Jump to content

Talk:2016 Nice truck attack/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

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 | talkcont | ~ 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, 15 July 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 Wikipedia 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, 15 July 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 Wikipedia. A truck filled with weapons and grenades runs over 80 people as the driver shoots to kill. But according to Wikipedia, 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."[1]. 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, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

An initial investigation by French authorities has found no link to international groups.[2] 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,"" [3] 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.[4][5] 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

What kind of truck?

A similar 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, 15 July 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, 15 July 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, 15 July 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, 16 July 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"[1]. 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 Borg 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) [2] 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

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 des États-Unis, Nice-001.jpg 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)

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)

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.[3] 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.[41][42]"

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, 16 July 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)
Some source here after — Highlight isn't it?
  • «Sur RTL, Otmane Aïssaoui a donné son sentiment sur le carnage de la promenade des Anglais : " On a une vingtaine de morts musulmans. Il n'y avait pas de séparation ethnique, ou religieuse ou de couleur et je tiens à le rappeler parce que certains voulaient un peu jouer sur ça. (...) C'est la grande réponse à des actes comme ça : on ne cédera pas, on ne baissera pas les bras, on pleurera mais on essuiera les larmes pour avancer ensemble."» Otmane Aïssaoui, président de l’union des musulmans des Alpes-Maritimes (UMAM) www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/terrorisme/attaque-au-camion-a-nice/direct-la-france-entame-trois-jours-de-deuil-national-apres-l-attentat-de-nice_1549587.html
  • «Je suis touché, meurtri. (...) Nous avons changé de monde et il faut l'expliquer (...) Toutes les polémiques qui divisent sont stériles. (...) Il faut vivre avec mai(s) (s)en même temps il faut vivre avec nos valeurs, avec l'Etat de droit (...) Je comprends que des familles aujourd'hui, que mes compatriotes, puissent avoir peur (...) Je crois que la première victime de ce camion fou, c'est une femme, marocaine, musulmane, qui est le symbole que ces terroristes s'attaquent à tous (...) Dans ces moments là il faut être fier d'être français. La meilleure des réponses c'est l'unité» Manuel Valls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 12:49, 16 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)
Different version appears in french official version:
La Promenade des Anglais était pour l'occasion interdite de circulation à certains véhicules motorisés. Cette restriction d'accès était «matérialisée par le positionnement de véhicules (de police) bloquant l'accès à la chaussée.» D'après la préfecture, le camion a contourné ce barrage en passant par le trottoir[1]:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ EN DIRECT Attentat de Nice : le camion a forcé le passage www.challenges.fr/france/20160716.CHA1900/en-direct-attentat-de-nice-4-hommes-interpelles-dans-l-entourage-du-tueur.html

    2. 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)
    His wife was apparently both: Niçoise franco-tunisienne.
    He might have been French this way: «Certaines personnes peuvent obtenir la nationalité française par déclaration devant le tribunal de grande instance. Cela concerne principalement des personnes nées en France de parents étrangers et les conjoints étrangers de Français. La nationalité est conférée sur demande si les conditions prévues par la loi sont remplies.» fr:Nationalité française
    TV shows a carte de séjour from 2008 till 2009, and then an other document for 2009-2019.
    Anyway you have your own logic, and might be you just would not imagine what is the logic of this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    Contradiction

    At the moment the article states that the driver of the lorry returned fire on the police, and that replica weapons were found. This seems like a contradiction. How should this best be resolved? --John (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    I see no contradiction. LjL (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    The handgun was real. Rifles and grenade were not. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    Twitter and other social media

