Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:24, 16 July 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Holidays Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

A news item involving 2016 Nice truck attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 July 2016.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2016 Nice truck attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2016 Nice truck attack at the Reference desk.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Terrorism

Let's not rush. I've seen no sources discussing the motive or the perpetrator as of yet. Let us not call something terrorism until we have evidence. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of calling it terrorism, how about we call it "attacks from the religion of peace" ?75.82.57.182 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sky News has said that it "officially" was an Islamic attack. Then backtracked 5 minutes later saying it my not have been a terrorist attack at all. It's definitely too early for anything. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@TRACterrorism on Twitter is reporting that ISIS accounts are making posts celebrating the attack. This doesn't of course prove that it is responsible. Luconst 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist attack per French president https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

added citation for that http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/europe/nice-france-truck/index.html Jason from nyc (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That one only mentions terror. Two different words, like alcohol and alcoholism. Hollande's opinion matters, but stil just an opinion till facts come in. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

This exact terrorist attack strategy was featured in the 2010 issue of Inspire magazine per current sources. We already know this is a terrorist attack and we know it was committed by a Muslim from Tunisia. Why is Misplaced Pages being used to protect radical Islamic terrorists from name and blame?

In 2009, chatter in underground trucker forums revealed an apparent alien attack on New Jersey. Then there's this guy (who looks like this guy.) If we went by what "random" Internet dwellers like you or I thought, things would get weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Being Tunisian is not an evidence for terrorism except if one uses his racist brain to make that link. One of the 2014 vehicle assaults involved a Muslim screaming Allah Akbahr but he had psychiatric disorders so the terrorist link was concluded incorrect. It is too early given the absence of evidence to conclude to terrorism so far for the Nice attack. Adrien Chopin (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Every reliable source is reporting this incident as a terrorist attack. Except Misplaced Pages. A truck filled with weapons and grenades runs over 80 people as the driver shoots to kill. But according to Misplaced Pages, this isn't terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

the French wikipedia does not say it is terrorism. Reliable sources mention terrorism to say that we do know or they are unreliable if they say that there is a link providing no evidence. Adrien Chopin (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the president of France said: "Nice has been hit,” Hollande said. “All of France is under the threat of Islamic terrorism.". XavierItzm (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a general statement, and one he makes fairly constantly. Like how the Homeland Security Advisory System never once even dropped to "Guarded", let alone "Low". Pure fearmongering. The more relevant one here is "There's no denying the terrorist nature of this attack of yet again the most extreme form of violence." That's still not technically straight-up calling it terrorism, but much closer. Still just one politician's opinion, however you slice it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

An initial investigation by French authorities has found no link to international groups. Davidcarroll (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism needs to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim (according to wikipedia). There is NO report of political or religious goal for that attack, exactly like the two 2014-vehicule-assaults in France. The fact that the perpetrator was Tunisian does not give him a political or religious purpose so it is not a terrorist attack . The weapons used were fake, except one pistol, but the perpetrator was also a known criminal - and completely unknown from radicalization information services. The French news do not talk about a terrorist attack and the French wikipedia page neither. Adrien Chopin (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the opinion here? Consensus appears to be against but article says is 'terrorist'. I think a more nuanced approach (described as, compared with) fits the actual available info at present.Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing media reports that the French PM stated that "in one way or another he was connected to radical islam". I so far have seen no secondary sources to back this up and it should not be included in the article until it is verified. Davidcarroll (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

BBC reported the PM said this, however this was immediately contradicted by the interior minister who said ""We have an individual who was not known to intelligence services for activities linked to radical Islam,"" Davidcarroll (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the statement in this article about linking this attack to radical Islam should be removed. Apparently, later in the news cycle on radical Islam group has taken credit for the attack nor made any announcement that any such a group had any kind of connection. See this New York Times article: Terrorist Attack in Nice, France, Leaves 84 Dead and 202 Injured. And it seems this NYT article just showed up: France Says Truck Attacker Was Tunisia Native With Record of Petty Crime. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I will just add these to the template. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. "France in Convulsions as Third Terror Attack Upends Hollande". Bbeloomberg. Nice has been hit," Hollande said. "All of France is under the threat of Islamic terrorism.
2. "Here's What We Know About The Suspect In The Nice Attack - BuzzFeed News".
3. "Nice attack: Dozens killed during Bastille Day celebrations - BBC News".
4. Terrorist Attack in Nice, France, Leaves 84 Dead and 202 Injured.
5. France Says Truck Attacker Was Tunisia Native With Record of Petty Crime

Precise death toll

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

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

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

Reactions to attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hashtag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Format for international reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of truck?

