Jump to content

Talk:2017 New York City truck attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.193.104.227 (talk) at 10:23, 1 November 2017 (→‎Neutrality of point of view and Trump.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest

Now possibly 6 people are dead according to CNN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio reports are saying that the assailant had a BB gun, not a firearm. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting title to be changed to '2017 Manhattan attack' or '2017 New York City attack'

Per WP:NOTABILITY, media and sources refer to incident as 'New York attack' or 'Manhattan attack'.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, we need a familiar title that is being used as the WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I ment WP:COMMONNAME. My bad.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not name it "2017 New York City Truck Attack"? 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "2017 New York City truck attack" (note caps). West Side Highway is simply too parochial. I do see the need to disambigulate from the "2017 Times Square car crash", however, unlike Times Square, no one outside the metor region has a clue what the West Side Highway is. Plus this a truck attack, and that was a car crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new name isn't fitting, as the "west side highway" is only familiar with new yorkers. 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'West Side Highway' is too parochial. However, 'New York' may not be specific enough. I hate to add another suggestion into the mix, but what about using the phrase 'Lower Manhattan'?Avilan01 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about '2017 Lower Manhattan Truck Attack'? 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think that works well. It's specific without being overly so. The unfortunate reality is that there have been many terrorist attacks in New York and there will probably be more. If we were to distinguish each one by just the year, things could get confusing in the future. Avilan01 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but think it should be fine for now. If future attacks make a distinction necessary, then we can also add "Halloween" to the name to distinguish this one. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence[reply]
Assuming (knock on wood) there aren't any more attacks this year in Manhattan, the title could use Manhattan. However, Lower Manhattan works too, and in my opinion, better, due to its specificity. Or call it the 2017 Halloween (truck) attack. I'm also kind of surprised the West Side Highway isn't that well known... I guess all those Law & Order reruns have biased me... Paris1127 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 Times Square car crash was also an attack in Manhattan this year, so we need to rename this article to October 2017 New York City attack. Jim Michael (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Wondering if a map displaying just Lower Manhattan would be better? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this, would it be good? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lower_Manhattan_Terror_Attack_2017.jpg 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this map good?

I made a map, should we use it? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lower_Manhattan_Terror_Attack_2017.jpg 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, but that map only shows where the pickup ended up, at West and Chambers. The attack began farther north, at Houston and West. Here's the New York Times's graphic. Paris1127 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a map like this used in the "Attack" section, but not the infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2017

Template:Requested move/end must be substituted

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) page moved already. Discussion can be continued below, but this is no longer a RM because the page has been moved. Disclosure: I opposed this title. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 West Side Highway attack → 2017 New York City attack – Evidently there's a bit of disagreement on the name of the article. I think it's best we gain a consensus on this. Which name would be more appropriate for the article? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific. Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Street is where the West Side Highway used to be, before they dismantled the highway (literally, it was largely on stilts) and made it into a street connecting with the res of the Manhattan street grid. And please don't go to Madison Square if you have tickets to a game at Madison Square Garden. New Yorkers are a traditional, hidebound, quaintly provincial folk who speak a language unintelligible ot other Anglophones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose more specific is better. Dont mind lower Manhattan (isnt original Manhattan in HollAnd?)Lihaas (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The New York Manhattan is the original one (there is a newer one somewhere in Kansas). Easily recognizable. --regentspark (comment) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an improvement to the current obscure title, which is certainly not the common name. Might I also take this opportunity to suggest that perhaps we incorporate Halloween into the title somehow? There is certainly a precedent to naming the holiday as part of the name of such an event when it occurs on major holidays. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "West Side Highway" is most certainly not a name people are familiar with. "Lower Manhattan" is more recognizable, and it's also notable that the vehicle used was a truck, and that this was a deliberate act, therefore I believe "2017 Lower Manhattan truck attack" would be the best title. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence[reply]
  • Oppose - I support the name "2017 New York City truck attack" for those in the world who are not familiar with Manhattan. I also support "October 2017 New York City attack", or other similar title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed title, would support title referring to the more-specific "Lower Manhattan" or even something about Halloween. Paris1127 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both of the proposed titles' violate at least two of the five statutes laid out in the article title policy which these arguments are supposed to be based on - Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. as well as Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. In the situation of another terrorist attack happening this year in Manhattan or New York City, the proposed titles' would fail to distinguish this attack from others. Secondly, the proposed titles' lack consistency with those covering terrorist attacks as these article titles tend to include a specific location or a distinguishing detail of the incident. The proposed titles' fail to cover at least two of the characteristics in a solid article title. I believe that 2017 West Side Highway attack fits the description of an adequate title; if not to it's improvement include "Vehicle" or a sweeping change of title to include the fact that the attack was indeed a Vehicle-ramming attack Jr xander 02:56, 1 November 2017 (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.

