Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) at 10:46, 22 July 2016 (→Terrorism & terror offences: You're a lousy psychic.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Total dead figures

Our chart appears to add up to 876, as far as I know the 84 total hasn't altered but I couldn't find a single place with nationality figures to verify where the error is. Any ideas?Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Check the tables on the French and German sites. That should probably help track down the error. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there are a few people with double nationalities, listed with two countries but not noted as such. Gap9551 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I found one error, + FrWP says only 5 Italians, not 6 using this source , and this, which I think says 4 + 1 US-resident Italian. Non parlare Italiano!

FrWP also says no Romanians, but three Swiss (our 2), I speak even less Romanian! Some may be dual nationals as noted. here is the FrWP if anyone can help check. German WP is worse than ours (54 unidentified), which is a good thing really as meine Deutsch ist shchrecklich. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

The number of killed doesn't add up. The official figure is 84, yet the total in the column comes up to 87.--Vihelik (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Damn dual citizens! Or damn vandals, perhaps! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Dual citizens pertain to the injured. It appears that the killed were all holders of only one citizenship each.--Vihelik (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the very first source, there seem to be three dead Algerians, not five. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

And "at least three" Moroccans. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I subtracted three, and now we're at 83. Something wrong with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Added back two Algerians, fixed citation. Should be at 85 now. Counting the killer? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the 1 UK dead Telegraph, Guardian and UK For Office, makes no mention. The source for 1 is EuroNews of the same date, which claims to have got the info from the UK For Off. I 'Googled' and searched Gdn website and couldn't find any UK dead.

The total figure is wrong again so I put 1 'not confirmed'. FrWP has 4 Moroccans, not 3, but I could find a source for that, even the Fr source is wrong.Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mia Bloom?

"Mia Bloom, Professor of Communication at Georgia State University, questioned whether ISIL was involved in the attack or Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a mentally ill person with whom IS is opportunistically associating"."

Why in the world is this part of the main article? She seems like a low-level academic. And she doesn't even state anything, it's just her 'questioning'. Any objections to me taking this out of the main article? Make yourself heard. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

She seems high-level to me, particularly in this field. Until recently, she was just "some commentators". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Her 'wiki' page is being discussed for deletion, and the main contributor is marked as having a close connection with the subject. She is currently a communications professor. She has no credentials to belong in the MAIN article. Leave her in the 'reactions to the Nice attack,' but no way does she deserve main article citing. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If you mean "briefly in 2006 before you got angry at this part", sure, it's a discussion. What sort of credentials do any of these politicians have in relation to the topic? Do you trust Amaq News Agency just because you like what their quote implies? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

It isn't proposed for deletion, it's possible 'close connection to subject', (several anon IPs editing it substantially over the years).Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict: Other sources have questioned whether/to what extent this is ISIL, to what extent a 'disturbed person', the opinion is significant, though I'm not sure the individual making it is. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care at all. This wiki does not affect my life. I just think that Mia Bloom is a low-level, irrelevant source. She's a communications professor. But put it back if you want, I just think it's rather strange to put Mia Bloom's opinion while not mentioning the opinions of major world leaders, i.e Obama. But if Mia Bloom helps your narrative, be my guest. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict: :She is 'helping our narrative' only in that she is articulating a significant question, better sources may exist though. Obama, May, Merkel etc are basically expressing their sympathy/ horror/ solidarity. Very noble, but their good messages don't add anything to understanding the incident, hence 'relegating' them to reactions page. General opinion is that only official French reactions are worthy of recording here. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

So...honest question: Why do we have her in the article anyway? The individual people cited in the section are:

• French PM
• French President
• French Interior Minister
• French Defense Minister
• GA State Assistant Professor Mia Bloom

One of these is not like the other. TimothyJosephWood 14:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC).

As I've said the message is a significant one, which everyone is asking. The messenger may not be.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

And: hasn't the investigation already found numerous ties, ideological and otherwise to ISIL (short of him actually being launched from Syria, which admittedly seems to be the criteria for some)? In what way could ISIL still "opportunistically" claim responsibility for the speculated scenario of a random mad-man that couldn't care less about ISIL? User2534 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, one is a terrorism expert. If we're just looking for consistency, though, she does kind of ruin the "must remain vigilant" theme. If someone's found numerous ties to ISIS, the article doesn't mention them. Some guy does something terrible and headline-grabbing, Amaq sees an opportunity to ride coattails, publish ISIS rhetoric, finally get a Misplaced Pages article and score 10,000 Trending Topic points. Pretty straightforward. Like buying a Superbowl ad, just way cheaper. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict: The investigation has found some ties, we record them as accurately and neutrally as possible. We don't draw conclusions, we leave that to the 100s of investigators currently trying to establish the 'full picture', who have access to all the info. Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the uncle who heard from a relative that an Algerian indoctrinated the guy, the Associated Press found him, not investigators. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Question are we disagreeing about the message or the messenger? Pincrete (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. The guy who started this knocked her credentials and the fact that we didn't relay an explicit statement. Maybe relay a statement? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Both?...A little bit?...I guess? Given that there is a looong sister article on reactions to the attack, this section is kindof...prime real estate, and I think that ups the ante a little bit to justify the WP:DUE weight of inclusion. Sure, she's an academic in this area, but given that this is something everyone in the world is talking about, it's not immediately clear why her opinion stands out so prominently among probably scores or hundreds of articles per minute worldwide being written on this.