In English the word "truck" can be ambiguous, so how about a picture showing what kind of vehicle was involved? I won't add it to mainspace myself though. Syced (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point, because "truck" can mean many things (an off-roader / SUV / etc). Best to type it as a lorry with an image, or with the maximum tonnage the said lorry was able to carry. Because it will be clearer like that. I hope there will be some CC-licensed photos available on flickr, if they aren't flickrwashed. -Mardus /talk 01:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the ambiguity addressed by Wikilinking truck? VQuakr (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarify it , I agree with Mardus. A pickup dint mowdown 80+ people.Lihaas (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The ambiguity is not addressed with just a link, because in Americas (North America and Canada), a truck is anything bigger than a simple car. That's why I added lorry, but that was called a "britishism" by an IP user, and didn't survive. Anyway, I'd added tonnage from the lorry model's page both into main text and the infobox in order to provide readers a point of reference as to how large the truck was that it could kill and injure so many people. -Mardus /talk 02:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact: Canada is North America. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Canada is in America, that little continent that spans from Alaska to Patagonia.XavierItzm (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Except a big chunk of Northern Canada. Ice don't need no stinkin' landmass. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Surely there is a technical term for this kind of truck. It alludes me for now. Does anyone have any idea. Mozzie (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd call it a transport. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Box truck? VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't it a big rig? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's called an articulated lorry (artic) in UK/Ireland, but they don't speak English in Nice, so I don't know why I said that. 'Big rig' would be incomprehensible in Europe so I think 'large/heavy truck'? Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Call it a "delivery truck." That was also the terrorists occupation. He told police he was delivering ice cream and was parked for 9 hours. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources have reported that it is an articulated lorry, but it doesn't actually appear to be one. See this image of the truck showing it does not have the set of wheels under the section of the body where the cab meets the cargo that articulations require. Actual articulated lorrys look like this. The truck used in the attack appears to be a rigid lorry. In Australia we'd call it a "medium rigid" or "heavy rigid" depending on the weight. The most unambiguous term might be "rigid truck" or "rigid lorry" if we're desperate to avoid "britishisms". 139.228.118.146 (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised there still isn't just a picture of the truck, explaining exactly what "truck" means this time to everyone everywhere (except the blind). There are plenty of non-gory ones. Just claim fair use. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Rename article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK non-reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no idea what you're talking about re: "consistently fought about". All I know is that an official spokesperson for a governmental agency should be treated as speaking for that agency. If you have some cause to believe that official spokesperson is not an official spokesperson or that his statement was made without authority, that might be relevant. To my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, a statement made by "Downing Street" is a statement of the organization at the head of the UK government's executive authority.While a statement from the person of the head of state would be more relevant, and should displace the official statement made by Downing Street (so as to comport with WP:UNDUE), it is relevant and appropriate to display such a statement in spite of the fact that we don't know the personal name of the human being who wrote, uttered, semaphored, or otherwise conveyed the words of that official statement to the media. Again, the quote is attributed to the government agency qua agency, which is a routine mode of attribution on Misplaced Pages. If there is some policy statement that, as written, appears to require an explicit attribution to a named human being for any quoted material, the correct response is not to slavishly adhere to a policy with such absurd consequences, but to clarify the policy. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Does the death toll include the perpetrator

Does anyone know if the death toll includes the perpetrator or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:403:3f70:ec6a:6e01:d6fc:6668 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2016