Further discussion on title please

I agree that "New York City" is better than previous, but I think we should definitely add "Truck" and maybe "Halloween" or "October" for easier identification, because of the previous Times Square event. Readers may not be familiar with our geography, so we need something to provide readers with quick recognition. 2017 New York City Halloween truck attack works for me. Comments? Tvoz/talk 02:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good except for the "Halloween" part. It is confusing. If anything, we'd say October 2017...truck attack. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually I agree - today it seems to work but in the future the Halloween part becomes irrelevant. October works better. I do think the truck part is important - and is more parallel to 2017 Times Square car crash. 2017 New York City attack is too vague - unfortunately we've had many attacks of one kind or another - only one truck attack, I hope.Tvoz/talk 02:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
October should be added to the title. Unless there's another notable incident in the next 25 minutes or so, there will not be another October 2017 attack in New York City to write an article about, so the article title October 2017 New York City attack should remain unique. Funcrunch (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support all of the above (within this subsection). --Jeremyb (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Manhattan attack

"2017 Manhattan attack" should also re-direct to this page. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" link: Terrorism in the United States

Since there's already disagreement, should Terrorism in the United States be linked in the "See also" section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" link: Vehicle-ramming attacks

Should Vehicle-ramming attack be linked in the "ssSee also" section? E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need both of the "Lower Manhattan" and "Tribeca" categories?

Resolved

Isn't the Lower Manhattan category unnecessary if we are using the Tribeca category? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's already removed. epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great!, I'll mark this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"List of terrorist incidents in New York City" or "Terrorism in New York City"

Resolved

Given Category:Terrorist incidents in New York City, should we create List of terrorist incidents in New York City, or even Terrorism in New York City? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:PhilipTerryGraham has created List of terrorist incidents in New York City. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truck Image

Can I upload an image onto the article of the actual truck used that I retrieved from a news source’s website? ToxicOJ (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find out the licensing for the image first. In many cases, it won’t have the proper licensing to be used on Wikipedia. If anyone on Wikimedia uploads their own work or a public domain/fair use image, wel can use it. Codyorb (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ToxicOJ: if you are the owner of the image's copyright, or that the image was released under a free license, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If the image is copyrighted, and you have reason to believe that usage of the image will have greater encyclopedic value than the free-licensed image being currently used, you can upload the image locally to Wikipedia, in acordance with the Non-free use rationale guideline. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 23:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the same topic, do we want to keep the current image of the Home Depot Load 'N Go Flatbed Truck (not actually used during the incident)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While an image of the actual truck used would be preferable, this image displays the identical type of the vehicle used in the attack (down to the company from which it was rented). This provides useful context in giving readers the ability to see the exact type of vehicle used. A similar use of an image is at another ramming article, 2007 Glasgow Airport attack. If a photo of the actual vehicle used becomes available, it should replace this image. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the earlier message, I have an image of the truck used in the attack from a news website, but I don’t know how to upload it without violating Wikipedia’s copyright rules. Does anyone know how to upload it directly to Wikipedia as the previous comment said?ToxicOJ (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest NYC terrorist attack since September 11, 2001

Many articles have listed this as the deadliest New York City terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, so it should probably be noted.Rlt152152 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable if multiple inline citation can support this claim. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds trivial to me - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a good idea since I think people looking up this information may want to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlt152152 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first deadly terrorist attack in NYC since 9/11 that involved civilians being killed, according to BBC. The Chelsea attack last year didn't kill anyone, and neither did the Queens attack in 2014. epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would need an As Of ... Seraphim System (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the deadliest terrorist attack by an Uzbekistani in the history of the United States, perhaps we should include that. And what about the deadliest terror attack in the history of the human race committed with a rented Home Depot truck? We gotta emphasize how deadly, terrifying, and full of deadly terror this attack was. The actual figures just aren't impressive enough, so we should throw in a few meaningless comparisons. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A970:A762:9AF2:38D5 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Injured

In attack section, we say "causing at least eight fatalities and fifteen injuries" whereas in the victims section, we say "Eight people were killed and more than 12 were injured in the incident". So which is it, 12 or 15? We should be consistent. werldwayd (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15. epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ISIL terrorist incidents in the United States?

Is Category:ISIL terrorist incidents in the United States appropriate to add? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


We don't need this political bullshit here. Have some respect. Tvoz/talk 03:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

NYC Terrorist Came to US Under ‘Diversity Visa Program’ Sponsored by NY Democrat Chuck Schumer

http://thepolitistick.com/nyc-terrorist-sayfullo-saipov-came-us-diversity-visa-program-sponsored-ny-democrat-chuck-schumer/

71.182.242.12 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The program is already mentioned in the article. Schumer's involvement is irrelevant and that source is obviously biased toward Republicans. epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God is great

Does a slogan shouted by the perpetrator merit inclusion in the lead? This isn't a tabloid. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A970:A762:9AF2:38D5 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid has zero/zilch/nothing/nada/null set to do with it. This is a facet of the crime, and nothing else.50.111.60.244 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a "facet of the crime"? I think it can stay in the article, but it is somewhat prominent in the WP:LEDE. Whether it is a facet of anything has not been established. Seraphim System (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shouting the Takbir is clearly relevant given this is covered by most, if not all, WP:RS. It should be in the body and in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allahu Akbar? If said, then I would say yes.Ramhorbronc (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is still alive so this is covered under WP:BLPCRIME - I don't think we should be adding statements about material facts or making a "case for terrorism" at least until it is clear what exactly he is going to be charged with (not sure why it is taking so long, or even if the charges will be Federal). I think editors are kind of getting ahead of things here. Seraphim System (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on who his attorney is? Seraphim System (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

I think, to protect the article from vandalism (especially due to the nature of the perpetrator being linked to IS, which may inspire racist vandal attacks), the page should be protected so that all edits have to be reviewed before getting published. This is an effective way of still letting people edit, but stopping the edits that can do damage (vandalism, pageblanking, etc). AllyGebies (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not pre-emptively protected. If this article does attract a significant amount of vandalism (which is not unlikely) then at that point it should be reported to WP:RFPP. Funcrunch (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of point of view and Trump.

According to the Telegraph, some american newspapers consider that cyclists (and pedestrians) killed by motorized vehicle drivers are the result of what they call a ”cowardly attack”, when this is not reported in this wikipedia article[1]. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!

According to the Guardian, Trump twitted ”I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!”[2].

As this has been reported by an international newspaper (notoriety criteria) I assume it should also be reported in this article (NPOV criteria).

And one would agree with Trump: Being politically correct is fine, but not for cyclists killed by motorized vehicle drivers: too many cyclists (and pedestrians) have been killed for too many decades.

Britain’s roads are many times more deadly than terrorism[3]. (And to be fair, some other countries’ roads are many times more deadly than Britain’s roads)

With traffic comes air pollution that kills even more people: 12,000 air pollution deaths a year are directly attributable to road transport. As motor manufacturers have cheated on emissions tests, cars may bear far more of the pollution blame. Pedestrian deaths rose by 12% last year, with serious injuries to cyclists up by 8%[4]. About 100 cyclists die as a result of collisions or coming off their bikes on the roads in Great Britain each year. And more than 3,000 are seriously injured[5] (Facts are not limited to UK while those numbers are: each countries its statistics)

Other countries other statistics: In 2016, in NYC citywide, there was 10775 pedestrian injuries, 148 pedestrian kills, 4592 bicyclist injuries 18 bicyclist kills due to Motor Vehicle drivers[6]. This is possibly too much unless if accepted? In the USA, in 2015, 5,376 pedestrians and 818 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts). These two modes accounted for 17.7 percent of the 35,092 total U.S. fatalities that year[7]. This is also possibly too much unless if accepted?

The cyclists (and pedestrians) are yet the victims of the motorized vehicle drivers with PM 2.5[8] which kills slowly (say in months), they are also victim of the unsafe driving which kills immediately (that is in more or less than 30 days in KSI). This makes the cyclists use cameras[9]. This is not how things should work:

Motor vehicle drivers should have a safety education program which teach them how to drive safely. An Extreme Vetting Program should ensure that only those who have the skills to drive safely can access a driving license and a motorized vehicle. If this was working properly cyclists (and pedestrians) would not been killed in a so impressive quantity, and people would not need camera to report such issues.

An Extreme Vetting Program should also ensure that those safety skills are periodically monitored.

But it is not enough, because motorists are both aggressive and violent[10]. Something should be done for motorists not being neither aggressive nor violent.

Some advertising blame cyclists for being in a bad position when a HGV lorry truck turn in a junction[11]. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!

Hope some people with influence or responsibility, some people with capacity, push for improving the picture, in this wikipedia article or in real life, taking into account NPOV & safety consideration.

Just a quotation to close this critic of the wikipedia article: ”Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!”[12]. Donald Trump, 1 November 2017

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/31/new-york-shooting-several-people-reported-injured-lower-manhattan/
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/31/new-york-vehicle-manhattan-bike-path-attack-fears-live-updates
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/25/deadly-terrorism-britain-roads-security-risk
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/25/deadly-terrorism-britain-roads-security-risk
  5. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219
  6. ^ http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2016.pdf
  7. ^ http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
  8. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/well/move/on-your-bike-watch-out-for-the-air.html
  9. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/28/cyclist-regrets-posting-video-road-rage-attack
  10. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10602828/Audi-drivers-attack-on-cyclist-goes-viral.html
  11. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cycling-safety-government-victim-blaming-jeremy-vine-hgvs_uk_57e931e4e4b0e81629aa9416?utm_hp_ref=uk-media
  12. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/31/new-york-vehicle-manhattan-bike-path-attack-fears-live-updates
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_New_York_City_truck_attack&oldid=808177868"