The message is pretty meh. Lot's of people are questioning this. It seems fairly common sense. So apparently this person or this publication is important somehow to make their meh opinion relevant for inclusion. But there doesn't seem to be a strong argument as to why that would be. TimothyJosephWood 14:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it be less meh if she explained why she thought France was targeted again, regardless of this guy personally? Talk of that part of the cause seems to be lacking here. Even if not her personally, someone should probably be quoted to that effect.InedibleHulk (talk) 14:43, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be appropriate in a section on motivation behind the attack, but that's already half the section on Investigation, and half the section on the Perp. Regardless, this isn't really a reaction so much as it is an extended commentary by an academic. Maybe the source really can add something to the article, but it seems quite out of place right now, and more examination of why France would be even more so, again, in a reaction section. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Those sections are half-full of stuff about why a particular Muslim might want to attack a state in general. I'm talking about talking about why a general Muslim might want to attack this state in particular. Maybe move her (or someone's) pertinent research into Background? All that stuff French politicians do to Muslims is at the very least why French politicians jump to assuming it was an Islamic thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:07, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on how it's done, so as not to be COATy. At the very least right now, I think we should move Ms. Bloom to the perp section, where there's already substantial treatment of possible ties to terror. Imma go ahead and do that. Should be fairly uncontroversial that this doesn't really constitute a "reaction". TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot tomorrow. Plenty has been written about it, and without context, these politicians' immediate suspicions may appear less warranted than they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:33, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be better to remove 'the messenger', leave the message, (some commentators?) and add additional sources? Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Depends on the additional sources, I suppose. There's a fine line between expert and pundit. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Should we take our cue from the French wikipedia and have several reaction sections?

I do not think Mia Bloom's comments have any place in the section on the perpetrator. The information there is almost exclusively derived from the police investigation or later confirmed by the police.

The French wikipedia article has a section where multiple French academics give their commentaries, psychological, political, historical, etc. We haven't included any of those so far in this article. Mia Bloom's commentary is of a similar type. The French divide "Reactions" into several sections. In national reactions they have

• Réactions des autorités - reactions of authorities
• Réactions des politiques - reactions of politicians
• Réactions des religieux - reactions of religious commentators
• Réactions de spécialistes - reactions of academic experts

They have a section on international reactions. As in this article, that is a separate article containing a list of the initial responses to the tragedy from leaders of countries and international organizations. The French have not provided a section for reactions like Mia Bloom's, but they have one for home-grown academics (Réactions de spécialistes). I suggest a new section on "Reactions of academics" or "Reactions of specialists". So either shunt this material to Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack or subdivide Reactions into "National reactions", "International reactions" (just the link to the Reactions article) and "Academic reactions" or "Expert reactions". Just a thought. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need multiple reactions sections in as much as it's not necessary to extensively duplicate the reaction article. As I've argued above, I'm not sure the Bloom piece is really a "reaction", as much as it is an examination or commentary. Having said that, I would support an "academic work/examination/commentary/something" section. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't duplicate it. Earlier, even after the Reactions article had been forked off, we had an empty section on "International reactions" with a "main" template to the article. Please look at the French article by clicking on Francais at the side. Then you can see what they do. There's no duplication. Mathsci (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea for the Reactions article, but it would invite too much crap here. The whole point of forking off was to shovel the crap to a darker corner of the site. No shame in making that corner better, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Once the RfC was opened, someone (I don't care who) added into the article that Mia Bloom is an expert on terrorism. All I did was ask for a citation and I'm a bad guy? There is no evidence that she is an expert that I am aware of. Certainly wouldn't be admitted as an expert in court. If it's in the article we should put it for what it is-- the opinion of a Georgia State professor. Let's call a spade a spade and not claim that Bloom's Huff Post-tier opinion piece is expert testimony. 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Further, it's obvious someone added 'terrorism expert' to strengthen their PoV. Why should it be included when whoever originally added Bloom's opinion didn't even put 'terrorism expert'? I'm being accused of an edit war but all I really did was revert the text to what it originally was (ie no reference to being an expert), at which point my reversion was reverted, and I simply returned it to it's original state again, before being reverted two more times. Anyway, throwing 'expert' onto quotes included on wikis is dangerous and misleading and altogether wrong. Special:Contributions/75.151.5.228 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You just added a comment on Talk:Mia Bloom saying the article should be deleted. You were replying to a comment written in 2006. It was followed by a series of bizarre comments. Mia Blloom's official univeristy homepage is here. Her most recent book was published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. The present version makes it clear that Mia Bloom expressed her opinion before most of the facts were available. Her area of expertise is terrorism, as stated on her university home page. My edit summary said "damage limitation"; the edit made it clear when she made these comments. In the RfC I did not support having her views being mentioned in the article. Mathsci (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