Well, death toll says "80+" so I believe it is already included there. De88 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the lead section of the article, "Over 80 people were killed before the the perpetrator was shot and killed by police." All cited news sources and other ones that I could find, only say "at least 80 people were killed". Can someone please make this minor edit? Thanks, 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:89CE:9ACA:EFA6:5427 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue seems to come up every time there is an attack.Mozzie (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently the article is inconsistent. The lede says he killed 84 people (i.e., 85 deaths including the perp), the infobox says 84+ people died, including the perp. At least one source (BBC) says that the perp killed 84 people, making it 85+ deaths. Gap9551 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, not technically inconsistent, since 84+ also allows for 85, but still strange. But sources are contradicting each other. Gap9551 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language for the driver.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weapons

The little box thingy at the side says the weapons were a truck and an assault rifle. Who knows that? Where did information about an assault rifle come from? Was one actually fired, or just in with the reported grenades? I skimmed over the sources cited for the ending of the attack and saw nothing identifying any type of firearm by class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

French media talks about "lourde" weapons (heavy weapons). This, however, is utterly impossible, as heavy weapons are forbidden in France: "Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are banned". XavierItzm (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Initially, news reports were speculating that the weapons were bought on the black market or smuggled into France, though some reports are now saying some or all of the weapons were fake &/or duds. Btw, both 2015 Paris attacks used heavy weapons by your definition. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"utterly impossible"? <pov>Banning something has never stopped it being used or available, Just harder/ more expensive to obtain. Lots of land borders in Europe. Smuggling isn't that difficult, I imagine.</pov> - 220 of 10:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "utterly impossible" a few months ago in Paris...and besides, even fully automatic machine guns are still "small arms". If the sources are saying "heavy weapons" that refers to artillery guns, tanks, etc. which actually is utterly impossible for him to have in his truck cabin. 139.228.118.146 (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

French media report the weapons as fake weapons (expect for the light pistol he used to attack the police) Adrien Chopin (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Helene Fouquet. "Paris Killings Show Rise of Banned French 'Weapons of War'". Bloomberg. Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are banned
2. http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/attaque-de-nice/20160715.OBS4681/attentat-de-nice-ce-que-l-on-sait-du-chauffeur-du-camion.html

Timeline of deaths

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

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

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

Perpetrator section

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

This edit request to 2016 attack in Nice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

Loss of international reactions — possible disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

InedibleHulk is right. No quote farms, please.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Confusing bit

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motorcyclist

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

Link with Recep Tayyip Erdogan

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

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

References

1. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/fransadaki-saldiriyla-dalga-gecen-aa-muhabiri-kovuldu-40147342

Suspect

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

Infobox image

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title changed back to original consensus selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's summarize:

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

-> 47

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

-> 49

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

My1 19:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Victims section

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

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

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

Fair Use image?

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

This edit request to 2016 Nice attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong biographical information

Article states he was born in Nice This is incorrect

according to the NYT-Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, a delivery-truck driver who was born on Jan. 3, 1985, and raised in Msaken, a town in northeastern Tunisia, and who moved to France around 2005.www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/attack-nice-bastille-day.html

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

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

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

Rename article to "2016 Nice terrorist attack"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing the primary picture

I suggest that the current image at the top of the article, which to the untrained eye depicts a palace and only arguably discernibly a street, be replaced with the aerial view of the promenade down below, which in my opinion provides a much clearer idea of how many people could be there near the beach and how a truck could have pushed through them. The current image would make the viewer assume, at least before throughly reading the lead, that this was an attack on a palace. LjL (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Gallery for ease of viewing. TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• File:Palais de la Méditerranée.jpg
• 

• Support per above. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the aerial view better than the single building. The aerial view shows the length of the promenade in its entirety. The single building makes it seem like the attack only happened in that one area. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done given positive reactions so far. LjL (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The mans an idiot and i hope he is tortured in hell. 88.109.135.126 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Allahu akhbar" in lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victim names

Please let's not start adding names of individual victims, as I just witnessed someone doing (with American victims, as has been the case in the past with other incidents). We had agreement that it was inappropriate and against policies to do so during discussions about the November 2015 Paris attacks; I'd rather not reiterate all the arguments, and take that as existing consensus. Let's just not. Misplaced Pages is not an obituary meant to list more than 80 names of deceased.

