. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seriously, no. Any more renaming proposals that are not even remotely in line with what we do for virtually all other articles of this sort go to /dev/null for what I'm concerned. "Terrorist" is a loaded term that is often argued shouldn't be used in article bodies (not that I quite agree), and certainly it wouldn't be appropriate to use it in the title. LjL (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:@LjL: What about "July 2016 Nice attack?" By adding the month, it will be just like the name of other articles about terrorist attacks, such as November 2015 Paris attacks. What do you think? "2016 Nice attack" sounds empty. FabulousFerd (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No. I oppose any current discussion on renaming period. There have already been multiple threads on this that have gone nowhere, and this one will also.

The event and the sources are still fresh enough that very little substantive argument can be made right now for an authoritative name. This, and the previous discussions are a waste of time. We should discuss this if and when a widely agreed upon WP:COMMONNAME emerges in the sources. The current name is just as good and just as bad as any proposed alternative. TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think anything that doesn't say "Nice terror attack", "Nice attack", or "Nice terrorist attack" in the title would be fine. Title makes it sound like someone is saying it was a "nice" attack and too many will make jokes out of this serious situation. De88 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we just pick one discussion about this? You're guaranteeing at this will be the kind of article that gets repeatedly moved around for no reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2016 (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.

Gallery

There was a problem with congested images. I hope that the solution using a gallery is acceptable (the size parameters might need rejigging). Because of the table, the only place to add the gallery at the moment, until the size of the article increases, seems to be right at the end with a "clear" template to keep things clean. It allows some flexibility if further images are found. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good; like you said, we can always do away with the gallery after the article has grown a bit. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Epicgenius removed the gallery which he claimed falsely contained indiscriminate images. The first image of the beach is not particularly helpful, but the hotels figure in the events during and after the attacks. As already explained the table did not allow images to be included next to text. I have do not believe that the image from the carte du séjour of the perpetrator is helpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Gallery doesn't belong here, because policy states that we can't shoehorn images into galleries. It can be put into the prose, but a gallery is not appropriate for this article by any means (maybe in the Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack article, but not here). Also, it's not constructive because it's a bunch of pictures of memorials. So we should get rid of the gallery. Kylo Ren (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This was already discussed above. Please read the discussion there which explains the reasons. Why not read the talk page more carefully, Epicgenius? Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I did. I don't think gallery should be given its own section. Why do you insist on a gallery? Couldn't you use stacked images? Kylo Ren (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And "falsely" claimed? Not true. Only two of the images in the gallery was helpful. That means that a gallery isn't particularly required. A 2-image gallery doesn't serve much purpose. Kylo Ren (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I seamlessly integrated the images in the text. No worries. Kylo Ren (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you have found a stable solution. It's not bad for the time being; but it's the table that still creates a problem. My suggestion is to add the table as something in the centre after the text in the victims section. That would be similar to the way in which climatic tables are added to articles on cities. The section Nice#Climate is an example. Or Marseille#Climate or Marseille#Mayors. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In the end I looked at November 2015 Paris attacks for guidance. I switched the perpetrator and victims section, as happens there. That has cleared things up somewhat. The section on aftermath or reactions is likely to increase, particularly if the fork article is deleted and/or merged. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The table makes it very hard to add the images in a straightforward way unfortunately. Both hotels played significant roles. On the BBC news service and its online version, one of the more reliable sources, both hotels are frequently mentioned. The Palais de la Mediterranee is where the heavy goods vehicle (poids-lourd) was halted (and eventually removed this afternoon, French time); after the carnage near the Negresco, it served as a centre for triage. The article at this stage is unstable almost by definition; and in an unstable article I don't think it is a good idea to have lots of images on the left. Somebody tried that with the two hotels in the gallery and the result was disastrous, hence the descion to try the gallery (as explained above). We don't have to keep trying that experiment over and over again.

As regards the other images, the American image is at present unrelated to any text, because the section on international reactions was forked into an article, now up for deletion. I assume that the article will in due course have a section on "aftermath" just like November 2015 Paris attacks. That is obviously impossible at the moment. The non-free image cropped from the carte de séjour, unlike other images that have briefly been used in the article, is unlikely to be deleted. I do not know what educational purpose it serves. The beach photo from 2014 was arbitrary.

Perhaps a solution is to have the table in a centred format, allowing any images matching text to be inserted next to that text. I would look to see how this was managed in the November 2015 Paris attacks, even if there are significant differences between the two attacks. Mathsci (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. A centered gallery could also work. Though the American image should be put in the reactions section. Kylo Ren (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing foreigners

Should a count of known missing foreign nationals be added to the "Nationalities of victims" list? - DarkNITE (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing != victims at this point. I would suggest not including for now. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. In an explosion or sinking, the missing are sometimes reasonably presumed dead, but trucks aren't like that. If the dead were tourists, they were likely carrying ID. If not, they still have fingerprints. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The missing Canadian student travels with a Ukrainian passport, and one Ukrainian has already been reported deceased and on our list. If we add the missing Canadian it runs the risk adding the same person twice. I think we should stick only with death and injuries because that data is more reliable. [18] Waters.Justin (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)