    As an encyclopedia, we should not automatically report social media reactions, as they are at best primary sources and at worst worthless. --John (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    Yeah. Stories about tweets can be alright, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    See WP:TWITTER for the actual Wikipedia policy, which does not preclude us from (within other constraints, such as WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, of course) reporting such reactions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 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, 16 July 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, 16 July 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)
    When did I tell you the first one? And who are us? Bees? Breitbart? Ermac? If you're the bees, you have to say you're the bees, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Sources exist that states he was not following Muslim practices regarding eating or the ramadan. It might have been confirmed both by his father and his (ex-)wife. Might be he was more hedonist? Nonetheless this does not mean he was not involved in any foreign ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Removing details about the attacker's estranged wife has caused problems in the article, since she was arrested on 15 July. The French prosecutor François Molin has described the attacker as divorced with three children. Since his estranged wife is mentioned in the article, does it not make sense to mention his marital status? Otherwise the article risks confusing readers by suddenly mentioning a wife, en ex-wife or an estranged wife out of the blue. Mathsci (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    Chronology

    Editors have reversed the chronology on more than one occasion recently. This is presumably because they want to cut to what they regard as the fray. In the section on reactions, the content about Amaq/ISIL was placed at the head of the section with no indication that it had been made 2 days after the attack. That rendered the section unreadable, because the reports about the reaction in France on 14th and 15th made no sense. The background section was written I assume as a prelude to the description of the attack. It too was reversed. It again disturbed the chronology; and incidentally wrecked the layout. Please could the chronology be preserved? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:09, 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, 16 July 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♦ (talk to me) 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)
    Definitely maybe an example. Police will rummage through his stuff and see about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 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 Wikipedia 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)
    If you want to call ISIS the perpetrator, you only need evidence that ISIS planned it. Not that someone claimed ISIS telling everyone to kill caused this guy to kill, months later. By that logic, it's my fault Clinton's getting elected (and will wipe the Arctic off the map). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    Now I see that you even remove categories of that it is even basic terrorism (of no specified affiliation). You must be proud. User2534 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    Of course I'm proud. What was his basic motive? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    There is an obvious problem with post hoc ergo propter hoc by inferring a link with ISIL every time this sort of thing happens. We may be witnessing a new breed of hybrid attacks, where a crank reads a few radical Islamic websites and thinks "Hey, I could do that too."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    Probably just a road accident. That mysteriously went on through crowds for 2 km and ended up as the worst mass killing by a single perpetrator in history. User2534 (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    No need to get Internet sarcastic. There's even less indicating an accident than a terrorist attack. But murdering a bunch of people is only enough to be called a mass murderer (still pretty vile), until we hear reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    Nobody said this was an accident, so that is a straw man argument.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    So how is it not terrorism? I mean, ramming a truck through crowds of hundreds while shooting. User2534 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    We don't know what the point of it was. If it was to coerce a policy change through fear, that's terrorism. If he was just filled with rage or despair, that's not. If he was straight-up delusional and squishing demon ants, that's a different story again. Investigators will figure this out, not headline writers. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    But nobody said it was a car crash. The French government has given conflicting signals about the motive since it is early days yet. The article has to reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    It's weird how if it were about anything else, an sketchy forum post citing nobody in particular would be considered unreliable. But if it helps to pin something on ISIS, it's gospel. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe because it is nowhere near a normal situation to have these types of attacks. Maybe because they have flourished after ISIL has specifically encouraged its followers (whether ideological or networked) to commit these types of atrocities. But again, just wild guesses. User2534 (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe. Something is definitely going on. If anybody still trusts NBC, it's conveying this as "No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, though the ISIS-affiliated Amaq Agency suggested Saturday that the militant group inspired the truck driver." InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    If I claim responsibility, will you put that in the article, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    @User2534: Stop spamming your own beliefs of the motives, into the Wikipedia article. The definition of terrorism is 'violence to further a political goal'. So far, there is no proof any political associations of this attack. If you have evidence (not early speculation) to the contrary, you can present that on the Talk page. Amin wordie (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    "France's Hollande says Nice attack undeniably of 'terrorist nature'", for one. User2534 (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    That's not a counter-argument Amin wordie (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    Identity of victims

    Out of 84 dead, we still insist that identity and nationality of 37 are "not yet confirmed". Out of 202 injured we claim 172 are still not identified. This seems incredible after almost three days of the attack. Plus logic says it is grossly exaggerated. We should have known by now the identity of almost all those killed and identity and nationality of a vast majority of those injured. We should certainly work more on this to reduce if not eliminate altogether those so-called "unidentified" victims from our chart. werldwayd (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    @Werldwayd: If you wish us to include identities of the unknown casualties, please find a reliable source that provides them. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    Number of injured

    Since when has the number of people injured in the attack risen from 202 to 303. The official number is still 202 right? JBergsma1 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    You are a day behind. NYT reported 303 several hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Ah ok, but is the NYT the only source that mentioned the number? JBergsma1 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Attribution subsection?