We already have the name of one victim, said to be the very first victim, and I already don't know whether being the "first" makes her any more notable and warranting a mention by name. In fact, it might encourage other editors to inappropriately add names for everyone, and I think it should be removed. LjL (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Remove it. It's at best a rumor. Even if it was certifiably true, the fact that this person was killed seconds or minutes before the next doesn't mean anything. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone else removed that together with the whole mention of "many Muslims" being killed, which came from a source citing a journalist who had seen "several people with scarves and/or speaking Arabic", as if wearing a scarf or speaking Arabic automatically means you're a Muslim... so personally, I'm happy with those changes. LjL (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That was me. This was an indiscriminate attack, it is very difficult to maneuvre 10 tons on a narrow walkway and be selective of who you kill. I also removed systemic bias that mentioned in the paragraph that British were injured, and gave details of the lives of the Germans, but none of the other countries. This isn't a British newspaper so it shouldn't have highlighted British among the dozens of nationalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.204 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And your revert was reverted, per reasons given by various editors. 98.67.182.246 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't much of a discussion cited above, certainly not a precedent. We had a more thorough discussion at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and decided to include the list of names, which is still there. My position there, which matched the consensus, was that including the names of all those killed was appropriate, but including a list of the wounded was problematic because the boundary of "wounded" is fuzzy and the privacy of living persons is involved, whereas death is a hard fact with a public and official meaning. In this article, admittedly, the list of wounded is longer, so people may adopt a different choice, but I think it may still be useful to do so. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Privacy is an issue with recently dead people and their families, too (note that WP:BLP specifically mentions recent deaths). There is also a pretty clear WP:NOTOBITUARY policy, and a very well-known 9/11 precedent. The discussion we had about the Paris massacre might not have been "much" (nevermind that it has been had multiple times), but it's part of a pattern that has been followed... up to the Orlando shooting, maybe? I haven't had a look at that article, I certainly can't rule out that bad choices were made there which ignored guidelines. LjL (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: which guidelines would those be, exactly? The relevant section of our BLP policy, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, reminds us to avoid "including every detail". An embedded list is the opposite of that. VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

French nationality contradiction

It is written that he is French and Tunisian by nationality, but also that he had a residency permit in France. I am no expert on France's property laws, but you would imagine that a naturalised citizen would have the same right to live indefinitely in France as someone born there. Surely someone who is a French citizen would not need any further documentation to do anything that the French can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.204 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it probably cannot be both. 183.167.211.6 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

ice cream??

Some news reports are now saying he was stopped at one checkpoint by police, but told them he was delivering ice cream to the crowd (a stand?) and police waved him through without checking the inside of the vehicle, and at that point he gunned the engine. This is contradictory to other reports. 98.67.182.246 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@98.67.182.246: Do you mean these reports: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691629/I-delivering-ice-cream-Nice-terrorist-told-police-stopped-truck-hours-promenade-massacred-84.html ? If so, a more reliable source is needed, as I can only find sources from the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and they generally aren't regarded as reliable on their own, see WP:DAILYMAIL. Thanks!  Seagull123  Φ  18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename article title (2)

I think the best way to rename the current title of the article would be 2016 Bastille Day attack. The attack did happen on a national holiday and most articles place the name of the holiday in the title name when attacks like these happen. What are your thoughts on this? De88 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Bastille day is just a national holiday, and it happens all over France. The Nice attacks is more specific, and actually says where it happened. Still, my suggestion is that we change the name of the article to July 2016 Nice attack. FabulousFerd (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It might just be a holiday but the fact that the attack happened during the holiday makes it more relevant. De88 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly support move/rename to 2016 Bastille Day attack. It is a more natural name, and the most likely name under which it will be remembered and searched.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose for reasons I've given a number of times while all this filibustering took place. Enough. Making a new section every time there is no consensus on the old section isn't cool. LjL (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Please have a look at the first three most popular news items listed on the right side of the Telegraph's current page reference the "Nice attack" without a problem. That is the WP:COMMONNAME currently. LjL (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I created a new thread was because someone closed the other thread while a consensus was still being reached. That's not cool. De88 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The news services don't refer to it this way, WP:COMMONNAME applies - if history determines some day to refer to it as "Bastille Attack" then address it. 98.67.182.246 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

