Talk:2016 Nice truck attack

Does the death toll include the perpetrator?

Does anyone know if the death toll includes the perpetrator or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:403:3f70:ec6a:6e01:d6fc:6668 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2016

Well, death toll says "80+" so I believe it is already included there. De88 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In the lead section of the article, "Over 80 people were killed before the the perpetrator was shot and killed by police." All cited news sources and other ones that I could find, only say "at least 80 people were killed". Can someone please make this minor edit? Thanks, 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:89CE:9ACA:EFA6:5427 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue seems to come up every time there is an attack.Mozzie (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently the article is inconsistent. The lede says he killed 84 people (i.e., 85 deaths including the perp), the infobox says 84+ people died, including the perp. At least one source (BBC) says that the perp killed 84 people, making it 85+ deaths. Gap9551 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, not technically inconsistent, since 84+ also allows for 85, but still strange. But sources are contradicting each other. Gap9551 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This should be easily verifyable via the table on the right side that connects the nationalities with the death toll. So the total sum should be 84 in the long run - right now 30 identities are not known (on wikipedia9. 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong biographical information

Article states he was born in Nice This is incorrect

according to the NYT-Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, a delivery-truck driver who was born on Jan. 3, 1985, and raised in Msaken, a town in northeastern Tunisia, and who moved to France around 2005.www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/attack-nice-bastille-day.html

Victim names

Please let's not start adding names of individual victims, as I just witnessed someone doing (with American victims, as has been the case in the past with other incidents). We had agreement that it was inappropriate and against policies to do so during discussions about the November 2015 Paris attacks; I'd rather not reiterate all the arguments, and take that as existing consensus. Let's just not. Wikipedia is not an obituary meant to list more than 80 names of deceased.

We already have the name of one victim, said to be the very first victim, and I already don't know whether being the "first" makes her any more notable and warranting a mention by name. In fact, it might encourage other editors to inappropriately add names for everyone, and I think it should be removed. LjL (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Remove it. It's at best a rumor. Even if it was certifiably true, the fact that this person was killed seconds or minutes before the next doesn't mean anything. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone else removed that together with the whole mention of "many Muslims" being killed, which came from a source citing a journalist who had seen "several people with scarves and/or speaking Arabic", as if wearing a scarf or speaking Arabic automatically means you're a Muslim... so personally, I'm happy with those changes. LjL (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That was me. This was an indiscriminate attack, it is very difficult to maneuvre 10 tons on a narrow walkway and be selective of who you kill. I also removed systemic bias that mentioned in the paragraph that British were injured, and gave details of the lives of the Germans, but none of the other countries. This isn't a British newspaper so it shouldn't have highlighted British among the dozens of nationalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.204 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And your revert was reverted, per reasons given by various editors. 98.67.182.246 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't much of a discussion cited above, certainly not a precedent. We had a more thorough discussion at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and decided to include the list of names, which is still there. My position there, which matched the consensus, was that including the names of all those killed was appropriate, but including a list of the wounded was problematic because the boundary of "wounded" is fuzzy and the privacy of living persons is involved, whereas death is a hard fact with a public and official meaning. In this article, admittedly, the list of wounded is longer, so people may adopt a different choice, but I think it may still be useful to do so. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Privacy is an issue with recently dead people and their families, too (note that WP:BLP specifically mentions recent deaths). There is also a pretty clear WP:NOTOBITUARY policy, and a very well-known 9/11 precedent. The discussion we had about the Paris massacre might not have been "much" (nevermind that it has been had multiple times), but it's part of a pattern that has been followed... up to the Orlando shooting, maybe? I haven't had a look at that article, I certainly can't rule out that bad choices were made there which ignored guidelines. LjL (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: which guidelines would those be, exactly? The relevant section of our BLP policy, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, reminds us to avoid "including every detail". An embedded list is the opposite of that. VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM is not relevant because it's about people only noteworthy only for one or two events, but here, the victims of a very large attack are (however hit by a tragedy) not notable at all, and so, the aforementioned WP:NOTOBITUARY is the one that applies. In previous discussions (which I could rehash since I was told the ones I posted so far aren't enough to create a "precedent"), some point have argued that WP:NOTOBITUARY only applies to actual "obituary articles" about an individual, but that's not the spirit it was written in at all, since that policy was created after 9/11 precisely to stop the addition of a full list of the victims' names. Since then, the policy has stayed in place, and there's no reason to ignore it now. LjL (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@LjL and VQuakr: "Avoiding victimization" is ridiculous in reference to a list of the dead. They've been victimized, the whole world knows it, and there is no benefit for Wikipedia to avoid saying that. "Not an obituary" refers to the 911 memorial project to make bios for all of the victims, which I still don't agree was such a bad idea anyway, but certainly it does not prohibit saying who was murdered in an article about a murder! And if it doesn't prohibit saying who was murdered in one murder, does it prohibit it when there are two, five, ten, twenty people killed? Where do you see the number of names of the dead specified in NOTOBITUARY? Clearly that is just as red a herring. Sorry, but there are basic basic things an encyclopedia article has to cover, and who was killed is one of them. Wnt (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename article title

