Talk:2016 Nice truck attack/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Claim of Israel's role of false flag attack

Why can't the claim by Cynthia McKinney be added to the article? This has been supported by mainstream media such as the Times of Israel, Haaretz, Breitbart News and many more.

I added the following to the article:

---

Ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney claimed that Israel was behind the European massacres including Nice attack and creating false flag attacks. According to Dr. Kevin Barret, Richard Gutjahr was pre-placed on the balcony to film the beginning of the truck attack and by some strange “cohencidence” he just happened to be on scene to film the shooting in Munich. Richard Gutjahr is married to Einat Wilf, an Israeli politician and member of the Knesset.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartinesdio (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't give prominence to obvious fringe conspiracy theories. None of your sources are reliable, and the Haaretz and Times reports simply present the claim as an anti-Semitic canard. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

All it shows is that Cynthia McKinney should get out more.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, just because a former congresswoman verifiably made this statement doesn't mean it is relevant enough to the actual topic of the article to be included. This is discussed at length at WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's only the fact that she is a former congresswoman that is making this remotely notable. You can spend all day looking at theories like this on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, though this content may well be suited for inclusion on the article about the person, and I suggest discussion its inclusion there on the relevant talk. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Fun Fact: Gutjahr didn't film the Munich thing. He "just happened" to show up after he'd heard about it, because that's what journalists do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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!

The article says 6 Italian victims, then it lists 4 Italians and 1 dual citizen US/Italy. Go figure. 51.7.118.91 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

FrWP also says no Romanians, but three Swiss (our 2), I speak even less Romanian! Some may be dual nationals as noted. 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, 20 July 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, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Non-French speakers [unnecessary request for quote verification]

User Timothyjosephwood tagged a quotation for verification (1 Aug.,14:01) in a paragraph with five sources added, three of them to Frenchpress/media. The quote, transcribed from the 21 July press conference of François Molins, was contained in the Le Monde source at the end of the paragraph. I have no idea why that was not carefully checked, but evidently it wasn't. The phrase "et nique" has been omitted as an obscene expletive similar to a four letter English word. Perhaps it was originally an Arabic swear word in the SMS message. Editors with a limited knowledge of French should assume good faith. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't failing to WP:AGF. I just assumed that, because it was coming from Le Monde, that the original was in French. I also knew that providing the original quote with a high degree of accuracy was probably not something I could do myself.

I wasn't implying that the quote was inaccurate. I was just tagging it as a situation where the original language should be provided as a matter of form. WP:AGF works both ways. TimothyJosephWood 14:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not been following things closely enough. Almost all information about the investigation after the attack has come in press conferences delivered by the Prosecutor. He has spoken on 3 occasions so far. On 15 July, on 18 July and 21 July. The reports are available as complete videos all of which have been linked on this talk page (and its archives). The news media have transcribed his statements ("dictée" for those who've learnt French), in particular the SMS messages. The original language was probably Arabic: I still use a French mobile phone account here in the UK, but have no idea how texting works in Arabic with a French fournisseur d'accès. Wikipedia policy tells us nothing here. Mathsci (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Je suis Charlie

I have no idea whether the SMS messages between the perpetrator and his Tunisian friends were in French or Arabic. Certainly they were not in English. On 21 July the prosecutor described the contents of several text messages in French during his press conference. The phrase "Je suis Charlie" is what is remembered. The wikipedia article entitled I am Charlie is a redirect to "Je suis Charlie". When we write an article we are writing for a general audience. When readers in the US see "I am not Charlie," (a translation I made myself) I am not convinced they will understand the nasty reference. Hence the wikilinking. Would they understand "Je ne suis pas Charlie"? Perhaps US editors can comment here, instead of discussing irrelevant conspiracy theories à la Edwin Mullins of a US congresswoman, unknown outside the US. Mathsci (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE advises to avoid links in quotations. Further, by linking to the article within the quote, there is an implication that the phrase was indeed spoken in French, which, as you point out, we don't know. Wikilinking in a footnote provides the context just as accessibly, without including the implication, and without violating guidance in WP:MoS. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Best to include the French original in the footnote. Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I am dismayed by your edits concerning the French language. Please don't edit my comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Je suis Charlie" was so well covered that I think the inference of 'not' is clear. Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Accomplice vs complicity

Looking at the phrase "complicité d'assassinats en bande organisée en relation avec une entreprise terroriste", with my limited French, but a general feeling that France follows a similar sort of common law to the UK and US. It seems they were actually charged with complicity, not as being accomplices, meaning that they may have been accomplices (generally someone present at the crime), or they may have been accessories (generally not present), or they may have been guilty of failure to report an imminent crime. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes your French is limited. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well you don't seem to have any intention of not issuing a personal attack at every opportunity, so I suppose going forward I'll just {{RPA}} you when it happens.

I don't think you need to be a native French speaker to be able to tell what "complicité" means, it's the same Latin root and...basically the same word. TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The French word for accomplice is "complice", so your "logic" breaks down. If your "logic" were applied to "eventuellement", it would be translated as "eventually"; but the correct translation is "possibly". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference remains, that in English, being charged as an accomplice implies involvement in the actual crime, while being charged with complicity is a broader change with a lower standard of involvement (e.g., intentionally providing someone with a weapon with which they later commit a crime). TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is French law not American law. There are specific French laws about terrorism, many of which have been written fairly recently. Complicité in this context is "being an accomplice". There is also Simon McBurney's Théâtre de Complicité. If you have no knowledge of the French language, why make these speculative attempts to POV-push about words outside your vocabulary? You're forcing others to follow the same route. But if editors are bilingual, why should they? Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Because in English being an accomplice which is what the article currently states generally means you took part in the crime as the crime was occurring . It seems fairly clear that these individuals were charged with what we in English would call complicity, because they do not appear to have been present at the crime, aiding in the crime at the time the crime was committed. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you explaining to me how to translate French? You seem to be substituting guesswork, i.e. WP:OR, for any real knowledge of the French language or French law. You see words which look like words in the English language and you assume or guess that they must mean the same. But, as I've explained above, that is not how things work; for example the French word "démentir" has no real English equivalent, etc, etc, but has been used a lot about the political aftermath of the "Attentat à Nice". You might have seen the word "dementor"—it differs by one letter—but it's completely unrelated.

In the absence of any background in French, why discuss these fine linguistic matters? It seems very odd to me. On wikipedia people generally edit subjects which they know about. Also please stop editing my remarks. See WP:TPG. Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Translating the French ourselves, then quoting that translation as if somebody said it in English (next to an English source which says something different) is not cool. This is the second time I've fixed this, let's not have a third. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, is your objection to the translation or the quote marks? The translation itself appears to be much better than the BBC one. Pincrete (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Both. The translation is original research, better or not, and the quotation marks suggest that version is present in the source. "Entreprise" just means "enterprise", which even in English is a synonym. Whether it means undertaking or group in this case is best left to a reliable source like the BBC. If another reliable English source disagrees, we could note that, too. But replacing an actual quote with a Wikipedian translation, quotation marks or not, isn't cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If I remember an earlier discussion properly, one of the problems was that in Eng, a 'terrorist group' ordinarily means Al Quada, IRA, ETA etc. The French usage is that the other accused individuals ARE the group, what in Eng we would probably term a 'conspiracy'. 'In house' translation is commonplace on 'foreign' articles, especially with original language and original language source alongside. Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a designated terrorist group. I think the article already does a fine job of noting this group hasn't been linked to one of those, but I can see how it might be a bit confusing to someone who didn't read those parts. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked up 'accomplice', Oxford simply says 'A person who helps another commit a crime', it does not appear to differentiate between actual participation and planning. Legal dictionary also says both 'do-er' or planner. In UK law, involvement in planning will often come under 'conspiracy to commit XYZ'. We aren't going to find exact terms IMO, but 'accomplice' is used by BBC and others. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If I felt we had to ask for advice, I would ask Newyorkbrad as a lawyer. At least he could point people in the right direction. Wehwalt is also a lawyer, who's been in Nice recently. If the two charges contain "en relation avec une entreprise terroriste", why does that appear in one of the charges and not the other. Here's the French law.[1] Some of it was updated just about a week ago. Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That extract of French law (not copyrighted!) begins, "Constituent des actes de terrorisme, lorsqu'elles sont intentionnellement en relation avec une entreprise individuelle ou collective ayant pour but de troubler gravement l'ordre public par l'intimidation ou la terreur, les infractions suivantes..." Entreprise does not mean group but a planned act or undertaking. All of this is easy to read; but not if we translate entreprise as group. The following infractions consititute acts of terrorism, when they intentionally involve an individual or collective plan with the aim of severely disturbing public order by intimidation or terror: Enterprise was used by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar in the same sense: the assassination of Caesar. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also "enterprises of great pith and moment" from another of Shakespeare's plays. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