My apologies. The other thread was abruptly closed with no official consensus. De88 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support for Bastille name. Misplaced Pages bans original research and supports reliable sources. On the CBS and NBC TV news, they use Bastille Day attacks. Therefore, that must be the name and to oppose that is to violate Misplaced Pages policies. NO TO LAWLESSNESS. Fiona Gump (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral and Comment - Decided to look at what various news outlets are calling it in the titles of their articles. It looks like CNN, NYTimes, BBC, The Atlantic, and Al Jazeera use "Nice attack", NPR, NYPost, CNN, The Guardian, and some local news outlets use "Bastille Day attack", and Metro and The Telegraph use both. Seems fairly split to me. The page is too new to do page view statistics at this point. Below are links and titles of news coverage:

Nice attack or variant

• Attack in Nice: Truck driver identified as 31-year-old Tunisia native (CNN)
• Terrorist Attack in Nice, France, Leaves 84 Dead and 202 Injured (NYTimes)
• Attack in Nice: What We Know (The Atlantic)
• In Nice attack, young lives threatened and destroyed (CNN)
• Nice attack: Who was the driver in the lorry attack? (Al Jazeera)
• Nice attack: At least 84 killed by lorry at Bastille Day celebrations (BBC) - There are a handful of articles from BBC, all using "Nice attack"

Bastille Day attack or variant

• 'They Are So Loved': Remembering The Victims Of The Bastille Day Attack (NPR)
• American dad, young son killed in Bastille Day attack (New York Post)
• Austin area father and son killed in Bastille Day attack (KEYE TV)
• France Bastille Day attack: What we know about the suspect, Mohamed Bouhlel (WHIO)
• Mom reunited with baby boy lost during Bastille Day attack (New York Post)
• Bastille Day terror: Harrowing images of truck attack in Nice (CNN)
• Nice attack: truck driver named as France mourns 84 killed in Bastille Day atrocity – as it happened (The Guardian) - Note, the Guardian has links to "The Bastille Day Truck Attack" in related articles
• Bastille Day attack: what we know (The Guardian)
• Trump delays VP pick in wake of Bastille Day attack (New York Post)

Both

• Nice attack: American father and son named as first victims of Bastille Day terror attack (Metro)
• Nice terrorist attack on Bastille Day: everything we know so far on Friday night (The Telegraph)
• Nice attack: These are the victims of Bastille Day terror (Metro)
• France Says Truck Attacker Was Tunisia Native With Record of Petty Crime (NYTimes) - In this case, the URL uses both terms.

Whatever we do, one should certainly redirect to the other. Given that the sources are rather split, I would recommend waiting a few days and reassessing how the sources refer to the event. If there's a shift (e.g., BBC starts calling it Bastille Day attack, or NPR starts calling it Nice attack) then we follow that trend. But at this point, they seem equivalent. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the split, I am going to boldly create 2016 Bastille Day attack and 2016 Bastille Day attacks as redirects to here for now. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blanket oppose rename discussions for the time being, as stated elsewhere. As pointed out by EGF, it's too early for a common name to emerge. TimothyJosephWood 03:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose consensus on tabling renaming discussion for 48 hours

There have already been multiple discussions and at least one move and remove regarding a title for the article. I suggest we gauge a potential consensus to defer these discussions for at least 48 hours. They have been, and are going to be unproductive until a sufficient body of sources exists for there to emerge a sufficiently common WP:COMMONNAME for any serious discussion on this to occur.

Further, any actual moves necessitates a move of the sister article for international reactions, and will leave an unhelpful trail of redirects when/if a serious, source driven discussion actually decides on an alternate name.

So...propose no further discussion on renaming until 17 July.