    Do you maybe want to make a ===Government responses=== or ===Attribution=== section or something to separate the comments from French government official from the rest of the investigation? The sources have questioned their quickness to assign blame to ISIL, and have questioned ISIL's claim that they inspired the attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    Is there something wrong with leaving government reactions in Reactions? Ministers typically don't investigate things at all (in a crime sense), just have people who brief them. Shouldn't be mixed with police and prosecutors, in any case. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    I guess so. Just that it's not a condolence or anything. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    All the better. The more Reactions sections are used for other stuff, the less normal filling them with thoughts and prayers becomes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Bouhlel had no connection to extremist groups

    Devolving into personal attacks, casting aspersions, and bdp violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Many people naturally want to know whether this massacre is connected to extremist groups or not. And thus, the terrorist nature (or lack thereof) is very relevant to include in the introductory text of the page. As a New York Times article pointed out "Mr. Lahouaiej Bouhlel appeared not to have left behind any public declaration of his motive or indicated any allegiance to the Islamic State or another extremist group.".

    Some Wikipedia users do not want this information processed in the article, and repeatedly revert to keep it out. Let discuss here whether it should be included or not. Any counter-arguments are welcome. If nothing happens, I will add it to the article. Amin wordie (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    WP:BDP - don't make unsourced claims or speculation. This is no place for rumor mongering. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Poppycock. I've modified your heading accordingly. Outside of the 24/7 whitewashing of radical Islamic terrorism in the US press due to the influence of US foreign policy interests who maintain that there is no threat in the face of repeated, ongoing attacks on a daily basis, the overseas media is reporting that the perp, a Tunisian MUSLIM, distributed a payment of something like $150,000 to his family days before the attack, indicating that he received a payment of some kind, possibly from ISIS, who called him their own "soldier" in a recent release. Contrary to the propaganda and continual whitewashing of the facts on Wikipedia, the perpetrator of this attack was a radical Muslim who committed a terrorist act. Facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)</>
    This article covers the money which he (apparently illegally) sent to his family, but it doesn't mention ISIS giving him the money. Could you provide a source for your claims? It could be he knew he was going to die so he sent away most of his money, though I don't know. FallingGravity (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    A rumor of sending money to family, does not equate proof of a connection between perpetrator to an extremist group. Amin wordie (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    It's real, not a rumor, and Tunisia is the number one country in the world to export its citizens into the ranks of ISIS, with 6,000 active recruits and another 15,000 suspects. You and other Wikipedians are either ignorant or deliberately lying. The perp was a Muslim from a country that is 99% Muslim, and represents the foundational working structure of ISIS itself. There is simply no room for debate on this. The continued establishment and Wikipedia refrain that this Islamic terrorist had no connection to terrorist organizations is the big lie being spread by US media and its foreign policy advisors. Anyone with a single working brain cell knows that Tunisia = ISIS. Without Tunisia, ISIS doesn't exist. Get an education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think we should,move to blocking since this user now resorting to calling editors lyers and idiots. They also changed another users header to call the purptroator and Islamic extremist when the original version sated that there was not connection. I am not sure if there is a rule about headers but I doubt that changing text written by another user without permission to promote a completely opposite view is acceptable.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    New infobox image does not clearly show the promenade

    Old postcard of Nice showing the promenade des Anglais with the domed Hotel Negresco on the l. and the Palais de la Méditerranée on the r.