I think the best way to rename the current title of the article would be 2016 Bastille Day attack. The attack did happen on a national holiday and most articles place the name of the holiday in the title name when attacks like these happen. What are your thoughts on this? De88 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Bastille day is just a national holiday, and it happens all over France. The Nice attacks is more specific, and actually says where it happened. Still, my suggestion is that we change the name of the article to July 2016 Nice attack. FabulousFerd (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It might just be a holiday but the fact that the attack happened during the holiday makes it more relevant. De88 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly support move/rename to 2016 Bastille Day attack. It is a more natural name, and the most likely name under which it will be remembered and searched.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose for reasons I've given a number of times while all this filibustering took place. Enough. Making a new section every time there is no consensus on the old section isn't cool. LjL (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Please have a look at the first three most popular news items listed on the right side of the Telegraph's current page reference the "Nice attack" without a problem. That is the WP:COMMONNAME currently. LjL (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I created a new thread was because someone closed the other thread while a consensus was still being reached. That's not cool. De88 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The news services don't refer to it this way, WP:COMMONNAME applies - if history determines some day to refer to it as "Bastille Attack" then address it. 98.67.182.246 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Can we just pick one discussion about this? You're guaranteeing at this will be the kind of article that gets repeatedly moved around for no reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. The other thread was abruptly closed with no official consensus. De88 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support for Bastille name. Wikipedia bans original research and supports reliable sources. On the CBS and NBC TV news, they use Bastille Day attacks. Therefore, that must be the name and to oppose that is to violate Wikipedia policies. NO TO LAWLESSNESS. Fiona Gump (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral and Comment - Decided to look at what various news outlets are calling it in the titles of their articles. It looks like CNN, NYTimes, BBC, The Atlantic, and Al Jazeera use "Nice attack", NPR, NYPost, CNN, The Guardian, and some local news outlets use "Bastille Day attack", and Metro and The Telegraph use both. Seems fairly split to me. The page is too new to do page view statistics at this point. Below are links and titles of news coverage:

Nice attack or variant

• Attack in Nice: Truck driver identified as 31-year-old Tunisia native (CNN)
• Terrorist Attack in Nice, France, Leaves 84 Dead and 202 Injured (NYTimes)
• Attack in Nice: What We Know (The Atlantic)
• In Nice attack, young lives threatened and destroyed (CNN)
• Nice attack: Who was the driver in the lorry attack? (Al Jazeera)
• Nice attack: At least 84 killed by lorry at Bastille Day celebrations (BBC) - There are a handful of articles from BBC, all using "Nice attack"

Bastille Day attack or variant

• 'They Are So Loved': Remembering The Victims Of The Bastille Day Attack (NPR)
• American dad, young son killed in Bastille Day attack (New York Post)
• Austin area father and son killed in Bastille Day attack (KEYE TV)
• France Bastille Day attack: What we know about the suspect, Mohamed Bouhlel (WHIO)
• Mom reunited with baby boy lost during Bastille Day attack (New York Post)
• Bastille Day terror: Harrowing images of truck attack in Nice (CNN)
• Nice attack: truck driver named as France mourns 84 killed in Bastille Day atrocity – as it happened (The Guardian) - Note, the Guardian has links to "The Bastille Day Truck Attack" in related articles
• Bastille Day attack: what we know (The Guardian)
• Trump delays VP pick in wake of Bastille Day attack (New York Post)

Both

• Nice attack: American father and son named as first victims of Bastille Day terror attack (Metro)
• Nice terrorist attack on Bastille Day: everything we know so far on Friday night (The Telegraph)
• Nice attack: These are the victims of Bastille Day terror (Metro)
• France Says Truck Attacker Was Tunisia Native With Record of Petty Crime (NYTimes) - In this case, the URL uses both terms.

Whatever we do, one should certainly redirect to the other. Given that the sources are rather split, I would recommend waiting a few days and reassessing how the sources refer to the event. If there's a shift (e.g., BBC starts calling it Bastille Day attack, or NPR starts calling it Nice attack) then we follow that trend. But at this point, they seem equivalent. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the split, I am going to boldly create 2016 Bastille Day attack and 2016 Bastille Day attacks as redirects to here for now. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not United States Wikipedia. Americans tend to have no knowledge about other countries, like Bastille Day, while the British know more. This is why the American press doesn't use Bastille Day as much. It just like if it were called xjdheufjnp day.

Another problem is this is not a Nice attack. It is a Barbaric attack. Not nice at all. Fiona Gump (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blanket oppose rename discussions for the time being, as stated elsewhere. As pointed out by EGF, it's too early for a common name to emerge. TimothyJosephWood 03:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support for anything except "Nice attack". I dont care whether it's attack in nice or bastille day or what, as long as it's NOT "Nice attack". Especially due to the fact that not everyone is perfect in geography and even more the fact that the city has other names in various languages (I already made a list in here), I think that "Nice attack" is just bad.

@Eve I think we should split your list between "nice attack" and the variations to split the potential tasteless joke and the less ambiguous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My1 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose rename This is the common name and follows naming conventions for other attacks. There's no reason not to call it the "Nice attack", just because someone might read it as "nice attack", maybe they'll learn something about geography. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: a lot of foreign people are here as well and this city also has other names in other languages. My1 11:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose consensus on tabling renaming discussion for 48 hours

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There have already been multiple discussions and at least one move and remove regarding a title for the article. I suggest we gauge a potential consensus to defer these discussions for at least 48 hours. They have been, and are going to be unproductive until a sufficient body of sources exists for there to emerge a sufficiently common WP:COMMONNAME for any serious discussion on this to occur.

