Talk:August 2017 Brussels attack

SYNTH again

Re: "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack.

This is pure invention, the sources don't mention affiliation at all, merely contact in a specific case. They mainly discuss a single accusation of contact between someone in Germany and someone in Sweden. IF the accusation is proven, it MIGHT tend to establish how ISIS is able to sometimes be reliable in its claims according to named individuals, ie it MIGHT shed light on how ISIS gets local 'reports'. The nearest thing to a claim of reliability, is saying that some experts are a bit surprised at how accurate AMAQ is able to be about name etc of perpetrator.

The text implies something very different, namely that ISIS claims of responsibility are usually accurate. The two English sources have nothing whatsoever to say about this attack and are only there to support this piece of SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I am floored and have simply added the full text of each of the three sources. How people can arrive at such diametrically different understanding of the plain text of the WP:RS, I can't fathom. XavierItzm (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

When did "suggests a more rigourous protocol" or "the gist of its claims is typically correct" or "no investigations have so far disproved Isis’ claims" become "Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack"? There is no mention of 'affiliation' and the writer does not make clear what he means by 'gist', (the main factual details of the attack would be the most obvious explanation). Why would IS need to "scrupulously analyze assaults and attacks before taking credit" if the perp were one of its "affiliates"? What is unfathomable is the pretence that this is not pure invention intended to boost a transparently exaggerated claim which does not even refer to this event. Pincrete (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Three sources plainly state that the Islamic State's claims are, on the whole, reliable, and some guy on the internet claims his own WP:OR and says he is right and the sources are wrong! Unbelievable. XavierItzm (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They do NOT say they are generally reliable, they say they are MORE reliable than generally thought and that the GIST is typically correct. However far more important than that relatively minor exaggeration of two specific sources, the sources make no claim WHATSOEVER about affiliation. This is pure SYNTH, if I say Trump is typically honest - or more honest than generally thought - one cannot possibly extrapolate from that WHAT he is typically honest or dishonest about. The general claims (which are hedged in with all sorts of conditionals in the sources) are being used to make a specific claim which is not even mentioned in any source. This is the very definition of SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Quibbling. However, in spirit of collaboration, I've abbreviated the text so there is no further room for disagreement from the _three_ sources cited. XavierItzm (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If you really think that I am "quibbling" by making a distinction between some sources saying "perhaps Isis are a bit more accurate than we have usually thought" and "the gist is typically right" is the same thing as saying (in WP voice) "they are usually accurate about a specific subject area, namely who is/is not affiliated with them,", you are editing in the wrong topic area. We can all make mistakes sometimes but such a patent disinterest in accurately reflecting the balance of sources, is very indicative.

The present text is still completely unacceptable because … a) nowhere does either source say Isis are generally accurate ("the 'gist' is typically correct" is the nearest to that) … b) different claims are made by the three sources … c) who the hell are these 'academic experts' and how about all the experts that say the opposite …

d) most importantly of all, where the 'accuracy' claim is placed (immediately after the Isis claim) is a transparently crude attempt to imply that THIS Isis claim is accurate, when in fact the sources don't even mention this event. This text belongs on the Isis or Amaq page and needs to be made much more accurate to be acceptable.Pincrete (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please desist from questioning the sources. The sources clearly establish that on the whole the Islamic State claims are typically correct. Also, the idea that there is use «(in WP voice)», as you say, is rather strange. Please note the article clearly attributes the insight to the NYT, the Independent, and academic researchers. As to your query into «who the hell are these 'academic experts'», please read the cit: "Michaël Dantinne, Professor of Criminology at ULG." You may well be advised to have a gander at the Wikipedia entry on ULG, whose first sentence reads: "a major public university."

Finally, you say «how about all the experts that say the opposite». As you know, the Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you have sources to back up your statement, once again I invite you to link to these sources, to improve the article. And if you don't have them, then please don't make such claims. XavierItzm (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not questioning the sources, I am firstly questioning the re-writing of the sources in a crude manner to support a PoV which they patently don't support, which is textbook SYNTH. I am secondarily - and more importantly for this article - questioning WHY this text is placed in the article at all. It is a blatant attempt to imply that Isis' claim in this instance is accurate, despite none of those sources even mentioning this incident.

These sources MIGHT support discussion somewhere (ISIS or Amaq pages?) as to whether, and to what degree Isis claims are accurate, and/or what processes they are believed to follow before making claims. They do not have anything to say about this event, but seek to imply that they do.

The sources to back up my statement that "other experts don't agree" include the same ones you seek to use, "Despite a widespread view"="that is what most commentators think". " analysts say it is in the group’s interest to maintain Amaq’s apparent credibility" = "most experts say it is in Isis' interest to APPEAR to be accurate". I do not wish to include these elements because it is fairly obvious that the 'general question' of HOW accurate ISIS is about WHICH subjects and WHEN and their possible verification methods is not the subject of this article (and covering the subject accurately would require more than "usually true/untrue about most things"). Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to add a "Despite a widespread view", you know, the Wikipedia is a collaborative effort... XavierItzm (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, because it isn't a "widespread view", the sources endorse that ISIS may be more accurate than some have previously thought and that ISIS tries hard to appear credible (hardly surprising, since they would love to present themselves as omnipotent to both their fans and their enemies) and ISIS may have 'fact checking' mechanisms in place to prevent it looking foolish.