    The new infobox image [1] shows Nice well, but the promenade is nearly invisible. It was much more viewable in this image: [2]. 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)
    All I care about at present is that the infobox image match the claim in the current caption that it shows the promenade. It doesn't, and it was changed without discussion. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    More words than action. I have produced an image showing the entire route of the truck, with the landmark hotels and a clear view of the promenade des Anglais from above. It is clipped from an image on commons. It is not a picture postcard view—temps nuageux—but is instructive. Unfortunately, unlike the postcard, the Palais de la Méditerranée is hidden by another building. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    I replaced an abnormally tall view of the Promenade with another more normal-sized view of it. The file name says it's the Promenade, and the caption calls it the Promenade. I see no contradiction. Yes, due to its angle and size, it shows more houses than the old one. Tragedy? But anyway, even if you want to reinstate the old one, there was agreement to use that one instead of an image of one of the palaces, which wasn't meaningful and descriptive to the reader coming to the article. So please do not reinstate that type of image without more discussion. LjL (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    ?? The image at present is the brand new one I created on Commons this morning (UK time) File:Nice Promenade des Anglais FRANCE-cropped.jpg as you can verify. I have not added any long images to the infobox; you must be thinking of another editor. On Commons I have added an unobtrusive amount of extra annotations to the map used in the infobox adapting the annotations of the map on BBC News [3]. I have added (1) the start of the pedestrianised zone on the truck route (2) the Hotel Negresco and (3) the Palais de la Méditerranée. None of these were marked on the base map. (The children's hospital where the truck turned onto the promenade des Anglais was already marked on that map.) Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    I was referring to "my" image as "current", not realizing you had already gone and changed it. Anyway, same difference, I barely notice the change. I just didn't want it to go back to a non-meaningful image of some palace or hotel as seemed hinted. LjL (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    It's different and required a bit of work and thought. Please remember this is the second day of national mourning in France. Such days are rare in France. As I write, families and children continue to lay tributes on the Promenade des Anglais. Similar events are happening all over France. Much of the worst carnage in this attack took place in the relatively short pedestrianised zone that included the two Nice landmarks. The BBC marked that zone on their map, along with the two landmarks which you describe as non-meaningful. Some of their annotations are now on the wikipedia map. The vehicle was brought to a halt outside the Palais de la Méditerranée, where the attacker was finally shot. The vehicle remained there for almost a day. The location of the attack does matter for the article and it happened to be in the vicinity of the landmarks, not in some randomly chosen image of the 4 mile long Promenade des Anlglais. The French chose the Hotel Negresco for their infobox. Famous as a landmark before—just read the article on Nice—it will now always be remembered for this awful tragedy. (It has known tragedy before but never on this scale. While staying at the Negresco in 1927, the American actress Isadora Duncan was killed outside the hotel when her scarf got caught up in the wheels of an open-topped Bugati.) Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Extensive quotes from attacker's associates in section on Perpetrator?

    There is already a concise account in the section "Investigation" concerning the attacker's private life and his religious observance or lack thereof. In these circumstances there is no reason to add extensive quotes in the section "Perpetrator" on the same issues from media interviews with those who knew him. These have been summarised already elsewhere in the article. Yesterday the neighbour, whose daughter was at the Bastille Day celebrations on the Promenade des Anglais, was interviewed by the BBC. There was also an interview with his psychiatrist in Tunisia. The summaries, which we already have, are fine, but extensive direct quotes add no further information, appear completely arbitrary and do not improve the article. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Duplication isn't cool, but if there's one place for stuff about the perpetrator's life, it's Perpetrator. Government reactions should be in Reactions. Investigation should be limited to stuff about the investigation. Cops, coroners, forensic scientists; that sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Probably best to just note what they do find, too, not what they don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    The writing of this article has to be careful. The article is not intended as a quote farm; the summaries so far are fine. It was significant that two more arrests were made this morning. Incidentally, in the citation I added, it was reported that sources close to the French judiciary had commented that the attacker had been sighted (video surveillance?) surveying the scene of the attack two days beforehand. Presumably that will be confirmed at some future date. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    BTW, your LAPD analogies are not quite right because this is happening in France. They have their own methods of investigation and handling of security problems (vigipirate, periods of national emergency, etc.). The main difference is that this involves the highest levels of government and several security agencies, national and international. Not exactly Jessica Fletcher in Cabot Cove. More like 9/11. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Surveillance is definitely investigation. By cops, I mean the big guys, too. "Law enforcement officials", "security experts" and such. Not just beat cops. But anybody who relies on elections for a job doesn't belong in this section, in my view. They know about the investigations, but they don't speak for the investigators. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    I've made some moves to this effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