Further, any actual moves necessitates a move of the sister article for international reactions, and will leave an unhelpful trail of redirects when/if a serious, source driven discussion actually decides on an alternate name.

So...propose no further discussion on renaming until 17 July.

• Support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Hey, that's my birthday! Okay then, I agree. Let's take a short break. FabulousFerd (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment with all these discussions outstanding, how did this article get moved? Last I looked it was an "attack in Nice" which is a little easier to parse for those not familiar with geography (and remember, lots of Americans are reading this...) Wnt (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It was boldy moved without consensus and then undone. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please get things straight. It was moved from 2016 Nice attack (its original title) to 2016 attack in Nice while discussions were taking place and there was admittedly (by the mover) no consensus to move. Now, it was simply moved back since the move wasn't warranted. LjL (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose waiting Good Lord, I hadn't noticed that it had been moved to Nice attack. This title may work in French. But in English it reads like some sort of twisted joke, a mockery of the extent of this tragedy. I propose that we move it immediately. Preferably to 2016 Bastille Day Attack. Alternatively, we can just wait until a twitter storm of mockery breaks. Wikipedia calls death toll in France a "nice" attack..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that, by this point, anyone looking up the article is aware that there is a place in France called Nice. TimothyJosephWood 17:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support waiting (even longer). Good Lord, it's almost as if this wasn't discussed before and there wasn't lack of consensus for any move! I don't care about bad-taste jesters making dubious "jokes", and neither should Wikipedia. It's not it's job. The current title is neutral and in line with pretty much all the titles of such articles. Give this "oh noes, puns!" nonsense a rest. LjL (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, let's let this sit for a while, and see if one term becomes more common than the others. As for the concerns over people seeing the phrase "Nice attack", I think it's safe to say that the title should not be changed to spare a few (or even many) insensitive jokes. See my comments above on this point. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 17:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Meh. How about any discussion be conducted as a formal WP:RM which normally has a week cut-off but it'll also get more outside eyes than just the short informal polls. And no I don't care about the potential jokes. If the reliable sources make this wording out as a joke and use something else ("9/11" wasn't the obvious term that day either) then we can discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, whatever Eng commonname evolves will become apparent, present title has no fundamental problems, rename discussions are just wasting time on this page. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support waiting - Per Pincrete. Parsley Man (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Which discussion would be the active discussion? Should the other discussions be archived? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - See my comment in above section. Current the news outlets are split between Nice Attack and Bastille Day Attack. Let's see where they go in the next few days EvergreenFir (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support waiting – At every one of these articles, it always seems to me that it is best to find an easy title that everyone can find, and then worry about the rest of the article. If you don't like the title, come back in a couple weeks and look at it then. Starting multiple discussions now just causes confusion and usually gets nowhere. United States Man (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Seventh major attack"

I don't agree with this edit by Baron d'Holbach II. The current lede implies that all 5 attacks on 7-9 January 2015 were "major attacks", while only two had more than 1 casualty (not counting perps). I propose reverting to "third major attack", in the understanding that 'one attack' is not necessarily 'one incident', but can consist of several incidents. Alternatively, the Charlie Hebdo shooting can be singled out and linked to as one of the two prior attacks, if sources allow. Gap9551 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done by an IP, but I agree with your rationale; let's keep it at "third". Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

January 2015 seems an arbitrary starting point. Was that the beginning of some sort of era? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

I see this was when France was allegedly singled out by Islamists. That's a weird thing to believe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

See 2015 France attacks. There have been far more than "three attacks":

1. Five attacks across the Île-de-France region, 7 January – 9 January
   1. Charlie Hebdo shooting, shooting at satirical magazine, 7 January
   2. Porte de Vincennes siege, attack on Kosher supermarket, 9 January
2. Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack, suspected Islamist beheading and bombings, 26 June
3. 2015 Thalys train attack, 21 August
4. November 2015 Paris attacks, a series of violent attacks on 13 November — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 01:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times speaks of "major attacks", not just attacks. If you can find a source calling your seven major, replace it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

I understand that there is a reliable source behind the sentence, but the body of the article states that there is currently no evidence linking the perpetrator or attack to Islamic terrorism, and I don't think that Wikipedia should be implying this, at least not in the lede (NPOV and all). Would anyone object to moving it down into the body or even just removing it outright? ansh666 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with removal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

There is a significant link in the sense that all three are highly publicized attacks in the same country in a short timespan. I don't think it is implied that the motives are the same. It can't hurt to mention those two attacks for context, although the Background section would also be a reasonable place. Gap9551 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