• Support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Hey, that's my birthday! Okay then, I agree. Let's take a short break. FabulousFerd (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment with all these discussions outstanding, how did this article get moved? Last I looked it was an "attack in Nice" which is a little easier to parse for those not familiar with geography (and remember, lots of Americans are reading this...) Wnt (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It was boldy moved without consensus and then undone. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please get things straight. It was moved from 2016 Nice attack (its original title) to 2016 attack in Nice while discussions were taking place and there was admittedly (by the mover) no consensus to move. Now, it was simply moved back since the move wasn't warranted. LjL (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose waiting Good Lord, I hadn't noticed that it had been moved to Nice attack. This title may work in French. But in English it reads like some sort of twisted joke, a mockery of the extent of this tragedy. I propose that we move it immediately. Preferably to 2016 Bastille Day Attack. Alternatively, we can just wait until a twitter storm of mockery breaks. Misplaced Pages calls death toll in France a "nice" attack..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that, by this point, anyone looking up the article is aware that there is a place in France called Nice. TimothyJosephWood 17:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support waiting (even longer). Good Lord, it's almost as if this wasn't discussed before and there wasn't lack of consensus for any move! I don't care about bad-taste jesters making dubious "jokes", and neither should Misplaced Pages. It's not it's job. The current title is neutral and in line with pretty much all the titles of such articles. Give this "oh noes, puns!" nonsense a rest. LjL (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, let's let this sit for a while, and see if one term becomes more common than the others. As for the concerns over people seeing the phrase "Nice attack", I think it's safe to say that the title should not be changed to spare a few (or even many) insensitive jokes. See my comments above on this point. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (|_Mistakes) 17:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Meh. How about any discussion be conducted as a formal WP:RM which normally has a week cut-off but it'll also get more outside eyes than just the short informal polls. And no I don't care about the potential jokes. If the reliable sources make this wording out as a joke and use something else ("9/11" wasn't the obvious term that day either) then we can discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, whatever Eng commonname evolves will become apparent, present title has no fundamental problems, rename discussions are just wasting time on this page. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support waiting - Per Pincrete. Parsley Man (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Which discussion would be the active discussion? Should the other discussions be archived? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - See my comment in above section. Current the news outlets are split between Nice Attack and Bastille Day Attack. Let's see where they go in the next few days EvergreenFir (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Details about perpetrator

Do we really need not only one section about the perpetrator, but now several subsections about various aspects of his life, when there is a full article about him linked from the section? I think it's being given WP:UNDUE prominence and should be summarized, and especially not split into several subsections, as it is now the most prominent part of the article, which is meant to be mainly about the attack, not its perpetrator. LjL (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, that article is up at AFD right now and may merge itself here. Nevertheless I agree. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a moot point until the AfD is decided. If the concensus is merge, obviously the content will be merged. If the decision is to keep, then yes, I think it would be appropriate to shorten the content on the perp here and direct to the main. For now it'll just have to sit in limbo. TimothyJosephWood 19:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, LjL, it actually might not be that bad of an idea to go ahead and move toward the merge process now. If the consensus is to keep the other article, then it's too easy to delete and summarize. If the decision is to merge, well...we're good. Either way, this is most likely the page that most readers are going to go to. Seems in line with the spirit of the project. TimothyJosephWood 23:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, this article already contains a relatively lengthy "summary" about the perpetrator that mostly highlights all the facts about him that we know that are relevant to the attack. I think the spirit of WP:PERPETRATOR, which is being used to justify the deletion of the spin-off article, is that if someone is only notable for the attack they perpetrated, then not only they shouldn't have their own article, but only information about them that are relevant to the events should be included. Things like that he was married but divorcing and how many children he had are neither here nor there. The rest is... what we already mention in this article. LjL (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Divorce might be pertinent. That's some stressful shit. Many cope well, many don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no you didn't. More excuses for radical Islam? First it's workplace violence, then it's grievances against the west, homophobia, poor childhood upbringing, peer pressure, anger management, and now....divorce? Are you serious? How many more excuses will you make for radical Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have me confused with "the liberal media" (or whatever your media calls it). If you don't plan to use this account for anything other than pushing this agenda, you're probably better off venting elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Tell us another good one about how Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel isn't a Muslim even though he comes from Tunisia which is 99% Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Images

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

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

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

Gallery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victims' religions and details

Knowledge kid 87 thinks it is appropriate to highlight one religion amongst an indiscriminate attack, and also this material:

"Multiple British people have been injured, according to the UK government. The Berlin School Board in Germany announced that two of their high school students and a teacher from Paula-Fürst-Gemeinschaftsschule in Charlottenburg were among those killed."