    Rename article title

    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)
    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)
    • 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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
    Bastille Day attack or variant
    Both
    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)
    This is English Wikipedia, not United States Wikipedia. Americans tend to have no knowledge about other countries, like Bastille Day, while the British know more. This is why the American press doesn't use Bastille Day as much. It just like if it were called xjdheufjnp day.
    Another problem is this is not a Nice attack. It is a Barbaric attack. Not nice at all. Fiona Gump (talk) 01:46, 17 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)
    • Support for anything except "Nice attack". I dont care whether it's attack in nice or bastille day or what, as long as it's NOT "Nice attack". Especially due to the fact that not everyone is perfect in geography and even more the fact that the city has other names in various languages (I already made a list in here), I think that "Nice attack" is just bad.
    @Eve I think we should split your list between "nice attack" and the variations to split the potential tasteless joke and the less ambiguous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My1 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose rename This is the common name and follows naming conventions for other attacks. There's no reason not to call it the "Nice attack", just because someone might read it as "nice attack", maybe they'll learn something about geography. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 16 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)
    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)
    This should be easily verifyable via the table on the right side that connects the nationalities with the death toll. So the total sum should be 84 in the long run - right now 30 identities are not known (on wikipedia9. 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 12:10, 17 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. Wikipedia 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)
    WP:AVOIDVICTIM is not relevant because it's about people only noteworthy only for one or two events, but here, the victims of a very large attack are (however hit by a tragedy) not notable at all, and so, the aforementioned WP:NOTOBITUARY is the one that applies. In previous discussions (which I could rehash since I was told the ones I posted so far aren't enough to create a "precedent"), some point have argued that WP:NOTOBITUARY only applies to actual "obituary articles" about an individual, but that's not the spirit it was written in at all, since that policy was created after 9/11 precisely to stop the addition of a full list of the victims' names. Since then, the policy has stayed in place, and there's no reason to ignore it now. LjL (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    @LjL and VQuakr: "Avoiding victimization" is ridiculous in reference to a list of the dead. They've been victimized, the whole world knows it, and there is no benefit for Wikipedia to avoid saying that. "Not an obituary" refers to the 911 memorial project to make bios for all of the victims, which I still don't agree was such a bad idea anyway, but certainly it does not prohibit saying who was murdered in an article about a murder! And if it doesn't prohibit saying who was murdered in one murder, does it prohibit it when there are two, five, ten, twenty people killed? Where do you see the number of names of the dead specified in NOTOBITUARY? Clearly that is just as red a herring. Sorry, but there are basic basic things an encyclopedia article has to cover, and who was killed is one of them. Wnt (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    The french government states that ISIS is responsible and that the driver became an ISIS driver "at the last minute". A swiss institute however had said that this was not an assassination or terrorist attack but instead was an "amok run", that is, a crazed driver. I can not verify either way, but the wikipedia article currently only links in a 1:1 speech from the french government and I don't think that anyone can say that the french government is very objective right now (due to inner politics in france; e. g. that was the third high death toll action in perhaps ... 3 years or so in France). 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    If we accepted things as established facts just because some government said they were, we would have a very entertaining article on North Korea.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Or any opposition party. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Origin of idea for attack

    This edit by User:Blaue Max implies that the attacker got his idea/inspiration from those two recommendations, but is there proof for that? I can't verify whether the three French sources say so. If it can't be established that those recommendations directly influenced the attacker, they have no place here. Gap9551 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    I disagree strongly. This article can and does discuss the tactical strategy employed by the attacker. Majid Nawaz noted that the vehicular strategy was encouraged by Hamas to be used in their attacks on Israeli citizens. I am unclear which strategy came first, Hamas or AQ.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    The origin of the attack strategy is hardly relevant here. Instead, we can (and do) link to the article dedicated to the strategy, in this case Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. The organizations you mention were hardly the first to have this idea. The only thing that would make them relevant is if the attacker is confirmed to have been inspired by them to use the tactic. Gap9551 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Rationale for the contents of the Background section

    In the section, we can read:

    In 2010, the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) propaganda magazine Inspire recommended: "use a truck like a lawn mower. Go to the more densely populated areas and take the maximum speed to do the most damage. If you have access to a gun, use it to finish the job." ISIS spokeman, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, said in an audio message in September 2014: "If you cannot find explosive or ammunition, then isolate the American infidel, the French infidel, or any of his allies. Crush his head with stones, kill him with a knife, flip him with your car, throw him from a cliff, smother him or poison him."

    How do we know this paragraph is relevant to the attacks and not an example of association fallacy? Has any investigator stated that the perpetrator had actually read the Inspire magazine from 2010 and heard the message of al-Adnani from 2014? If not, what is the purpose of publishing information that is coincidental?

    --Jan Winnicki * 17:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    I guess police could find a copy at his house, with those pages sticking together. Until then, though, we don't know. It just fits an agenda. I'm pretty sure everyone has understood the deadliness of traffic collisions since the dawn of traffic. It's not rocket science. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    We know for certain that both Hamas and AQ encouraged this attack strategy and it is relevant to this topic. It doesn't fit any "agenda"; that's just more whitewashing. We know the perp was a Muslim who came from Tunisia, the leading country represented in ISIS and the "backbone" of their recruiting strategy. So all the pieces fit, and fit very nicely, contrary to your continued stream of "we don't know" and "can't know". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Baron d'Holbach II:, you should take a look at this article. It will help you understand.--McSly (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    I am motivated by the facts, which many here conveniently ignore for political reasons. Tunisians form the backbone of ISIS. Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Even assuming 6,000 fighters to be an accurate guess, there are over ten million Tunisians. That's 0.06% of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    To put that tiny number in context, 0.23% of Americans are registered sex offenders (no offense, America, I just couldn't find French stats). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    You're not making any sense. ISIS isn't recruiting from a pool of 10 million. It's recruiting from the youth population between, let's say, ages 12-30. And they pay cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well, this guy was 31, so there goes that, Sherlock. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    He turned 31 in January and he fits the profile. Further, he was repeatedly involved in the criminal justice system just months before the attack where it is likely he could have come into contact with radical jihadists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Should've just made the profile 12-34. Too late now, you've thoroughly unconvinced me of your Internet-sleuthing capabilities. Please turn in your badge at the front desk. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    This guy encouraged simply killing all Muslims. The next time someone kills a Muslim, do we likewise assume he was inspired by reading the Huffington Post? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    "Tunisia is by far the largest source of foreign fighters heading to join Islamic State in Syria and Iraq."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    So all the pieces fit, and fit very nicely, contrary to your continued stream of "we don't know" and "can't know", @Baron d'Holbach II: What you are missing here, is that Wikipedia is not a place for editors to fit the pieces together, that's original research. If there's a source that made the connection, what Wikipedia can do is to say "[Source] said there is a connection between [x] and [y]", but we can't say "There is a connection between [x] and [y]" unless we follow that with "according to [source]". -- Jan Winnicki * 15:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Your extremely poor quality arguments are not relevant here. French mainstream sources made a link between Isis recommendations and Boulhel's method of killing. As Wikipedia is based on sources, and not on biased opinion by anonymous users, this paragraph must be restored. More sources : [5] [6] [7] Blaue Max (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Jeudi soir, un Franco-Tunisien (...), semble avoir suivi à la lettre ce procédé. – Which translates to: Thursday evening, a Franco-Tunisian, seems to have followed this to the letter. None of the sources state the attacker was inspired by these messages. They only say the attack reminds them of what these messages said. – Jan Winnicki * 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Propose consensus on tabling renaming discussion for 48 hours

    Closing this since 48 hr have passed since proposal, making the discussion or its result no longer relevant. Gap9551 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    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.