On 22 July the Irish Independent give the following version of the charges[2]: "The prosecutor's office, which oversees terrorism investigations, opened a judicial inquiry into a battery of charges for the suspects, including complicity to murder and possessing weapons tied to a terrorist enterprise." They accurately translate "en relation avec une entreprise terroriste" as "tied to a terrorist enterprise" using the word enterprise in the sense I mentioned above. The UK Independent translate "en relation avec une entreprise terroriste" as[3]: "in relation to a terrorist crime." The London Evening Standard gives the translation, "in relation to a terrorist enterprise." [4] Inediblehulk has not explained his own experience with the French language. Might it be that he has none? Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Hulk's objection is to quote not aligning with source, if best source is used with best translation, there would not be a problem IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that using just one source (a very brief AFP release in English) is an error here. The sources above give different translations. My suggestion at the moment is to summarise the charges without quotes but with footnotes to the precise French charges. It's fairly easy to write summaries, after all that's what wikipedia is about. My objection is that both charges include the phrase "en relation avec une entreprise terroriste". It means terrorist plot. It's always possible to ask on the French wikipedia—there are plenty of completely bilingual lawyers in France. But I think a summary rather than an exact quote from a possible mistranslation is better. The usual word for group in this context is "bande organisée". Before the precise charges were decided upon during the night of 21-22 July, Molins mentioned possible charges tduring his lengthy 21 July press conference. He used the words bande organisée several times. Erring on the side of caution with a summary seems better and more informative for the reader. I suggest something like this. The five suspects were issued with preliminary charges under French laws on terrorism prior to further examination: the Albanian couple were charged with breaking the law on supplying weapons; the three Tunisians were charged as accomplices in an act of murder. Or some variant. Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That wouldn't suck, as long the variant doesn't include "terrorist undertaking". Most English speakers would think that refers to running the truck into the crowd, not the alleged conspiracy. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Making edits without checking the sources

This seems to be what User:Timothyjosephwood is doing at the moment. He looks through the text and, if he dosen't like something, he doesn't check to see whther it is an accurate representation of what is in the sources. Instead he simply removes what he doesn't like and claims it is non-neutral editorialising, In this case he removed the phrase "leaving the windscreen and cabin door riddled with bullet holes". I don't understand why Timothyjosephwood is suggesting that is "non-neutral editorialising" since these words paraphrase what is recorded in the news media cited. There is nothing controversial here at all. Could Timothyjosephwood explain his edits. Did he read the sources? Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A news source is not an encyclopedia. They may say "riddled with bullets", "smashed through the crowd", "careened down the street" or any similar such language to their heart's content. That doesn't mean WP uses this language, because it is non-neutral, euphemistic, editorialized, and otherwise non-encyclopedic.

You need to take a break, and consider dialing back your persistent WP:OWNership of this article. If you cannot bring yourself to discuss and edit with others in a constructive collaborative manner, rest assured this article will get on just fine without you.

However, I would greatly appreciate it if you would not make me go to the trouble of compiling your multiple warnings for and violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:EW for a noticeboard post, because I'm pretty sure I can otherwise find something more productive to do with my time. You may consider this a final warning on all grounds atop multiple final warnings you have already been given. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The BBC, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian jointly agree between themselves that, in its stationary state when halted on the Promenade des Anglais, the windscreen of the truck was "peppered", "riddled", "pockmarked" or "raked" with bullet holes. The BBC (and several other sources) also state that the front of the truck was riddled with bullet holes. Sometimes these major UK news media provide images of the truck, illustrating their statements.

Above, seemingly going off an a tangent, you start talking about the descriptions of how the truck caused fatalities. Where did you read "smashed through the crowd" or "careened down the street". (When you wrote "careened" did you mean "careered"?) Where is that terminology used in the "Attack" section of the article, which was initially a literal translation of the French wikipedia article.

The current sentence concerns the damage done to the truck. It is neutral and uncontroversial. In your precipitous haste you seemed to have confused the truck and the assembled crowd. Are you accusing me of being unfriendly to Renault Midlums by including the description from the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and BBC News. Please calm down and think a little bit before making these wild accusations where you confuse truck and crowd. The BBC and the major broadsheets do not confuse the two and neither do I. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I was listing hypothetical examples of similar types of euphemistic language that would be equally unsuited for an encyclopedia article as are "peppered", "riddled", "pockmarked" or "raked". But since you own the article, use whatever language you want. TimothyJosephWood 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't talk about what you are imagining. It is a gross misrepresentation: you imply that I have included callous phrases about the fatalities in the article. That is false and highly offensive. You seem to be confusing what you have read elsewhere with what is in the article. Those are two quite different things.

At the moment I would like you to explain in simple words (that Dougweller, Edjohnston, Lord Roem, Moonriddengirl, Diannaa, Drmies, irridescent, Newyorkbrad, etc. would understand) what you find objectionable about

"The windscreen and the front of the truck were left riddled with bullet holes".

If you object to "riddled" as opposed to "pockmarked", "peppered" or "raked" as a paraphrase—the way we write wikipedia—please explain why. The French use the word "criblé" which I translate as riddled. But all these words are equivalent.

The language you use above seems to be quite well described by WP:BULLY. Your own command of French is described by WP:COMPETENCE. On this occasion I have only used British English sources here and they are all high quality.

All the sourcing I generally use is disclosed in great detail on this page. That applies to the most recent additions. The medals for bravery; the role of the two "heros"; the arrests a week ago; the release of one of them and the subsequent transfer to Paris of the other, which happened today. The particular sentence which started bugging you (yes, an Americanism) roughly an hour and a half ago is hardly an issue: it's anodyne, non-controversial and properly sourced. You are the first and only person to object to this phrase and I am at a complete loss as to your objections. I have had a lot of experience creating content on wikipedia and am not known at all for fabricating facts or editorialising. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed 'riddled with bullet holes' some time ago, but didn't want to make a fuss. It's a bit 'cop story' to my eyes, and of course neither the Beeb nor Gdn are exempt from wanting to tell a dramatic story at times. Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It does have a pulp novel feel to it, but on the other hand, that truck was pierced with many holes, so it's a perfectly cromulent word. "Peppered" is too spicy, "pockmarked" suggests the truck was made of skin and "raked" describes the shooting action, not the result. If there's a better word, that'd be better, but if not, there's not.

I have a problem with the number of citations following it, if anyone cares. The word may be a bit controversial, but the claim isn't. One good citation should suffice, for that and other similarly established facts. Some here have four. Four! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw this discussion referred to at AN/I. I cannot see why "riddled with bullet holes" is an over-emotional or non-encyclopedic thing to say. Just thought I would add my two cents.Smeat75 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. On a completely different note, I made these edits about Rodelinda today.[5] I notice that you have been editing these Handel opera articles :) I added the Winton Dean references to all of them, but I've only created articles on Op 4, Op 6 and Op 7. I wondered why in Giulio Cesare there is not a more detailed discussion of arias, like V'adoro, pupille with its extraordinary on-stage instrumentation, with 9 (?) instruments including a spine-tingling baroque harp. Just a thought. Mathsci (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been no clear account of what happened after the truck came to a halt and how long it took the police to shoot dead the perpetrator. Probably not very long. I find it unnerving how quickly the whole thing happened, from the start of the attack at 22:32 when the lorry started accelerating down PDA from Ave de Fabrot until the final interchange of gunfire after 22:35 when the driver was killed. The accuracy of what's written is the main concern at present, not the number of references, which can be rationalised in due course. Sorting out the cyclist and the motorcyclist took some time. And yes this article uses both French and English language sources, mainly because it happened in a city in France. Mathsci (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Best friend

Although almost certainly not useful for this article, the 73-year-old friend of the perpetrator's family has spoken to the press: Attentat de Nice : les révélations du meilleur ami du tueur. Mathsci (talk)

Is he the same man who some mainstream media sources described as Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's principal lover? Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Driver's side window

No sources mention this. The motorcylist indicated that the driver's window was open. Molins explained in his press conference on 15 July that the driver died on the passenger side. So why invent this detail if it's not in any source? Please stop this, User:InedibleHulk. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as a double check (not a source), here's an image.[6] Le Monde explained in an article why the bullet holes in the windscreen were on the passenger side. Some journals like France Express printed the images reversed. There are multiple images of the cabin on the driver's side taken by the press. I haven't so far seen any of the passenger side, except the faked photos of France Express. None of these are sources, but they're useful as double checks. Mathsci (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And here's the truck being towed away on 15 July [7] (39th of 103 images in a slide show on the website of the Swiss news service 20min.ch). Further details of the truck being towed away: each bullet hole had been carefully tagged by police.[8][9] Again just for double checking. Mathsci (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd thought French drivers' sides were on the other side. My bad. The right side window was hit. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless those are reflections. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Same video is already in the Telegraph source. Fair enough to note the passenger side window had holes, or does someone see something I don't (or not see something I do)? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Per photos #9 and #10 above, the door was rather riddled, too. Should that be noted, or does a door already count as the front of a truck? It's on the side, but it's also clearly not at the back. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

To me it's a detail, part of front (and could we ref a photo?). Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about directly, but if it's part of mainstream photojournalism, I don't see why not (are our ears parts of our faces?). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

How about 'windscreen and cab', which is the entire driver/passenger structure.Pincrete (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That works for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we can note that the door on the driver's side was penetrated. On this picture, the left window seems to be up. I don't see any bullet holes in the glass. Was the window up when the police shot at the door? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell if I'm seeing a reflection of the sky, a reflection of the bin or another bin behind the bush. But if that window is up, it's very clear, because the leaves in it look as distorted as the leaves near it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a reflection to me, but it might be something in the bush as you say. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This account, apparently, is based on ones that appeared in French media:

"One of the three national police officers—two men and a woman—from the Brigade spécialisée de terrain (BST) gave a complete account of the final shooting which was obtained by Agence France-Presse and published in French news media on 17 July (ladepeche, normandie-actu, lejdd, midilibre, la-croix). The officer, a male, explains that the three of them were stationed at the intersection with Avenue de Verdun, ahead of the truck at the beginning of the Quai des Etats-Unis. As people were going back home after the firework display, they got two alert calls and ran down the Promenade des Anglais until they came face to face with the truck. The officer moved on to the central divide while the other two took cover behind a palm tree. The precise exchange of gunfire is described. The driver's head was initially visible; he then slid down onto the seats and reappeared in the passenger seat. After further police shots, his head fell back on to the window frame on the passenger side. At that stage the officer was not sure whether the driver had been killed. 20 or more shots were fired by the 3 police officers, until they heard the call to cease firing. The driver was found dead in the passenger seat." I believe, passenger window was down, not sure about driver side. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm now about 75% sure the passenger window is down in the video, instead of the other way around. Stupid illusions. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(French) ‘sans doute’: 'probably'? 'undoubtedly'?

Colleagues, there seems an edit war on the way. Could you please look into it? See my edit 12:01, reverting an edit of Biwom (9:51), who again 'reverted' me at 12:21.
P.S.: that latest edit of his makes also a terrible mess of that section, in several respects, as you can observe. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

For reasons unclear to me, Biwom -- whom I regrettably (I apologize) had not yet informed of this started discussion -- has chosen to answer or react in the following new section; someone else has also reacted overthere; so, let's consider that section the continuation of this section (and not add further posts in this, older, section). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"sans doute"

Hello. Not sure that will be of interest to many people, but with reference to the ongoing edit war [10], I would like to affirm that (French) "sans doute" means (English) "probably", as in (French) "cet été j'irai sans doute à Nice" (English) "this Summer I will probably go to Nice". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"Sans doute" literally translates to "without a doubt," which is more difinitive of a declaration than "probablement," which actually translates to "probably." --maslowsneeds🌈 13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. It would help if people could stay away from original research, especially of the "literal translation" type. Please come with sources. We have Reuters that says that "sans doute" means "probably". We have Collins. We have A Student Guide to French Grammar. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe says "Fr. sans doute is etymologically 'without doubt' but now means 'probably'. Even Google translate agrees, in its own peculiar way. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Collins says: probably. ‘Student guide’ is unclear, giving only half of a statement/example. ‘Adverbial constructions’ suggests that, as a result of a weakening process, it now means probably. Google translate gives one specific example in which it suggests the translation ‘probably’. The Dutch (respected) newspaper NRC Handelsblad, 18 July (referred to in the article) translated it, in this specific situation, as: “… zonder twijfel…” (= without doubt). Reuters: probably. I suggest, we add a ‘Note’ like, telling our readers that the statement is being reproduced differently by news sources. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Most UK sources are saying 'probably', however regardless, if we take the whole sentence including "one way or another", it is clear that he is saying "we think/expect linked, but in some way that we do not actually yet know". Which is a far from certain statement and rendering it 'certainly', without the addition of "one way or another" would be misleading IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed the 'but' linking the two politicians. There isn't much of a contradiction between the two and we shouldn't imply that there is. Pincrete (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my former colleague is a French native and fluent in English. They said "sans doute" means "without a doubt" when used literally and "probably" when used sarcastically. So it appears context and tone matter. I acknowledge this is WP:OR, but it does raise into question the English sources' translations. The French version of this article doesn't even quote Valls and only mentions him a few times. I wonder, then, how crucial this opinion is. Is there a way we can reword the material if we do include it? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir seems doubtful of (raises into question) ‘the English sources' translations’ – but until now we know only one of them (Reuters). Can people (like for instance Pincrete) give us one or several more of those (UK or) English sources? It remains in my opinion remarkable that Valls chose, on that specific (stressful) day and moment, the (rather ‘certain’) indication ‘sans doute’ instead of less ‘certain’ expressions (peut être, possiblement, probablement, …); it also seems totally unlikely he would have meant the statement sarcastical. As for the French Wiki article not even quoting Valls here: I don’t think that is a reliable indication for the issue to be not very relevant/crucial. I still feel for a Note(see yesterday 15:58), in one way or another drawing the attention of the reader to this (translational?) issue. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I will try to refind Gdn, which I'm fairly sure says 'probably'. However, I would point out that 'doubtless' can be used to mean 'probably' also that adding 'one way or another' means 'we don't actually know how connected. Saying 'I'm sure Peter was to blame one way or another', is an expectation or impression, not very different from 'probably to blame'. Whereas 'I'm sure Peter was to blame' implies that I have concrete evidence, which I'm fairly sure is not what Valls means. Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Gdn says 'probably', in addition to the 'probably linked to radical Islam one way or another' quote, it also has Valls admitting that the investigation had no evidence at that point. Putting 'probably linked to radical Islam one way or another' into a web search showed up quite a number of publications using this translation, some marginal, some mainstream ,inc NYT. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Guardian says: Valls said that M. L.-B. “is a terrorist probably linked to radical Islam one way or another”. NYT does too; Pincrete says he has found even more sources doing that.

Pincrete says—and I believe he is right on that—the English phrase “I’m sure that...” can, in certain contexts, mean: ‘I suppose, I expect, that…’. Possibly, the French language follows that same pattern, with its expression ‘sans doute…’ meaning: ‘I suppose, I expect…’. But then the question remains, why the English news outlets did not choose for an English phrase such as “I’m sure that...”, … staying closer to that French original? For example, choose "doubtless"(i.e. the 'literal translation' of 'sans doute'...!), which—if I may believe Pincrete—can mean 'probably'!? --Corriebertus (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

14 July 22:27 -- SMS firearms

The article in § Attack (Timeline on top, sort-of-hidden) very shortly mentions "Bouhlel reported to have sent SMS message concerning firearms". The purpose of that timeline, I imagine, is for readers to understand better what has exactly happened. So, I'd think either we make a timeline telling details that teach people something, or make no timeline at all. 'Sending message concerning arms' I consider too vague then: we only learn anything from it, if we know exactly what was written in the SMS, and that it was written to the suspect mentioned elsewhere in our article: the 21-year-old French-Tunesian (whose name indeed does not have to be mentioned, for reasons of privacy). --Corriebertus (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous RfC on the timeline issue, which was bot archived without closure. IIRC it was fairly heavily leaning toward a removal of the timeline. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I unarchived the RfC to the top of the talk page. I agree with Corriebertus, that we either make a timeline that is telling details or we remove it. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I also believe we should expanded it by default, like this. I think the hidden status was some sort of a compromise between keep or remove, but it only makes it irrelevant (and therefore out of date). Erlbaeko (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the removal of a timeline

I'm boldly opening this RfC regarding the two threads above [this refers to: Talk:2016 Nice attack/Archive 5#Timeline of attack - WP:SYNTH adding arbitrary details revealed by investigation (24 July) and Talk:2016 Nice attack/Archive 5#Copy of Reuters timeline from 17 July (24-26 July)]. However, those archived versions are much smaller than their versions Timothy reacted on at 12:30 on 25July! Those larger versions are to be seen in this archived talk page(25July,12:30).]. I think at this point tensions have run high enough that a simple third opinion will be insufficient to establish a solid consensus to which either side will acquiesce.

The timeline being discussed can be seen above. It should be noted that the timeline has been on the article for a sufficient amount of time for it to become the status quo, and the question at hand as such, is whether the timeline should be removed, and not whether it should be included. Per WP:NOCON, a lack of consensus for removal should normally result in the timeline remaining in the article. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support for removal: The main argument for inclusion above seems to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, specifically, November_2015_Paris_attacks#Attacks and 2016_Brussels_bombings#Bombings. However, there is, as far as I can tell, no official guidance for when and how to include such a timeline. My main feelings toward removal are based on:
  • The timeline seems to be an unnecessary duplication of information. The section on the events of the attack is currently three paragraphs + one sentence, and so it seems those interested can just as easily read the section rather than needing a bulleted synopsis which itself, ends up being about a third as long as the section. Should the section grow significantly (double it's current length or more) I may easily support using a timeline.
  • The timeline displays full screen and uncollapsed on mobile devices, and so users must scroll through the timeline in order to reach the meat of the section, which the timeline is supposed to support.
  • The vertical length of the time line, in a few scenarios, causes issue with the display of images on the article when viewed on wider monitors. TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Quick synopsis of facts, helpful at a glance. Mobile users get to read anywhere; a little extra scrolling is a small price to pay. As long as the facts aren't dodgy, it's a fine tool. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hulk, 'As long as the facts aren't dodgy' is part of the problem, many timings are early reports based on witness impressions, they contradict each other quite a lot and ultimately, if our times are correct, the lorry was travelling somewhere between 4 and 8 MPH on average on its 'killing run'. 22:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal. At present the timeline contains little useful information. What is there at the moment is outdated (15-17 July). It has been completely superseded by events and detailed information made public by the Prosecutor on 21 July (accomplices, numerous SMS messages, info about CCTV footage, etc). The timeline at present, which added and removed arbitrary details in a Reuters timeline from 17 July, gives an alternative scenario to what is written in the article. Charlie Hebdo shooting has no timeline. The act of terror happened in one place within a short time span. The same is true here although on a different scale. The annotated map is designed to help readers unfamiliar with the geography of Nice understand what happened during the attack. November 2015 Paris attacks does have a timeline and rightly so. In that case the chronology of the separate events is well conveyed in a timeline box as well as a carefully annotated map. Why are the charged and detained accomplices not mentioned in the timeline but an SMS to one of them (Ramzi A.) about another (Choukri C.) is mentioned? Quite unhelpful to the reader, especially when it's already properly explained in the article in the correct context. Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and expand A timeline is a good way to display events in chronological order. It helps the reader to understand the event. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Remove at least for now, there are too many conflicting sources on times and and the info it contains is not sufficiently complex for the timeline to serve much useful purpose. Possibly when times and details are clarified (at inquest?), it might fulfil a clarifying purpose, at the moment it does not and is at best a duplication, at worst a distraction. Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Remove The relevant parts can be covered in prose. In my opinion, a timeline is more appropriate if each listed event is very significant, not simple actions like renting, moving around, texting. Gap9551 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Remove As long as the information is integrated into the other sections (if it isn't already), then I don't see a problem with tossing it. United States Man (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Erlbaeko (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that the "two threads above" have been archived. They can be seen here. Also note that the timeline have been updated/corrected since the RfC was started. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

User:JBergsma1, User:Parsley Man I notice that you (between you) updated casualty numbers from 308 to 434, unfortunately none of the refs support the higher figure and I wonder where they came from. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The number of injuries was indeed raised from 308 to 434, this is based on the French Wikipedia page casualty number about the attack. If you look at that page you can see the number of injuries. This is where i have my information from. But indeed no source was given about this number. Maybe it would be right to use the similar source that was used on the French Wikipedia page for the English version of the Nice attack page. JBergsma1 (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Then do provide that source, please. Parsley Man (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get the same source from the French Wikipedia to the English. JBergsma1 (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD talk

Please see thread [11] here. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Reactions on the attack from Islamic and Christian community Nice

@ Crumpled Fire: The section ‘Reactions - Islam and Christianity’ was retitled by Crumpled Fire into ‘Memorial services’, 31Aug2016,14:13, with the scarce motivation: “inappropriate header”. Can he please explain: how, why ‘inappropriate’? Is Crumpled Fire hooked on some anti-religious frame or campaign? If reactions, like a tv speech and emergency measures and war intensification etc. come from the French government, we appropriately head them as ‘French government’, because that government is the acting party whose reactions we are covering. I don’t see why we can’t treat reactions coming from the Islamic and the Christian communities in France (funeral ceremony, sermon and speech; interreligious commemoration) in the same manner: credit them to those actors, indicated as the Islamic and the Christian communities, short ‘Islam and Christianity’. Anyway, motivating an edit with only a vague, uncorroborated accusation “inappropriate” is no good, cooperative, transparent Wiki behaviour. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not the person addressed here, but I also think the heading inapt/unhelpful, the subject is not 'Islam and Christianity', neither are these 'official' responses from Islamic and Christian organisations. These are 'shared' actions of grief and respect between the two communities at funerals. I'm not sure what the best section title is. I'm also a little unclear, is 'last rites referring to Catholic rites being given to Moslem Tunisians, if so was this on the night of the attack itself, because at present it is not stated. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Pincrete: I notice that at 8Sept you changed the heading of a subsection under §’Reactions’ from ‘Islam and Christianity’ into ‘Islamic and Christian services’, without a motivating edit summary at place, which in itself I consider intransparent, uncooperative, thus rather rude. Yes, your defence will probably be: ‘I motivated it here on Talk page’ but that is not the same; it is a needlessly mystifying procedure you are following here. The old title is totally correct, and thus apt and helpful: I explained already here on 31August. Your arguments are not hitting ground.

• “the subject is not 'Islam and Christianity'”, you state. So what? Who is alleging that ‘the subject is Isl and Chr’? The subject is totally clear: REACTIONS from Isl and Chr.
• These are not “'official' responses from Islamic and Christian organisations”, you state. Am imam, a priest, a vicar are not 'official' within Isl and Chr.? Anyway, the subsection does not explicitly claim to present ‘offic resp from Isl and Chr’, it claims to present responses from Isl and Chr.
• You seemed unclear or confused about ‘last rites’, possibly because the Wikipedia article on last rites was/is solely bearing on Christianity. But last rites are omnipresent in the world, within and outside every religion (and are also much older than Christianity). I now included a wikilink to ‘Islamic funeral’.
• Now what is really bothering you about the heading? Religion phobia? Are you on some anti-religious frame or campaign? --Corriebertus (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Corriebertus your present heading (on this talk page section) is fairly informative and accurate, 'Islam and Christianity' is neither IMO and that of several other editors, as I have expressed above, and they have also expressed, any rudeness therefore is yours in ignoring that opinion. The heading simply does not inform but rather misleads since it implies bigger subjects than it actually covers, these are local attempts at 'healing' from both religious communities at shared funeral/commemorative services.

'Last rites' according to both WP and Oxford Eng Dict, refers to a pre-death ritual in Catholicism (and Orthodox religions), if you think it refers to something else in other religions, how do you expect the reader to know that, since it is not the common use of the term which is by definition pre-death? Do any of the sources use the term for these post-death Islamic or Christian rituals/services?

Why you imagine I have a phobia about religion, is a mystery to me, but easier for you than your answering the criticisms I suppose. 'I am right, because I say so' and repeatedly re-instating your favoured wording is not very collaborative. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As for the problem about 'last rites': I only now discovered that this is simply not what the Le Monde article is saying! Our article had been changed (distorted) at 23August13:39, and I had not yet noticed it. I've repaired it. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I was fairly certain the use of the 'last rites' was unhelpful, if not wrong, even though I don't know Fr/Islamic terms. I noticed the fix, but still don't understand why we don't use the most commonly understood terms (ie funeral - if the body is present - memorial if it is not). Our translations don't need to be 'literal', rather 'most clearly understandable' while still accurate. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry: what exactly is your point, problem, suggestion, here, related to 'funeral...memorial...'? --Corriebertus (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete(14Sep22:28) gives three new arguments concerning the subsection heading of §6.5 ('Reactions -- Islam and Christianity'):

• ‘Not informative’: A heading is only meant as clue, to alert people that this section is, or is not, what they want to read. See the heading of §6.1: only two words, informing the reader that a French government exists who have somehow reacted on the attack, but giving no information about the nature of their reactions. People who want to know will have to read the real section, and then they will be ‘informed’ to some extend. The same goes for the present heading of §6.5.
• ‘Misleading, implies bigger subjects than it actually covers’: Compare it with the heading of §6.6: nobody will expect that reactions on behalf of all people active on social media are presented in that subsection. The same for §6.2: nobody will expect reactions in it on behalf of the total opposition. Likewise, we don’t imply that §6.5 gives reactions for all Islam and Christianity worldwide, it just displays the relevant reactions we could find up until now coming from representatives of Isl and Chr. If tomorrow we come across a different reaction from some Isl or Chr representative it can be added.
• ‘Not accurate’; Pincrete vaguely suggests as heading: ‘Islamic and Christian community in Nice’. I’m not fond of that because it would suggest Islamic and Christian viewpoints in Nice to be quite different from the average in Islam and Christianity, and we have not the least indication of that. And the title is tiringly long. But I admit that at present it is a possibility. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

We can argue pedantically till the end of time! I and several others think the heading 'unhelpful' or 'inapt'. How about ‘Islamic and Christian responses’? At the moment the content is 'local', but there may be responses from higher authorities within both religious communities worthy of inclusion.

The subject of the section simply isn't '‘Islam and Christianity', which are the names of the two religions, when I look at it, I have no idea what it means in this context, some other editors have responded similarly. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC) ps ..... I've changed accordingly, I chose 'responses' rather than 'reactions' since it better covers things done, rather than just said. Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Obama's reaction

@ Corriebertus: BTW, why is Obama's reaction lead-worthy? Where do you imagine Obama is getting his info 3.5 hours after the attack if not from the Fr Govt? His early response is due to the event being during his working day whereas it was the middle of the night for European states, who made official reactions the next morning. I'm a considerable admirer of this president, but he really is very peripheral to a French, and to a lesser extent European event. We've consciously kept Merkel etc. etc. out of the article if all they sre saying is 'standard'. Why is Obama lead worthy, because his time zone meant that he was among the first to react officially? Neither is there any reason to believe that his contribution was significant in framing the event as 'Islamic terrorism', every govt and news source in the world was doing this by late that night ot the next day, largely because the French were doing so. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: On the one hand you say: “every government” was framing the Nice attack as Islamic terrorism, “largely because the French were doing so” (like Hollande, 15Jul,03:47). On the other hand you say: “there is no reason to believe” that Obama’s contribution [15Jul,01:55: “[it] appears to be a horrific terrorist attack”] was significant in framing the event as Islamic terrorism. That sounds contradictory. If it is likely, or conceivable, that governments will tend to join the French leader in labelling an attack as (possible) Islamic terrorism – and I believe it is – then it is also conceivable that governments are tempted, or tend, to join the US’ leader in labelling it as (possible) terrorism.
You also contend that “every govt and news source” labelled it as Isl terr on14/15 July. I see no proof of that, but what we can say is that several governments – see this old version of the article(8Sep11:51) – and some ‘news media’ indeed did repeat the label that Obama and/or Hollande had used. That’s why Obama’s labelling is mentioned in §6.3. So, if Hollande’s labelling (03:47h, mentioned in §6.1) is lead worthy, then also Obama’s earlier labelling (01:55h, mentioned in §6.3) is lead worthy. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Corriebertus, to some extent, we as editors are able to assess what 'weight' is to be given to elements of an event, beyond that we rely on the weight given by sources, otherwise it is WP:OR. So, can you point me to even a single source that says Obama's reaction had any special significance? I know of none, all the news sources (inc CNN and BBC), were, I believe, conjecturing that this was possibly terrorist and possibly Islamic from the moment the news broke that night, they were almost certainly making these conjectures because local authorities in Nice and France were also immediately doing so. I don't doubt that Obama made these conjectures, presumably based on reports he was getting from US authorities in France, who in turn were in contact with Fr. authorities, (or they were watching the news?) Obama may have been the first 'foreign' head of state to react officially, (largely because of time-zones rather than any 'insight' on his part?). So what?

I do not see why Obama's reaction is remotely significant, why it is even worthy of mention, (let alone the 3 mentions you included previously), more importantly, I know of no source that draws attention to his reaction as being 'first' or in any way important. Therefore the inclusion (as pointed out by another editor) is wholly OR, it simply does not belong, this is your own private theory about what is important, it is not based on what sources say is important.Pincrete (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In lead section

The world is worried about terrorism, not just since ‘Nice’ but since years, decades – and that worry to a great extent explains the interest of the public in the Nice attack and consequently in the Wikipedia article bearing on it. Decisions, proposals, of leaders literally worldwide are since decades often motivated/justified by using the word ‘terrorism’ (t). After the N attack the world started speculating: is this ‘t’? Even the Wiki community has been, or is perhaps still, divided on that question, at least until recently, as is testified by Talk section ‘Terrorism or not?’ on this talk page (18–19Sept) and this edit of 18Sep2016,14:38.
The tendency to see or label ‘Nice’ as ‘t’ is (among more) ofcourse influenced by how world leaders speak about this attack. The first leader calling it possibly ‘terrorism’ happened to be US leader Obama: this can easily be checked both in the BBC live blog (14–15 July) presently linked in reference #5 in the article and in the history of this Wikipedia article.
Though ofcourse any influence of anyone’s statement/labelling on someone else’s opinions or actions cannot (and need not) be proven, it ofcourse is conceivable that Obama calling the Nice attack possible ‘t’ influenced other leaders to do the same, and that (Obama or) that multitude of leaders doing so influenced ‘news media’ and ‘the public’ to do the same.
Considering the central importance of the concept terrorism for this article, that potential influence of Obama’s statement on later events justifies the reference to Obama’s statement, not only in section 6.3 but also in the lead section. Pincrete disagrees here (22Sep). What do others say of this? P.S.: Pincrete brings up ‘local French authorities immediately conjecturing terrorism’, but he does not prove that (and I don’t find it in our early versions, nor in the present version). He brings up ‘news sources immediately conjecturing terrorism’, but firstly he does not prove that, secondly a news channel has a totally different role and ‘weight’ than a statesman. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Corriebertus, simple question one: do any sources point to Obama's reaction being in any sense 'first'? Simple question two: do any sources point to Obama's tweet. being 'significant' in any way? If the answer to these two questions is 'no', which I believe is the case, you are inserting blatant WP:OR into the article, and there is nothing for anyone to discuss.

Am I engaging in OR on this talk page? Yes I am, but I am using my conjectures not to insert content, but to persuade you that Obama (for all his stature), is peripheral to what happened at Nice, and a tweet from him saying, basically, 'this may well be terrorism' is barely worth a single mention, let alone 'pole position'. Did not every person on the planet who heard the news that night think 'this may well be terrorism'? Obama MAY have been the first 'foreign' head of state to say it publicly, beating others by minutes or hours, PERHAPS.

Do you not see that this is bordering on being insulting to the people of a country, a large number of whose citizens have been horrifically killed in various incidents in the last 18 months, to actually want to put Barack's, harmless, but relatively trivial tweet in the lead? Do you imagine for one second that Obama is not 'statesman' enough to have not cleared matters with the French authorities before releasing that tweet? Where on earth do you imagine he was getting his info from that night?

Find the sources that attribute significance/importance to Obama's tweet, then there is something to discuss. I'm not going to further discuss the merits of personal theories about how important Obama's tweets are, nor will any other experienced editor. Sources please. Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bouhlel was not connected to any international terror groups: unsourced what's the relevance?

"...preliminary investigation by French officials had not connected Lahouaiej-Bouhlel to any international terror groups..." (§2016 Nice attack#Investigation) is unsourced [ I was wrong, here. CB. ]. Pincrete and LoudLizard contend (on this Talk page, 13 October) that it is/was "widely reported as relevant" but things first have to be a sourced fact, only then can we discuss the relevance of it. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was widely reported, and the reference do say "French prosecutors have said Bouhlel had no known ties to terror groups". I think it's relevant. Can you try to reword it instead of removing it? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I admit I was misreading that, it is indeed said in the source as Erlbaeko says. Still I don't see the relevance for the article. Mind you it was(or is) in section 'Investigation'. What difference does it make for what investigation, that Bouhlel (possibly) had no (known) ties to terror groups? --Corriebertus (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was one of the main focus areas of the investigation. I think it should be included. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Relevance

We agree about what source BuzzFeed writes about "...had no known ties...". But what is the relevance, for what 'investigation'? Erlb says here, it was "a focus area of the investigation", but what exactly was that supposed 'investigation' after, then? Our article's section 'Investigation' does not tell us, so at least I suppose Erlbaeko to know what he himself means with "the investigation". Pincrete(13Oct) here above contends: "his non-connection(...)was widely reported as relevant", but that's not answering WHY it is/was supposed to be relevant (nor by whom). LoudLizard says it is "relevant", but I still don't see why: just repeating that someone else (in his case Pincrete, in Pincrete's case someone unknown) has said something is 'relevant' is really not an explanation of that relevance, it is just plain simply repeating someone's apparent judgment. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In WP terms, it is ultimately relevant because it was widely reported as being relevant, Molins and numerous RS thought it relevant. In more ordinary terms, it is relevant because anyone trying to understand this incident inevitably asks what 'ties' he had, which in this instance is 'none known of'. You could ask whether his marital status was relevant, his employment status, his age, but these are all basic biog facts. His ties - or lack of - to known terrorist groups seem a much more important piece of information than all of these. His criminal record - or lack of - is/would be similarly relevant if widely reported. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Bouhlel's being sexually obsessed

Le Parisien, 18 July says: Les enquêteurs..de la police…les policiers ont..cerné[encircled,assessed] sa propension[his propensity,inclination] à la[to] seduction. Les nombreuses conquêtes[Numerous conquests] …ont été identifiés dans son téléphone portable[have been identified on his phone]. La plupart d’entre elles[most of those conquests] have been interviewed, notamment un homme de 73 ans, présenté comme le principal amant de..[notably a 73-year-old man, presented as B.’s principal lover]. Un proche de l’affaire[?someone close to the inquiry the business?] comments: “Ce terroriste peut être qualifié d’obsédé sexuel au regard des auditions de ses différent(e)s partenaires”[“This terrorist can be qualified as sexually obsessed, considering interviews of his different partners, male and female”].
As regards to sexual relation(s), Le Parisien (LP) tells that a 73-year-old man is “presented”(by police) as “B’s principal lover”. Also that the police says, they have “identified” many “conquests” on his phone. That’s nonsense, a phone can’t define something/someone as conquest. So, probably they found names on it. “Most of them”(names/persons) have been interviewed: that possibly can have cleared them out as conquests—but could not prove the not-interviewed ‘conquests’/names to be also conquests. So the statement of LP (or police) about the “numerous identified conquests” is false, a biased interpretation. The police can have concluded from interviews that B was sexually obsessed, and had had “different partners, male and female”, which is not quite the same as having had “numerous sexual relations” as Wiki contended until now. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Various sources reported fairly salacious versions of the perps sexual life (inc. The Sun), some of which focused on the alleged 73 year old man, many of these reports appear to have gone far beyond what the prosecutor actually said. The general opinion here on talk was that beyond reporting that the prosecutor said he had been active with both men and women, there was nothing relevant here. 'Unbridled sex life' is how the prosecutor's description was generally translated as I recall. There is discussion in the archive. I think the prev version was better, and more in line with what the majority of sources reported, rather than just 'Parisien'/Daily Mail/Sun.

Regardless of which version is deemed better, there is much (false) OR in your argument, "identified many conquests on his phone", simply does not mean or imply that they got the info by looking at the phone, nor is it what the article said before your change! I think we are reasonably entitled to think the police are not always completely stupid. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now checked coverage in BBC, Telegraph, Guardian France24 and a few others, most quote the prosecutor and translate him variously as the perp "having a wild/promiscuous/unbridled sex life with men and women". The Daily Mail and Sun use terms like 'sex obsessed', and mention a 73 year old but they both appear to be quoting 'le Parisien'. There is a distinct possibility that these graphic descriptions are purely the invention of that paper, and certainly the description is not endorsed by the majority of RS, nor as far as I could see, by the videos of the Prosecutor's statement. I'm going to restore the more straightforward factual description. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

(I today only strike part of my posting here of 7 October, and 'improve' that translation. Further reaction follows later). --Corriebertus (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
None of the sources given in the article (Le Parisien and France24) says that Bouhlel had had "numerous" (in the sense of: 'many') sex relations. If Molins wants to label someone's sex life as unbridled or wild, that's up to him but it gives no exact information on number of sex contacts. As I've stated (and translated) above, we have just the anonymous source of Le Parisien--and it is hightly questionable indeed whether we should follow and copy that source in Wikipedia!--saying "different" sex partners (male and female). I've nowhere suggested that police are ever stupid. There's widespread misconception among editors on Wiki talk pages that things you might say on a Talk page could possibly ever be "OR": 'OR' is a Wiki term solely applying to statements in the Wiki articles themselves, never statements in discussions (where we have freedom of thought and of discussion). --Corriebertus (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Memory tells me that UK sources mention 'numerous relations', but it isn't worth arguing about, 'wild sex life' gives a similar picture. While French sources CAN be used, and sometimes are fuller, Eng sources are generally preferred where they cover the same info (easier for readers to check!).Pincrete (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Victims - Where does 434 casualty figure come from?

‎Parsley Man, mentioning you as you seem to be one of the few 'long-term' editors still watching this article and may know the answer.

I cannot access all the sources, but the current refs don't bear out the 434 figure AFA I can see. If the figure is correct, it makes a nonsense of the additions in the casualty table. I appreciate there are initial and later admissions, but at present our figures don't add up and don't appear to be borne out by the sources. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Four sources are cited in support of the assertion re 86 killed and 434 injured. One ([12]) is a dead link. The other three don't mention the 434 figure. Numerous sources not currently cited ([13]) do support the 434 figure. I've tagged the dead link and added a cite of a source with a live link which mentions the 434 figure ([14]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have to ask JBergsma1. I believe he/she was the one who made that edit. I just took his/her word for it and fixed the rest when it was due. Parsley Man (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Organizing section 5 (Inquiry); replacing bits from §3 to §5

[ The (organizing) edit discussed here has been withdrawn/revised, see Organizing/updating sections 3 and 5. CB,2Nov ]

• While organizing section 5, I've checked on many of the given ref sources, which in some cases led to a more precise presentation of their content.
• Assertion: 'Bouhlel not connected to any international terror groups' I have deleted because it is not being said in that ref source (BuzzFeed 15Jul). But even if it would be mentioned in some source: why should Wikipedia want to make mention of this 'non-fact'? Why mentioning that something is not the case? There are millions of things not the case, but I think Wiki is for reporting facts, not for reporting 'non-facts'. If you disagree, please put it back in the article but preferably with a correct source and with explanation of the relevance of it.
• Also while organizing, I've attributed several assertions more precisely to one or two sources. It appeared to me inconvenient (with respect to verifiability/surveyability) to have a long list of seven statements concerning several suspects, attributed to a long list of six ref sources, when some or many of those assertions came from only one or two of those sources.
• In three cases, a Wiki statement was roughly correct but accompanied by an incorrect ref ('associates of Bouhlel said he spoke in favour of ISIL'; 'attack bore the hallmarks of jihadist terrorism') or a ref not freely accessible (prosecutor Molins' being charged with terrorism), for which cases I've found replacing refs.
• Info about Bouhlel in relation to "attending mosque…beard…expressing Islamist views …ISIL… dead bodies…jihadist websites…beheading video…indoctrination by an ISIL member …Islamic radicals…shouting Allahu Akbar" and sending photos on 14 July had somehow ended up in §3(‘Perpetrator’), part of that being repeated in §5. Considering the now running inquiry into possible (Islamist) terrorism which started late 14 July, and for reasons of surveyability and organisation, I’ve collected/concentrated all (such) info about Bouhlel bearing on his (apparent) interests in (radical?) Islam and in mortal violence or on his preparations for the attack, that might play a role in the current inquiry into (Islamist) terrorism, now (chronologically) in updated section 5 (now entitled: ‘Inquiry into … terrorist organisation’), leaving all further info about Bouhlel in section 3 (‘Perpetrator Bouhlel, profile’). --Corriebertus (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that your changes are mainly highly problematic, for example what you describe as a 'non-fact', his non-connection to known groups was very widely reported as relevant, as it has a bearing on both him and the crime. I'm going to wait for others to respond for now. Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete. The fact that the suspect wasn't known to be related to well-known terrorist groups is relevant. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 12:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave 'Bouhlel was not connected to any international terror groups…' aside, that is being discussed in the following talk section. I undertook on 13 October to organize section 5, until now entitled 'Investigation'. I still think that section can use substantial updates, corrections, organization, et cetera. Whether Bouhlel was connected to int.terr.groups or not, and whether we mention that in the article or not, really makes little difference I think for the fact that section 5 needs (or can use) updating, organizing, correcting. But Pincrete simply reverted my whole organizing edit(13Oct.16:56), stating two 'reasons':

1. (here on Talk page) ... "Bouhlel's non-connection to known groups was very widely reported as relevant": but I already proposed to him (and others), in this Talk section(13Oct, second bulletpoint), to simply put that aspect back in the article, leaving the rest of the updates intact. Why does he not simply do that, as cooperative colleague? He seems now to use that single and small disagreement as alibi to remove a larger update which he possibly dislikes for other reasons which he does not (yet) reveal.
2. (in his edit summary, 13Oct.,16:56) … "there are countless problems with these changes (including poor English)": mistakes in English are easily made in Wikipedia, by everyone and in every article, but should not lightly be seized as excuse to revert a substantial good faith edit. But Pc does not even mention one allegedly 'poor English' phrase. One tends then to suspect that Pc dislikes the organizing/updating edit (13Oct.,12:05) for other reasons, which he does not (yet) reveal, seizing 'poor English' as easy, but vague, unspecified (and thus incontestable), alibi. I call on him to play this Wikipedia project fairly and openly, and just tell us which "countless problems", either concerning 'poor English' or concerning content issues, he is alluding to. Wiki is a cooperative project, but we can't cooperate if someone, e.g. Pincrete, reverts a good faith edit without clearly and specifically telling why.

Same questions of course to LoudLizard: why does he agree to consider an extensive updating/organizing edit as "mainly highly problematic" when it is really only one detail in it that he disagrees to and could easily have restored the way he prefers it? --Corriebertus (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It was me that said "mainly highly problematic". The other problems included, at times poor, or what appeared to be wromg English (eg Molins has 'responsibility', not 'competence' nationally). I don't know what the intention was of your changes, but at times the effect was to break coherent paragraphs into 'tabloid-y' mini-sections. Why change 'Perpetrator', the section is not a criminal or psychiatric or police profile, it is simply all the main biographical info about the perp. Why 'interest in mortal violence' for what is barely a para, he liked watching violent, and Islamic violent videos. Why 'suspect 1', 'suspect 2', when text is able to communicate that adequately and the 'labels' are your own. There appeared to also be additional information in your edits that might be constructive, but radically altering structure for no apparent good reason, is/was highly problematic. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(The (organizing) edit discussed here has been withdrawn/revised, see new Talk section Organizing/updating sections 3 and 5. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

Question

I am unclear as to what this actually means; Paris prosecutor François Molins said that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel planned the attack for months and had help from accomplices. Is François Molins saying that Lahouaiej had spent months planning the attack, or, that he planned the attack months in advance? -meaning that the attack was ready months before it happened. If the former may I suggest; Paris prosecutor François Molins said that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had spent months planning the attack and had help from accomplices. Or, if the latter, may I suggest; Paris prosecutor François Molins said that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had planned the attack months in advance and had help from accomplices. Also, Paris prosecutor or Parisian prosecutor? which is more accurate here? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The complete press statements of Molins are available in French (videos); portions of those were faithfully transcribed in French newspapers. Undoubtedly two sentences were rolled into one on wikipedia; separating them into two sentences would avoid any ambiguity. Molins' title is Procureur de la République de Paris. Parisian would be incorrect: he is the main such official in France (i.e. person who leads this kind of investigation). Like the President, he is based in Paris. Hope this helps. Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, your rephrasings make the distinction clear even if I am not sure which is meant. I took it to mean 'had been planning' because of the 'for months'. I think 'Paris' or, better 'Paris based' as 'Parisian' suggests personal origins, as 'Londoner', and 'Paris' suggests his area of responsibility.Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's actually why I was asking if it was he was Parisian, Nice isn't exactly in the area of Paris or Il de France at all. I figure though it may be connected to Paris being the capital and this being a national investigation rather than a local one. Also, off topic, but is there a better way to phrase this; starting 16 July. On 16 July, since "the following day" leaves it open to ambiguity (15th -> 16th, or 16th -> 17th) and the current is repetitive. I also think "On that day" would have the same problem, 15th or 16th. Perhaps; On the first day of mourning, extra police... although it sounds a little weird. Will have to mull it over. I'm inclined to agree with you that "he had been planning the attack for months" is the correct interpretation rather than that "he had already planned the attack in advance". Will come back to this tomorrow as it's quite late. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

(LeMonde,21July:) 'M.L. Bouhlel … semble avoir mûri son projet depuis plusieurs mois et bénéficié de complicités, a déclaré … Molins'
= Bouhlel seems to have been ripening [developing] his project since/during several months and to have benefited from complicities [! It doesn't say 'accomplices' but 'complicities'!—or 'understandings'—or 'collusions'(= a legal term)]. Pincrete is roughly right then: 'had been planning[developing,ripening] during months'. I'll make an adjustment in this sense. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a very odd choice of wording there... Parsley Man (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be 'had been planning/developing for months' … or 'over a number of months' … or 'during the previous X months'... 'During' or 'since' are both wrong in the present sentence (during dinner, during March, during winter etc, ie IN that specified time period … … since dinner, since March, since winter etc, ie FROM that specified time point).

I dimly recall prev discussions about the difference between Fr/Eng legal terms concerning 'complicity', I don't recall sufficiently clearly the distinction, but, as I recall it, the Fr term does not have the same threshold of necessary proof of knowingly assisting, (ie it is enough that you provided assistance, even if you were not knowingly part of the plot). I think we came to the conclusion that it was best to cautiously use terms used by better Eng sources, since the nuances of Fr law cannot be captured in Eng, but to be careful to not extrapolate Eng inferences. Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Extraneous and unhelpful sub-headings

Corriebertus, you asked for reasons why I think your heading titles are 'wrong'. [in this case, 'Summary and timeline' is both extraneous and inaccurate, It is extraneous because there is no reason to NOT go straight into info about the investigation. It is inaccurate because a 'Summary' is by definition a brief overview of all the most important facts, which are expanded later. In the same way that the article lead is a summary of the body. Timeline is partially accurate, since some of the early events are laid out in date-event format, but again one expects a timeline to summarise and 'date-stamp' all key events, which are then laid out in text elsewhere.

[this edit] 'Interests in mortal violence, (radical) Islam, ISIL', IMO does not identify the principal subject of the section, nor does it reflect the weight given in most RS. The previous title was not perfect, however whether the perp. was connected to any known groups is covered by all sources and is a key matter in trying to understand the event. The fact that the perp. watched violent videos and may have explored 'Islamic' sites is connected to that, but it is a circumstantial indicator to the central question of how connected this event is to ISIL etc. I am confident that all sources attempted to ask the question of whether, and to what extent, the perp, was connected to any known terrorist groups, I don't think many showed much interest in his viewing/browsing habits EXCEPT in so far as it indicated how, and in what ways and to what extent he was radicalised. Plus what does 'Interests in mortal violence' mean? Was he a Diehard fan or was he watching beheading videos?.

However if other editors think these headings are improvements, so be it. To me they seem simply 'odd', unclear, and unnecessary.Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with you that the new headings aren't really an improvement on the ones that were there before. The "timeline" part of the first heading I could get behind except that a)the first paragraph isn't in the same dotpoint format as the others and b) the paragraphs are quite long for simple dotpoints. The second heading however is too long-winded and doesn't summarize the section all that well. That said, I'm not sure the old heading does that either. More accurately; Possible links to radical Islam or Possible radicalization. The section deals almost exclusively with him becoming radicalized and becoming interested in radical Islam. It has little if anything to do with links to terror groups themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, your suggestions are both good, especially 'links to' since that is closer to the subject IMO than the process of radicalisation. It is also the question which everybody would like answered. Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as well. These headers are not exactly improvements. Parsley Man (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, just curious, since I think either charged/suspected acc are acceptable 'subs', but what was the logic here?. My logic was that we certainly know these people have been charged, they have been charged with 'complicity' offences certainly, but may not be accomplices in the everyday sense (ie knowingly aiding in the execution of a crime, which I think would be the threshold in UK law, not sure elsewhere). As I said, just curious, either is good. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hence the "suspected" part of the title. It's not exactly a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, right? Parsley Man (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to ask Pincrete before, I believe, to keep different discussions separate. In this section though, he starts with two different problems (1.'Summary and timeline', and 2.'mortal violence…') and later adds even a problem 3.('..accomplices'). Makes discussing needlessly difficult, I think… --Corriebertus (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The subject of the section is headings, sub-headings, it isn't to comment on other editor's behaviour. It might have been better if I had gone to P'Man's talk, since this was essentially an editor-to-editor question. We all make mistakes sometimes! Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, you're right on that, I apologize: I ought not criticize an editor's behaviour on a general Talk page by stating that criticism on that same talk page. I ought to have done that on the editor's personal talk page. Sorry. (Perhaps I also wanted to say it here, to explain why I started at least one subsection in this talk section, below.) --Corriebertus (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sub-heading under heading §5

So I'll now first, separately, only react on the challenged sub-heading §5.1:'Summary and timeline'. That was never my idea, I had named it: 'Start, summary'. I'll bring that title back now: firstly because I believe it is quite correct (while 'timeline' is not very correct, as has been noted by two people). Secondly, because I consider this type of subheading helpful (and thus not extraneous) for some (hasty) readers. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a summary, so calling it that isn't helping anyone. 'Start' is not incorrect, but not necessary IMO, of course we are going to start at the beginning. Pincrete (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

100,000 euros sent to Bouhlel's family, days before 14 July. Money from terror group, maybe?

Days before the attack, B got some of his friends to bring 240,000 Tunisian Dinars, worth some 100,000 euros, to his family in Tunisia. His brother declared it came as a complete surprise. "Bouhlel had been depressed and out of work in recent months, sparking suggestions that the money may have been from a terror group", is what the British Daily Telegraph (17 Jul) wrote about that. Apparently, the Daily Telegraph was here suggesting that the money might have come from a terror group, so that's what I wrote 2November, because such facts (that might connect the attack with 'terrorism', regardless which exact definition you'd want to follow for 'terrorism') can be considered relevant in this article. To my surprise, Pincrete, 3Nov12:46, removed that attribution of that suggestion to the Daily Telegraph, saying: "The Telegraph speculates no such thing". I disagree: it is obvious to me, that it is The Telegraph that is speculating that 'thing', here. Possibly, Telegraph heard it before from others, but we have not the least certainty of that. If a newspaper wants to bring some speculation into the world, this seems exactly the ((most) effective) way to do that. And even if The Telegraph first heard it from others, the fact that they (as respected quality newspaper!) choose to repeat that speculation means obviously that they too are speculating it, as from then on.
(More or less in line with his scrapping that 'sparked suggestion': 'link to terrorism', from our article,) Pincrete later moved the whole money-sending from subsection 'susp. links to terror groups' to subsection 'Personal life'. Effectively, he thus is obscuring/removing the whole (plausible) suggestion from the article. I object. We are not lawyers for B, it is not our job to obscure such important suspicions, hide them for our readers. We must expose such facts, let readers assess for themselves what they think of them. What do others say? --Corriebertus (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, the irony may be lost on you but not me. (Undid revision 748504888 absolutely NOT this is pure speculation as to the source of the money (and extremely unlikely)) is an absolutely speculative edit summary and absolute misrepresentation of what the source says; Bouhlel had been depressed and out of work in recent months, sparking suggestions that the money may have been from a terror group. Now the source is speculating, and you could arguably remove the material outright on this point. I won't contest that, but, moving it with the edit summary you gave I find unacceptable - that's actually why I reverted. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

Corriebertus or from one of his lovers? Or from robbing a bank? Or???? Or???? Or???? Plausible simply isn't good enough, plausible is for bloggers not WP. The police will no doubt be investigating this money's source, but until they decide where it came from, it is pure speculation, not supported by anything other than your 'hunch', where it might have came from and intentional WP:SYNTH to it under 'links'.

I personally find it very unlikely since there is no record of contact with known groups. Also, while some of these groups have a history of funding expensive operations, none have a history of 'paying for' operations, which this would be. However my opinion is irrelevant, where are the sources making this connection? Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, what is unacceptably 'implied synthy' is placing the present text under 'links', if present text is modified to say that source X claimed that the transfer of the money was an indication of a possible link, the issue for us or the reader becomes one of whether source X can be taken seriously. Reverting someone for an unclear edit reason is putting the cart before the horse IMO.Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I've quoted the article in my previous comment. not supported by anything other than your 'hunch', again, it's in the provided source. It's neither SYNTH nor OR, it is however speculative on the part of the Telegraph. It's an odd speculation too. I'm going to self revert as I notice that the quoted part (that I quoted) is no longer in the text. Without this - Bouhlel had been depressed and out of work in recent months, sparking suggestions that the money may have been from a terror group - putting it in "Possible links to terror groups" is without context. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thanks for the revert, unless other wade in, we've come to a similar conclusion, albeit by different routes. In case I have not been clear in my hurried edit reason and hurried reply to you, the implied synth lies in placing a piece of info where it implies 'there is something fishy about this money', without actually making it clear who thinks it fishy and why they think that. If RS explicitly make such a connection, I have no strong feelings either way as to whether such attributed speculation should be included, but would expect the precise claim to be clear. Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as Mr rnddude said (and agreed with me): the speculation comes from the Telegraph (considered a quality paper). I don't see though why rnddude disqualifies that speculated possibility as 'odd' nor why Pc disqualifies it as 'extremely unlikely' (possibly to have an excuse to keep it out of our article?). For groups like ISIL, 100,000 euros is nearly nothing – just kidnap one Westerner (Americans and Britons excluded) and they are again two million dollar richer. 100,000 for this spectacular attack would be really well-spent, real 'value for money' for them. And ISIL is smarter than me so they really don't need me to think this out for them. Pincrete's idea of 100,000 from robbing a bank (which French bank has been robbed recently then?) or from "one of his lovers" (Pc, get off those sex fantasies) seems a lot less likely.

So: why not copy that speculation in our article? We do a lot more of such speculations: for example: 'B having had contact with Islamic radicals in Nice': the speculation there is, that from having that contact, he became radical himself (inducing him to the attack). I don't want to assess or discuss the probability of that speculation, just want to point out that that speculation is the only reason why we mention that fact in our article. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned it being odd because I don't recall an instance where ISIL donated a large sum of money to the family members of an attacker - I'm curious where the money came from and ISIL is far more likely than a bank robbery or lover, but, I'd like a more clear explanation than the speculation of the Telegraph. If we had multiple sources suggesting this explanation, then I would support reinstating it. The reason I self reverted, however, is that the key phrase from the source linking a terrorist group to the transfer of money was missing from the re-instated version. Hence my no context comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

My main objection was as I described to Mr rnddude above, I have no strong feelings either way about whether an attributed speculation should be included (ie The telegraph wrote … … …that the money might), though according to Mr rnddude, the speculation has been removed from the Telegraph site. The effect of moving the info about the money from personal life to a section dealing with 'possible links' was to imply there was something suspect about the money, without stating clearly who thought this and what evidence they might have, thus implying that WP thought there was something suspect. I have no objection to the info being in 'personal life', and I imagine Fr police are asking Qs about the money and will let us know in due course.

My speculation about the likelihood of it being from ISIS, like Mr rnddude's, is only because there is no such history and because it's a bit difficult to see how/why a novice could be trusted to carry out 'the job', but ultimately, none of us at present can do more than wonder where the money might have come from, and my guess is no better than anyone else's. However, our default position is to not to state, or imply, possible explanations except to the extent that they are sourced, and usually attributed to the 'speculator'. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)