After seeing the comment's inclusion in this article, I simply investigated who she was by going to her wiki page... once I got there I checked the talk and simply agreed with what people had said before me, what relevance the timing of those original comments holds, I don't know. Working at a grocery store does not make you an expert in grocery stores, just as working with terrorism issues does not make you a terrorism expert. I don't think anything I said was 'bizarre,' I am simply trying to participate in making Misplaced Pages better. From the response (and support) my opinions on Mia Bloom's inclusion show, this is an issue that some people feel strongly about. In bringing it up I don't think I broke any unwritten rules. I started the RfC so we could get a consensus opinion on whether Bloom should be mentioned, and instead someone edited the article so as to give her opinion more weight. I reverted that because I don't think that change should have been made, I didn't look at who made it.75.151.5.228 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Now superseded by events. Her statement looked mildly absurd in the investigation section given the latest report on the long term planning of the attack with the five accomplices who are due to be charged today. What she wrote was eminently sensible at the time and a number of expert commentators in France and elsewhere voiced similar opinions. Mathsci (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator - details supplied by Molins

Most of the info about L-Bouhlel now comes from reports of briefings by Prosecutor Molins (most or perhaps all of these briefings were televised). These bit of informations have come in dribs and drabs. The fact that he had multiple casual sexual encounters with both sexes came out during the weekend or earlier. The quote I added about the police profile of L-Bouhlel before he became radicalised was made public by the AFP on Monday and appeared in many French newspapers. Writing this material as if they were announced at the same time serves no purpose. The section has evolved so that the first paragraph is on his family life and the second on his religious background and what investigators have discovered about his radicalisation. Is it fair to that we keep it that way? One editor has tried to mix the two up and made it look as if Molins announced everything at once. That is not correct. Perhaps there's a way of describing that information has been released in dribs and drabs. I think it's a good idea to separate his personal life and his religious life into different paragraphs. How do others feel? Certainly we cannot mix up two sources in one sentence to suggest that Molins announced everything at once. Mathsci (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

In the "Perpetrator" section, the claim that the attacker was not religious is repeated twice, and the claim that the attacker was a promiscuous bisexual is repeated twice. I tried to fix this but the info was duplicated again by User:Mathsci, so I've taken it to the talkpage.

On religion, it says: Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". Neighbours reported that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel rarely spoke to them and showed no interest in religion. Why should this be mentioned twice in one paragraph? Surely the second mention can be removed?

On his sex life, it says in the first paragraph: Police analysis of his mobile phone has shown that after this separation he had numerous sexual relations with both men and women. Then in the next paragraph it says: Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life. Why can't this be dealt with in one line?

I suggest removing the repetition and re-wording as follows:

François Molins, the prosecutor leading the investigation, announced that information gathered since the attack suggested that, until shortly before the attack, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". His partners included both women and men. Neighbours also said Lahouaiej-Bouhlel rarely spoke to them.

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Asarlaí: There is already a section above on this. I have merged your section into that section with reformatting. Please read what I wrote and respond. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to your questions, this is not duplication, because the long quote is my translation of what Molins said (the French original is reproduced in the footnote). He chose to differentiate two separate points, namely interest in religious issues and religious observance. That's what he said and we follow that. The other point is that he briefed the press several times. The bisexual material came first. The profile in the explicit quote came later. He did not repeat the bisexual material there. He only mentioned a 74 year old male helping the police with their enquiries, claimed by some to be the perpetrator's lover. There is other information later on that comes from briefings. So there is no need to synthesize what the prosecutor said, if it only came out bit by bit in dribs and drabs. My point about the two paragraphs, with different themes, stands. It took a long time to arrive at that sentence, involving several people. I don't think there is any consensus to change it. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 20 Jul 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, it is duplication – the same info is being repeated twice when it doesn't need to be. His sex life is mentioned twice – in the 1st paragraph (which you say is meant to be about his family life), and again in the 2nd para. His irreligion is mentioned twice in the 2nd para.

In my proposed version there is no needless duplication. The 1st para would talk about his background, marriage and criminal record. The 2nd para would talk about how he (until lately) wasn't religious, so that's the best place to mention his eating pork, drinking and being promiscuous. My wording doesn't imply it was Molins who made the "bisexual" claim, and it doesn't imply that everything came out at once.

All stories come out in dribs and drabs, but that doesn't mean we must write things down in the order they came out. That would mean writing "On Saturday they announced X, then on Sunday they announced Y, then on Monday they announced Z" etc. That would be silly, and I haven't seen any similar articles which do that. ~Asarlaí 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are alone on that.

• The first paragraph is about the perpetrator's personal life, family and psychological makeup: his violence, his psychotic personality, his inability to form lasting relationships, his undefined sexuality.
• The second paragraph is about Islamic or non-Islamic aspects of his life and his possible Islamic radicalisation.

