Talk:2016 Nice truck attack

Terrorism or not?

Should we really be categorizing it under this label? It seems like the investigation is still ongoing and authorities haven't exactly confirmed it was indeed a terrorist attack, at least from where I'm standing. I understand politicians have been calling it terrorism and the perpetrator's accomplices are being charged under terrorism offenses, but I feel like that might not be enough and this is all being done because of sensitivity brought by other terrorist attacks in France in the past year. Thoughts? Parsley Man (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been a very long debate about this at Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks, and the consensus is against inclusion for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose, ianmacm is referring to the debate in Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 7#Proposed addition: 2016 Nice attack which lasted 15–22 July 2016? (I've wikilinked that debate now also in his posting above). I cannot subscribe to his conclusion that any "consensus" has been reached then and there -- but on the other hand, I cannot deny it either. But for sure I totally share the arguments given here by Parsley Man, saying that Wikipedia at this moment should not categorize the Nice attack as terrorism, because, apart from politicians (and some (minor) media) suggesting so, there is no proof yet of it being terrorism. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So, I've scrapped those two Categories from the article, now. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what criteria we could apply, other than those of the investigating authorities (according to custom of country), ie not individual politicians and not individual media (though these are recordable within the text). What slightly concerns me across a number of articles is the tendency to want to attach 'labels' without nuance. In the case of Nice and the Orlando gay bar, early indications are that no terrorist organisation was even aware of the person's existence prior to the attack, let alone directing it, though they have been happy to partially claim responsibility after the event. We may never have a clear picture in these instances of the extent to which personal psychology and conscious political motive played a part, along with individuals who are prepared to go to extremes to achieve notoriety. In one sense 'Nice' clearly fits the descripion 'terrorism', in the other sense, of being directed by an organisation with clear political motives, it fails completely. Recent patterns seem to point to these 'copy-cat', lone-wolf attacks as being on the increase. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism in Wikipedia is clear. Also clear is that for the time being no facts have confirmed this attack to be (such) terrorism and no authorities have said that facts do confirm this to be terrorism. This is what Parsley more or less states here (and I have agreed to). Ianmacm here states that even a consensus in Wiki is reached on this point. Pincrete’s opinion here is unclear: on the one hand he says the Nice attack “fails completely” in the sense of not “being directed by an organisation with clear political motives” as far as we know, on the other hand “clearly fits the descripion 'terrorism'”. I wonder: which other description does he have in mind then? An anonymous editor on 28Sep09:53 without motivation in the article again stated the Nice attack to be ‘terrorism’. Sorry, that’s not what we want so I’ll revert that – we want to see at least an argument for such an important edit, and preferably have such people joining in this here discussion. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify my position, our WP criteria must ordinarily be whether the responsible judicial authorities describe it thus. My other thoughts were simply about whether some recent incidents fit the general understanding of the term, which implies organised, coordinated, targetted acts of violence with specific aims.

WP's own definition of terrorism is irrelevant, we wouldn't use the 'murder' article to decide whether a specific act was murder, even less would we use it to decide whether a person had committed murder. There may be instances where attribution to the authority is required, rather than WP voice (eg Nelson Mandela was legally a terrorist, but would not be seen as that by many people), but the default criteria must be 'official' designation. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST is the policy here. I have wondered what Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was trying to achieve with this attack, as he left behind no credible political or religious explanation of what he had done. It fits the pattern of loon wolf attacks where the person's mental instability is likely to be the major cause of the event.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can any of you please explain how several people have been charged with complicity to the attack under charges such as "murder by a group with terror links", "breaking the law on weapons in relation to a terrorist enterprise" and "conspiracy in relation to a terrorist enterprise" when you claim the attack wasn't terrorism? And why would those people have been involved with such an attack (that had been planned for months) in the first place? User2534 (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel may have received assistance in obtaining the gun or other forms of help, but it is still early days on the motive. The French authorities have used anti-terrorism laws and the article points this out. I'm not a great fan of adding terrorism categories to an article because it usually leads to this kind of debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm, that we need explicit designation from Fr authorities rather than 'incidental' info such as the title of the laws with which people are charged. 'Conspiracy' laws are notoriously used in a 'catch-all' manner in most jurisdictions. My guess would be that, for example, iro the couple who supplied weapons, it may be very easy to prove the supply, but much more difficult to prove that they were consciously part of any conspiracy, which indeed they may well not have been. A previous editor has pointed out that under Fr law, 'terror group' refers to the group of charged individuals, not to any external organisation. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories should be supported unambiguously by text and citations within the article. At the moment, all we know for sure is that the French authorities are using anti-terrorism laws to investigate the case. The article can live without these categories for the time being, because the text goes into more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This was clearly terrorism, and numerous notable sources call it terrorism. [1] [2] [3] [4] No matter if the attacker was a lone wolf or not, it remains terrorism if "a quickly radicalised" (quote of the article) Islamist that supported the IS drives a truck in a crowd. So it has to be categorized that way. Everything else would simply exculpate the actions of the perpetrator or would be an unintelligible academic discussion. It is against common sense as well, as we can see in the terrorism lists in the Wikipedia, where this event is frequently re-added, and rightfully so.--Gerry1214 (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly terrorism per sources above. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I only leave it here. President Hollande said it was "an attack whose terrorist nature cannot be denied". BBC 95.133.216.135 (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Now, is the French president "official" enough for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT faction? ;) This discussion is getting really odd, seems more like "denial of reality" or "killing the messenger" (the attempts to block the IP who tries to get the categorization right). If there is a single substantial argument left for not including the sources and correcting the categorization, please write it here, and please don't refer to a consensus which might have existed a few weeks ago. --Gerry1214 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT faction, please assume good faith. Parsley Man (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Quick disclaimer; I am commenting out of disappointment with the above responses which I'll get to in a moment. The telegraph here and here, Daily Telegraph, BBC (sort of), Mirror and multiple other sources discuss the attack as being a terror attack. Let's be real for a second here, there are in essence only two options here; a) it's a terrorist attack or b) it's mass murder. Unsurprisingly, most sources have chosen option a because it's the more likely option in terms of precedence and because French investigative bodies are investigating for terrorism. I sit firmly on the position that this is a terrorist incident, but, patiently await this to be either confirmed or disproven. I understand politicians have been calling it terrorism and the perpetrator's accomplices are being charged under terrorism offenses, but I feel like that might not be enough ... I feel like. Your feelings do not matter at all. They are irrelevant. That is not an objective statement, it's not grounded in policy, and it's not a neutral viewpoint. I expect better reasoning than this both for and against inclusion. I am currently neutral despite the media tendency to label it as terrorism and even the BBC acknowledges that both investigative authorities and the President of France believe this to be a terrorist attack - Officials said it bore the hallmark of a terrorist organisation and President Hollande said it was "an attack whose terrorist nature cannot be denied". My neutral position lies solely and absolutely on the fact that this is an on-going investigation and that many media outlets tend to make inadequate assumptions on the spot. This was clearly terrorism, and numerous notable sources call it terrorism - unfortunately, this isn't enough. Sources label possible terrorist attacks as terror attacks within hours of them happening, before the investigation has begun, and long before a motive has been identified (sort of a must to identify terrorism). To avoid to much unintelligible academic discussion the previous statement doesn't prove or disprove terrorism. There is a fundamental piece missing from all sources currently out there; to quote the Oxford dictionary terrorism is [t]he unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Motive basically, there are hints that Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was an Islamic radical and ISIS has claimed the attack for themselves which would suggest terrorism, or for conservative viewpoints prove it, but, a political motive is a must to identify terrorism - otherwise it's mass murder. You wouldn't call Columbine a terror attack, you wouldn't call the Port Arthur massacre (Australia) a terror attack, etc. That motive can be to further the cause of ISIS (a political motive), and I personally view this as particularly likely, however, I haven't found anything more definitive that charges being laid down for terrorist related incidents. It's damning alright, but, it's not a definitive insurmountable proof. It's easy to chant "innocent until proven guilty" when it suits your position, more difficult when it goes against what you think, so, while charges have been laid down, verdicts have not. I will wait for the verdict and then state a definitive position. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Claims of responsibility by ISIL are pretty meaningless because they do this all the time. As for media coverage, the media classifying an incident as a terrorist attack is not the same as investigators classifying it as a terrorist attack. Investigators have uncovered plenty of evidence that the attacker was mentally unstable but no clear evidence that he was directed by external forces. This creates a problem, because the attacker left behind no explanation of why he had done it, leaving other people to play at joining the dots. This is why I am in favour of waiting until investigators produce their own conclusions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is simply untrue. I recommend to read the "Perpetrator" section of the article closely again and then write here. There is very clear evidence that he acted under an Islamistic motive, even if radicalised shortly before the attack, quote: "Friends said he began attending a mosque in April[69] and grew a beard for religious reasons only days before the attack.[70] He also began expressing extreme Islamist views[69] and support for Islamic State.[71] Police found images of dead bodies, Osama bin Laden, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the Islamic State flag, and a cover of Charlie Hebdo on his computer, along with links to jihadist websites; he had shown friends an Islamic State beheading video on his phone." If that's not enough anymore, what would you expect? A complete manifest of biblical dimensions? Come on! This is not realistic! Don't we trust our own sourced information in the article anymore? Which other indications should we follow to decide about categorization than sourced information in the article itself? And the assumption that an attacker has to be "directed by external forces" to be a terrorist is absolutely wrong.--Gerry1214 (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI: I just saw that the section I quoted was reworded, but - as far as I can see - the overall synthesis stays the same.--Gerry1214 (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I just went through the entire perpetrator section, and I have a question. Since when does Wikipedia accept material that comes from unreliable sources? An uncle in Tunisia of Lahouaiej-Bouhlel said he heard from a relative... are you kidding me? even if that's published in a reliable source it's not a reliable statement. That's about as useful as; A friend's uncle's daughter's half-sister's mother-in-law's step-father's great grandfather said /insert claim here\. I don't recall it being generally acceptable to insert the opinions or statements of random strangers into Wikipedia articles. I get it when it's being used for a general reference such as Friends said he began attending a mosque in April.... I don't personally agree with it, I don't like anything that doesn't originate from and get published in a reliable source as a reference, but, I can see it being useful. But hearsay is just not reliable.

Other than that, Gerry1214 is right on one point; the assumption that an attacker has to be "directed by external forces" to be a terrorist is absolutely wrong. Correct, the only requirement is a political or religious motive. Otherwise it's a mass murder, not a terrorist attack. In this case, everything is pointing towards a religious motivation, what is missing is an official statement by Fracois Molins that this is indeed a terrorist incident. This isn't enough to declare a terror attack, only a suspected terror attack; Molins said the attack "bore the hallmarks of jihadist terrorism" although a preliminary investigation by French officials had not connected Lahouaiej-Bouhlel to any international terror groups.. One additional thing; Which other indications should we follow.... You shouldn't follow indications to form your own conclusion, at least not when editing Wikipedia. The only acceptable conclusion is the one made by the investigators and French officials. I took a look at Anders Breivik and I noticed something, his article was updated to indicate his actions constituted terrorism the day he was charged with a terrorist related offence [5]. In this case, the perpetrator is dead so he probably won't be "charged" with anything. However, his accomplices have already been charged with terrorist related offences as indicated by; By 21 July, of forementioned arrested, four men and one woman, all previously unknown to the French intelligence agencies, had been charged by the ministère public for "criminal terrorist conspiracy". Furthermore On 18 July, prosecutor Molins said the attack could be defined "terrorism" as described by French law, it's not exactly concrete, but, it's not that far off. Are we playing with unnecessary semantics here? I'm thinking we're creating distinctions without a difference at this point. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing that gets me is that Molins said the attack could be defined as terrorism, which leaves it horribly vague and open-ended. Do we take what we've got while blindfolded and with one arm tied behind our back, or do we wait until we hear something more close to a confirmation from Molins? Parsley Man (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for waiting for confirmation. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems no dispute about what Molins and Hollande have said and nobody opposes including their words. The problem seems to me to be 'categories' and use of the term in the lead. Terrorist-related-charges are irrelevant, since there are many examples of relatively minor offences in the UK during 'IRA' days, being charged as 'terrorist-related'. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but this talk section is now awfully long. Is there still a specific issue concerning 'terrorism' that we as editors should decide something about, here? If so: can someone please formulate that specific issue/question, by starting a subsection here below, with that question in its heading? --Corriebertus (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This article should label this attack 'terrorism'

Yes, there is: there is more than enough evidence for a terrorist motivation in the sources. And I don't see a single source claiming that terrorism is unlikely. So why isn't it called terrorism then? In Germany we say - sorry if it sounds a little unappropriate here: if it waddles and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. But some seem to still want to "beat around the bush".--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Please read the whole discussion again. Parsley Man (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I did and the issue still remains. It also leads to discussions elsewhere.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerry wants the attack to be labeled ‘terrorism’ somewhere in the article, I understand. Presently, section 6.2 has the French public ministry (ministère public) stating: 'the attack could be described as "terrorism" as defined by French law.' Is that enough mentioning for Gerry? If not: (1.) Where else in the article, with what sort of statement, would he want it to be stated, too? (2.) Why does he want this mentioned there? (3.) I've no idea what G means with: 'there is evidence for a terrorist motivation in the sources'. Which evidence? In for example which source?