We know that British people were injured by looking at the chart, where we also see dozens of other nationalities. Why do we need to know biographical detail of some Germans, but nobody else? This is selective reporting, which local media do to attract a local audience. But it shouldn't be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.204 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have info about other nationalities or religions then feel free to add them. The victims section is just summarizing up the table. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There already is the table and the sources within. You could have done that. But it's unnecessary anyway. And as France has no census of religion, there is no proof, nor relevance, of the religion of any of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.204 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We go by sourced information, if it is in the sources we add it. The section summarizes the table, and gives a bit about the victims without going too much into detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Which is why there is a whole sourced chart of people from different nationalities and only two are mentioned. Fair play that the syetemic bias didn't come from putting the microscope solely over the American fatalities, but to only mention two nationalities is absolutely grotesque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.204 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the victims from the two Western nations, but I do believe it is important to mention the fact that a good number of Muslims may have been killed in the attack. This is because if this was indeed an Islamist terrorist attack, he may have not been intending to kill that particular kind of people. You don't see this kind of thing in a terrorist attack against a Western country. You get what I'm saying? Parsley Man (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

9/11 killed a bunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Wonder how many were Buddhists or Pastafarians? Why even mention Muslim? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We're not even sure he was an ISIS member or just a guy stretched beyond his limits. Many neighbours are reporting him as an unGodly man

If so, such information could provide some sort of insight into his motive. Parsley Man (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, search on Google News for "Nice not Muslim". You get http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/nice-terror-attack-france-truck-driving-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-was-not-a-muslim-his-wifes-family-says/news-story/84a107bf2de7c41d2138100c158e7c2b stories like this. Notice how it mentions him eating pork. Many nominal Muslims in the West drink, but have a culture-based aversion to pork, just as Western atheists would eat a lamb but be repulsed at the idea of eating a puppy, let's say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.204 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay...and your point?... Parsley Man (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, IP. Please be aware of the WP:3RR and edit accordingly: Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Iranian journalist was profiling the deceased. These women http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Christians-are-a-ferment-of-modernity-in-the-Arab-world-20416.html here are from Lebanon, so they speak Arabic. And they are covering their heads. But they are certainly not Muslims.

• I believe I've said this elsewhere, but I don't believe highlighting Muslim dead is appropriate or WP:NPOV. I think it's fairly obvious that if we had reports of Mormon casualties, the first reaction wouldn't be to put it in the article because it would be trivial detail and not WP:DUE. The Muslim issue is only a debate because this is set against the historical backdrop of the current issues in the Middle East. That makes the inclusion a side-ways commentary of geopolitics and not a neutral reporting of the facts. It is not as Knowledgekid87 phrased it, "if it is in the sources we add it" and that's a gross oversimplification of WP guidelines. TimothyJosephWood 23:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the table should be summed up, we need some content in the Victims section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I would completely support a summary of the table, even unreferenced, as long as it is clearly supported the many references included in the table. Something like "confirmed deaths represent citizens from X countries across x continents...something something including those injured increases this to Y countries. something something children casualties...something something the high school students from source already used." TimothyJosephWood 23:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether or not they are highlighted by the sources we use. Some of the ones I've read have indeed highlighted them, though I've not read extensively on this yet. If many sources do highlight it, then so should we per WP:DUE. If not, then don't. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack in second paragraph of Background section

The second paragraph reads:

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

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

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

"Seventh major attack"