Perhaps your ideas are suggested by the three words in French that Procureur Molins said on Monday, namely vie sexuelle débridée which I translated as "unbridled sex life". Before Molin's statement was moved into the article by me yesterday, the content was attributed to neighbours and the word promiscuity was used. It was the same list of non-Muslim acts. Lack of religious observance, eating pork, drinking alchohol, promiscuity, taking drugs. The content about bisexuality was added in the first paragraph, also by me, because that's what happens in the French article. It was decided not to link to bisexuality as they did there.

You decided that the nature of his sexual encounters—with both sexes—was alleged. You wrote that twice. What is currently in the article is correct. The sources actually say that his mobile phone records show that he had contacted many possible sexual partners and those whom he actually tried out ("auditionné") were recorded as conquests on his phone. That's what the briefing from Molins said. There was no reference to the Muslim religion, just a statement of what they found on his phone. Why did you write "allegedly" in the article?

You want "bisexuality" to be added to the Prosecutor's list. You seem to think vie sexuelle débridée means that. Your previous juxtaposition of sentences and your present similar proposal is an overt way of suggesting to the reader that Molins' words also covered bisexuality. You may think that, but there is no indication that is what he meant. Using the word "duplication" is a way of presenting that as a fait accompli. But no, it's just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure which two versions are being debated. Both editors have made multiple edits today. Diffs? TimothyJosephWood 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci I already pointed out that my proposed wording does not imply it was Prosecutor Molins who made the bisexuality claim. Have a look at my proposed wording again: François Molins, the prosecutor leading the investigation, announced that information gathered since the attack suggested that, until shortly before the attack, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". His partners included both women and men. As you can see, the bisexual claim is not included as part of Molins' quote and is not attributed to him.

Timothyjosephwood, I'm simply proposing a version which doesn't duplicate the same information twice, and deals with sex life in one short line rather than two separate lines. My version is above in green and is similar to this. Mathsci's version here mentions the attacker's lack of religion twice and the attacker's sex life twice; I think there's no need for that. ~Asarlaí 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Either version seems alright. Personally, I would subsection it into something along the lines of Religious beliefs, Personal life, or similar, and then generally beef them up. We do seem to be, one way or another, preparing to either shorten the section and direct toward the main, or merge the main into here.

Also for what it's worth, the Bloom portion of Mathsci's version is my edit, trying to find a compromise to an issue that apparently led to an RfC below. TimothyJosephWood 23:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't misrepresent sources. Since Asarlaí has not explained why he used the word "allegedly", I now assume that he has not read the French sources. Since he's decided on his own that the French phrase "vie sexuelle débridée" covers "biisexuality", we should not make any change from what's there currently. So once more, Asarlaí why did you write "allegedly" twice? Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I also removed the short phrase saying that L-Bouhlel had "sworn off alcohol" as undue. It relied on one single report in The Local (how reliable a newspaper is that?) that a neighbour had offered L-Bouhlel a glass of wine which he had refused. One source like this is insufficient, to make a statement in wikipedia's voice that has not been confirmed by the police. I also not that even the BBC are slightly less literal with their translations. They translated "débridée" as wild and "très eloignée des considérations réligieuses" as "far from religion". I've seen other translations. Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And again Asarlaí is objecting to the fact that Molins is quoted as saying that L-Bouhlel was "très eloignée des considérations réligieuses, ne pratiquant pas la religion musulmane." Asarlaí finds it "repetitious" but that is what he said. Also I should point out to Asarlaí the the juxtaposition of unrelated phrases is a well known method of suggesting some relation not in the sources. It is blatant WP:SYNTHESIS. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Local is a web-based organisation that translates parts of foreign language newspapers for ex-pats, often without attribution. It's not reliable. Libération does discuss the issue of abstinence here. They write: « Une voisine de ​Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel témoigne. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlelt aurait récemment cessé de boire de l'alcool, a laissé entendre une de ses voisines à l'AFP, alors que d'autres témoins ont au contraire évoqué sa consommation d'alcool lorsqu'il vivait avec son épouse, dans un quartier périphérique du nord de Nice. «Je regardais le match avec la France. Il est venu et il m'a dit, comme j'avais réussi un examen, "tu m'invites pas à boire un verre ?" Je lui ai dit "je n'ai pas de vin" et donc il a apporté une bouteille et il m'a dit qu'il ne buvait pas, qu'il s'en allait. J'ai rigolé, je lui ai dit "quoi, tu ne bois pas, tu fais le carême ?", il m'a dit : "non, mais je ne bois pas"». Présenté comme quelqu'un de taciturne et de très distant par la majorité des témoins interrogés par l'AFP, le Tunisien de 31 ans semblait avoir néanmoins tissé un lien avec cette voisine, d'après son témoignage. Ils s'étaient rencontrés dans la cage d'escalier, alors que le chauffeur-livreur était en quête de cigarettes et la voisine l'avait orienté vers un autre habitant, qui en vendait. » Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Another version of the AFP interview.Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire press briefing of François Molins from 18 July (in French). It lasts 12:40. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci,