Secondly, and more importantly because it is SYNTH to put this piece of info alongside the ISIS claim of responsibility in this instance. We don't say "politician X said Y", then immediately put "but politician X is known to be a liar". We DO put " politician X was criticised for saying Y by Z because QRS", or we incorporate the "liar" accusations in politician X's own page. Editors may legitimately disagree about what exactly sources are saying and how to accurately record it, but we are all expected to be putting our own PoV's to one side, not simply one editor putting his PoV then another editor adding his and hoping some kind of 'balance' is achieved.

There is no escaping that this text is trying to make generalised statements about ISIS's reliability, which are neither an accurate summary of even these sources, let alone what all sources say about how 'honest' ISIS is - and which would not belong HERE even if they were a balanced summary. I never cease to be amazed how WP editors - who would not believe ISIS if they said 2+2=4 - are nonetheless determined to believe every single claim of responsibility made by ISIS, as though their words were 'holy writ'. Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This all looks a bit like hair-splitting. With three sources saying Amaq's claims are generally reliable, it looks like trying to hide the fact is not appropriate. In any event, the WP:RS report that the Islamic State claimed the attack and I don't think this much can possibly taken out of the article. As to the rest, let's see how the RSN conversation evolves. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You genuinely cannot tell the difference between one source saying ISIS is "more accurate than widely thought" and ISIS is "generally accurate about a specific subject"? "Donald Trump is more honest than widely thought", and he usually gets the "gist" correct and, despite a widespread contrary view, he has occasionally even got a few details correct, and "he tries hard to appear honest", and "no one has yet proven that he lies", therefore "D Trump is clearly honest about his alleged contacts with Russia and his tax payments?" . All this is before we even ask what the sources have to say about the Brussels attack, which is not a single word. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

RSN

I've started a RSN discussion here.Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC) … … link updated Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional source

The additional source, which supposedly supports the text that experts believe that "Amaq are usually accurate when they claim attacks", actually has the same expert (Michael Dantinne/Dentinne) saying that the claims made about this attack are 'credible'. Translate here.

I am at a loss for words, one expert saying these particular claims are credible does not equal experts (plural) think that Amaq claims about attacks are usually accurate. I am not however going to make any change whilst the RSN is ongoing, the obvious change though would be to find those local politicians/experts who have dismissed claims about this attack, + Dantinne's/whoever saying that the ISIS claims were credible in this instance. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is two WP:RS citing the same academic expert who says Amaq are usually accurate when they claim attacks. Coverage ensures notability to the point you'll be hard-pressed to deep-six the fact. XavierItzm (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Since neither says "usually accurate about attacks" and since, even if they did, it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether this claim was accurate, this is flogging an incredibly deceased horse. Do you understand that credible does not mean accurate? Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Statements by experts that a general rule applies immediately imply that it applies to all cases, unless WP:RS can be found that specifically call for an exception to the rule. So, tell me, do you every night look for proof that the sun will rise tomorrow? XavierItzm (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Since neither says "usually accurate about attacks" and since, even if they did, it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether this claim was accurate, this is flogging an incredibly deceased horse. Do you understand that credible does not mean accurate? Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

www.nieuwsblad.be

User:E.M.Gregory, this ref, used here is not a complete valid url (it takes one to the front page only). Pincrete (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I added the Notability tag to the article per the recent AfD that closed as "No consensus". Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There need to be guidelines to prevent routine whitewashing of obvious terrorist attacks which should always be notable. Bachcell (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bachcell, there are guidelines, if the relevant authorities characterise an event as 'terrorist', so do we. If they do not, we don't, if they are equivocal, so are we to the same extent. How is this 'whitewasing'? It is relying on WP:RS, rather than our own opinions. The authorities have the 'full picture', we do not. Pincrete (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would remove the notability tag IMHO Bachcell (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We aren't a newspaper, and not every event, even if it is 'terrorist', automatically gets its own article. An event should have some lasting impact or significance to justify an article. There are a huge number of similar, relatively minor events which we don't cover, or which are summarised in 'list articles'. There are also large numbers of similar articles which are never 'updated', so no one knows what happened after the headlines 'moved on', that isn't an encyclopaedic outcome. We are writing for an audience 10 years down the line, not 10 weeks or months. Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bachcell: Questioning notability of a subject is not the same as whitewashing; please also see WP:NPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Bachcell that the notability notice needs be removed. I'd say the editors for it are merely re-litigating the AfD in which they did not succeed. XavierItzm (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove tag Retagging in the immediate wake of an AfD is a sort of WP:FORUMSHOP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• The fact the AFD closed as "no consensus" means the subject's notability is still questionable. Had it closed as "keep" those arguing to remove the tag would actually have a case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Tag removed, the subject obviously passes WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others that unless this is going to be AfD'd, the tag is 'POINTY' and pointless. The article may not have been endorsed by AfD, but it passed it, tag warring is pointless and that is what this seems to be rather than addressing any notability issues. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Five editors have said the tag needs removing, which seems like a clear consensus to me, I recommend those adding it go read WP:GNG, the article clearly passes. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think the article necessarily passes notability, but I do object to 'tag-warring'. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)