| Revision as of 14:54, 1 August 2016 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Accomplice vs Complicity← 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 |
| (496 intermediate revisions by 68 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent developments: Sandra Bertin's chronology and 2 further arrests == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to add this earlier, but other editors intervened. The complete chronology from CTTV has been described here in ].. The timings are in words. This is the CCTV report submitted by Sandra Bertin. Here is a rough summary, not a translation. It happened very quickly indeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
*22:33 truck reported at 65 Promenade des Anglais, Centre Universitaire Méditerranéen --> 90 kmph |
|
|
*22:34 54 Prom des Anglais 60kmph --> rue Cronstadt --> 27 Promenade des Anglais |
|
|
*22:35 driver spotted, approx description, dark clothing --> national police in pursuit --> rue Meyerbeer --> Palais de la Méditerranée --> truck immobilised |
|
|
|
|
|
Beforehand: |
|
|
|
|
|
*22:32 Fabron bypass --> direction Prom des Anglais |
|
|
No footage for entry point, most probably 57 Prom des Anglais, nr Lenval Hospital |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a rough summary of her report. Obviously 57 is a typo in the newspaper. I have omitted all details of atrocities committed on the route. There is no account of what happened once the truck was immobilised. Any further information can be obtained by reading the article. ] (]) 20:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think that the content of the article needs to be slightly rejigged to give a better version of the speed of the truck and the fact that the attack itself took place within a period of less than five minutes. There has been no accurate information on the timings when the truck was halted. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Numerous press and media sources in French and English report that two further arrests were made on 25 July in the area where the perpetrator lived (route de Turin, quartier des anciens abattoirs); one of those arrested has appeared with the perpetrator on a selfie taken beside the truck. That selfie was first published on the main French TV channel TF1 and widely redistributed. ] (]) 05:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
===Point of entry on Promenade des Anglais is Ave de Fabron, not Rue Lenval=== |
|
|
Looking at the Marianne article again, Bertin's report actually states that (in paraphrased translation) "after looking back at the CCTV footage, camera 60 "PDA Fabron" shows the white heavy heavy goods vehicle arriving on the south side of the Promenade des Anglais at 22h32m33s by the entry slip road at avenue de Fabron (bretelle d'accès Fabron) travelling eastwards." The report states that "it is difficult to tell when the lorry mounted on to the pavement, but this seems to have happened at the level of the Centre Hospitalier Universtaire Lenval opposite number 157." The entry road was rue Lenval; it is a small one-way road leading ''off'' the Promenade as mentioned below. I will slightly modify the text in the Attack section and very slightly rejig the accompanying map and annotations on Commons to take this into account, without going into unduly minute detail. ] (]) 21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
No source I have seen or used in the article mentions incidents outside ]. Unless a press or media source is produced, the content cannot be changed. Please give the sources which gives "alternative description" which contradicts all French newspapers. ] (]) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:From that is used as one of the souces for this info in the article: ''"Michael Zarzycki, 64, who is staying in the Hotel Westminster with his wife Heather, also 64, witnessed the attack from his fifth floor balcony. There was a motorcyclist who tried to get up to him, other people in the hotel said he was tugging at the door."'' and ''"They were driving alongside each other. The motorcyclist was trying to get up near the cab but he did not have a good enough grip and then he fell and was dragged below the tyres. He wouldn't have survived."'' and ''"It is understood the motorcyclist fell just before the lorry reached Hotel Westminster."''. ] (]) 19:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::These events only became clear on about 21 July and were explained in ] on 22 July and then in the national press. Since the truck was moving quite quickly, it is not possible to localise it, but it is possible to say where police came from. A cyclist saw the truck knocking people down, abandoned his bicycle (not his scooter) and then worked his way onto the running board of the truck, attempting to gain access to the cabin. The driver drew a gun pointing it towards the cyclist. It did not go off. At that point the motorcyclist, an airport worker with his girlfriend, threw his scooter under the wheels of the truck. This saved the cyclist and slowed down the bike. I'm not sure when the driver fired his gun, but it drew gunfire from the police who are stated as being at the Negresco. They pursued the truck until it finally came to a halt at the Palais de la Mediterranee. So there were two people involved, whom Nice-Matin interviewed: Alexandre Migues (bicycle) and Franck (scooter). Alexandre, Franck and a third person have received bravery medals from the city of Nice. This article gives details of all three . rue Meyerbeer is referred to as a reference point. Franck was presumed dead but on 21 July identified himself, withholding his surname. So I doubt any of this is accurately recorded in sources from 15 July. Here is the account of Franck. I will have to work through this carefully as it's slightly complicated. Somebody unidentified initially presumed dead, run over by the truck, but in fact still living. So there were two people, one a cyclist on the running board, the other a motorcyclist who threw his scooter under the wheels of the truck. Evidently the later accounts are the reliable ones. Most sources confuse the two. it will take a while to work out. The action did not take place at a specific place as the truck was moving fast (60 kmph?) when these events started. ] (]) 22:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Are you talking about this sentence? ''"The progress of the truck was slowed down in front of the Hotel Negresco, when a motorcyclist abandoned his scooter and clung onto the running board of the truck in an unsuccessful attempt to get into the driver's cabin."'' In that sentence Hotel Negresco is faulty. As this shows, and as The Telegraph article says, that incident occurred outside Hotel Westminster. ] (]) 23:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC |
|
|
::::I am talking about what is documented in the press. The sequence of events is of a cyclist seeing the carnage caused by the truck, abandoning his bicycle (vtt), pursuing the truck and attempting to cling to and open the driver's door. This had slowed down the truck as the driver hit the cyclist through his window with a handgun. Meanwhile a motorcyclist, too late for the firework display, had joined the Promenade des Anglais at the level of the Centre universitaire mediterraneen just before the truck passed. Seeing the carnage and panic, he told his female companion to dismount and pursued the truck weaving his way through the pedestrians. He eventually caught up with the truck just after the cyclist had been hit. He drew up next to the cabin, forced his motorcycle under the front wheel of the truck while mounting on to the running plate. He hit the driver several times through the window before the police in pursuit (from the Hotel Negresco) caught up with the truck and opened fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The third person to get a medal was also involved in this pursuit; it seems he was initially arrested because he was carrying a penknife. It is gradually possible to write a coherent account. The initial accounts describe the motorcyclist as having been run over, which is false. He had to have stitches because he also received a blow from the handgun. This is reported in Nice-Matin and then other French news media; it was first published on 22 July. This still requires some work and thought. It's still left to work out what happened with the third man and the police, using press and media sources. Then it should be possible to produce a two sentence summary, but not immediately. ] (]) 01:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::After carefully checking the content—the original sources were in ] and then reported in less detail in French national news media—I have added what seems to be a correct version of what happened, as far as is known. In French the word "braqué" is used for struck or struck with a blow. (This is usually used in French newspapers reports of robbery with violence.) I am surprised that ] has not responded to the detailed summaries I provided for this content before I added it. I wrote here that I would contemplate how to express this content succinctly. I slept on it. I will add material on the three medals in the Reactions section. ] (]) 09:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Hello. Actually, "braquer quelqu'un" does not mean "to strike someone", it means "to point a gun at someone". Thanks and regards, ] (]) 12:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Also "force open the cabin door" is an unlikely interpretation of the source. I find it more likely that he was hoping the cabin door would be unlocked, but unfortunately it was not. |
|
|
::::::So I would replace "was slowed down by a passing cyclist, struck through the window as he tried to force open the cabin door" by something along the lines of "was slowed down by a passing cyclist, who tried to open the cabin door but had to let go when the driver pointed a gun at him". Thanks and regards, ] (]) 12:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Thanks, I hadn't thought that through carefully enough: braquage is used for armed robbery, not robbery with violence. I'll try to work out how to do that without mentioning the type of gun (which the cyclist said was taken out of a bag). ] (]) 12:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Related to that is the last bit of the abbreviated statement about the motorcyclist. I read the interviews again. "Il a mis un coup de pistolet sur la tête." The driver tried to fire his gun at the motorcyclist but it didn't work, so he struck him over the head with the gun. After that the driver succeeded in getting the gun to fire, at which point the motorcyclist slid under the truck as the police arrived on the scene. I will modify that slightly. ] (]) 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== reverts of comments by professor Koopmans == |
|
== Reactions AfD supervote == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
It appears that the for ] has been closed via supervote, with a 23 to 18 vote in favor of keeping it being ignored by ], who closed it as a Merge. Note that this is the kind of "merge" where he redirected the page and did not bother to return any of the content here, which IMHO is not even much of a merge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
Anyway, I'm on the fence whether to dump the whole 53K here and complete the merge as officially decreed, or to revolt entirely against this bad close. ] (]) 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I feel I have explained why I closed the discussion the way I did in my closing statement, but if you feel that any of that is unclear or you want me to reconsider something you should first ask me on my talk page being specific about what your problem with the close is (and remembering that AfD is not a vote) rather than just casting aspersions here. Also, if you look at the page history you will see that it was redirected by ] not me - I simply replaced the AfD tag with the tag indicating that it should be merged. Neither article was on my watchlist before this comment. Finally, if you actually read my closing statement (which I get the impression you have not) you will note that I explicitly said there was consensus to merge the prose from the reactions article and for the quotes to be added to Wikiquote, not the "whole 53K" being pasted into the main article. ] (]) 21:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have much of the non-prose content to Wikiquote en masse. It is currently grossly out of alignment with WQ standards, but will be easier to fix on WQ, rather than piecemeal moving each quote from here to there. ] 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I will try to get around to all the WQ formatting as best I can over the next few days. Anyone who wishes to help is, of course, more than welcome. ] 21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think we should have to be on the defensive about quoting our sources directly. It is by far the most ''authentic'' way to present events, avoiding 'spin' and giving the principals an opportunity to speak in their own voice. Looking at that section in Wikiquote, it is obvious that it is a review of news content with no business being there. Few of these quotes are "quotes" in the WQ sense. ] (]) 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Some source digging will probably be required to bring things in line, I don't have the courage to delve into that task tonight. I don't see it as an issue with quoting sources directly, but with a majority of an article being quotes, and the trappings of quotes, without significant encyclopedic prose. Most of these, I expect, can be reduced to a quote and attribution with little context needed, other than a link to the WP article. ] 00:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:AFD's are not decided by pure vote count, but by the merits of the reasonings behind those votes. – ] (]) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::A comparable AfD for the parallel French "international reactions" article is happening over on fr.wikipedia.org. ] (]) 22:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't see the merits of those arguments at all, let alone overwhelming the usual "no consensus". As in every single current AFD ever made we have a few people citing NOTNEWS compulsively without reading it - the policy doesn't say our articles have to be out of date or not include news, just that they treat news like everything else. We have people saying we do not "need to inventory" notable well sourced information - this is technically true; we do not ''need'' to write an encyclopedia, but it's what we were trying to do anyway. I mean, these arguments are not even in the ''league'' of the Keep arguments. It's more like, "let's sabotage the encyclopedia so it doesn't compete with somebody's paid news archive service." Well, alright, I don't actually know the motivation, but it's a sabotage of other editors' useful work, that I ''do'' know. ] (]) 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not going to relitigate a closed AfD discussion, what I will say is that your comments sound like ]. – ] (]) 00:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{replyto|wnt}} you know where to find ] if you are that unhappy with the close, but note you will need to actually address the reasons given in the closing statement not just relitigate the discussion. ] (]) 10:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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) |
|
I've gotten the in to some sort of shape, and added a link under the External links section. ] 17:34, 28 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) |
|
== New annotated map for "Attack" section == |
|
|
|
:::: 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) |
|
I have produced a new annotated map for the "Attack" section using tiles from Openstreetmap.org. The base map is more detailed although some detail has been lost while processing the image. I have tried to mark everything accurately. Rue Lenval runs one-way ''off'' the Promenade des Anglais as the map shows and as this google image shows. I have not marked where the first fatalities occurred (107 Promenade des Anglais is given in a blog piece on the ] website, so slightly further into Nice than the Maison de l'Agriculture at 113). ] (]) 10:33, 29 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) |
|
== Claim of Israel's role of false flag attack == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019 == |
|
Why can't the claim by ] be added to the article? This has been supported by mainstream media such as the ], ], ] and many more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|2016 Nice truck attack|answered=yes}} |
|
I added the following to the article: |
|
|
<hr> |
|
|
Ex-congresswoman ] claimed that Israel was behind the European massacres including Nice attack and creating ].<ref>{{cite news|title=Ex-congresswoman suggests Israel responsible for Europe terror attacks in tweet - Israel News|url=http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.733189|accessdate=30 July 2016|work=Haaretz.com|publisher=Haaretz}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=The 'Terror Attacks' in Nice and Munich Were Filmed by the Same Zionist Cameraman|url=http://www.renegadetribune.com/terror-attacks-nice-munich-filmed-zionist-cameraman/|accessdate=30 July 2016|publisher=Renegade Tribune|date=23 July 2016}}</ref> According to Dr. Kevin Barret, Richard Gutjahr was pre-placed on the balcony to film the beginning of the truck attack and by some strange “cohencidence” he just happened to be on scene to film the shooting in Munich. Richard Gutjahr is married to ], an Israeli politician and member of the ].<ref>{{cite news|title=Nice/Munich terror suspect Einat Wilf linked to false-flag-loving WINEP|url=http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/25/wilf/|accessdate=30 July 2016|publisher=Veterans Today}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Ex-congresswoman claims Israel behind European massacres|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-congresswoman-claims-israel-behind-european-massacres/|accessdate=30 July 2016|publisher=The Times of Israel|date=24 July 2016}}</ref><!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages doesn't give prominence to obvious fringe conspiracy theories. None of your sources are reliable, and the ''Haaretz'' and ''Times'' reports simply present the claim as an anti-Semitic canard. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::All it shows is that ] should get out more.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 20:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed, just because a former congresswoman verifiably made this statement doesn't mean it is relevant enough to the actual topic of the article to be included. This is discussed at length at ]. ] (]) 20:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's only the fact that she is a former congresswoman that is making this remotely notable. You can spend all day looking at theories like this on the Internet.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 20:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed, though this content may well be suited for inclusion on the article about the person, and I suggest discussion its inclusion there on the relevant talk. ] 20:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
:Fun Fact: Gutjahr didn't film the Munich thing. He "just happened" to show up ''after'' he'd heard about it, because that's what journalists do. ] ] 00:16, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
== Best friend == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
Although almost certainly not useful for this article, the 73-year-old friend of the perpetrator's family has spoken to the press: . ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
== Requested move 23 December 2019 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
I have no idea whether the SMS messages between the perpetrator and his Tunisian friends were in French or Arabic. Certainly they were not in English. On 21 July the prosecutor described the contents of several text messages in French during his press conference. The phrase "]" is what is remembered. The wikipedia article entitled ] is a redirect to "Je suis Charlie". When we write an article we are writing for a general audience. When readers in the US see "I am not Charlie," (a translation I made myself) I am not convinced they will understand the nasty reference. Hence the wikilinking. Would they understand "Je ne suis pas Charlie"? Perhaps US editors can comment here, instead of discussing irrelevant conspiracy theories à la ] of a US congresswoman, unknown outside the US. ] (]) 13:57, 1 August 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. '' |
|
:] advises to avoid links in quotations. Further, by linking to the article within the quote, there is an implication that the phrase was indeed spoken in French, which, as you point out, we don't know. Wikilinking in a footnote provides the context just as accessibly, without including the implication, and without violating guidance in ]. ] 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Best to include the French original in the footnote. Your attempts to pose as an expert in French are an embarassment. ] (]) 14:40, 1 August 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) |
|
== ] vs ] == |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
]]] |
|
Looking at the phrase "complicité d'assassinats en bande organisée en relation avec une entreprise terroriste", with my limited French, but a general feeling that France follows a similar sort of common law to the UK and US. It seems they were actually charged with complicity, not as being accomplices, meaning that they may have been accomplices (generally someone present at the crime), or they may have been accessories (generally not present), or they may have been guilty of failure to report an imminent crime. ] 14:25, 1 August 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) |
|
:Yes your French is limited. And you attempt to project your dismal level of French on others. ] (]) 14:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom and the two previous sections. Good reason for an exception in this case. ] (]) 07:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
::Well you don't seem to have any intention of not issuing a personal attack at every opportunity, so I suppose going forward I'll just <nowiki>{{RPA}}</nowiki> you when it happens. |
|
|
|
*'''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) |
|
::I don't think you need to be a native French speaker to be able to tell what "complicité" means, it's the same Latin root and...basically the same word. ] 14:44, 1 August 2016 (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) |
|
:::(ec) The French word for accomplice is "complice", so your "logic" breaks down. If your "logic" were applied to "eventuellement", it would be translated as "eventually"; but the correct translation is "possibly". If you intend to master French, please go and do it somewhere else, not on wikipedia; and please don't force others down to your level. If you can read this article on how reporters dealt with the disaster without looking up any words, then you might be ready to comment on the French language. Thanks, ] (]) 14:52, 1 August 2016 (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 == |
|
== Non-French speakers == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
] tagged a quotation for verification in a paragraph with five sources added, three of them to Frenchpress/media. The quote, transcribed from the 21 July press conference of François Molins, was contained in the Le Monde source at the end of the paragraph. I have no idea why that was not carefully checked, but evidently it wasn't. The phrase "et nique" has been omitted as an obscene expletive similar to a four letter English word. Perhaps it was originally an Arabic swear word in the SMS message. Editors with a limited knowledge of French should ]. ] (]) 14:37, 1 August 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) |
|
:I wasn't failing to ]. I just assumed that, because it was coming from Le Monde, that the original was in French. I also knew that providing the original quote with a high degree of accuracy was probably not something I could do myself. |
|
|
:I wasn't implying that the quote was inaccurate. I was just tagging it as a situation where the original language should be provided as a matter of form. ] works both ways. ] 14:41, 1 August 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