• No sources are misrepresented in my version, and nothing is wrongly attributed to anyone.
• I'm not even proposing to use the word "alleged", so that's irrelevant. My proposed wording is His partners included both women and men. The editor who first put it in the article wrote "reportedly"; that was changed to "allegedly" because it seemingly hadn't been confirmed by authorities.
• I'm not objecting to Molins' quote at all. I'm objecting to the fact that his irreligion is repeated again after Molins' quote. The article reads Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". Neighbours reported that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel rarely spoke to them and showed no interest in religion. There's no need to write that neighbors/friends said the same thing as Molins, because Molins got most of his information from neighbors/friends to begin with. ~Asarlaí 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT. You used the word alleged twice in the article. If we're just discussing the paragraph, the two sentences do not involve any contradiction. These are two diiferent things: the official police report; and the press reports. Sometimes the press have been misled by those they interview (see fake former lawyer). We just have to follow the sources and work out whether they are reliable. No WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Mathsci (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of IDHT on both sides. The only issue here seems to be that Asarlaí wants to group things topically, and Mathsci wants to group things by source. Are you all even reading each other's comments or do you have your retort pre-planned on your sandbox for copy/paste? TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not quite right. I'm happy with things as they are. The first paragraph containing personal details: family, behaviour, psychology and personality defects. The second charting his Islamic radicalisation. I don't want bisexual mixed with Islamic; it was never said and is now rather irrelevant (bye bye, sugar daddy). The announcements today change things very dramatically. We must move on. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fake former lawyer

Here is a reason for treating these unconfirmed press interviews with caution. This concerns a lawyer who claimed to have represented L-Bouhlel in court in March concerning charges of violence. He made various statements to the press. When summoned to give evidence by investigators, he explained in a telephone interview with the person issuing the summons (bâtonnier) that there had been a misunderstanding and L-Bouhlel was not his client. Neverthless he gave a further press interview the day after; he was admitted to hospital after an attempted suicide on 20 July. A cautionary tale. The first paragraph of the article needs to be checked to see whether his interviews were used to justify the text. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• The false lawyer account had been added to the French article. Perhaps the English article is still using false information supplied by him. I will check. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I checked and the reports of violence mentioned the claims by the person fraudulently claiming to be the former lawyer. I replaced them with the Huffington Post-Le Monde reference from the AFP which cites his estranged wife's lawyer. That is now used on the French wikipedia, who have a whole section on the fake former lawyer, including his attempted suicide yesterday. Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, while your removal of discredited info is 'spot on', I don't see any case for including a 'fake lawyer' section, it seems a distraction as it hasn't been picked up in Eng sources AFAIK. As a side comment, thankyou for bringing your French expertise here, to the best of my knowledge you are the only native level speaker contributing. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't suggesting adding one. It's a cautionary tale for editors. Probably not the first. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Radical Islamism

To what most sources are saying. Can't we just add radical islamism as motive?JBergsma1 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) JBergsma1 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

in the infobox I mean. JBergsma1 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Why not? JBergsma1 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No publicly-known motive. The "most sources" you refer to are guessing or lying. Wait for police. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, I understand. JBergsma1 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

+ infobox is meant to be for anything 'clear cut', even 9/11 doesn't have one in the infobox. My suspicions here are that we are dealing with something new in which 'disturbed individual' and 'informally radicalised' merge. I don't think the world has yet invented a term for that. Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Those have been around forever. English has a ton of terms. Madman, lunatic, kook, nutcase, sociopath, oddball, psycho, freak, maniac, weirdo. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I just learned a new one. Loon-wolf. I love it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

= a man who 'defecated all over the place" and shredded his daughter's teddy bear' Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The term "loon wolf" is also used in this news article to describe Man Haron Monis. It is a good description of a person for whom mental problems and extremist religious beliefs overlap. Max Abrahms may have coined this term.--♦IanMacM♦ 04:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Mia Bloom Inclusion

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Mia Bloom's statement be included in this article on the 2016 Nice Attack?

" Mia Bloom, a professor of Communication at Georgia State University, questioned, whether ISIL was involved in the attack or Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a mentally ill person with whom IS is opportunistically associating". "

20:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes It should be expanded, as well. She's trained and experienced in the field, and offers an alternative view to the preponderance of French politicians towing the line. If not her, someone with similar credentials, similar perspective and a similarly well-sourced linked article. Hell, why not even go for a third opinion? All part of WP:NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Above RfC with partial signature initiated by 75.151.5.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). TimothyJosephWood 21:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Prev discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - Per InedibleHulk. Bloom seems qualified enough to be credible. Parsley Man (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes EvergreenFir (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• No As someone who has been involved in the Mia Bloom article for a while (first overtly neutral editor in a decade), I do not feel her comments justify inclusion on this article. Without going through all the comments, media statements, wiki history (i.e. in a position that can easily be challenged), I do not feel that this mid-level academic of a different field (is a professor of communication but an expert in terrorism?) warrants the ONLY academic/expert comment on the perpetrator (but does not get a mention on the main article of perpetrator??). I would expect many thousands of viewpoints opined in the wake of this incident across all forms of media. I don't think hers is worthy of inclusion here. Rayman60 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment it depends. I support the statement if there are others making it. Somebody needs to be quoted for that and she is just as good as any other person. I do not support if the view is a very tiny fringe view. Hollth (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• No Her comments were written on 17 July (possibly earlier) before the majority of details had been released by the official investigators. That happened on 18 July in a long 12:40 announcement from François Molins. Quite probably she has changed her views after learning more facts; possibly she has updated her commentary to take into account newly available information. If she has not done so—and so far that seems to be the case—her commentary has little value beyond guesswork. Her article quotes sources which even she would acknowledge have been superseded by events. Four days afterwards, with Molins' statements at her disposal, has anybody checked for updates? I found nothing on Twitter beyond Trump plagiariam, female terrorism, etc. She has presumably gleaned a fair amount of publicity from posting this blog piece. By acting as a mirror website, Misplaced Pages is now adding to that. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes/No The virtue of her comment is that she is articulating clearly what many are saying or implying, ie we don't know to what extent this is a disturbed or a radicalised person. She herself has little authority and better sources should be found to support that thought. Where is also relevant, there are other commentators trying to understand what this attack is and a brief section collating those thoughts would be better than present position. These motive speculations are an important feature of this event, this messenger isn't particularly. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• No (seeing that people involved can participate): As mentioned, she is the only academic to get a place in the article. And since she is a Communications professor at Georgia State with a research focus on child soldiers, she is no where near the most qualified individual. If you read the article, it does nothing but speculate. There is no 'proof' whatsoever, and the basis is simply 'it's not like other attacks by ISIS so it probably isn't by ISIS.' And even if it wasn't ISIS, her claim that it is just a mentally ill person has NO basis, as she knew and knows nothing about the individual. She is not an expert on anything, let alone mental illness. It's just her speculating, as I said. There is an ENTIRE article for reactions, so there will likely be room for her 'commentary' in there. There is no reason Mia Bloom should get room in the main article when major world leaders and leading academics have to go into the reactions article. If we put all speculation by college professors, there would be no room for any actual facts. I know this is wikipedia and not a paper encyclopedia, but could you see Encylopedia Britannica putting the opinion of a minor college professor in their article about Pearl Harbor? It's absurd to think Mia Bloom should be anywhere near the MAIN article.75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• No What is the seemingly so extreme importance of this Mia Bloom-person that renders her to be the single person to be so important that she warrants special inclusion along with what is otherwise parties directly related to the investigation itself along with government sources. On top of that, she is presented almost as the bottomline summary of the entire investigation. Also she doesn't offer anything new beyond speculating about details that are already included in the section. Anyone read WP:UNDUE? User2534 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• No. WP:UNDUE. As User:Timothyjosephwood pointed out recently:

"The individual people cited in the section are:

• French PM
• French President
• French Interior Minister
• French Defense Minister
• GA State Assistant Professor Mia Bloom

One of these is not like the others."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, the uh...argument may hold somewhat less weight now that the reference to her is in a different section. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It still goes for the article as a whole, and I think the current solution is actually worse because now she's the only individual specially cited in the entire section. User2534 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Breaking news "Nice attacker plotted for months with 'accomplices'". Mia Bloom and other nonsense should be removed ASAP. User2534 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Wasn't making an argument, just pointing out the context of the comment. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In "Investigations" I added a summary of Molins' latest statement, added to the lede by User:User2534 (thanks!), and removed the Bloom comment since it was superseded by events. There are additional details that I have omitted, eg the filming of the scene of the attack by one of the accomplices on 15 July, the ages of those due to be charged (22 to 40), etc. Probably the whole of Molins' statement was televised, so French sources could be useful. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, you won't find me complaining about this decision ;) cheers.75.151.5.228 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci Uh...I'm pretty sure that's not an option with an ongoing RfC. There are multiple yes votes, so it's not a candidate for WP:SNOW. TimothyJosephWood 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You can put it back in, if you want. In my haste I inadvertently added the new Molins information to the wrong section ("perpetrator" instead of "investigations"). Perhaps the RfC should be restarted given the new events. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think it never should have started to begin with, because options were still being discussed that didn't all fall neatly into include vs. exclude. Pinging the yes votes (InedibleHulk, Parsley Man, EvergreenFir, Pincrete), to see if anyone has a serious issue with us just moving on with our lives. If no one takes issue I'll close the RfC. I'm not totally uninvolved, but I haven't voted, and don't really have a side I'm on. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood No objection to you closing. Endorse what you say about RfC wasn't the way, but the IP didn't know. I was reading Mathsci's article edit a minute ago and approve. We should continue to be very cautious and not treat this as 'case closed'. I was in London during the Tube bombings and know the police got some things disastrously wrong due to a wish to be seen to be successful and plain jitters and many false stories circulated then. Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Haven't had enough time to keep on top of this. Busy irl. Seems like info has changed. Will trust a close based on that new info. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly just following InedibleHulk's lead based on his reasoning. Parsley Man (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not following how Bloom's quote has anything to do with Molins'. Can loons not conspire, or does planning an attack mean ISIS did it? In any case, I'm a few hours away from being traditionally drunk for three days, so I guess that counts as moving on with my life. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Should we use Fair-use picture to mention the attack?