New infobox image does not clearly show the promenade

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

The new infobox image [1] shows Nice well, but the promenade is nearly invisible. It was much more viewable in this image: [2]. I for one would like it changed back. If need be, the image could be vertically cropped if deemed appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion for the change to the current one. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I think it would be easy for someone to crop the earlier image vertically, and re-upload it in a new file for use on this article, if vertical space here really is at such a premium. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Two other images used in the article show landmarks on the very long promenade des Anglais, the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée, at which the truck stopped. The image in the French article shows the Negresco, where some of the worst carnage took place. The image you are discussing shows neither of those landmarks and in fact shows none of the route at all. I will look for another image that does and which is not too large. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The infobox image caption is "The Promenade des Anglais (next to the beach), where the attack took place", but the current image does not really show the promenade -- it shows the ocean, beach, embankment, trees, and buildings. The original image showed the promenade very clearly. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, that caption is wrong. The lorry never reached there. In the same way wikipedians have written that the perpetrator was born in Nice. Presumably a wiki-translation of "vivait à Nice". That was also wrong. Look at the postcard of the part of Nice where the attack took place. You can see the two hotels, The lorry moved from west to east, so from left to right in the image, and was brought to a halt next to the Palais de la Méditerranée. There are hundreds of images of Nice on commons. There are also many free images on the web (geographica). Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

All I care about at present is that the infobox image match the claim in the current caption that it shows the promenade. It doesn't, and it was changed without discussion. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

More words than action. I have produced an image showing the entire route of the truck, with the landmark hotels and a clear view of the promenade des Anglais from above. It is clipped from an image on commons. It is not a picture postcard view—temps nuageux—but is instructive. Unfortunately, unlike the postcard, the Palais de la Méditerranée is hidden by another building. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I replaced an abnormally tall view of the Promenade with another more normal-sized view of it. The file name says it's the Promenade, and the caption calls it the Promenade. I see no contradiction. Yes, due to its angle and size, it shows more houses than the old one. Tragedy? But anyway, even if you want to reinstate the old one, there was agreement to use that one instead of an image of one of the palaces, which wasn't meaningful and descriptive to the reader coming to the article. So please do not reinstate that type of image without more discussion. LjL (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

?? The image at present is the brand new one I created on Commons this morning (UK time) File:Nice Promenade des Anglais FRANCE-cropped.jpg as you can verify. I have not added any long images to the infobox; you must be thinking of another editor. On Commons I have added an unobtrusive amount of extra annotations to the map used in the infobox adapting the annotations of the map on BBC News [3]. I have added (1) the start of the pedestrianised zone on the truck route (2) the Hotel Negresco and (3) the Palais de la Méditerranée. None of these were marked on the base map. (The children's hospital where the truck turned onto the promenade des Anglais was already marked on that map.) Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to "my" image as "current", not realizing you had already gone and changed it. Anyway, same difference, I barely notice the change. I just didn't want it to go back to a non-meaningful image of some palace or hotel as seemed hinted. LjL (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's different and required a bit of work and thought. Please remember this is the second day of national mourning in France. Such days are rare in France. As I write, families and children continue to lay tributes on the Promenade des Anglais. Similar events are happening all over France. Much of the worst carnage in this attack took place in the relatively short pedestrianised zone that included the two Nice landmarks. The BBC marked that zone on their map, along with the two landmarks which you describe as non-meaningful. Some of their annotations are now on the wikipedia map. The vehicle was brought to a halt outside the Palais de la Méditerranée, where the attacker was finally shot. The vehicle remained there for almost a day. The location of the attack does matter for the article and it happened to be in the vicinity of the landmarks, not in some randomly chosen image of the 4 mile long Promenade des Anlglais. The French chose the Hotel Negresco for their infobox. Famous as a landmark before—just read the article on Nice—it will now always be remembered for this awful tragedy. (It has known tragedy before but never on this scale. While staying at the Negresco in 1927, the American actress Isadora Duncan was killed outside the hotel when her scarf got caught up in the wheels of an open-topped Bugati.) Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin of idea for attack

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

I disagree strongly. This article can and does discuss the tactical strategy employed by the attacker. Majid Nawaz noted that the vehicular strategy was encouraged by Hamas to be used in their attacks on Israeli citizens. I am unclear which strategy came first, Hamas or AQ.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The origin of the attack strategy is hardly relevant here. Instead, we can (and do) link to the article dedicated to the strategy, in this case Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. The organizations you mention were hardly the first to have this idea. The only thing that would make them relevant is if the attacker is confirmed to have been inspired by them to use the tactic. Gap9551 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rationale for the contents of the Background section

In the section, we can read:

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

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

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

I guess police could find a copy at his house, with those pages sticking together. Until then, though, we don't know. It just fits an agenda. I'm pretty sure everyone has understood the deadliness of traffic collisions since the dawn of traffic. It's not rocket science. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

We know for certain that both Hamas and AQ encouraged this attack strategy and it is relevant to this topic. It doesn't fit any "agenda"; that's just more whitewashing. We know the perp was a Muslim who came from Tunisia, the leading country represented in ISIS and the "backbone" of their recruiting strategy. So all the pieces fit, and fit very nicely, contrary to your continued stream of "we don't know" and "can't know". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Baron d'Holbach II:, you should take a look at this article. It will help you understand.--McSly (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am motivated by the facts, which many here conveniently ignore for political reasons. Tunisians form the backbone of ISIS. Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Even assuming 6,000 fighters to be an accurate guess, there are over ten million Tunisians. That's 0.06% of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

To put that tiny number in context, 0.23% of Americans are registered sex offenders (no offense, America, I just couldn't find French stats). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. ISIS isn't recruiting from a pool of 10 million. It's recruiting from the youth population between, let's say, ages 12-30. And they pay cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this guy was 31, so there goes that, Sherlock. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

He turned 31 in January and he fits the profile. Further, he was repeatedly involved in the criminal justice system just months before the attack where it is likely he could have come into contact with radical jihadists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Should've just made the profile 12-34. Too late now, you've thoroughly unconvinced me of your Internet-sleuthing capabilities. Please turn in your badge at the front desk. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

This guy encouraged simply killing all Muslims. The next time someone kills a Muslim, do we likewise assume he was inspired by reading the Huffington Post? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

"Tunisia is by far the largest source of foreign fighters heading to join Islamic State in Syria and Iraq."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So all the pieces fit, and fit very nicely, contrary to your continued stream of "we don't know" and "can't know", @Baron d'Holbach II: What you are missing here, is that Wikipedia is not a place for editors to fit the pieces together, that's original research. If there's a source that made the connection, what Wikipedia can do is to say "[Source] said there is a connection between [x] and [y]", but we can't say "There is a connection between [x] and [y]" unless we follow that with "according to [source]". -- Jan Winnicki * 15:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your extremely poor quality arguments are not relevant here. French mainstream sources made a link between Isis recommendations and Boulhel's method of killing. As Wikipedia is based on sources, and not on biased opinion by anonymous users, this paragraph must be restored. More sources : [4] [5] [6] Blaue Max (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Jeudi soir, un Franco-Tunisien (...), semble avoir suivi à la lettre ce procédé. – Which translates to: Thursday evening, a Franco-Tunisian, seems to have followed this to the letter. None of the sources state the attacker was inspired by these messages. They only say the attack reminds them of what these messages said. – Jan Winnicki * 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Bouhlel had no connection to extremist groups

Devolving into personal attacks, casting aspersions, and bdp violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many people naturally want to know whether this massacre is connected to extremist groups or not. And thus, the terrorist nature (or lack thereof) is very relevant to include in the introductory text of the page. As a New York Times article pointed out "Mr. Lahouaiej Bouhlel appeared not to have left behind any public declaration of his motive or indicated any allegiance to the Islamic State or another extremist group.". Some Wikipedia users do not want this information processed in the article, and repeatedly revert to keep it out. Let discuss here whether it should be included or not. Any counter-arguments are welcome. If nothing happens, I will add it to the article. Amin wordie (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC) WP:BDP - don't make unsourced claims or speculation. This is no place for rumor mongering. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Poppycock. I've modified your heading accordingly. Outside of the 24/7 whitewashing of radical Islamic terrorism in the US press due to the influence of US foreign policy interests who maintain that there is no threat in the face of repeated, ongoing attacks on a daily basis, the overseas media is reporting that the perp, a Tunisian MUSLIM, distributed a payment of something like $150,000 to his family days before the attack, indicating that he received a payment of some kind, possibly from ISIS, who called him their own "soldier" in a recent release. Contrary to the propaganda and continual whitewashing of the facts on Wikipedia, the perpetrator of this attack was a radical Muslim who committed a terrorist act. Facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)</> This article covers the money which he (apparently illegally) sent to his family, but it doesn't mention ISIS giving him the money. Could you provide a source for your claims? It could be he knew he was going to die so he sent away most of his money, though I don't know. FallingGravity (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC) A rumor of sending money to family, does not equate proof of a connection between perpetrator to an extremist group. Amin wordie (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC) It's real, not a rumor, and Tunisia is the number one country in the world to export its citizens into the ranks of ISIS, with 6,000 active recruits and another 15,000 suspects. You and other Wikipedians are either ignorant or deliberately lying. The perp was a Muslim from a country that is 99% Muslim, and represents the foundational working structure of ISIS itself. There is simply no room for debate on this. The continued establishment and Wikipedia refrain that this Islamic terrorist had no connection to terrorist organizations is the big lie being spread by US media and its foreign policy advisors. Anyone with a single working brain cell knows that Tunisia = ISIS. Without Tunisia, ISIS doesn't exist. Get an education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC) I think we should,move to blocking since this user now resorting to calling editors lyers and idiots. They also changed another users header to call the purptroator and Islamic extremist when the original version sated that there was not connection. I am not sure if there is a rule about headers but I doubt that changing text written by another user without permission to promote a completely opposite view is acceptable.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Attribution subsection?

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

Is there something wrong with leaving government reactions in Reactions? Ministers typically don't investigate things at all (in a crime sense), just have people who brief them. Shouldn't be mixed with police and prosecutors, in any case. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

I guess so. Just that it's not a condolence or anything. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

All the better. The more Reactions sections are used for other stuff, the less normal filling them with thoughts and prayers becomes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Identity of victims

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

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

Number of injured

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

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

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

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

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

Duplication isn't cool, but if there's one place for stuff about the perpetrator's life, it's Perpetrator. Government reactions should be in Reactions. Investigation should be limited to stuff about the investigation. Cops, coroners, forensic scientists; that sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Probably best to just note what they do find, too, not what they don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

The writing of this article has to be careful. The article is not intended as a quote farm; the summaries so far are fine. It was significant that two more arrests were made this morning. Incidentally, in the citation I added, it was reported that sources close to the French judiciary had commented that the attacker had been sighted (video surveillance?) surveying the scene of the attack two days beforehand. Presumably that will be confirmed at some future date. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, your LAPD analogies are not quite right because this is happening in France. They have their own methods of investigation and handling of security problems (vigipirate, periods of national emergency, etc.). The main difference is that this involves the highest levels of government and several security agencies, national and international. Not exactly Jessica Fletcher in Cabot Cove. More like 9/11. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Surveillance is definitely investigation. By cops, I mean the big guys, too. "Law enforcement officials", "security experts" and such. Not just beat cops. But anybody who relies on elections for a job doesn't belong in this section, in my view. They know about the investigations, but they don't speak for the investigators. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

I've made some moves to this effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Links to ISIS versus solo-task

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

If we accepted things as established facts just because some government said they were, we would have a very entertaining article on North Korea.[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Or any opposition party. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Misidentification case

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

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

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

Timeline

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

I have not problem with its content. Just that it's a bit redundant and I think it's unneeded in am article this size. It's also kinda in the way. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking something like this or this timeline. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Good to see precedent exists. Still concerned about its use on such a small article at this point, but given time that should likely take care of itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Image of Renault Midlum truck

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

British English - we say courgette, you say zucchini - we say aubergine, you say eggplant

The template at the top of the article says:{{Use British English|date=July 2016}} BBC News uses the word lorry. The French term is "poids-lourd" which corresponds in British English to heavy goods vehicle. I have used both lorry and truck. American English is truck. Equally well French words create problems: e.g. procureur de Paris. Should the template be removed? Mathsci (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem or the reasoning. What I know is that policy says that, in the absence of consensus to do otherwise, and unless articles specifically pertain to a topic where a specific variety of English is more appropriate than any other, we should use the English variety the article was first written in (at the time when the use a variety first became apparent), and that one variety should be used consistently, so for instance American and British English should not be mixed within the same article. LjL (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read Template:Use British English. Then you might understand a little better. Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I know the template well enough. Have you read WP:ENGVAR on your turn? It's very simple, really: find the first version of the article where it was clear whether British or American English (or some other English variant) was being used, and use that variety and no other variety, and include, if desired, the relevant template (Template:Use British English like now, or Template:Use American English, or other ones). Quite linear. What the terms are in French has absolutely no relevance, and neither does which variety's terms are used in the sources, unless you're quoting them directly (inside quotation marks). LjL (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed one "lorry" (where the guns were found) because it was the only one in the article. Template or no, "truck" was overwhelmingly the de facto standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

I think the template was added to encourage people to use Ye Olde British Englishe, not to describe the current state of the article. 2601:644:1:3E52:D52F:4228:256C:1B5F (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately wikipedia uses mobile phone; cell phone is a redirect. [The French term is (téléphone) portable.] There were many cases of lorry, almost all of them in the timeline box. InedibleHulk must have been asleep.Mathsci (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. When I looked, it was the only one, aside from headlines in References. I recently added a "radicalized", but it was in a quote, so I was compelled. Do we need to look for British translations of French quotes? I hope not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

British English is being used in the spelling of "neighbour", The more serious problem however is with Arabic. French media, French wikipedia, BBC News and reputable media now hyphenate he surname of the attacker, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. On BBC News bulletins they were already using the surname yesterday. I have modified the article. The fork cannot be moved but that doesn't matter because Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel is a redirect. Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

For motorized vehicle, you can see European driving licence as European English probably avoid your britishamerican orthography polemics. Different class of motorized vehicle, are more or less described there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.122 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Since France has - in the past - had a closer relationship with Britain as part of the EU, and more English nationals are on scene, the use of British English seems appropriate. It had to be someone's. That said, I don't view this as an absolute cause, because to my way of thinking there is just one language, English, and it all the regional variations are just a matter of taste and vocabulary. I mean, this just tells me I should learn wikt:courgette is a synonym for zucchini, just as if some Valley Girls had popularized the term in the media yesterday, not try to reject it as some other country's language. Wnt (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Fox News

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

Same goes for many Western sources. All part of the War on Terror. Rather than disqualify Fox outright, just be cautious in only relaying the facts it presents, not the tone and angle in which it presents them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your statement InedibleHulk – De88 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Fox News isn't ideal, but jumping the gun on the motive isn't confined to Fox News. It isn't possible to know everything about the motive within 24 hours, and the mainstream media should have learned this by now.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's also not possible to fill the sort of time and space alloted to this sort of story with what's known. If an editor or program director knows the audience wants to know, they know they should say something relevant, or the audience will move on to someone who does. The sponsors don't care if the content is a killer's motive or a parking lot monkey wearing a fabulous sheepskin coat, as long as it's not boring to most people, and their shit goes in the middle. Waiting for confirmation is boring to most people. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

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

Did you remember to search in French? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

There are various amateur videos of the incident on the Internet, and some of them have disturbing content. WP:YOUTUBE does not forbid user generated video as an external link, but it is best to stick to mainstream news coverage where possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because western news outlets are stating facts doesn't mean they're wrong, simply because they belong to countries in the War on Terror. Watch RT or AJ if you want actual biased news.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UZqBrTTFGY didnt see truck, see people run
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihKP2sWWNY 'panic started' 'run run run' 'we saw the truck whithe truck'
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8tpOOInMzU 'people run for the live' 'could not see'
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cVc6nuBAvg wsj 'people running' the same witnes as 5UZqBrTTFGY
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zE0wnOxkg MSNBC phone. here 0:53 masive columns 10+ of them. one schould stop truck but people run on street. This do not make any a survival sense. He didnt see truck. Also how one can outrun fast aproaching truck?
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9_GyDPH-W8 BBC huge panic everybody was runnig no idae what was going on. No truck seen.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGdp4ha4peE Telegraph saw pepole running. no truck witnes 'one guy crying'
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OgyVv8W6x4 i was when the truck running. Split second. He [truck] was going 60 miles. Not everybody saw the truck i dont knnow which direction to run. Longest account.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTTFWQVTJx8 Zoomin.TV :i thought this massacre was the result of gunshots. 0.55
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY2-Bqxj2kc CBC title "Eyewitness to France truck attack" we were 200 meters from, We lerned from tv what happened.

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

Renault Midlum truck?

Renault Midlum 'A similar truck' to the one used

The page currently says that it was a Renault Midlum, (and that is the exact truck pictured →) but, one of the cited sources makes no mention of it and the second says it is similar to a Midlum. Any sources definite on this? 220 of ^Borg 04:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't really a reliable source, but it says that it appears to be a Renault Midlum 220.12. Another interesting question is how Bouhlel was able to hire the van, as it is classed as a large goods vehicle under European law and an ordinary license does not permit a person to drive this type of vehicle. It has been reported that Bouhlel did not have the relevant license.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment +IanMacM+ and link. I have removed the mention of that particular truck [9] as not in cited sources. 220 of ^Borg 06:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources are saying "similar to a Renault Midlum" rather than confirming that it is one.[10] It probably is a Renault Midlum judging by the photos, but there needs to be direct confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree , seems likely to be one. One of the few that even mention it say it "is" a Midlum, [11] but no really authoritive sources. Time will tell. 220 of ^Borg 07:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

UK Defence Journal, says "a Renault Midlum cargo truck was driven at speed on the Promenade des Anglais towards the crowd of people". Lloyd’s Loading List says they "understands that it was a Renault Midlum hired from French hire firm VIA Location.". The VIA Location logo can be seen seen at the door. The Washington Post says it was a "19-ton Renault cargo truck", and posted a drawing of a Renault Midlum cargo truck similar to the one used in the attack. I think it is safe to say a Renault Midlum. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar

In this edit this sentence was removed unexplained

Witnesses said Bouhlel shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack, but those reports have not been confirmed by officials.

[…]

I've added it again here. We describe what has been discussed in reliable sources. We do not make judgement if it's true or not. Just describe the claim set forth by some reliable sources. Nsaa (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That was just a move. The (somewhat) explained deletion came next. Reliable sources say it's unconfirmed, and so did we. Doesn't seem like the sort of thing to spread, even if we tack an "unconfirmed" caveat onto it. Stick with more factual facts, I say, but I'll let it slide. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

And now I notice it was the fucking Daily Mail. I take back letting it slide. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

I concur. We should not allow our project to descend to the level of repeating unconfirmed details that are poorly sourced. --John (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The main source is The Daily Telegraph. They are known to be very good at fact checking, so we have no reason to dismiss this. The BBC just states that this has not been confirmed by the Police or other official sources, not that it's not correct. It's important that we describe the situation so people can see what has been claimed by different reliable sources. Nsaa (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is either the third or fourth discussion on this claim and at one point it was in the lead. As I've argued three or four times, I'm not a huge fan of the claim. I'm not sure if you can do WP:SYNTH by implication, but if you can, this is it. The implication here is fairly obviously: Islamist say Allahu Akbar. This guy said Allahu Akbar. This guy was an Islamist. This is of course notwithstanding the fact that it is perfectly appropriate to say Allahu Akbar in almost any context, including having the best burger you've ever had. TimothyJosephWood 12:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh my brother, testify! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

"Allahu Akbar" can have a meaning similar to "Mon dieu" or "Oh my god" in French and English. It's possible that someone in the street shouted "Allahu Akbar", but it wasn't necessarily the man in the truck; see the section below.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

For all we really know Pépé, the shock triggered a brief psychotic disorder, and the call came from inside the house in his brain where his government (through a series of tubes) grows associations of mass French violence with Islamic immigrant terrorism, and those were the only Arabic words he remembered when the reporter came around. I'm not saying that's what happened, of course, just not quite saying it didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'm just saying, one of the sources currently for the statement calls it an outright fake. So...Seems like there's a bit of a problem in:

• the WP article saying "not yet confirmed" when the source says "Fake: Someone yelled Allahu Akbar,"
• especially when that source is explicitly talking about the other sources who were reporting rumors,
• especially, when the nature of the purported event makes it likely impossible to know 100% whether they were true
• especially, when those rumors (even if they were true) are of dubious WP:WEIGHT to the article. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

True...but on the other hand, Allen West gets very angry when Wikipedia doesn't blame Islamic terrorism, and when he gets angry, he gets nasty. That reminds me, the statement is also vaguely defamatory. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:40, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail as source

Why is Daily Mail removed as a source here? There is no WP:BLP Policy forbidding us to use Daily Mail as an source for their News coverage. Nsaa (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not an ideal source. However, it is entirely predictable that John will remove material cited to it without bothering to check first to see if more reliable sources are available, in line with what WP:BLPSOURCES actually says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed again. Where in WP:BLPSOURCES is it stated that Daily Mail cannot be used as a secondary source for a claim? Nsaa (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

John doesn't like the Daily Mail and will remove it every time he comes across it, saying "no tabloids on BLPs, please" or similar. I wouldn't use the Daily Mail if a better source was available, because this is what WP:BLPSOURCES actually says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If the Daily Mail is the best thing you can find for a claim, that means the claim is almost certainly bullshit. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this is why WP:BLPSOURCES was introduced, it relates to something that happened at Philip Mould and Daily Mail coverage. As for the claim that the truck driver shouted " Allahu Akbar", it is just a claim and needs to be treated with some caution. Better out than in for this one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

MythBusters could probably find if it's possible to hear anything clearly from a truck that size roaring through a crowd of screaming people with the (bulletproofed?) windows up, and if so, how close you'd have to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

The main source for this is NOT Daily Mail, it's the very reliable The Daily Telegraph. Please don't mix up stuff. Here we discuss Daily Mail, not the terrorist. Nsaa (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Telegraph just said the driver was said to have shouted it. Not that an eyewitness said it. Maybe they mean the Daily Mail said it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:13, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Heavy says the Telegraph says Nice-Matin said the driver was said to have said it, but neither link there leads to anything that says it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:23, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

RT says BFM cited a report which said a witness said he said it, but if it ever happened on TV, it's not in a site search for BFMTV.com. At least in nothing pertaining to this. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

@Mathsci: And now you say Nice-Matin said it, too. Did you read that report, or just reports of the report? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

It looks like hearsay and churnalism are involved on the "Allahu Akbar" claim, and it is best left out unless the sourcing is firmer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree, but only pending non-confirmation from Mathsci. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:45, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Non-confirmation? Here is the link to Nice Matin, [12]. Note that somebody archived it. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit more like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

I will take that as an apology. Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think I expected you to fail, that's not what I meant. If it was, I wouldn't have bothered pinging you or waiting to find out. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:02, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Why write "pending non-confirmation" in that case? Mathsci (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Now added to the article. Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So, Pépé, a witness, said he heard “Allahu akbar” three times from his balcony when the truck hit someone on the street below. He doesn’t say it was the driver that shouted it. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just as likely to be a Muslim victim who said a final prayer before he went to meet his maker. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Or just one terrified, like the "oh, mon Dieu" and "good Lord above" crowd. It's not always about bloody death. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with InedibleHulk that if a person was driving a truck down a street at 50 MPH, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to make out what was being said in the cab, particularly if the windows were closed. Anyway, that is just my two cents of original research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic discussion unrelated to editing of article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} @Nsaa and Ianmacm: Apart from the issue of this edit, it looks like User:John really is on a specific crusade against the Daily Mail: here, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, something at Amber Rudd about the Daily Mail, Chris Grayling, David Davis, Amber Rudd, Theresa May[13][14], Tony Blair, Andrea Leadsom, Appropriate Adult (still using the "no tabloids on BLPs" line), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack&diff=prev&oldid=727744025 2016 Ataturk Airport attack. And that's only in the span from July 1 to July 18! Now the excuse is that he is against tabloids, but it is curious that Daily Mail, one of the UK's largest newspapers, is described in tabloid journalism as a "middle market" tabloid, as opposed to red tops. According to the Daily Mail article, it has received various awards on journalism. So it seems like he is single-handedly trying to create a policy against using this newspaper, which I don't think is really well rooted. From what I've seen, Daily Mail tends to pick up everything it can, which occasionally means it has wrong facts but most of the time makes it an invaluable resource for digging deeper into an issue. My response would never be to delete it, but to find extra sources for contentious claims made from it. So I think that some serious discussion is needed of his deletionist approach here. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Just an observation, but this is starting to sound a lot like a noticeboard and not a discussion of article improvement. May want to take conversation about individuals to your or their talk. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I think we should start at WP:BLPN. If they want Daily Mail banned, they can make a bot, and if not, they can tell him to quit it. Though I rather wish someone would also make him quit deleting "not notable" information from articles... Wnt (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Looking into the claim itself, this French source has an interview with a witness who says the man yelled "Allahu akbar" three times. (At least, that's how they summarize the interview; I can use Google translate on the text but not on the interview itself) The BBC describes the claim as "fake" solely because "no official source" had said it, which is perhaps illustrative of their world-view but not really very persuasive to my way of thinking. Heavy.com reviews many of the other reports of this. I would say it is not absolutely sure but I certainly would not dismiss the idea out of hand based on OR. I mean, can you really keep your speed at 50 miles an hour all the time that you're mowing down a crowd of people? Wnt (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible table of casualties?

I'm not sure how wikipedia deals with tables of casualties. I'm sure if anybody tried to collapse the equivalent table on the French article, their edit would be reverted. Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)