| Revision as of 16:08, 26 July 2016 editBiwom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,295 edits →English translation: copyvio - please do not post translations of copyrighted material← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:19, 4 December 2024 edit undoPincrete (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers51,317 edits →Footnote in the lead detailing deaths: new sectionTag: New topic |
| (629 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{ITN talk|14 July|2016}} |
|
{{WPBS|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Death|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Mid|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject France|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Holidays|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject France||importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2019-07-14|oldid1=906137275|date2=2020-07-14|oldid2=967315862|date3=2023-07-14|oldid3=1164226420}} |
|
|
{{Old move |
|
|
|from1=2016 Nice attack |destination1=2016 Nice truck attack|result1=Not moved|date1=24 April 2017|link1=Talk:2016_Nice_truck_attack/Archive_7#Requested_move_17_April_2017 |
|
|
|from2=2016 Nice attack |destination2=2016 Nice truck attack|result2=Moved|date2=9 July 2018|link2=Special:Permalink/932049149#Requested_move_28_June_2018 |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{ITN talk|14 July|2016}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 110K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 110K |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|algo = old(15d) |
|
|archive = Talk:2016 Nice attack/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:2016 Nice truck attack/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{auto archiving notice |
|
|
|bot = MiszaBot |
|
|
|age = 7 |
|
|
|units = days |
|
|
|small = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
|
{{Friendly search suggestions}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Total dead figures == |
|
|
|
|
|
Our chart appears to add up to 8<s>7</s>6, as far as I know the 84 total hasn't altered but I couldn't find a single place with nationality figures to verify where the error is. Any ideas?] (]) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Check the tables on the French and German sites. That should probably help track down the error. ] (]) 21:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Maybe there are a few people with double nationalities, listed with two countries but not noted as such. ] (]) 22:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I found one error, + FrWP says only 5 Italians, not 6 , and . Non parlare Italiano! |
|
|
:::The article says 6 Italian victims, then it lists 4 Italians and 1 dual citizen US/Italy. Go figure. ] (]) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::FrWP also says no Romanians, but three Swiss (our 2), I speak even less Romanian! Some may be dual nationals as noted. if anyone can help check. German WP is worse than ours (54 unidentified), which is a good thing really as meine Deutsch ist shchrecklich. ] (]) 22:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Statistics=== |
|
|
The number of killed doesn't add up. The official figure is 84, yet the total in the column comes up to 87.--] (]) 15:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Damn dual citizens! Or damn vandals, perhaps! ] ] 15:58, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
::Dual citizens pertain to the injured. It appears that the killed were all holders of only one citizenship each.--] (]) 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Per the very first source, there seem to be three dead Algerians, not five. ] ] 16:18, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
:::And "at least three" Moroccans. ] ] 16:21, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
:::I subtracted three, and now we're at 83. Something wrong with that. ] ] 16:26, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
:::Added back two Algerians, fixed citation. ''Should'' be at 85 now. Counting the killer? ] ] 16:38, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've removed the 1 UK dead , and , makes no mention. The source for 1 is , which claims to have got the info from the UK For Off. I 'Googled' and searched Gdn website and couldn't find any UK dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The total figure is wrong again so I put 1 'not confirmed'. FrWP has 4 Moroccans, not 3, but I could find a source for that, even the Fr source is wrong.] (]) 23:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Islamic terrorism == |
|
|
|
|
|
The only confirmed statements we have so far were given by Prosecutor François Molins on Thursday. He spoke at great length and there is a 12:40 video of everything he said about the suspects and radicalisation (it is in the VDF citation). He has said that at this stage no links have been established with Islamic terrorist groups. The investigation is ongoing and the 5 suspects have been charged "in relation to a terrorist attack". There is no need to change the categories until some further statements are made by the Prosecutor. It's premature at the moment. We certainly don't say it in the article, which is relatively carefully written, so there is even less reason to say it in the categories. I should add, however, that in his press conference on Thursday the prosecutor consistently referred to the perpetrator as "the terrorist", but not the "Islamic terrorist". ] (]) 12:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Whether the group is linked to ISIL or not is irrelevant to the general Islamist motives for the attack: since when are direct links to an organisation required for ideological/religious categorisation? There are numerous terrorists of all kinds that don't have direct links to any organisation. And since you invoke their charge as evidence ("in relation to a terrorist attack"), as far as I'm aware there aren't separate laws for every type of terrorist: a terrorist is a terrorist. ] (]) 13:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::This happens on literally every article on mass killings, and terrorism has already been added and taken away from this article probably a score or more times. Without qualification, this needs consensus before it's added. |
|
|