It seems the whole article don't have any picture related to the attack. Besides, there still don't have any free picture until now. Should we use Fair-use picture to mention the attack? Otherwise, some reader may think that the article just like travel catalog. It is meaningless to without the attack picture.--Wpcpey (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some of the images look more like they came from a travel brochure than being designed to illustrate the attack. While they are nice enough photos, they do have WP:PERTINENCE problems. Flickr may be of use here, as fair use should be avoided where possible.--♦IanMacM♦ 10:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely some major incongruity here. The text is about violence, death, terror and darkness. The pictures are about celebration, beach, hospitality and light. I don't think that's how balance is supposed to work. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

It's the same problem known as "File photo" in the mainstream media. Someone goes off to the library and finds images which are sort of relevant. There should be an attempt at WP:FIT otherwise some of the images in the article should be dropped.--♦IanMacM♦ 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

These are not travel pictures. Both locations figure in the narrative about the attack. Indeed the day beforehand, as the Prosecutor explained on Monday, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel made a second reconnaissance trip on the Promenade des Anglais, stopping his heavy goods vehicle in front of the Hotel Negresco with lights flashing as he reversed to retrace his route. There were many fatalities in front of the Negresco. The shooting of L-B took place just outside the Palais de la Méditerranée. So the images illustrate quite accurately the parts of the pedestrianised zone where the attack took place. Most maps on news sites mark them, including ours. Nocturnal images were chosen on purpose because they match fairly closely the sort of lighting on numerous non-free imagesfof the attack on the web. Before choosing these images, I searched flickr and the whole of Commons (one contributor has taken thousands of pictures charting large areas of central Nice, including a series of images of the Promenade des Anglais).

What happens on November 2015 Paris attacks? Four images. M. Hollande, a 2009 image of the Théatre Battaclan, a picture of police cars outside the Bataclan the day after the attacks and a picture of the Sidney Opera House lit with the colours of the French flag. (For those unfamiliar with Nice, I recommend using the option on google maps to do a virtual drive along the Promenade des Anglais.) Please look at the archives for previous discussions. Any new usable images are likely to appear first in the French article. Mostly non-free images have been deleted quite rapidly. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be at least one image of the attack itself, not just the buildings and beach area taken on a nice day. Boston Marathon bombing has managed to do this. There are plenty of images taken around the time of the attack, but licensing is the problem as ever.--♦IanMacM♦ 11:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt the setting of the event (space-wise, anyway) is sufficiently illustrated, and relevant. But as this isn't an article about the setting, it shouldn't be the predominant (almost only) theme. The November attack article is also guilty of this. Good illustrations of the whole event are compositions of the actors, action and setting. Two out of three (like the parked November police trucks) ain't bad, but one out of three is a failure to communicate. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:18, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Agree a pic of the immediate aftermath should be included if at all possible. I don't think the OTHERSTUFF re:2015 argument overcomes the PERTINENCE of such an image to the article. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Please look at the article. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"The white truck in the distance on the Promenade des Anglais on the morning after the attack" is still a bit thin on WP:PERTINENCE; it doesn't even show the truck clearly and is mainly an image of a police car. Surely there must be something similar to Boston Marathon bombing, even if we have to keep looking.--♦IanMacM♦ 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pertinence? Monsieur, vous êtes vraiment un petit ... Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Getting closer, though. Merci. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I have no idea about what pictures we are allowed to use...but BBC has a lot of good pictures http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36801161 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

None of them. Once this free image is available, any argument for a non-free image is pre-empted. Even before this image appeared, there had been about three or four different non-free images in the article which were deleted almost immediately. Anyway this image was taken by a wikimedian, Michel Barada, at 7 o'clock in the morning after the attack. He took it from the police barrier, which we cannot see. He already cropped the photo to create this image. If you want something better, just keep a look out on the French page. I hadn't even noticed it until just now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nay, good sir. What disqualifies non-free content from fair use is a free equivalent (ou équivalent). And nine other things, too. But if you can pass the whole test, you can "steal" the best one for the job. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

That does not explain why all the non-free images so for have been deleted. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably had a poor (or no) rationale attached. Or met a deletionist who just wasn't hearing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

I think it's administrative policy in all cases like this. It happened about five or six times. User:Moonriddengirl is the expert on all of this. Mathsci (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's SDAT policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:45, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

July 21 charges

With the announcements and impending charges this afternoon, this becomes a current event again. I re-inserted the "current event" tag to reflect that things are subject to change. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