Literally, for me, ‘terrorism’ means: the striving to cause terror (shock, fright, alarm) in other people. (This is not yet clearly said in article Terrorism, but I can’t improve the whole Wikipedia in one day/week/year/life…) So for me clearly it is – it that sense – terrorism. But that also seems rather (too) trivial to mention somewhere. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be be reflected in the categories and in the infobox of this article and the article should be listed in the corresponding terrorism lists throughout the Wikipedia. It should and can be mentioned in the article as well as in the lists that the investigation is still ongoing, but that there is clear evidence about the Islamistic motivation of the attacker.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerry does not answer my question as to which ‘clear evidence’ he is alluding to. He does not answer my question as to how he wants it mentioned in the article (“in the infobox”… but in what sense then? in what (type of) statement?). He wants the article added to Wiki list(s): please be clear exactly which list(s) you are referring to then. And tell us the purpose of such list; and perhaps why you want this article on that/those list(s). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

But it's not sourced. And don't go around mentioning Hollande again, that's no longer reliable. We need a higher-tier source, per WP:BLPCRIME. Parsley Man (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Cite: "According to French authorities, friends of Lahouaiej-Bouhlel said he began attending a mosque in April 2016.[74] Prosecutor Molins said Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had confided his admiration of ISIL to one of the now-interrogated suspects.[70][75] A few months before 14 July, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had shown friends an ISIL beheading video on his phone,[76] and had said to one of the now-arrested suspects, "I'm used to seeing that".[70] Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's computer contained photos of ISIL combatants and ISIL beheadings,[70] of dead bodies, of Osama bin Laden, Algerian jihadist Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the Islamic State flag, a cover of Charlie Hebdo, and images linked to radical Islamism.[76]

Between 1 and 13 July 2016, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel consulted many websites with treatises on Quranic Surahs, sites with religious chants, and sites of ISIL propaganda.[70] Also, in the weeks before 14 July, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel expressed extremist views, friends told the police.[74] An uncle of Lahouaiej-Bouhlel in Tunisia said that his nephew had been indoctrinated about ten days before 14 July by an Algerian ISIL member in Nice.[77] Lahouaiej-Bouhlel grew a beard only eight days before the attack, for "religious reasons", he told friends.[76][71] The newspaper Nice-Matin published a filmed interview with an eyewitness who recounted hearing from his balcony three times "Allahu Akbar" during the attack;[78][79] Similar reports were circulated on social media.[80][81] Officials have not confirmed the shouting of "Allahu Akbar".[80]"

Seems to be hard to read the article. ;) But if that's "not sourced" why is it in the article? I gave a link to one of those lists above, but repeat it here: List of terrorist incidents in July 2016. Why I want it in there? Because it's clearly related. In the infobox under "attack type" should be the link to terrorism.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh ho ho ho, so because he watches certain videos and grows out a beard and says certain things means he is an Islamic terrorist? This is starting to sound very prejudicial and right-wing. I wouldn't be surprised, given your edit-warring history at Frauke Petry. Do remember that WP:BLPCRIME actually applies here, given there are alive suspects being tried in the case. Parsley Man (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

(Inserted later): Mainly because he attended a mosque, had ISIL material on his computer, visited such websites, expressed extremist views... What more evidence should there be? What evidence is there for another theory? And you shouldn't continue to attack me personally, given the fact that the CU you started against me regarding this article - and about which you didn't even notify me - proved you wrong. There are definitely more people like me who call this terrorism but may not be willing to write here (anymore). See also Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 and Talk:Terrorism in Europe. --Gerry1214 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure many people, probably even non-Muslims, have also watched ISIL material, directly or indirectly, and have not become terrorists yet. We can't take the investigators' words for it just yet. Oh, and apparently attending a mosque is equivalent to being a terrorist. Do you have any idea how Islamophobic that sounds? Parsley Man (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You can play down every single fact for itself, but please stop for a second and put the puzzle together. A man gets indoctrinated, suddenly begins to visit a mosque, wears a beard, admires ISIL, collects ISIL material, expresses extremist views, ... and then drives a truck in a crowd and kills dozens, this is all just a big coincidence for you? Oh please lead me further down the garden path and pick some flowers for me! This is nothing less than a typical pattern of radicalization! And I'm still missing your better theory. And oh yes sure, it is real evil "Islamophobia" to simply call a spade a spade... omg --Gerry1214 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214, you read the article and formed your own opinion, nobody is denying you the right to do that, in fact the article is therefore successful. You read that there is some evidence of most of the things you mention and decided "This is nothing less than a typical pattern of radicalization", fine, that's your opinion, based on the info in the article. Nobody needs to offer you any other "theory" or opinion or persuade you they are right, because they are not trying to insert their theories into the article as fact. Nobody is trying to insert 'this is obviously NOT terrorism' into the article.

Calling 'a spade a spade' is actually when you present facts in a neutral fashion without coming to conclusions for the reader, when you don't try to say three-half-spades and a few 'maybe spades' is obviously a shovel. If the facts are as obvious as you suggest, the reader will also reach the same conclusion as you. I think there are some solid arguments for calling this act 'terrorism', but you thinking this is is 'typical radicalisation' is probably the weakest one I can think of. Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"This is nothing less than a typical pattern of radicalization"? The Islamophobia is real... Parsley Man (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any factual argument? Or just personal attacking? To make it crystal clear for you, my special friend ;): I am not scared of nor do I follow any political or religious ideology other than Grundgesetz and Heavy metal music. And @Pincrete: There is a spade here, not a "maybe spade". Or where have I missed the word "maybe" in the article? So the categories should follow the facts given in the article body.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And these facts are the result of an unfinished, ongoing investigation. We cannot assume anything just yet. Parsley Man (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)"

Parsley Man and Gerry1214, knock it off both of you. Parsley, there was nothing Islamophobic in any of Gerry's comments - quite obvious when in context. Gerry, being left wing and liberal - even ideologically driven - does not equate to being a special needs person. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerry, where are the authorative, reliable sources clearly saying "This is nothing less than a typical pattern of radicalization". When did the official investigation conclude "this is clearly Islamic terrorism". Perhaps the investigations will conclude something like that in time, 'Terrorism' and 'radicalisation' may very well play a big part in whatever is concluded. Until that time, I credit the reader with the same brain as myself in being able to come to his/her own conclusions based on what is so far known, not possible or probable, not even a 'line of enquiry'. That is my 'ideology'. btw, I second Mr rnddude's remarks that Islamaphobia accusations, are not helpful, but neither are assumptions that anyone exercising caution is deluded and/or trying to delude. Pincrete (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

To answer Corriebertus's technical question, there is no need to add to the text, since the Molins/Hollande etc. claims are already covered. The question being asked presently is whether to add 'categories' and add to adjacent lists and possibly modify the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case, absolutely not. We haven't had a straight answer from honest officials just yet. Parsley Man (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as an observation, the "Allahu Akbar", claim is borderline discredited, at least poorly sourced to individual(s), and not confirmed by investigation. The substantive claims are Hollande and how treated by media. The underlying problem here is that we don't have a clear WP guideline. I am neutral about category and more concerned that the article should reflect the nuances of the incident, which in this instance, presently point towards a radicalised/angry individual with no links to any org. - but possibly inspired by these orgs. Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Article on list/categories ‘Terrorism’; Infobox wikilinked on 'Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic'

Gerry(above,14Nov16:58) wants somehow the infobox to say: "attack type: [?..?..?] "(wiki)linked to terrorism"??? Can he be clearer, please!? Presently, the attack type is wikilinked to Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic, thus implicitly asserting it is a terrorist attack! So, in Gerry's viewpoint, that must be exactly right! Why change that 'correct' wikilink then, Gerry!?
Most importantly though, he wants the Nice attack on the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016(14Nov16:58) and wants it "in the categories"(14Nov14:34)--I presume '[ [Category:Terrorist incidents in France in 2016]]' and '[ [Category:Terrorist incidents involving vehicular attacks]]'. Frankly speaking, our article is now contradictory by saying in infobox 'Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic' (so implicitly 'terrorism') but NOT being on that list and in those categories. So it is only a matter of consistency now to add this article to that list and those categories. (Being on that list does NOT mean there is the least certainty about "Islamistic motivation"—that is still only a speculation, as Parsley and Pincrete rightly argued, above.) Pincrete(15Nov10:05) says he is neutral about category ('terrorism'). We'd better (to my idea) remove the contradiction by adding the article to here mentioned list and categories, as Gerry asks--and change the already present wikilink in Infobox in unabbreviated 'Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic'. (To my personal definition(see 14Nov13:21), this is terrorism.) --Corriebertus (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Sounds like an ok solution. I did not see that "Vehicular assault" links to Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. Then the link in the infobox should link to this article directly and the corresponding categories should be used. 2. Corriebertus, you can talk directly to me. ;)--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the inappropriate list in the "See also" section. :D Parsley Man (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To fortify my proposal to add this article to mentioned list and categories ‘terrorism’, and considering that IanMacM above(29Sep05:30) has argued: we’d first need the term to be “widely used by reliable sources”, I’ve made this little inventory of nine sources calling this attack terrorism: “…Nice Shows Limits of Global Hunt for Terrorism” (The Wall Street Journal, 14July2016), “a terrorist attack…” (abc.net.au, 15July), “…part of a move to a do-it-yourself style terrorism…” (USA Today, 15July), “Terrorist truck attack” (The Globe and Mail, Canada, 15July), “Truck terrorist M.L. Bouhlel…” (dailymail.co.uk, 15July), “…Nice attack terrorist…” (Mirror, UK, 17July), “Nice terrorist attack” (The Telegraph, UK, 18July), “Nice terrorist attack” (France24, 18July), “the July 14 terrorist attack in Nice” (Zenit, ‘Independent agency… convinced of the wisdom of the Pontiff and the Catholic Church’, 26Sept2016). --Corriebertus (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the inventory. This wide reception as a terrorist act can't be ignored.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

All of those sources were made days after the attack. Unless you can get a source that confirms the investigation has closed and this was what the investigators found, I will not be swayed. Parsley Man (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually that brings up a question, when was the last time that there was an update on the investigation? I don't think I've seen a single mention since early August. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What did the early August mention entail? Parsley Man (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Had to look through the article to find it, the fifth suspect was transferred to Paris for further questioning. Nothing particularly interesting. A bit weird that from August to November that I haven't seen anything regarding the attack or the investigation. I was hoping somebody had come across something a bit more recent. I've looked around the internet myself but most of the news articles that I found were around the late July period (24th - 27th). Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure something important will come up when investigators find it. This is too big of an event to just ignore, at least in the major media outlets. Parsley Man (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rnddude and Parsley seemed surprised that since 1 August no news was heard from investigations. I’ve checked in the French Wiki: they also have no news after 1 August. Apparently(says French Wiki and I’ve checked that source), network Europe 1 wrote on 18 July: “If Bouhlel actually did have a tie with ISIL, it had nothing to do with religion” and “the favored hypothesis of the investigators remains that of a man who, thanks to the ISIL propaganda, had found a mode of operation and a reason to give rein to his blood-lust”.
Parsley(17Nov) wants French investigations to be closed on the conclusion of terrorism before Wiki may put this attack on lists of terrorism. Sorry, but prosecutor Molins has already said(see §5,'Investigation') on 18July this is terrorism in French law, and if you look up that French definition in our English Wiki, you and probably everybody in the world will easily agree with Molins on that. All investigators can try to find out is the degree of cooperation between the suspects, but that won’t change the French conclusion—already drawn—that this is terrorism.
So I’d like to ask: can Gerry accept that placing ‘Nice’ on such terrorism-lists just means that Bouhlel obviously had the intention to spread terror (for example as meant in the French legal definition of "terrorism"), but does NOT mean we know about any possible further goal Bouhlel had? And can Parsley Man accept that we’d place ‘Nice’ on such lists for that reason? Parsley: aren’t we making Wikipedia ridiculous and unworldly if we leave this attack out of our terrorism lists? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha...nope. We cannot speculate on anything, let alone put this article into any categories and lists; that is pure original research. We can wait years for a final conclusion to be reached in the investigation; WP:NOTFINISHED exists for a reason. Parsley Man (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsley, just read our article well: the investigation is not after the question of yes/no terrorism, it is after questions like (the degree of) organization behind it: "murder and attempted murder by an organised gang ...", etc.. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am, and I understand what you're talking about. But I'm still fighting it because I still feel such a classification, no matter what, is inappropriate until the investigation is closed. There are also suspects being charged for participation in the attack in some degree, so WP:BLPCRIME also applies here. Parsley Man (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies to the rule that we may not say or suggest that the investigated suspects are guilty. That's not the issue here. The issue here is: putting this article on Wiki lists/categories of 'terrorism', because this attack fits the French legal definition (and perhaps other definitions) of terrorism (and several, though perhaps not all, reliable news media have labeled it 'terrorism'). It is very clear that Parsley opposes that proposal. So, let him please stop entering arguments here that are off-topic. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not the only one who opposes this proposal. Read the above discussion and check how many editors agreed with me. Parsley Man (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Parsley Man opposes the proposal given in the heading of this sub-sub-section. I still wait for reaction from Gerry. On 13-14Nov he upheld the idea of "a terrorist motivation" and "the Islamistic motivation" which he considered 'proved' by things like attending a mosque. I think Wikipedia cannot consider any Islamistic motivation to be proved (yet), but nevertheless can acknowledge that the attack complies with the French (and perhaps other) definition(s) of terrorism. (That, by the way, leaves open the possibility that it indeed was an 'Islamistic (terrorist) attack', and of course leaves open the liberty of everyone to believe for himself that is was.) Can Gerry accept that as reason for Wiki to place this attack in categories and on lists of 'terrorism'? --Corriebertus (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism can only be proven if there was a clear-cut political, religious, or ideological motive. Parsley Man (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsley, that is apparently your definition of terrorism. Other definitions, like that French definition, are wider. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I strongly support to follow the French legal definition, as it is relevant here. Obviously that is the reason why the crime is treated as terrorism by the French authorities.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not because of something else? ;) Parsley Man (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There again Parsley fills/pollutes/(frustrates) this section with either off-topic 'arguments' or personal vendettas/attacks. Sir we know your position about the issue. If you don't stop disturbing this polite discussion now I'm really going to have to report you (as I warned you yesterday already on your talk page). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerry for reacting but my question to you was whether you accept, that placing the Nice attack on Wiki lists of 'Terrorism' does NOT mean that Wiki considers this attack to be 'Islamisticly motivated' or 'motivated by terrorist views'—as you previously contended(13-14Nov). Your answer is important because Parsley and Beejsterb (and perhaps others) oppose listing it as 'terrorism' because they (erroneously) consider such a listing a (wrong) affirmation of the attack having "a clear-cut political, religious, or ideological motive"(Parsley,19Nov07:08). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Parsley Man here that the incident has not been confirmed as terrorism, even if the suspect appears to have been radicalized, there is still no evidence that he was motivated by terrorist views, unlike the Orlando shooter who stated his viewpoint before committing the atrocity. It is still a suspected terrorist incident, though. Beejsterb (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

But it would be original research to list and categorize it under terrorism because we suspect it to be. Parsley Man (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's also a WP:DUE situation and we're (I think) fairly distributing that WP:DUE consensus in the article. At least thrice in the lede we bring up that it could be terrorism - as described by most sources. The key issue being that we must not describe it in definite terms; "is terrorism". That is until we know in definite terms that it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean you are for or against the proposal here at stake? And which definition of terr do you follow: the def of Parsley or the French legal def, or still another one? --Corriebertus (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cargo truck wikilink

Btw can we de-link "Cargo truck" in the infobox, that's such a pointless link. Links are meant to transfer people to articles they might be interested in. I highly doubt anybody reading the article is going to be interested in large goods vehicles beyond that it was the main weapon used. I.e. it's not getting any clicks. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider it done. ;) Parsley Man (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It was removed from the lede, not the infobox. The French term is "poids lourd", which is the European classification "heavy goods vehicle". The US term "cargo truck" is not used in the UK ("lorry" is the generic word). That might explain why there is a wikilink: to clarify matters. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see it as being a pertinent use of a wikilink given that it's explained in context; "a 19 tonne cargo truck". Mr rnddude (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Didn't know there was also a link in the infobox. I'll remove it too. Parsley Man (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Organizing/updating sections 3 and 5

Pincrete on 15 October (see this previous Talk section) wondered what my intention had been with my edit of 13 October attempting to organize/update §5 and §3, and raised some objections. Today I’ve endeavoured a reconsidered updating/organizing edit, which I explain here below. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Main objectives

In the old version of the article I perceived three shortcomings that could be remedied:
(1) Section 5 (‘Investigation’) alluded to and hinted at ‘terrorism’ but gave no clarity about who might have started or ordered any investigations, into exactly what, and for exactly what reason;
(2) Information about Bouhlel’s possible preparations and possible motives for the attack appeared scattered over § 3 and 5 with bits of repetition between them;
(3) The assertions in §3 about Bouhlel’s [1]‘not registered fiche "S"’, [2]’no links to terrorist organizations’, [3]‘radicalised..quickly’, [4]’interest in jihadist movement’ did not contain factual biographical information about B. If an inquiry is running concerning possible (organized) (Islamist) terrorism in which B is involved (see updated §5), non-strictly-biographical info on B might be better placed in §5(‘Inquiry’).
Remedies: (ad 1) Reference source Le Monde 14 July (ref 22 in the article, ‘Ce que l’on sait…’) resolved this obscurity by informing us that the ministère public (le parquet) in Paris late on 14 July had initiated an inquiry (French: une enquête) into possible (organized) (Islamist) terrorism, which inquiry indeed entailed investigations. It seemed logical to me to put that introduction in a subsection 5.1, and it also seemed logical to add the first summarized conclusions of the inquiry (15, 17, 18 and 21 July) to that subsection. Also it seemed logical to rename section 5 after the inquiry that it covers;
(ad 2) I’ve concentrated all relevant info concerning Bouhlel’s possible preparations and possible motivations for the attack, until now scattered over §3 and §5, now in §3. But while all such information is of importance also for section 5 (‘Inquiry on (organised) (Islamist) terrorism’), I’ve placed a reminder in the top of §5 telling readers that such info is to be found in §3;
(ad 3) Those four assertions[1,2,3,4], until now in §3, contain conclusions/interpretations drawn by authorities either from facts about B that we know or perhaps (also) from facts we don’t know[3 and 4], or the result from examining the registers of the intelligence services[1 and 2]. Both types of assertions logically belong in (the top part of) updated §5 (where I’ve summarized preliminary outcomes of the inquiry/investigations). If helpful we can put some sort of reminder in §3 to alert readers that such conclusions etc. are to be found in §5. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Further organizing §5

Incriminating facts concerning the six suspected possible accomplices, and facts on their arrests, were scattered through section 5 without overall structuring principle. I’ve organised this by first separately tell about the arrests, and then tell the incriminating facts per suspect, putting together all info concerning suspect 1, then suspect 2, et cetera. While doing so I checked on some of the given ref sources which led to some (minor) corrections. Other ways of organizing this section are perhaps possible: go ahead if you know a better way. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Further organizing §3(Perpetr.)

• I’ve checked some of the assertions from the given ref sources, which in some cases led to a longer or more correct summary.
• In some given refs, I found info on Bouhlel that I considered relevant but had not yet been included in our article, so I’ve added that. (If you find some of those additions irrelevant, please say so and remove them.)
• While the previously already quite long (and centrally important) §3 had now grown to some 750 words, I’ve split it up into three thematical subsections, for surveyability and clarity, one of them being the large subsection (some 375 words) on Bouhlel’s ‘Interests in mortal violence and in (radical) Islam’. We are dealing with a potential (organized) (Islamist) terrorist attack that is being inquired into (see §5). (Mortal) violence and (radical) Islam are the ingredients of Islamist terrorism. It is then appropriate and logical to have perpetrator Bouhlel’s interests in mortal violence and in (radical) Islam, facts that could potentially connect him to Islamist terrorism, grouped together in one (sub)section somewhere in the article. Any subdivision of a section is ofcourse always disputable: if you’d rather have a different or no subdivision in §3, please say so and give arguments (and alter it).
• I’ve changed template ‘main article|Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’ into ‘See also|Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’. The referring line: { {main article|/..subject../}} in the top of a section means: the referred ‘main article’ contains all information that Wikipedia has assessed as relevant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia concerning that indicated subject/topic; any section in another article referring in its top line to that ‘main article’ is only presenting a summary of that main article. In that sense, the referring line ‘{ {main article|Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel}}’ in the top of section ‘Perpetrator’ has always been incorrect since it was inserted on 15July16:10: already then, the section in article 2016 Nice attack had information on Bouhlel that the alleged ‘main article Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’ did not have. In such a situation, the correct reference should be: ‘{ {See also|Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel}}’.
• I’ve changed the section’s title into ‘Perpetrator Bouhlel (biography)’ for reasons of politeness and clarity. (If you disapprove, revert that title and give a reason why.) --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Answering previous objections from Pincrete

Abbreviated names of suspects

Pincrete on 21 July 2016, in some discussion here, seemed to object to the ‘names’ of the suspects being named in this article, by asking: “Is there any point in naming suspects (…)?” My idea on that is: people have names to make it easier to indicate them and to enease the verification that the person indicated at one point (e.g. in a Wiki article) is the same as the person indicated somewhere else (e.g. in a news source). But indicating someone with only a first name and an initial of his surname—as news sources do with criminal suspects—is not mentioning their full name and thus not gravely violating their privacy. (Therefore, the removing of names on 21July21:16, by Timothy was unneeded.) The point in mentioning those abbreviated names here is the point of surveyability, verifiability and clarity, and this way of mentioning is the widely accepted compromise in such cases between clarity and respect for privacy. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

When charged, and in the public domain, I see no reason to exclude names. We don't normally name people peripherally involved though, nor those released without charge or found not guilty, unless there is some good reason. Pincrete (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Poor English

Pincrete disagreed (see Talk section above, 15 Oct) with my writing: “the ministère public… having a national competence for terrorism”, which he calls poor or wrong English and says should be: “…national responsibility…”. The Wiki article Ministère public (France) however says that that institution is “charged with defending the interests of society … and can exercise a public action in penal infractions [on] the ordre public”, so I concluded they have the competence to do something in a case of (possible) terrorism. The Le Monde article (14Jul) confirms that the ministère has a section on anti-terrorism. If Pc still disagrees he can ‘correct’ my description, with his motivation. (As for poor or wrong English: if you encounter that in an otherwise constructive edit, the polite and constructive thing to do is correct it.) --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This was simply one example, however 'competence' does not mean what you seem to think it means. 'Competence' means having the necessary skills etc to perform a task properly. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Corriebertus, how many times do I have to say it? 'Competence' in English, does not mean what you seem to think it means (see above), perhaps 'responsibility' is meant. I get the impression that your French may be much better than mine, which can be a great asset on a French subject like this, but I'm sorry, you aren't alert to the nuances of English. Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to react on this remark/discussion. I disagree here with you Pc--though I admit ofcourse that chances are high that often your English will be better than mine. But according to my dictionary, in English as well in my own language, 'competence' (competentie) has several meanings. Nevertheless, it is not too big a deal for me, and I see that someone has already adapted or 'corrected' this sentence. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Breaking coherent paragraphs

Pincrete on 15Oct objected against my “breaking coherent paragraphs [into 'tabloid-y' mini-sections]”. I presume he meant my ‘breaking’ old §3? I’ve changed that approach now, no longer breaking some aspects out of §3 to move them into §5. (But still I’ve had to move four assertions, that don’t contain factual biographical info, from §3 to §5: see my arguments above in ’Main objectives’.) --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Having almost more sub-sections headings than paragraphs does not make for a coherent account.Pincrete (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Title of §3

Pincrete on 15 Oct. objected to changing that title in a way that made the section seem a criminal/psychiatric/police profile. That was not my intention. In today’s edit I do slightly adapt that section title: see motivation above in ’Further organizing §3(Perpetr.)’. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The customary section heading is simply 'perpetrator', or his/her full name, it adequately covers all biographical info and needs no further explanation.Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Interest in mortal violence

Pincrete asked on 15 Oct.: “Why 'interest in mortal violence' for what is barely a para”. In the old §3, we had 4½ sentences about B’s (general) interest in Islam, 5½ extra sentences on his interests in extreme/radical Islam or ISIL, one extra assertion on an ISIL beheading, and one assertion on dead bodies. In my updated version, the (long) subsection §3.2 on ‘Interests in mortal violence and in (radical) Islam’ (see motivation above in ’Further organizing §3(Perpetr.)’) still has 4½ stc on general Islam; some 7½ stc on his interests in ‘radical’ Islam like ISIL; one new long sentence on B’s interests in general mortal incidents; and the already mentioned assertions on ISIL beheading and dead bodies.
It is hard to decide whether his interest in ISIL, bin Laden, Belmokhtar – interests that might have been enhanced by their familiarity with mortal violence – is to be understood as ‘interest in Islam’ or (also) ‘interest in (mortal) violence’. But putting those two sorts of interests (essential elements of Islamist terrorism into which an inquiry is running) together in one subsection has the advantage of not having to decide exactly how to ‘label’ some of those interests of Bouhlel. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You are making conjectures which are outside the remit of the article. He may have watched certain kinds of material, that we know perhaps. Why or what it indicates is not our business. Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

'suspect 1' etc.

Pincrete on 15 Oct. asked me: “Why 'suspect 1' (etc.)”. As I stated above in ’Further organizing §5’: other ways of organizing and presenting this information are perhaps conceivable; go ahead if you know a better way. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Use their names, it's how sources refer to them.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 3 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)

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)

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)

Heading of §3.2 (Bouhlel, Islam, mortal violence)

On 2 November, for (obvious) reasons I've then tried to explain, I've split §3 (‘Perpetrator’) into three parts. Ofcourse that splitting-up in itself can be challenged or amended, but apart from moving one paragraph from §3.3 to §3.1 that has not yet been done. On 2 November, I gave titles to those sub-sections, and the title I gave to §3.2 is now being criticized (see section 'Extraneous and unhelpful sub-headings') as being: (1)"too long-winded", (2)not summarizing the section "all that well", or (3)"not identifying the principal subject of the section". As for (1): a title can be right or wrong, clear or unclear, biased or unbiased, longer (6, 7 words) or shorter (3, 2, 1 word), but when is a section title 'long-winded' (boring, etc.)? (and when ‘too long-winded’?) It’s a value-laden, pejorative remark, too vague to be withspoken or refuted. Perhaps Mr rnddude meant: ‘it is long-winded and too long’? I agree that we must always strive for as short a title as possible—but I hope Mr rnddude agrees that more important than a title’s shortness must for us always be its clarity, correctness, unbiasedness.
If I roughly draw an inventory of section 3.2 – which by the way I’ve put chronologically – I see it include (at least) remarks concerning:

• (a) radical Islam while not explicitly mentioning ISIL: 3x
• (b) ISIL: 5x (one of them: ISIL beheading)
• (c) Islam but not explicitly radical: 5x
• (d) mortal incidents, without reference to Islam or ISIL: 2x (i.e.: searches on Internet; consulting articles on fatal accidents)
• (e) dead bodies
• (f) Osama; Mokhtar.

I then chose the 7-word-title: “Interests in mortal violence, (radical) Islam, ISIL”. Pincrete challenges: that title does not identify the principal subject of the section. Apparently, for him that principal subject is conveyed in(10Nov22:46): “Possible interest in radical Islam”, and Mr rnddude(10Nov12:44) seems to agree to that. Well: most of that ‘principal subject’ was included in my title, except perhaps the ‘possible’-part. Where does Pc discern “possible” interest in rad Islam? Those dead bodies? News articles on fatal accidents? I’d not appreciate to see Wikipedia steering or indoctrinating our readers to interpret such facts as ‘(possibly) radical islam’. Those facts/interests we must certainly mention though, because they could, apart from indeed perhaps interest in (rad.)Islam, also signal just pure interests or hang-ups of Bouhlel with death or mortal violence. As for “principal (subject)”: it is arbitrary/subjective to appoint any ‘principal subject’ in the section. If you’d take together the above given ‘categories’ (a+b+f) they’d sum up to (at least) 10 remarks with link to ‘radical Islam’. Otherwise, if you’d take together (a+c+f) you’d have 10 remarks linking to ‘Islam’. Otherwise, if you’d take together (d+e+f) and the ISIL-beheading-remark, that would sum up to 6 remarks somehow linked to death(ly incidents/violence). Quite roughly and contestably, I fully admit. But do we as editors need or want to make it a race and tell the readers which issue has ‘won’ and is ‘the principle issue’ in §3.2? I don’t think we should or need to. My title discerned four major issues of §3.2: Islam (10), radical Islam (10), mortal violence (5 or 6), ISIL (5) (and I’ve put ‘Interest in mortal violence’ in front because chronologically it seems to have come first in Bouhlel’s life).
If we leave two of those topics (interest for general Islam and for general deathly incidents) out of the section’s heading, as is the case since 10Nov22:46, because by some arithmetic they’ve ‘lost the race’ for being 'the principal topic' of the subsection, we are (needlessly) steering, leading, the readers as to think that (most likely) the Nice attack is a product of radical Islam(/ISIL). Yes, you can consider the chosen title of 2 November tiresomely or unusually ‘(too) long’ for a Wiki heading—though it is only two words longer than Pincrete’s (‘steering’) title of 10November. But maybe we should better just accept that reality sometimes is complicated and ‘tiresome’ and that sometimes some five-words-section-heading would undesirably oversimplify and bias the contents of some section. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Where does Pc discern “possible” interest in rad Islam? Those dead bodies? News articles on fatal accidents? I'd hazard a guess at between; Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's ... had been in contact[68] or may have been in contact[69] with ... Islamic radicals, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had confided his admiration of ISIL and Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had shown friends an ISIL beheading video on his phone. Other evidence would include; Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's computer contained photos of ISIL combatants and ISIL beheadings, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel consulted many websites with treatises on Quranic Surahs, sites with religious chants, and sites of ISIL propaganda, and Lahouaiej-Bouhlel expressed extremist views. Headings should be short and to the point. Interests in mortal violence, (radical) Islam, ISIL isn't only too long but also exceptionally convoluted. Having an interest in mortal violence is far too vague; e.g. You're interested in working on this article, this article is about a violent event, therefore you have an interest in violence and violent events. At most you could reconfigure the heading to be; "Possible interests in ISIL and radical Islam". Alternatively, you can also separate out the mortal violence bits under a separate subheading; "Interest in violent acts and events" or similar. ISIL and Radical Islam together account for the lions share of the discussion, while violence itself without context is given minimal attention - such as the first sentence of the second paragraph. Much of his interest in violence is centered on ISIL as shown by his interest in ISIL beheading videos. Hence my proposed change. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I’ve asked Mr rnddude: when is a title too long-winded? For an answer he now characterizes the problem with that (seven-word-)title (see above) as: ‘convoluted’, meaning something like complicated. Yes my friend, that title is complicated, and it is deliberately so, because the complicated nature of the content of the section makes a complicated title inevitable, necessary. And the content of the section is complicated because we (the world) are all still guessing at what exactly was going on in B’s head.
Because of that guessing-game that is going on, it seemed useful to me, to throw facts like his apparent ‘fascination’ with violent events in the same subsection as his obvious itches concerning ISIL etc., and then deliberately give that section a ‘convoluted’ title, thus leaving undecided whether (for example) interests in car accidents are part of his Islamic radicalism, or should be considered to stand apart from that as interests in 'just' mortal violence. Only by throwing it all in ONE section and then giving that section such a ‘complicated’ title, we render all liberties to the readers to interpret such facts the way they wish.
Other example: by using that convoluted title, it is not Wikipedia who decides whether looking at Quranic Surahs points at interest in radical Islam or points at interest in just ‘normal’ Islam: the ‘complicated’ title is simply saying to the reader: “you may decide as how you want to understand those facts, we don’t decide for you”. Samewise, the complicated title leaves room for the reader to see fascination with a beheading either as sign of radical Islam, or to see it as sign of 'just' a hang-up with killings. I repeat: the ‘convoluted’ title is (I think) the only way to relay all such choices in the hands of the reader. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no set rule as to when a title is too long, but, when I have to read an entire sentence to know what the upcoming section is about, it's too long. Convoluted does mean complicated simplistically, however, in this context what I mean is this; so complex to the point that I'm struggling to follow. On-going events tend to have the problem of needing regular updates to keep up with the evolving story. The story has and continues to decidedly evolve, from the media and investigative perspectives, towards a terrorist incident. We do readers no favours by suggesting our own conclusions and we also don't do them any favours in leaving everything in ambiguity. The point of Wikipedia is to report what the RS report, not, to lead readers to "a realm of possibilities". Where competing viewpoints exist (in the RS) we report all of them. Are any of the RS you have read suggesting that the reason for the attack might be fascination with violence? or is this a conclusion you personally deem possible and thus have worked into the article. All of the RS I have read either speculate terrorism or just state outright that it was an attack that is under investigation. We can argue one, we can argue the other, what we can't do is create our own plausible conclusions and insert them into the article. No where have I read anything about him having "interests in mortal violence" or this motivating the attack. I have read about him possibly having connections to ISIL and potentially being radicalized through exposure to ISIL propaganda. The title starts with a conclusion that it seems you have personally drawn, the following two I have read reported strongly in the media and by the investigative authorities. You're correct that this is a complicated situation, it always is, but, adding layers of complexity does nothing for the reader. I don't think they'll walk away from the article with their own idea, I think they'll walk away with no idea. The section and the sources used allude heavily to an ISIL and/or radical Islam connection - both directly and indirectly - it should feature prominently in the section title. Any potential fascination with violence, is not only an OR drawn conclusion but also isn't a strong presence in the section and thus should not be featured in the section title - let alone the opening statement. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Mr rnddude is saying, and am not wedded to present title, there are guidelines, but in the end it is a subjective judgement as to when a title is clear, neutral and helpful. I don't agree that complicated content necessitates a complex title, a clear, apt general one is better. The section's main content. as I see it, is discussing to what extent he was contact with radical Islam or radical Islamic sites, to a lesser extent other, possibly relevant, 'violence' sites. My summary of the section content may be flawed, but it makes more sense to better summarise what IS there, or should be there, than to break it up into component parts.

If we know that the perp. showed a great interest in (for example) beheading videos, let's say that clearly in the text, but an 'interest in mortal violence', would cover everything from being an Amnesty supporter to a psychopathic obsession with 'snuff movies'.

I'll assume Where does Pc discern “possible” interest in rad Islam? Those dead bodies? was a rhetorical question. Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand the objection against the convoluted title of 2Nov(see above), which was too complex to quickly grasp and possibly overemphasizing 'mortal violence'. I've thought out a less complicated title – which is also shorter: 5 instead of 7 words. This title says exactly what the section is covering (without directly speculating neither on 'mortal violence' nor on Islam) and that cannot be said shorter, I'm afraid. Titles must be correct and unbiased, if that in some cases means the title is five words(the previous title was also five words), so be it (, alas).
Yes, some speculations (newspapers, uncle, friends, Cazeneuve, Molins, his computer content) suggest he may have been radicalised and/or ISIL-minded. People will read that immediately in the section, so no need to put it in the section title, which would be 'leading' the reader to an interpretation. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted a number of edits, attempting at the same time to incorporate 'tweaks', apologies if I've missed any. At the same time I renamed the 'mortal violence/links to radical Islam/poss motives section 'Possible affiliations', I took this from 'his' article. I hope it covers any org or group that he might have been linked to, or which may have been conjectured. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea what Pincrete(15Nov16:20) means with: “…'his' article”. Ofcourse §3.2 is partly about ‘possible affiliations’ but there’s more in it: see for example the second paragraph (a hang for violence). See also the third paragraph and further: a man can also be muslim, or radicalised/extremised, or adoring ISIL, or adoring beheadings, without being affiliated to groups. We’ve been discussing this all at length here since 13Nov12:45, why does Pincrete suddenly ignore al that? --Corriebertus (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"His article' refers to the perpetrators article, it's quicker than typing his name. If others are happy with 'motives', I'm not going to complain, though I see no mention of 'motives', nor speculation about them. … … ps this article is coming off my watchlist, if anyone wishes to 'ping', please do. Pincrete (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)