::Having said this in no uncertain terms, repeatedly adding this content without consensus, even over the course of several days, does constitute an edit war. So find sources, and get consensus or stop adding it. ] 13:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There are two issues here: category with ISIL and with Islamic terrorism. I am inclined to agree that categorising as part of ISIL is premature (if the category is strictly limited for direct organisational links to the organisation), but the Islamic terrorism label is by now clearly supported by direct sources (AFP+), statements from government sources and evidence about the perpetrator himself and the investigation into other charged. ] (]) 13:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I believe this has come up before, but simply saying "AFP" does not constitute "providing sources". ] 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::AFAIK, only a few sources are referring to 'Islamic terrorism', the AgenceFP was early days. Other sources are being more equivocal. I don't understand the rush to add these categories. Any link to ISIL (except poss. 'copy-cat') seems less likely. ] (]) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The statement of Molins on Thursday was quite explicit. At the end of his prepared statement at the press conference he described how six magistrates would proceed with the examination of the suspects to confirm the charges that would be brought against them later that day. In the last seconds of the conference he said that investigators would further examine the possibility of links, as yet unestablished (''des liens non établis à ce jour, je précise''), with terrorist organisations, notably ISIS (''Daech''). ] (]) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Description of attack - significant errors? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Comparing this with the French version and what can be read on French sources, this account seems quite inaccurate and contradicts the geography. The sourcing is bizarre. German sources, the Daily Mail, US sources, but nothing particularly reliable. The incident with the motorcyclist has been described recently in Nice-Matin and my understanding is that it took place near the Hotel Negresco. |
|
|
|
|
|
The distance between the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée is not 2 km as claimed. It is 500m. The whole account seems to be quite wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
The account on the French page seems accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
Did the casualties start at the Lenval Hospital when the lorry turned onto the Promenade des Anglais as claimed in the article? Apart from the Newsweek, it is unsourced. It isn't mentioned in the BBC source. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to check this section comparing it with the French article, where editors know the geography a little better than the editors who wrote this section. What I might do is translate the French section into English with their sources, so that it can be compared with what is written here. Individual victims as well as local heros have been discussed in detail in ], which in these matters is highly reliable for obvious reasons. ] is also reliable and has given descriptions of the victims and their circumstances, whenever these are known. |
|
|
|
|
|
Below I have produced a translation with references (in French) of the paragraph on the attack in the French article. There are innumerable errors in the English article; in particular there is complete confusion about the topography of the Promenade des Anglais and details of what happened. ] (]) 22:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{talkquote| |
|
|
On 14 July 2016 in Nice at approximately 22:30, just after the end of the Bastille Day firework display, which took place from 22:00 to 22:20 and was attended by around 30,000 people, a white 19 ton heavy goods vehicle (a rented ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.franceinfo.fr/fil-info/article/attentat-de-nice-le-camion-n-avait-pas-le-droit-de-circuler-un-jour-ferie-et-n-etait-pas-806785|title=Attentat : le camion n'avait pas le droit de circuler dans Nice en raison d'un arrêté préfectoral et municipal|date=19 July 2016|work=franceinfo.fr}}</ref>) emerged from the Magnan quarter of Nice coming out onto the traffic-free section of the Promenade des Anglais at Lenval Hospital.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/terrorisme/attaque-au-camion-a-nice/comment-le-camion-a-t-il-pu-circuler-sur-la-promenade-des-anglais-pourtant-fermee-a-la-circulation_1548357.html|title=Comment le camion a-t-il pu circuler sur la promenade des Anglais pourtant fermée à la circulation ?|date=15 July 2016|work=francetvinfo.fr}}</ref> Travelling at close to 90 km per hour, it hit several bystanders.<ref name="libe">{{cite web|url=http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/07/20/securite-a-nice-370-metres-de-questions_1467531|title=Sécurité à Nice. 370 mètres de questions|author=Grégoire Biseau , Sylvain Mouillard, Willy Le Devin and Ismaël Halissat|date=20 July 2016|work=liberation.fr}}</ref> 400 metres further on, at the level of the intersection with the boulevard Gambetta, it accelerated and mounted onto the pavement to force its way through the police barrier—a police car, a ] and lane separators<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/07/17/la-securite-autour-du-feu-d-artifice-de-nice-etait-elle-suffisante_1466631|title=La sécurité autour du feu d'artifice de Nice était-elle suffisante ? |author=Pierre Alonso|date=17 July 2016|work=liberation.fr}}</ref>—at the start of the zone customarily pedestrianised for Bastille Day.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.challenges.fr/france/20160716.CHA1900/en-direct-attentat-de-nice-4-hommes-interpelles-dans-l-entourage-du-tueur.html|title=EN DIRECT Attentat de Nice : le camion a forcé le passage|date=16 July 2016|work=challenges.fr/}}</ref> Having broken through the barrier, the lorry drove in zigzag fashion hitting members of the crowd assembled on the pavement and three traffic lanes on the seafront side of the Promenade.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2016/07/14/a-nice-un-camion-fonce-dans-la-foule-reunie-pour-les-festivites-du-14-juillet_4969589_1653578.html|title=Ce que l'on sait de l'attentat commis à Nice|date=15 July 2016|work=lemonde.fr}}.</ref> The driver tried to stay as much as possible on the pavement—returning to the traffic lanes only when blocked by a bus shelter or pavilion—to cause the maximum number of deaths.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/07/15/nice-la-nuit-de-l-apocalypse_1466516|title=Nice, la nuit de l'apocalypse|author=Alain Auffray, Arnaud Vaulerin, Pierre Alonso, Stéphanie Harounyan, Laure Bretton, Mathilde Frénois et Amélie Quentel|date=15 July 2016|work=liberation.fr}}.</ref> The progress of the lorry was slowed down in front of the ]: a motorcyclist abandoned his ] and clung onto the running board of the lorry in an unsuccessful attempt to get into the driver's cabin.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lci.tf1.fr/france/faits-divers/nice-un-motard-a-t-il-tente-d-arreter-le-camion-en-s-accrochant-desesperement-8766446.html|title=Nice : le motard qui a poursuivi le poids lourd a-t-il également essayé de le désarmer ?|author=Mélanie Faure|date=16 July 2016|work=lci.tf1.fr}}</ref>. The driver fired several shots from his 7.65mm firearm at police who returned his fire with their 9mm Sig-Sauer guns,<ref name="libe"/> gave chase to the vehicle and tried to disable it.<ref name="obs 15 juillet">{{cite web|url=http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/attaque-de-nice/20160715.OBS4681/attentat-de-nice-ce-que-l-on-sait-du-chauffeur-du-camion.html|title=Attentat de Nice : ce que l'on sait du chauffeur du camion|date=15 July 2016|work=tempsreel.nouvelobs.com}}</ref> The lorry travelled a further 300m until, with its tires flattened and windscreen riddled with bulletholes, it drew to a halt at 22:50 next to the ], where two police marksmen shot down the driver.<ref name="figaro">{{cite web|work=]|title=EN DIRECT - Attentat de Nice : le bilan grimpe à 84 morts|url=http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/07/14/01016-20160714LIVWWW00269-attentat-nice-promenade-des-anglais.php|accessdate=2016-07-15}}</ref> The carnage took place over a distance of 1.7km, between numbers 11 and 147 of the Promenade des Anglais, resulting in the deaths of dozens of people and creating high levels of panic in the crowds.<ref>{{cite web|title=Attaque à Nice : au moins 77 morts, un suspect abattu|url=http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/en-direct-attentat-a-nice-un-camion-fonce-dans-la-foule-de-nombreux-morts-14-07-2016-5967837.php|accessdate=2016-07-15}}</ref> Some were injured as a result of jumping onto the pebbled beach several metres below the promenade.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leprogres.fr/france-monde/2016/07/15/a-nice-des-scenes-d-horreurs-sur-la-promenade-des-anglais|date=16 July 2016|work=leprogres.fr|title=A Nice des scènes d'horreur sur la promenade des Anglais}}</ref> |
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
===Errors in the English version of the attack section=== |
|
|
The truck moved around in the Magnan quarter of Nice prior to the attacks, which was obviously carefully timed. The police barriers were not mentioned. I don't think there is any need to mention names, e.g. that of the motorcyclist, or make specific reference to the first fatality. There is no mention of the pedestrianised zone. There is no mention of zigzag motion. There is total confusion about what happened within the pedestrianised zone. There is a bizarre repetition. The events concerning the motorcyclist took place at the Hotel Negreasco. The first gunfire happened there. The article confuses those events with the ending at the Palais de la Méditerranée. That involved police marksmen, not the motorcyclist. There is no need to mention Molins, since the French newspapers give an accurate account of what happened. His remarks refer to the final chase between the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée and just confirm the press accounts. I intend to correct these errors, trying to incorporate the correct order of events as recorded in the French article. I am somewhat shocked by how badly written the English section is. I will try to find out how those errors occurred. If people used BBC News I cannot believe these errors would have crept in. They had good maps early on and have never had a dismissive attitude to the various landmarks on the route of the killer. ] (]) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Talking of maps. ] (]) 00:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I started trying to improve it and remove the repetition and correct the order of events but was quickly reverted. There's a thread above ]. Frankly its probably best to just translate the French version and reuse the French citations, if that's permissible. Most the citations here are just early news reports, Daily Mail, more reputable British tabloids, and the BBC. ] (]) 00:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm glad you agree. I would be in favour of a slightly modified version of my translation of the French section, with attribution to the French article when it's added. They have a long way of saying intersection which can be shortened and the precise description of the police barrier is there because of the recent scandal. I think that it's possible to get France24 and BBC News sources in English to cover this with some of Le Monde content and possibly Nice-Matin. I cannot actually see the point of the time line since it goes against the chronology of the article. Since there are plenty of things it doesn't mention (reconaissance on 12-13 July), I would almost be tempted to remove it. It doesn't help the article, because the real narrative is more complicated, even about the attack. ] (]) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Timeline of attack - ] adding arbitrary details revealed by investigation == |
|
|
|
|
|
The box created for the timeline of the attack has been discussed before. However, it it has been placed in the "attack" section which simply gives an account of the 25 minutes from the start of the attack to the killing of the perpetrator. It also mentions what was found in the truck (but not the mobile phone of course). |
|
|
|
|
|
The current form of the timeline box has been concocted randomly by wikipedians to contain all the information they can glean from what they have read in the media. It is unhelpful because it could just as easily contain |
|
|
|
|
|
*13 July, gun passed by Ramzi A. to the perpetrator, |
|
|
*12-13 July, Perpetrator reconnoitres on the Boulevard des Anglais, sometimes with an alleged accomplice |
|
|
*14 July, immediately before the attack perpetrator sends two audio messages too deplorable for the Prosecutor to describe |
|
|
|
|
|
In other words an indiscriminate scrapbook of cherry picked statements from the official press conferences of the Prosectuor. It is not a summary of the attack. |
|
|
|
|
|
The description of the attack was hopelessly wrong before I inserted a translation of the French section. Those details were ignored when ] reinserted the timeline with the extraneous information from the investigation. Any timeline should restrict itself to the actual attack which lasted 25 minutes. It inaccurately described what happened in those 25 minutes, so I have removed it. I am still checking facts connected with the attack, but will leave the "in use" tag there while I carefully check for references. I see little or no reason to believe that CNN or the WSJ are the places to look. The use of sources like that might partially explain the confused and self-contradictory account we had before. This requires careful and thoughtful editing, not edit warring. Thanks, ] (]) 16:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I believe a small timeline is appropriate. It is also common to have a timeline in attack articles. See e.g. ] or ]. However, I am sure we can improve it. Just don't remove it all after a two hour "discussion". ] (]) 17:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::and btw... No, it does not "mentions what was found in the truck". Nor has it been concocted randomly. ] (]) 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::All of this is unhelpful to the reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The attack only concerns the period from 22:30 to 22:55 when the driver was shot and killed. The translation of ''quartier latin'' is latin quarter in Paris. Why are ], ] blue links? So we translate ''quartier'' as "quarter". Not neighborhood. Just as we say that 62 route de Turin is in the old abbatoir quarter of Nice. It's where the perpetrator lived. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::During the 25 minutes of the attack no precise times are known for (a) the moment of turning onto the Promenade (b) the moment the municipal police reported the truck at the CUM (c) the moment the truck broke through the police barrier at Boulevard Gambetta (d) the incident with the motorcyclist in front of the Negresco when shots were fired by the perpetrator and then the police (e) the truck drew to a halt (f) the perpetrator was shot down. The precise times are not important and these events are not appropriate to summarise in a box as if they were a collection of ]s. Contrary to what you say, when describing incidents like this we have to be careful and certain things cannot be included. The example I'm to trying to sort out is with the axle of the truck. It was not just flattened tires that caused the truck to grind to a halt. In French we can read "les sapeurs-pompiers ont du dégager des membres de l'essieu du camion". I won't even translate it. No doubt it is true and eye witnesses make references to the axle. No French newspapers mention this detail which could only cause added distress like the videos. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::So to reiterate, what you have written is a piece of ] and ] not found in any newspaper or news site. It tells the reader nothing about the attack which is hardly described. It chucks around little bits of evidence. I am quite glad the Prosecutor did not quote the two ''deplorable'' audio messages of the perpetrator sent just before the attack. Otherwise they'd be straight in your "uncensored" timeline. The police investigation has almost nothing to do with describing the nature of the attack. ] (]) 19:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please could you not edit the "attack" section until the "in use" sign has been removed. It could take a few hours to research the material about the axle. This is delicate material and nothing you want to insert refers even remotely to any possible content in that section. Please respect the sign. At the moment I'm trying to figure out whether any reputable news source had a reasonable way of describing the damage done to the truck that caused it to stop. Perhaps none did. I do not want to say that emergency services had to remove limbs caught up in the front axle. Can you please try to understand that and allow me the time to find out how this is treated in allowable references, if at all. Thanks, ] (]) 19:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, it is not SYNT or OR. It is all sourced content. We do f. ex. have two sources that says the driver was shot dead by police app. at 23.00. From Reuters: "Approximately 2300: The driver is shot dead by police". From National Post: "The truck came to a stop at 11 p.m., approximately 15 minutes and two kilometers after rampage had begun. Do you have a source that says "The truck ground to a halt at 22:50”? I can't find it. ] (]) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Would point out that the 22.45 source says 'around 22.45' and is Calcutta Telegraph, the 11.00 source says 'approximately'. It's a bit difficult to build a firm case around 'approx.' figures. Also, I realise it's synth, but to take 15 minutes to cover 2 Km would mean an average speed of 8KpH, 5 MpH. Reduce the time to 10 mins doesn't change much, 7.5 MpH. Perhaps the only thing likely to render precise times is security video evidence which may surface at any inquest or trial. ] (]) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::All the info is defective and ]. The SMS message was described completely on 21 July when Molins said Ramzi A., the 21 year old French-Tunisian , was charged and placed in custody. The message was described in full in the Le Monde citation in the main article from 22 July, "Je voulais te dire que le pistolet que tu m’as ramené hier, c’était très bien, alors on ramène 5 de chez ton copain. C’est pour Chokri et ses amis." That's Choukri C., another person arrested. So why use outdated sources as if nothing's happened since 17 July? That is just dishonest. The timings are also wrong. Before the current detailed info was available, the press was clutching at all sorts of little titbits released by the investigators. But that has changed now. On 21 July, plenty of other messages were described prior to the attack some later than 20:27. And there were the audio messages. Erlbaeko has spoken of censorship. But by adhering to this outdated 17 July timeline, synthesised from the Reuters timeline below, he is trying to censor all subsequent events which have been quite dramatic and quite changed matters. Also we say quarter not neighbourhood for districts of cities in France as I've said. The sentence about the bike is totally absurd. (The bike was found in the truck but so what?) On 17 July very little was known. Ramzi A. gave L-Bouhlel the gun on 13 July. Where is that in this so-called timeline? ] (]) 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
===Copy of Reuters timeline from 17 July=== |
|
|
This timeline box was copied by ] from a projected timeline written by Reuters. It's pout of date. All the infromaion has been superseded by the detailed information provided the Prosecutor in his detailed announcements on 18 July and 21 July, when 5 suspects were charged and placed in custody. Erlbaeko is using one single source which he has synthesised with others, even more out of date. This is highly disruptive editing. Here is the Reuters timeline: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Note: Lengthy reproduction of Reuters article removed per ] and ]. Please do not paste verbatim reproductions of non-free text onto Misplaced Pages, even on a talk page, even for a short amount of time. ] 12:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It goes on as editors can verify themselves until 17 July with the arrest of the Albanian couple. At least Reuters was trying to be up to date on 17 July. This is a news article frozen in time and rather useless considering subsequent developments and more information from Molins (18 & 21 July). All information originates in him, no matter whether Erlbaeko accepts that or not. Erlbaeko's editing is truly appalling. The text can even be removed as a blatant copyvio. ] (]) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh, cut the crap. If you are able to find better sources, then fix it. If not, then get consensus before you remove sourced material. And talking about OR. The map you uploaded is OR. ] (]) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Reuters seems to be unreliable. They updated the timeline recently only adding that 5 arrested people were due to be charged on 21 July, but have not worked out that's it already happened in the night of 21-22 July. There is a timeline for ]. It describes each of the many attacks and is obviously justified. It does not describe SMS messages, selfies, bike storage arrangements, etc. It gives details of each attack. ] has no time line. |
|
|
|
|
|
::What would be useful instead of your timeline is a clickable map which describes what happened and where on the route. Although the precise timings are not known, it's useful to annotate what happened where, which is known. ] has maps like that. That is because one of the main issues now is why this could have happened when France is in a state of high security, Why were the national police not properly deployed ... ] (]) 01:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have created an annotated map to describe the course of evens during the attack. The timeline did not give details relative to the attack section and the news sources were out of date and superseded. Newspaper sources are subject to being superseded so sources can be invalidated. The sources used for the timeline were selective. A teenager could have used the material presented by Prosecutor Molins to synthesize a reconstruction of events between 11 July and 14 July, including two reconnaissance trips on the Nice waterfront. That woud be inappropriate for a wikipedia timeline box, Why fabricate a timeline that has never been published by cobbling together statements, leaked by the investigors, from out-of-date newspaper reports? Reuters have still not mentioned that the suspects have been charged and detained in custody to be examined by six magistrates in Paris. Anyway no timeline for ] and the timeline for ] catalogued the precise times of attacks in different parts of Paris. A map seemed better here and we can wait to see what other editors think. ] (]) 11:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't say the timeline is perfect, and if you are able to provide sourced content, you are most welcome to update it. Misplaced Pages is a ]. Just don't repeatedly remove sourced content without ]. ] (]) 11:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC on the removal of a timeline == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{rfc|soc|rfcid=95707F3}} |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm boldly opening this RfC regarding the two threads above. I think at this point tensions have run high enough that a simple third opinion will be insufficient to establish a solid consensus to which either side will acquiesce. |
|
|
|
|
|
The timeline being discussed can be seen above. It should be noted that the timeline has been on the article for a sufficient amount of time for it to become the status quo, and the question at hand as such, is whether the timeline should be removed, and not whether it should be included. Per ], a lack of consensus for removal should normally result in the timeline remaining in the article. ] 12:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Weak support for removal''': The main argument for inclusion above seems to be ], specifically, ] and ]. However, there is, as far as I can tell, no official guidance for when and how to include such a timeline. My main feelings toward removal are based on: |
|
|
**The timeline seems to be an unnecessary duplication of information. The section on the events of the attack is currently three paragraphs + one sentence, and so it seems those interested can just as easily read the section rather than needing a bulleted synopsis which itself, ends up being about a third as long as the section. Should the section grow significantly (double it's current length or more) I may easily support using a timeline. |
|
|
**The timeline displays full screen and uncollapsed on mobile devices, and so users must scroll through the timeline in order to reach the meat of the section, which the timeline is supposed to support. |
|
|
**The vertical length of the time line, in a few scenarios, causes issue with the display of images on the article when viewed on wider monitors. ] 12:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep''' Quick synopsis of facts, helpful at a glance. Mobile users get to read anywhere; a little extra scrolling is a small price to pay. As long as the facts aren't dodgy, it's a fine tool. ] ] 14:40, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
::Hulk, 'As long as the facts aren't dodgy' is part of the problem, many timings are early reports based on witness impressions, they contradict each other quite a lot and ultimately, if our times are correct, the lorry was travelling somewhere between 4 and 8 MPH on average on its 'killing run'. 22:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support removal.''' At present the timeline contains little useful information. What is there at the moment is outdated (15-17 July). It has been completely superseded by events and detailed information made public by the Prosecutor on 21 July (accomplices, numerous SMS messages, info about CCTV footage, etc). The timeline at present, which added and removed arbitrary details in a Reuters timeline from 17 July, gives an alternative scenario to what is written in the article. ] has no timeline. The act of terror happened in one place within a short time span. The same is true here although on a different scale. The annotated map is designed to help readers unfamiliar with the geography of Nice understand what happened during the attack. ] does have a timeline and rightly so. In that case the chronology of the separate events is well conveyed in a timeline box as well as a carefully annotated map. Why are the charged and detained accomplices not mentioned in the timeline but an SMS to one of them (Ramzi A.) about another (Choukri C.) is mentioned? Quite unhelpful to the reader, especially when it's already properly explained in the article in the correct context. ] (]) 15:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep and expand''' A timeline is a good way to display events in chronological order. It helps the reader to understand the event. ] (]) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''' at least for now, there are too many conflicting sources on times and and the info it contains is not sufficiently complex for the timeline to serve much useful purpose. Possibly when times and details are clarified (at inquest?), it might fulfil a clarifying purpose, at the moment it does not and is at best a duplication, at worst a distraction. ] (]) 21:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''' The relevant parts can be covered in prose. In my opinion, a timeline is more appropriate if each listed event is very significant, not simple actions like renting, moving around, texting. ] (]) 22:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''' As long as the information is integrated into the other sections (if it isn't already), then I don't see a problem with tossing it. ] (]) 22:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Checking timings and initial press conference of Prosecutor == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== reverts of comments by professor Koopmans == |
|
The first press conference of Molins was given in the late morning of 15 July. The first confirmed information came from there. (The only confusion, discussed in the French media, was whether the lorry was a refrigerated vehicle. It was not.) Molins gave an estimate of approximately 22:45 for the time the truck turned onto the Promenade des Anglais. He then explains how an initial analysis of CCTV footage showed that L-Bouhlel recuperated the truck at 9:34 at Auriol, arriving on bike which he put in the storage area of the truck. He then says that the truck was again caught at 22:30 in the Magnan quarter at 22.30. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User {{u|Ianmacm}} comments by professor Ruud Koopmans at ]. The comments by Koopmans are relevant as they are a direct response to the interviewer's question: {{tq|Herr Professor Koopmans, spätestens seit den Anschlägen von Berlin und Nizza fragt sich die westliche Welt: Wie viel Gewalt steckt im Islam? Haben Sie eine konkrete Antwort?}}. So clearly Koopmans, who is an expert, think the response he gives is relevant to this truck attack. Also, per ], an article is supposed to provide context. ] (]) 14:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
The version of the Attack section stated that the vehicle had appeared in Magnan quarter at 22;10. These were sources.<ref name=WPTruckAttack>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/bastille-day-truck-attack-nice-france/ |title=The mile-long site where a truck hit hundreds in Nice, France |work=The Washington Post |date=16 July 2016 |accessdate=17 July 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/truck-attack-nice-france.html |title=In Truck Attack in Nice, Mainstay of Commerce Reinvented as Tool of Death |work=The New York Times |first=Rukmini |last=Callimachi |date=15 July 2016}}</ref> Neither source mentions this timing. They mention barriers blocking off the Promenade des Anglais at the point of entry (on rue Lenval), but I have not so far found any confirmation of that in the French press or media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I reverted this because of ]. It's standard academic blather with no specific relevance to the motive of Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. It could just as easily have been added at half a dozen articles about Islamic terrorism.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 16:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
Next a ] source is used to quote witnesses sighting the truck in the Magnan quarter and on the Promenade des Anglais biding for time.<ref name=BBCNewsUpdate>{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36801671 |title=Nice attack: What we know of the Bastille Day killings |publisher=BBC |date=15 July 2016 |accessdate=15 July 2016}}</ref> |
|
|
In the BBC article, a local resident describes the truck moving on small streets before taking the Promenade in the direction of the airport and then doubling back. The same witness was interviewed by ]. The witness and her partner were travelling by car to attend the firework display. They were running a bit late. At around 22:00 she says that at the intersection of avenue de Californie and avenue de Fabron they drew up next to a white truck, which she thought was the truck involved in the attack. She said that she they'd passed the the truck before that and it had been driving in an odd way, speeding up, then slowing down, speeding up again, then slowing down again. When they got to the intersection with avenue de Californie, they took the direction of the Prom'Party while the truck took the airport direction. This intersection is at the turning onto Promenade des Anglais after rue Lenval heading out from Nice. So far there has been no mention of barriers marking off the Promenade des Anglais in the French media or press. But the Nice-Matin article is a witness statement that the truck was already in the quartier Mangan at at 22:00. I am not sure that wikipedia has to worry about that and make definitive statements which are quite irrelevant to the article. I will continue looking at what was said. ] (]) 18:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm inclined to agree with ianmacm. To the limited extent that this is related to Nice, this is simply saying that Islam - or at least many Muslims - do not share Western liberal values. How does Islam's view of women or gays relate to the Nice event? ] (]) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
The quartier Auriol is not an official quarter in Nice. It is very close to L-Bouhlel's apartment at 62 route de Turin, at the intersection with rue Georges Chapel. Continuing along rue Georges Chapel leads to Pont Vincent Auriol, which, apart from being a bridge, is in a large industrial area. (the "R" in RICHARDSON is the point of reference). ] (]) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am looking for descriptions in the French media as to how the truck got on to the Promenade des Anglais. Here is one in ]. ''"Venant de l’aéroport, situé à l’est de l’avenue, un camion blanc de 19 tonnes roulant à vive allure surgît sur la Promenade des Anglais après avoir franchi les barrières de sécurité à hauteur de l’hôpital Lenval."'' Also ''22h50 : "C'est à ce moment-là qu'ils l'ont tué"'' This source gves the time of 22:50 as when the truck was halted and 22:30 as the approximate time that the attack started. It decribes the truck as travelling from the airport (on l'avenue de Californie) before turning on to rue Lenval and then Promenade des Anglais. It states that it breached the security barriers at the level of the Fondation Lenval children's hospital. ] (]) 22:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::We've been through this sort of thing before and the consensus was not to give a motive for the attack unless it came from the investigators. The comments by Ruud Koopmans are about Islam in general, not the Nice truck attack in particular.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
Here is a source which states that there were no barriers far enough away from the centre of Nice. This source from francetvinfo is used in the article. ] (]) 22:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::: His answers are about more than just values, they are primarily about violence. {{u|Ianmacm}} do you have any ] which show that Koopmans is prone to {{tq|blathering}}? ] (]) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Koopmans gives statistics which have no direct relevance to the attack. Misplaced Pages articles are not social sciences essays. ] had a very troubled background which is at least part of the reason for the attack, but the angle that he did not value women or gays because he was a Muslim is more like speculation than based on knowledge of Lahouaiej-Bouhlel or what the investigators said. The investigators were cautious about giving a specific motive. His article says "According to a cousin of Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's wife, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was not a religious person and did not attend a mosque. The Guardian noted that his lack of religious piety is typical for the French and Belgian subjects involved in terrorist rampages earlier in 2016."--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
The timings in the French article that I used, taking the sources in the French wikipedia article, unsurprisingly seem to be correct. They mention the municipal police officers at the Centre Universitaire Méditerranéen and Erlbaeko has discovered a more recent source, , where the police officer in charge was interviewed (this interview was reported in many places, because it is regarded as a scandal in France that the national police delegated security measures to the city). French editors already used this to determine the timings. The time that the truck was sighted at CUM was 22:33. There are so many reasons to look at French sources rather than sources from countries with no particular ties with France (e.g. India). ] (]) 23:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::: Koopmans is an expert, if he says statistics are relevant to a direct question, then they are. An editor on ENWP cant unexpertise him. Has any academic criticized Koopmans? I have asked once already if you can provide any WPRS for your attacks on Koopmans. How is "a cousin" ]? Is the Guardian the ] on a terrorist attack ''in France''? A professor is a stronger source than a newspaper. ] (]) 18:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Koopmans was asked a general question and gave a general answer. The women and gays angle is not directly linked to the attack by investigators. This is rather like the ] where initial media reports suggested that Omar Mateen had targeted Pulse because it was a gay nightclub, but this was subsequently called into question.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
Another recent article in lejdd contains a chart of security barriers for the Prom'Party in Nice for July 14. Here is the article. ] (]) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019 == |
|
== Truck out of control == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2016 Nice truck attack|answered=yes}} |
|
Re . What's ] about that? ] (]) 08:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:The content is already in the article. Also see below and when creating a new section, use the "new section" button to avoid edit conflicts. Your understanding of ] is quite skewed. Timeline boxes are written in very brief summary form, not as parallel articles providing alternative content to the main body of the article. Thanks, ] (]) 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
===Sandra Bertin's leaked internal CCTV report as a source? === |
|
|
(ec) Erlbaeko seems to be creating a parallel article in his timeline box. I added a collapsible option which he removed. Presumably he wants to force his own POV on others. Sandra Bertin, the police officer responsible for CCTV monitors in Nice, is in a legal dispute with the Minister of the Interior in France over policing and security arrangements for Bastille Day in Nice. She has released to the press and media numerous details of her second-by-second summary of sightings on the Promenade des Anglais from CCTV footage on the evening of 14 July. These are inappropriate for the article and even more inappropriate for a timeline box which is a summary. Erlbaeko already added one of the video surveillance supervisor's timings to the timeline box, but there are hundreds more. Eelbaeko is creating his own parallel article in the timeline box. If he continues adding content of this kind, I will report him at ] for disruption and ]. Here is the latest article from ]. Two more timings leaked by Bertin are mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reword attacks from Nice to put the date between Nice and the attack. When reading in another page and the link has turned purple due to past use it can at first appear to be talking of the adjectival word nice ie a nice truck attack. A lot of people who need Wiki are unskilled in English and can easily pick things up wrong. change 2016 Nice truck attack... to Nice 2016 truck attack or 2016 truck attack Nice |
|
* 22:35:15 - member of national police running after truck; |
|
|
* 22:35:20 - member of municipal police running after truck; truck is at intersection of Promenade des Anglais and rue Meyerbeer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
It is ''highly inappropriate'' to add this kind of detail to the wikipedia article and ''particularly inappropriate'' to try to concoct a timeline from such detail. Erlbaeko seems oblivious to the context. He claims wikipedia is not ], so can add whatever he finds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:You would need to start a ] discussion for this. "2016 truck attack in Nice" would be more clear, but most of our articles about events follow this format. – ''']''' ] 02:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
In writing an article on a horrific national disaster, however, we try as much as possible to adopt the measured tone of responsible sources. Please could he not add leaked timings like this to the article? They are from leaked documents, there are probably hundreds more and they are ], hardly part of the narrative. Perhaps in Scandinavia this fascination with minutiae of a horrific disaster is fashionable, but please not here on wikipedia. Erlbaeko has been warned by an arbitrator about his editing already. Thanks, ] (]) 08:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages is not restricted to report the viewpoint of the "Minister of the Interior in France". We try to represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Report it wherever you like. Again, what's ] about saying the police reported a truck out of control? ] (]) 08:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just more ]. Where did the timing 22:33 come from? It is one of the leaks that I mention above. Please try to understand what "summary" means. Who says anybody is "reporting the viewpoint of the Minister of the Interior in France"? Not me. You're the person adding information indiscriminately and out of context. That is what ] is. Look at ]. This is wikipedia not wikileaks. Perhaps you've mixed up the two? Thanks, ] (]) 09:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's 10.33pm or 22:33 (not 20:33). From a news article in the Guardian, a ]. ''"Sandra Bertin, a municipal police officer who was on duty in charge of a CCTV control room, told the Journal du Dimanche that local police reported the lorry at 10.33pm as it began its carnage."'' The Journal du Dimanche article provides more details. I have no reason to doubt her, and the first police report of the truck is obviously relevant in a timeline. ] (]) 09:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} This is the complete newspaper interview. . The title reads, "The policewoman responsible for CCTV in Nice: "They connected me to the Minister of the Interior"] (23 July 2016). This is all about that controversy and the ongoing legal actions. This information was leaked by Sandra Bertin who is currently in dispute with members of the government. The timings come from her report. Let's look at what's in that French newspaper, as that is the source. The Guardian, aka the Grauniad, has a reputation for making errors, often unintentionally, so it's best to look directly at the French article. That is the source, not the Guardian. Here is the start of the interview, which concerns Bertin's dispute with the Minister of the Interior, still ongoing. ] (]) 15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
===More chronology from Sandra Bertin=== |
|
|
Bertin prepared a detailed report which might possibly be available in its entirety. . This is useful as a check for accuracy, but probably not as a source. ] (]) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 23 December 2019 == |
|
* Note: Lengthy reproduction of French article removed per ] and ]. Please '''do not''' paste verbatim reproductions of non-free text onto Misplaced Pages, even on a talk page, even for a short amount of time. ] 12:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
* Note: Content removed '''a second time''' per ] and ]. '''Do not''' post full texts of copyrighted works on Misplaced Pages. This includes talk pages. ] 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
::You couldn't wait for me to correct the translation, could you? How helpful. ] (]) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No. Per ]: "While your user page and talk page may include brief quotations from copyrighted text, Misplaced Pages cannot host extensive copying of non-compatible copyrighted material anywhere, not even in talk or user pages, not even temporarily." This is not a negotiation. ] 13:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, you were impatient: and perhaps you were reasserting your antipathy to French sources. This was a short quote, a small part of the interview, and only designed to be there temporarily while I polished the translation. I haven't finished proof-reading yet, if you permit it. Thanks, ] (]) 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"not even in talk or user pages, '''not even temporarily'''" The content was a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Period. Further, the assertion that I have removed copyrighted content posted in violation of policy because I have "antipathy to French sources" is 1. patent nonsense and 2. a personal attack, this type of which you have already been warned about once. ] 14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's not there any more, so why all these bold letters? You have rejected French sources, claiming that you were justified by wikipedia policy: I call that antipathy to French sources. Hardly a personal attack. I am interested in getting an accurate and properly sourced article. From my experience the French sources are the best at the moment, although like all media reports, they are never from error (see below). ] (]) 14:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Further personal attacks or further copyright violations will likely result in a noticeboard report, as your edit warring already has. ] 15:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved''' to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. {{#if:|<small>(])</small>|{{#if:|<small>(])</small>}}}} ]<small>]</small> 05:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