With all the new information appearing in the press and media, could editors leave the "current event" tag in place? The French article has the tag and they know better than us how things can change. The current events will probably change the way several key parts of the article are written, with new sections for those being charged. This is not an event frozen in time. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not the correct way to use Template:Current, which says "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence."--♦IanMacM♦ 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It does seem that Ian is right on this one. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to look at what happened with recent terrorism acts, rather than having wikipedia policy interpreted for me. The same directives apply on en.wikipedia as on fr.wikipédia, so it cannot be quite as clear-cut as you claim. And unfortunately they've had three attacks recently. So I would assume they were in the know. I'll check what's happened in the past. When precisely do you think a tag like that is removed? When the attacker is killed? When all the fatalities have been counted? Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This template should be used sparingly. If any major developments occur, there are enough regulars here to update the article quickly. We're not bound to do whatever the French language Misplaced Pages is doing.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently there is a major development and significant pars of the article are subject to change. Why did you not wait? Even if many editors cannot read it, the French article is of great use here (images, info, sources, etc), so the French, the French editors and even French nation should be treated with respect.

It takes a while to look over the previous articles. There's no record for the initial stage of writing of September 11 attacks: it was copied here in November 2001. November 2015 Paris attacks had the attack tag removed with this edit . Was it done by an administrator. No it was done by User:HalloweenNight, a sockpuppet of User:Alvandria. I looked therefore at 7 July 2005 London bombings, two weeks after the bombings. The current events was still posted on 21 July 2007. It was removed after 17 days on 24 July with this edit. The number of fatalities there was less. It was equally horrific, attacking people going about their everyday lives. So if 17 days was fine there, I don't think policy supports ianmacm at all. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There may be precedent to argue for changing the guidance on the use of the template, but the guidance as it stands is pretty clear that it is intended for very limited use, and that's an argument for a much broader audience than this. I also don't see that there is a particular need at this time. Edit rates are pretty steady at one every few minutes, compared to the first few hundred edits on the article which often had several edits per minute. It does not seem to be the case currently that the actual second a person clicks on the article is going to dramatically change the basic information they get, even though the most up to date information may not yet be available. TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Names

Is there any point in naming suspects, when the names are 'ciphers' anyway?Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether they are real names or not, I have removed them per WP:BLPCRIME in the case that they are. TimothyJosephWood 21:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't have it both ways

If this is not a terrorist attack, why is it linked from Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic, as well as Islamic_terrorism#Selected_attacks? 93.33.187.200 (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not ask the editors who made the edits on those pages? This page is for discussing edits to this article and not general discussions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The first subject already occurs in the categories. Links with Islamic terrorism have not yet been confirmed. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Might have had something to do with this one saying people were charged with terrorism in the lead. Maybe best to spell the charges out in full there. The same people who don't read past headlines probably don't read past leads, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Added later. See below, Your lack of understanding of French laws on terrorism or the French language is appalling. Please educate yourself. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism & terror offences

The 21 and 22 July sources confirm that the five suspects were being held on July 21 pending charges of terrorism. They were charged during the night of 21-22 July on terrorism charges. These charges do not mean that the were linked to an external terrorist group, but are part of French laws concerning terrorism. Le Monde states for example, Cinq personnes soupçonnées d’avoir aidé le criminel dans l’élaboration de la tuerie – toutes inconnues des services de renseignement – ont été mises en examen, jeudi soir, pour association de malfaiteurs terroriste criminelle. This is an aspect of French language. The acts of the perpetrator and his colloborators have been called acts of terrorism by the Prosecutor. Indeed he refers to L-Bouhlel as a terrorist in his most recent announcements. I am not suggesting that the wikipedia article has to do that. Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that the French invented the term La Terreur. Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:InedibleHulk seems to have his own WP:OR version of what he thinks is French law. His edits give the misleading view that those charged have been charged because they are associated with some external terrorist organisation. That has not been established nor is it recorded in any sources. The charges related to their joint activities with the perpetrator which constitute an "act of terrorism". BBC News uses the term terror offence. They give translations of the precise French legal terms under which the Tunisians and Albanians were charged. The six of them (including the perpetrator) constitute the terrorist group. Does IndebleHulk have his own private information. Has he read any of the sources, or was his editing just a knee-jerk reaction? He made his first edits to the lede when the url was missing, so it is unlikely he even read an English source (in this case BBC News). Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I said they were charged with murder and weapons offenses. Not all of them, three of one and two of another. Their association to a terrorist group isn't the crime itself, but complements "regular" weapons and murder crimes. If either of these constitutes an act of terrorism, source that claim. (And yes, I'd read the BBC one when I clarified the first time.) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

This is an accurate paraphrase of this, which doesn't mention terrorism. There's "breaking the law on weapons in relation to a terrorist group" and ""murder by a group with terror links". Which one of those is the accusation of committing terrorism? (It's neither, if you need a hint.) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. Can you please take the time to read what I just wrote, instead of trying to paraphrase French legal terms? That is blatant WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no clue why you think that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class France articles
• Mid-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• C-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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment