Jump to content

Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎When a cat is called a cat: Replying to Alivebills (reply-link)
Line 146: Line 146:
::{{u|Cygnis insignis}}, so what? This is not about climate change. Do you have any proper argument, or just superficial remarks? --[[User:Edelseider|Edelseider]] ([[User talk:Edelseider|talk]]) 20:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
::{{u|Cygnis insignis}}, so what? This is not about climate change. Do you have any proper argument, or just superficial remarks? --[[User:Edelseider|Edelseider]] ([[User talk:Edelseider|talk]]) 20:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The article also says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'." [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/14/police-strasbourg-attacker-accomplices-cherif-chakatt-isis With a source to boot]. [[User:Alivebills|Alivebills]] ([[User talk:Alivebills|talk]]) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The article also says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'." [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/14/police-strasbourg-attacker-accomplices-cherif-chakatt-isis With a source to boot]. [[User:Alivebills|Alivebills]] ([[User talk:Alivebills|talk]]) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Alivebills}}, I didn't give them a click, for what I think are obvious reasons. Cheers for bringing the quotation. [[User talk:Cygnis insignis|cygnis insignis]] 21:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:03, 24 December 2018

Photo of Chérif Chekatt

@Sandstein: You uploaded a non-free image of the living person, File:Chérif Chekatt.png. I don't know why the image is necessary. It doesn't increase readers' understanding of the event itself; the article is not primarily about the suspect. George Ho (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the image pending decision on if French State media is fair use. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be seen as part of the ongoing effort to find him. See also https://twitter.com/PoliceNationale/status/1072933158407016449. --Edelseider (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, Kingsif. I also added RFU and PROD tags; re-pinging Sandstein for notification. George Ho (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is as much about the suspect as it is about his crime. Given that he is a fugitive, there is also a compelling public interest in displaying his photograph so that he can be recognized by readers; this is why the police made the image available. I'll be re-adding the image. Sandstein 20:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the police bulletin with his image and other info is more appropriate for the article because the manhunt is a main aspect of the subject. I think that the bulletin has more contextual significance (the 8th non-free use criterion). AHeneen (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently seems to have fair use criteria applicable. Wikimedia page should be updated. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works by French authorities are not in the Public Domain in the way works by US Federal employees are. On the other hand, the photograph is an identity photograph, entailing that it was probably taken by an automatic device, and in any case that the very point of the photograph is to provide a standardised portrait of the subject ­— in other words to eliminate originality, which negates the source of copyright. It is therefore rather likely that the image is in the public domain for lack of originality. Rama (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, even with standards of the French law (c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France), the US law would also apply, meaning that the image is to be treated as "fair use" in the US. Moreover, the Wikimedia servers are located in the US; Wikimedia projects are primarily bound to the US law. Unsure whether WP:non-U.S. copyrights is precise on this. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, it's removed/orphaned; if anyone objects, please feel free to revert. George Ho (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Sandstein 12:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's re-removed. George Ho (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the image is deleted as "replaceable"; the deleting admin Explicit must be contacted first if anyone wants the image un-deleted. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Explicit will now provide the replacement image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: WP:NFCC#1 does not require a free image to exist at the moment, but that the possibility for one to be created. We did not use a non-free image for Kim Jong-un simply because one did not exist and it was difficult to create one.
The perpetrator of this attack is still alive, so the possibility of creating a freely licensed photo still exists. Even if he was dead, precedent has shown that the use of a non-free image about the perpetrator in the article about the attack and not a biographical article did not comply with WP:NFCC. The uploader Sandstein should be well aware of this. ℯxplicit 04:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in here to correct you: at the time of your comment, he had been dead for three days, a fact advertised on the main page in the news, and in the lead of the article, and on the image file page. Kingsif (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: Maybe we should discuss images of suspects and perpetrators at WT:NFC. Shall the issue be discussed there right away, or what else? George Ho (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: You have asserted that the image is "replaceable". How so? Or would you care to reconsider your deletion rationale, now you know the facts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Thank you for correcting me, I did indeed misread the infobox in 2018 Strasbourg attack#Attacker.
@Pigsonthewing: That does ultimately not address the replaceability issue, as noted on File talk:Chérif Chekatt.png by both Jayron32 and Thryduulf. Where is the evidence of the extensive search for a non-free image of the subject? Did any contributor reach out to people who possibly could be in possession of such a picture (family, friends, witnesses, etc)? Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg regarding the use of a non-free image of Sally Brampton three days after her death, which was replaced within two weeks when someone made an effort to obtain a freely license image as an example. Additionally, as I mentioned above, the precedent that disallows use of a non-free image of the perpetrator in the article about the attack as opposed to its use in a biographical article about the perpetrator remains unaddressed. I have yet to see any WP:NFCC-related justification for the use of this image. ℯxplicit 14:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several claims that a fair use image here would not be replaceable - although they essentially all boil down to "he's dead", not even "he's dead and I can't find anything on Google images" (even the latter is, per long-standing precedent, not sufficient). However nobody has even attempted, as far as a I am aware, to demonstrate compliance with NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that Explicit believes Wikipedians should "reach out" to the family of recently killed suspected terrorist, or to witnesses of a terrorist atrocity, asking for pictures. I trust that no-one is either stupid or callous, enough to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice assumption of bad faith their Andy. In previous discussions it has been made clear, by Explicit and others, that reaching out should be done in a sensitive manner (e.g. by waiting - there is no deadline) but this is not the only way to find free images, also as repeatedly noted. You will also note that there is no provision in the NFCC for allowing a fair use image because it might be insensitive to contact some of the people who might have a free image and/or may release a non-free image under a free license. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only assumption of bad faith is yours: "Did any contributor reach out to people who possibly could be in possession of such a picture (family, friends, witnesses, etc)? ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? How does Explicit asking a simple question asking whether anyone has done those things demonstrate that I am assuming bad faith? You are the person who believes that Explicit is asking people to be "callous" or "stupid". There are good reasons why it is probably too soon to reach out to those people, but the fact remains that unless you or someone else has made a thorough attempt to locate a free image (for example by reaching out as described) then it is not possible to be certain a fair use image meets NFCC #1. Not that this is at all relevant until point 8 (which you are still ignoring) is satisfied. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Strasbourg attack → 2018 Strasbourg shooting – Why use the vague term 'attack' when 'shooting' is a much better suited word? Not to mention it makes it consistent with similar article titles like Charlie Hebdo shooting or 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Wq639 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that shooting is better than attack, because it's more precise. Strasbourg shooting would be better; we don't need the year in the title, because there haven't been any other notable shootings in Strasbourg. Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting Brainist (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closed off-topic debate
"Terror attack" doesn't really mean anything; it's a suggestive term news media use when saying "terrorism" would potentially be inaccurate/libellous. We definitely shouldn't use that phrase in the title of an article (or anywhere else, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tell it to Wikipedia, see if you can convince her: "List of Islamist terrorist attacks". XavierItzm (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't say "terror attack" either. It says "terrorist attack". "Terror" and "terrorist" are not interchangeable. TompaDompa (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go tell the New Yorkers: "September 11 attacks". XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me. That doesn't say "terror attack" either. My objection is to your suggestion that the article be named "2018 Strasbourg terror attack", specifically because "terror attack" does not have any real meaning, and not because of any objections to the word "attack". TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Look: you have the 9/11 attacks, you have the Strasbourg attack. The only real difference is scale. XavierItzm (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it just wrong to compare this to 9/11, the reason for confusion is because you have been insisting on using the term "terror attack", and then use as evidence a page simply called "attacks", and then be patronising about it. And this is after it was requested you stop with this debate separate to the discussion at hand. Stop. Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't title articles "terror attack". Please resume discussion on whether it should be called "shooting" or not. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting. Rama (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting, it was, by the way, the name i gave to this article when i created it. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the justification for including the year? Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, France, like other countries are repeatedly targeted by this kind of actions, if, in the future, there is another shooting in Strasbourg, the year will be useful in order to differentiate them. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't name articles based on what might happen in the future. If another notable shooting happens in Strasbourg, we would change this article title at that time. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point with including the date ? Indeed, this shooting occurred in 2018. also, many Wikipedia articles have a title that contains a date. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below about WP:NCEVENTS: for events, the title should usually include three elements when, where, and what. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. WP:NCEVENTS even explains «There are no other [xyz] articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier.» XavierItzm (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If it had been a knife attack would we call the article 'Strasbourg knifing'? Almost certainly not. So what's special about an attack with guns as opposed to any other implement? Attack is a better description. 86.148.182.127 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well what about this for instance, 2018 Paris knife attack? --Wq639 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are others, including 2016 Hamburg stabbing attack, 2017 Hamburg knife attack, 2018 Hamburg stabbing attack & Munich knife attack. However, the reason against changing this article's title to include shooting is that The Guardian article states that CC stabbed some of his victims. Jim Michael (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These article titles might suggest '2018 Strasbourg Shooting (or Gun) Attack' for the current article, but it's then getting unwieldly, so my preference is still '2018 Strasbourg Attack'. 86.148.182.127 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting name change. It better describes the damage done than the vague word "attack". I mean editors accuse each other every day on Wikipedia of attacking each other and no one dies. "Shooting" is more accurate. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent was the knife used in the attack then? As far as I understand the fatalities were shot by the gun, and much of the media have called this incident a 'shooting', with little if any coverage about him stabbing. --Wq639 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Würzburg train attack (ax and knife,) 2016 Normandy church attack (explosives and knives,) 2017 Orly Airport attack (pellet gun,) April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack, (shooting,) 2017 Levallois-Perret attack (car ramming,) 2017 Notre Dame attack (hammer and knives,) Carcassonne and Trèbes attack, (shooting.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below about WP:NCEVENTS: for events, the title should usually include three elements when, where, and what. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, the shooting is the primary event - the presence of a knife is fairly incidental. Also support retaining year - it helps to identify the subject, not simply differentiate it from other events in Strasbourg. Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He stabbed some of his victims, so the knife was a significant part of the attack. We usually use attack when there are multiple types of weapons used, and often even when there was only one type. The year is only needed in the title to disambiguate, otherwise we'd name our articles 1987 Hungerford massacre, 2001 9/11 attacks, 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting, 2018 Toronto van attack etc. In any case, many years in the future, a high proportion of people looking for this article won't remember its year, hence they wouldn't type the year in the search box when looking for this article. Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below about WP:NCEVENTS: for events, the title should usually include three elements when, where, and what. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree on the basis that it wasn't just a shooting. It might be better to change the title of the CH shooting to "CH shooting attack" or just "attack on CH". Sweatisoftheessence (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what others have said about a knife being used, that makes it more of an attack then a shooting even if the shooting was the main way of causing harm. TheMesquitobuzz 11:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as mentioned by several others, news reports indicate that he knifed several victims. Even if the shooting was the main part of the attack, I think that the knifing incidents should make the the title "attack" and not just "shooting". Also, some have said that the year should not be included, but the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions says that event page names should include when, where, & what, unless another name is more common or the event is easily known without the year (eg. "Tenerife airport disaster", "Chernobyl disaster", "Charlie Hebdo shooting", "September 11 attacks"). WP:PRECISION says that "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." The events naming convention is thus one of the exceptions to the precision criterion. I think just "Strasbourg attack" is too vague, because "attack" could imply one of the many times the city was militarily attacked in its history. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Islamic State claimed the attack

Maybe we should mention that the Islamic State claimed responsibility of the attack through its Amaq news website, but also adding that it didn't give any evidence.[1]

In addition, it seems that the attacker was supporting IS, but we have to wait until the investigation is over in order to be sure.[2] Gre regiment (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you are right. Thank you! How did I miss it? lol Gre regiment (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Islamic State says Strasbourg shooter was one of its soldiers, gives no evidence
  2. ^ Official: Strasbourg Market Gunman Pledged Allegiance to IS

Chekatt had pledged allegiance to the "Islamic State", this is now established

--Edelseider (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a terrorist attack. Pigsonthewing says so. Alivebills (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misquote me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep removing the Islamic terrorism template, so... Alivebills (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Andy Mabbett the ultimate holder of truth here? This is just incredible! --Edelseider (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a cat is called a cat

This article from Spiked calls the attack an "Islamist attack". That's for the people who ask for sources calling that islamist attack an islamist attack... --Edelseider (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edelseider, nice, they also say that climate change is overstated. cygnis insignis 19:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cygnis insignis, so what? This is not about climate change. Do you have any proper argument, or just superficial remarks? --Edelseider (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'." With a source to boot. Alivebills (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alivebills, I didn't give them a click, for what I think are obvious reasons. Cheers for bringing the quotation. cygnis insignis 21:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Strasbourg_attack&oldid=875238890"