    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.

    OK, that makes sense. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 17 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 (Complaints|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)
    • Support waiting – At every one of these articles, it always seems to me that it is best to find an easy title that everyone can find, and then worry about the rest of the article. If you don't like the title, come back in a couple weeks and look at it then. Starting multiple discussions now just causes confusion and usually gets nowhere. United States Man (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    The discussion above 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.

    Misidentification case

    I added into the investigation that a man from Nice with the same name had his photo circulated online - not just on Twitter but you can also see it in "mainstream" gutter press like the Daily Mail. This was removed as not relevant to investigation, with the option of putting it in reactions.

    I would just like to see what the community consensus is for such a story. There are lots of French-language sources which show the relevance. But also I am sure that there are other historic cases of mistaken identity which were much more serious: in this case a man doesn't want to return from holiday in case he is attacked, I'm sure there have been past occasions when people have been lynched and that is clearly more notable. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    The Daily Mail is an unacceptable source. Their site still posts the image of this living person, who has nothing at all to do with this horrendous attack. It is a WP:BLP violation to link to the Daily Mail page or to mention the identity of the living person who has been compromised. This error by the media has nothing to do with the police investigation.That the error has been widely circulated does not change that. Any related content has to be removed as a WP:BLP violation. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Image of Renault Midlum truck

    I have added a image with the type truck used for the attack, but was reverted. I think that is useful on the article instead for lot of images with Promenage des Anglais. - EugεnS¡m¡on 19:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Timeline

    I think a small timeline is appropriate. It should be well sourced and fact based. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    I have not problem with its content. Just that it's a bit redundant and I think it's unneeded in am article this size. It's also kinda in the way. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    I am thinking something like this or this timeline. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Good to see precedent exists. Still concerned about its use on such a small article at this point, but given time that should likely take care of itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Fox News

    Fox News is NOT a legitimate news in these types of events. They have a bias toward claiming terrorism and erroneous links to terrorist groups to promote the conservative, war-mongering, fear-mongering agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.184.160 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    Same goes for many Western sources. All part of the War on Terror. Rather than disqualify Fox outright, just be cautious in only relaying the facts it presents, not the tone and angle in which it presents them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Agree with your statement InedibleHulk – De88 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    Fox News isn't ideal, but jumping the gun on the motive isn't confined to Fox News. It isn't possible to know everything about the motive within 24 hours, and the mainstream media should have learned this by now.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    It's also not possible to fill the sort of time and space alloted to this sort of story with what's known. If an editor or program director knows the audience wants to know, they know they should say something relevant, or the audience will move on to someone who does. The sponsors don't care if the content is a killer's motive or a parking lot monkey wearing a fabulous sheepskin coat, as long as it's not boring to most people, and their shit goes in the middle. Waiting for confirmation is boring to most people. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

    I looking on yt for eyewitness. Thaere should be thousands such accounts but i see only MSM. Do yt prohibit someone personal video on this subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B014:17B1:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

    Did you remember to search in French? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    There are various amateur videos of the incident on the Internet, and some of them have disturbing content. WP:YOUTUBE does not forbid user generated video as an external link, but it is best to stick to mainstream news coverage where possible.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    Just because western news outlets are stating facts doesn't mean they're wrong, simply because they belong to countries in the War on Terror. Watch RT or AJ if you want actual biased news.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

    Plese exemplify to sources [some links?] i spend the time between first post just to watch this:

    I do not watch tv for years so plese excuse me if im do not know how to watch news. My impresion is perhaps not statistically significant or median. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B014:17B1:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Nice_truck_attack/Archive_2&oldid=1136473771"