===English translation=== |
|
|
|
---- |
|
This is the complete newspaper interview. . The title reads, "The policewoman responsible for CCTV in Nice: "They connected me to the Minister of the Interior"] (23 July 2016). This is all about that controversy and the ongoing legal actions. This information was leaked by Sandra Bertin who is currently in dispute with members of the government. The timings come from her report. Let's look at what's in that French newspaper, as that is the source. The Guardian, aka the Grauniad, has a reputation for making errors, often unintentionally, so it's best to look directly at the French article. That is the source, not the Guardian. Here is the start of the interview, which concerns Bertin's dispute with the Minister of the Interior, still ongoing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
]]] |
|
I will translate part of this now. She has given subsequent interviews to other newspapers and media, as mentioned above. ] (]) 11:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|2016 truck attack in Nice}} – As the two above posts say, the current title is like a ] that causes a strange ambiguity at first. This move would add clarity, at the cost of no longer being ] with similar articles. – ''']''' ] 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom and the two previous sections. Good reason for an exception in this case. ] (]) 07:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': When I was a small child, I came across biscuits with the word "NICE" on them. I thought that this meant that they were nice biscuits due to my lack of knowledge of the French Riviera at that time. The proposed article name change might help to address this ambiguity.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 07:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''':I also as a child made ianmacm's 'biscuit error', but that is what it is isn't it? - A childish misunderstanding that fails to have yet learnt the difference between Nice and nice. The implication of making the change here would be that any article capable of such a 'misreading', would also need to be changed. ], ], ] and how about the city itself? Why is that not ambiguous? ] (]) 11:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Stick to convention. What would a "nice truck attack" be, in any case? ] (]) 11:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Not proper form, and I find it hard to believe anyone familiar with Misplaced Pages would seriously assume it would describe a truck attack as "nice" in the title of an article. The fact that the N is capitalized and it comes after a year indicates to me that any potential confusion is overstated. ] (]) 19:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Pincrete. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose''' If you cannot understand that "Nice" is a place, that's your own problem, not the encyclopedia's.<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 16:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ], who makes the point perfectly. -- ] ('']'') 18:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Footnote in the lead detailing deaths == |
|
>>> COPYVIO REMOVED by ] (]) 16:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC) <<< |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IP 131.251.10.14, if one says that on a certain date, a certain thing occurred, which killed ''n'' people, of course it implies that they were killed on the 'certain date', rather than over a period, simply as a result of what happened on the 'certain date'. Of course the key issue is that ''n'' people died, when and how they did is relevant, but not crucial information, so a footnote is preferable to elucidating in text, but the clarification benefits the article. I'm not sure what your objection to footnotes is, they are often used for exactly this 'clarifying' purpose. |
|
] (]) 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] makes clear that when your change has been challenged, as it has several times, you take the issue to talk, not edit-war. If we - and other editors - can't agree, there are mechanisms. Please make your case here, not edit war. ] (]) 05:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:My reading is that the second 22:34 is a misprint and that it should be 22:54. That's journalism for you. The interview is not about the chronology of the attack but about the relative roles of the municipal and national police, the fact that the municipal police were not armed, and so on. It clarifies when the attack started. But this precision is relevant neither for the article nor for the timeline. Other sources place the municipal police officers who raised the alert at the Centre Universitaire Méditerranée; later that was used as a crisis centre for counselling those traumatised by the attack. It's probably wise to look for follow-up. ] (]) 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for your translation, but I like the content to be ]. That means that the readers must be able to check that the information is not just made up. If it is other sources that "place the municipal police officers" at the "Centre Universitaire Méditerranée", as you say, edit is ]. Please, do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ] (]) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Re: ''My reading is that the second 22:34 is a misprint and that it should be 22:54'' Were that the case, 20 mins to cover less than 2Km, would be an average speed of under 6KpH. If the 22:34 is correct, we have something up to 2 mins to cover 2 Km, ie average of at least 60KpH. I am not of course suggesting we use my calculations, merely that we remain sceptical for now about timings which still seem unreliable. The video of 'the end' shows that police were very cautious once the lorry was immobilised (understandably), we've no idea how that delay fits in to times and, given the circumstances, probably few people looked at their watches and maybe only electronic timing will settle the matter. ] (]) 16:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
Reword attacks from Nice to put the date between Nice and the attack. When reading in another page and the link has turned purple due to past use it can at first appear to be talking of the adjectival word nice ie a nice truck attack. A lot of people who need Wiki are unskilled in English and can easily pick things up wrong. change 2016 Nice truck attack... to Nice 2016 truck attack or 2016 truck attack Nice