I don't agree with this edit by Baron d'Holbach II. The current lede implies that all 5 attacks on 7-9 January 2015 were "major attacks", while only two had more than 1 casualty (not counting perps). I propose reverting to "third major attack", in the understanding that 'one attack' is not necessarily 'one incident', but can consist of several incidents. Alternatively, the Charlie Hebdo shooting can be singled out and linked to as one of the two prior attacks, if sources allow. Gap9551 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done by an IP, but I agree with your rationale; let's keep it at "third". Colonel Wilhelm Klink (|_Mistakes) 21:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

January 2015 seems an arbitrary starting point. Was that the beginning of some sort of era? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

I see this was when France was allegedly singled out by Islamists. That's a weird thing to believe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

See 2015 France attacks. There have been far more than "three attacks":

1. Five attacks across the Île-de-France region, 7 January – 9 January
   1. Charlie Hebdo shooting, shooting at satirical magazine, 7 January
   2. Porte de Vincennes siege, attack on Kosher supermarket, 9 January
2. Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack, suspected Islamist beheading and bombings, 26 June
3. 2015 Thalys train attack, 21 August
4. November 2015 Paris attacks, a series of violent attacks on 13 November — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 01:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times speaks of "major attacks", not just attacks. If you can find a source calling your seven major, replace it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

I understand that there is a reliable source behind the sentence, but the body of the article states that there is currently no evidence linking the perpetrator or attack to Islamic terrorism, and I don't think that Misplaced Pages should be implying this, at least not in the lede (NPOV and all). Would anyone object to moving it down into the body or even just removing it outright? ansh666 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with removal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

New infobox image does not clearly show the promenade

The new infobox image shows Nice well, but the promenade is nearly invisible. It was much more viewable in this image: . I for one would like it changed back. If need be, the image could be vertically cropped if deemed appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion for the change to the current one. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I think it would be easy for someone to crop the earlier image vertically, and re-upload it in a new file for use on this article, if vertical space here really is at such a premium. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Two other images used in the article show landmarks on the very long promenade des Anglais, the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée, at which the truck stopped. The image in the French article shows the Negresco, where some of the worst carnage took place. The image you are discussing shows neither of those landmarks and in fact shows none of the route at all. I will look for another image that does and which is not too large. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The infobox image caption is "The Promenade des Anglais (next to the beach), where the attack took place", but the current image does not really show the promenade -- it shows the ocean, beach, embankment, trees, and buildings. The original image showed the promenade very clearly. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, that caption is wrong. The lorry never reached there. In the same way wikipedians have written that the perpetrator was born in Nice. Presumably a wiki-translation of "vivait à Nice". That was also wrong. Look at the postcard of the part of Nice where the attack took place. You can see the two hotels, The lorry moved from west to east, so from left to right in the image, and was brought to a halt next to the Palais de la Méditerranée. There are hundreds of images of Nice on commons. There are also many free images on the web (geographica). Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing foreigners

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

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

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

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

Update on organization responsible for attack

The Telegraph posted an article that says "Nice terror attack: Isil claims responsibility for Bastille day attack that killed 84 people". In the section for the perpetrator it says no group has taken responsibility for the attack. I think this should be changed. De88 (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That's that shady-ass Amaq again. It claims a source told it he answered the general lone wolf call to kill coalition citizens. Not exactly a claim of responsibility, in the "we did this" sense, even if that source is anybody connected to ISIS. Just a "hey, good job". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

This is as predictable as night following day, because ISIL did this after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and it is likely to be the usual propaganda hype from ISIL, who had probably never heard of this guy before the attack. Nevertheless, ISIL has encouraged people to carry out lone wolf attacks and this may be an example.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You're both right. At this point it looks like the perpetrator had no personal connections with these organizations. I will research more into the situation. De88 (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So f-ing what? Does he have to have a physical membership card in the ISIL-club? I continue to be absolutely amazed at the tireless insistence on the part of some Misplaced Pages editors to deny any ISIL/jihadist ties to recent terrorist attacks when it's hardly doubted at all in the real world. User2534 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Start-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• Start-Class France articles
• Mid-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• Start-Class Holidays articles
• Low-importance Holidays articles
• WikiProject Holidays articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles