Talk:2017 Barcelona attacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Good source for live updating on this story

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/aug/17/barcelona-attack-van-driven-into-crowd-in-las-ramblas-district Peace peddler (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Protect this page?

I'm new at editing Wikipedia, but a user keeps vandalizing the page. Can they be banned or something? Also this page should be protected for now. Walkyo (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not up for banning folks, but I just reverted some vandalism. I think the page should be protected, too. MechanoidWarhead (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Eventually pages like this always get protected by the anti-IP zealots. Just wait a while and some misguided admin, working against policy, will be along to do the stuff. 86.153.24.78 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss page moves

The page has been moved back to the WP:COMMONNAME 2017 Barcelona attack. Please discuss any page moves here first. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Bar or restaurant?

The article says the hostages are in a "Turkish restaurant", a lot of media are reporting it's a bar. Do we know with certainty yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.218.128 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The legal definition of an establishment as a bar or restaurant is often the percentage of income from sale of alcohol versus the percentage of income from sale of food. What are the laws in Barcelona? Do the media know? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Spanish newspapers

• El Mundo: [1]
• El País: [2]
• Europa Press: [3]

Local Twitter updates

• EmergènciesCatalunya
• Mossos

TV News

• TV3: Telenotícies Vespre TV3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buran Biggest Fan (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Some references. emijrp (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Change targets

I think that targets: "Civilian, tourists" is not correct. Tourists are civilians too, and maybe "pedestrians" would be more accurate.

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Tourists are typically some other country's civilians, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Mixed events in "Attack" section

The section that describes the attacks mixes two events that have happened during the afternoon in different parts of Barcelona and the information provided is unclear. First there was the Fiat van attack down the Rambla; then during the police operations a Ford Focus ran over a checkpoint in Avinguda Diagonal, two police officers were injured, and there was a chase that finished with the driver shot by the police. The police insist these two events might not be related but that the van ramming might be connected with an explosion that happened yesterday in a house in Alcanar (which happened to be followed with another explosion at the same place earlier today).

Just writing it down here to keep things clear and help people's editing. --ESM (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to say the same. When editing slows down tomorrow this can be cleaned up properly. Fences&Windows 22:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Canary Islands

Currently the infobox offers to show a map of the Canary Islands. Barcelona is in Catalonia, not the Islands. I would correct it myself but it seems automatically generated. --Error (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is okay. There is an option to show an overview map of Spain including the Canary Islands, with the location of Barcelona highlighted. --2001:A62:11E9:4C01:AD8A:5BA0:C499:6F7D (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Change name of article from 2017 Barcelona attack to 2017 Barcelona attacks

There has been a second attack confirmed where 2 police officers have been run over at a checkpoint from the first attack.

@Crawnax: There is no official conformation that these two incidents were connected. If there is an official conformation from the authorities in Catalonia that these two incidents are in fact connected, we can put in a move request. Jith12 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There is however confirmation that this is related to a bombing the day prior.... Gvstaylor1 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Related attack in Alcanar, Catalonia

Spanish police are saying a house explosion last night in Alcanar, Spain (100km south of Barcelona) is connected to todays attack in Barcelona. https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/898292500363792384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.202.88 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Firefighters found about 20 gas cylinders in the house after it exploded. One person was killed". If that many gas cylinders are there all the time because they are rented away etc. it was an accident. If not, it was an attack. --2001:A62:11E9:4C01:AD8A:5BA0:C499:6F7D (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Alcanar explosion has been deemed by the police to be related. The explosion was initially thought to be an accident, it is now clear that is was the same jihadist terror cell as the attacks later in the day in the Ramblas and in Avinguda Diagonal. XavierItzm (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Plea

No condolence quotes, please. They aren't encyclopedic. --John (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I plead with you all, do as John says. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ditch them. Two months from now they'll be meaningless platitudes. Akld guy (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Two minutes after they're written they're meaningless platitudes. 08:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Those two months from now are already meaningless platitudes. The only difference between the uttered ones and the unuttered is a location in place of a blank. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hostages?

There is no conformation of any hostages that have been taken. I think it should be removed until there is official conformation from authorities. Should mention of it be removed? Jith12 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If there are very notable reports of hostages might be appropriate to say something like "early reports mentioned that hostages had been taken, but this was not confirmed" or "...officials later stated there were no known hostages" as appopriate. If the reports are just the usual very early confusion though, then straight removal is best. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Catalan police addressed this here: https://twitter.com/mossos/status/898250170139373568. They say there was no hostage-taking, so I think the sentence ought to be deleted. 79.70.163.54 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture of "Promenade where the attack took place"

Promenade where the attack took place

The picture used on the Attack section is from the southernmost part of La Rambla which was uninvolved on the events.

I'd suggest this other picture which actually shows quite clearly the intersection from Plaça Catalunya from where the van got into the central promenade by the pedestrian crossing

83.41.191.169 (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Spanish or Moroccan?

The Telegraph calls Oukabir a "legal resident" in Spain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/17/driss-oubakir-barcelona-suspect/). Fox News calls him as a Moroccan citizen. (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/17/barcelona-attack-suspect-identified-as-moroccan-man.amp.html) El Mundo says he has a residence dcument. (http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2017/08/17/5995d32d468aeb0d4c8b45b7.html) I don't have much knowledge about this. Is this equal to permanent residence in USA? Besides I think the statement calling him "Spanish citizen" should be changed, I don't think I have found it in the three I have searched. If there is a source, then please do add it there. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've called him a Moroccan-born Ripoll resident for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Oukabir has been described by the major Spanish newspapers as "magrebí", i.e., of Moroccan origin.XavierItzm (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Melilla is an Spanish enclave on Moroccan territory in the African continent. It is more than probable that he has full Spanish citizenship while being visually indistinguible from the people on the other side of the Melilla border, hence the confusion 83.41.191.169 (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You are making an assumption. The sources specifically state the guy is either "Magrebí" (African) or Moroccan. Besides, no Spanish person from Melilla is ever called a "Magrebí", unless the person actually has Magrebí ancestry. XavierItzm (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Melillan is the second guy arrested, I'd assumed. Maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More Suspects killed?

4 Suspects were show and killed in a follow up raid? http://www.wpxi.com/news/national/spanish-police-shoot-kill-4-suspects-in-separate-alleged-terror-plot/594459885 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvstaylor1 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

I've removed all the accumulated quotes and associated flagcruft from the international reactions section. We are here to write encyclopaedic prose about the event not host a list of quotes from all and sundry - Melinia Trump and Jeremy Corbyn aren't even world leaders. Quotes can be added to Wikiquote and that page linked from this article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we start to elaborate on it then? Instead of "multiple nations"Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If you can write some prose and not just a list, yes. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How about we not delete the reactions until people can finish them? thanks. Also Why do we have an entire 'nother page for only the reactions? Gvstaylor1 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Source that shit, at least. I don't see the point of having a reactions article if we're going to get verbose about uninvoled states here, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's sourced next to the merica title. I really don't know why we need a "Reaction" article. I can understand until this article gets more in depth... But if I come to read about an attack in 2 years... I don't wanna click 16 different links to find out how my country responds... Ill work on cleaning them up slowly, just fix any crappy grammar mistakes Gvstaylor1 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw that, after. Not where normally found. The American reaction is now the largest paragraph in the entire article, despite being one of the least important parts. It's just words from across an ocean. Makes no sense to have such weight in an article about actions, but in the article about related words, it makes perfect sense. Just click one link, not sixteen. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And now, with Ireland and France, the Reactions section is the largest section in the article. Full of nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You know damn well that the reactions are meaningful. People want to know what country says what. Guaranteed the other articles will be more full in the coming days. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I know nothing of the sort. Curious people click the Reactions link in the Reactions section. It's prominently blue, and you know damn well it doesn't take sixteen tries. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Do encyclopedias have 16 different articles for 1 incident? Also the United States is the fore front of the free world and the fight against the Islamic state. People care what they say. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Where's sixteen coming from? People can either click the "main article" Wikilink once and scroll, or click the footnote once, scroll and click again. Two, tops. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad you're taking 16 literally. I'm riding the train to work, reading articles on my phone... I open this and go into the tunnel under the city with no service. Guess what I can't do? Click on useless sub-articles.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're trying to say "two" figuratively, best to go with "dozens", "thousands" or "billions". Sixteen sounds like a real number. If Wikipedia was primarily written for people who enter tunnels during articles, it'd all be on one page. All sixteen megabytes of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some consensus on what is and what is not a suitable inclusion for international reactions per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Listing every politician in completely unrelated countries who wrote on Twitter that they thought killing people is bad is just unencyclopedic. It's fine to just leave it as one sentence and have some examples in the reference. The only possible notable reactions are practical ones such as closing borders, sending aid, police raids and the like. We would not mention the reaction of Peru's Foreign Minister on Attack on Pearl Harbor, for example. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Countries offering help, or directly impacted should def have a spot. But again the leaders of the Free world (EU, US (insert corny trump isn't a leader of the free world), etc... France legit had the same type of attack a year ago... Gvstaylor1 (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There are only two sorts of reactions that should be included. 1. Anything that is concrete real-world action, not just a quote or talking about taking action. 2. Any other reaction that is the subject of detailed commentary in reliable sources, about which we can write at least 2-3 sentences of sourced encyclopaedic prose (Trump's reaction to the Charlotteville violence is a good example of this latter). Everything else belongs only on Wikiquote. Thryduulf (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I added "have offered support" then to the reactions section. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine (although I'm not sure why the US is being singled out), but offering support is still just talking, still routine and doesn't make any individual reaction doing the offering notable enough for inclusion on the main article (and there shouldn't be a separate reactions article for them to be included in either). Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, Leader of the Free World offers their support. That is an important aspect. The Leaders of their overall union did aswell... Not many others offered help.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ISIL Involvement

According to official sources ISIL has claimed authorship of the attack.

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They can take responsibility for anything. You can get on a train without tickets and scream "Allah Akbar", and ISIL will happily call you its warrior. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Close. Amaq will call you an ISIS soldier, SITE Intelligence will send this to Western news subscribers, then Western headline writers will spin it into "ISIS Claims Responsibility", because that's worth more than what really happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

TonyaJaneMelbourne, except you don't even need to even whisper "Allah Akbar". Mumble anything and unnamed witnesses, who probably wouldn't be able to hear the difference between "Allah Akbar" and the name of the Qatari goalkeeper's grandmother, will swear blind you shouted it! as this shows.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism ?

Given everything we know, including the Amaq claim, the likelihood is that this is going to be Islamist, however no Spanish authority has stated this yet AFAIK. Therefore I am going to remove references to Islamism. We shouldn't be treating Amaq as a RS. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaditano23 Have you heard of RS?. I don't know about you, but when I read WP, I have little interest in notable political commentators speculating about motives, unless it is phrased as speculation. I have ZERO interest in your speculations being phrased as fact, (even though they are likely to be proven right in X hours).

Would you care to add as refs "Gaditano23 says it's not likely to be IRA", that should satisfy everyone, Gaditano23's well known as an authority on this subject.

WP:HYH applies. Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Also Pincrete, being a hypocrite since you stated that the Munich shooting was committed by a Christian convert, and there was no proof for that, so obviously you have a bias. You remember this? "The killer turned out to be a convert to Christianity, who was obsessed by mass shootings."HeinzMaster (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of Spain, called it a jihadist attack, so that ends that argument HeinzMaster (talk) 17:52 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

HeinzMaster, then the text and source (Spanish PM) need to be in the article, readers and other editors are not mind-readers, they want/need/are entitled to know why a claim is made. It should not only be true, but be verifiable.

Re: 2016 Munich shooting: Munich police chief Hubertus Andrä said that the shooting appeared to be a "classic shooting rampage" and not terrorism.[34] Police said that the gunman was obsessed with mass shootings, and that written material on such attacks was found in his room There was also a lot of speculation about Sonboly being obsessed with Anders Behring Breivik, some of which was true, some not. Plus :Sonboly's parents told police that their son had possibly converted to Christianity, but that he was not religious.[66][67] In May 2016, Sonboly had his name changed in all official documents from Ali to David.

Sonboly certainly was not a practising Muslim and therefore unlikely to have shouted 'God is great' as the single unnamed Kosovar CNN 'eye-witnesss' claimed (then went silent), so the description is pretty accurate in the WP:HYH context, which is making the point that superficial 'proofs', prove nothing. Wanting to see sources for all important info is upholding policy on neutrality and accuracy, it is not "being a hypocrite" or "being biased". You should read WP:AGF. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Princrete I never had any problem with not calling it a jihadist attack, my problem was with you making it seem like it was because of his "supposed" conversion to Christianity. There is no proof of that, and changing your name to David proves nothing. David is more attributed to Judaism rather then Christianity, so there is as much of a chance of him converting to Judaism. So no, you weren't accurate, you were applying your bias to the description of an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a subtle difference between jihadism and Islamism, and a not-at-all subtle difference between attack and terrorism, if anyone cares. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Censoring quotes

Please see the edits by User:Abductive and my reverts. Other opinions required here, I think (see the edit summaries). 141.6.11.22 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Listen, there is no censoring. ISIS claimed responsibility and that is still in the article, twice. Making the article into an ISIS quotefarm is lazy. Abductive (reasoning) 08:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

One quote, that adds context, and illustrates the ISIS thinking - however vile that thinking is - does not constitute a quote farm. 141.6.11.22 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And, instead of using a secondary source to illustrates the ISIS thinking, you use a primary source and conduct WP:OR. Any editor (me in this case) can challenge a primary source. I invoke my right to challenge the ISIS primary source. Do the encyclopedic thing and provide secondary and tertiary sources, while paraphrasing them to avoid plagiarism. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How it is quote farming stating "ISIL has claim responsibility"? It should be added, and it should not be removed.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's in the article twice. Just not as a quote about "glorious winning marvelous soldiers of God". Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

The full quote makes it clear that someone is talking about ISIS, third-person, not ISIS referring to itself. When ISIS releases a statement through official channels, it's far more poetic. Martyrs and glorious merciful Allah and whatnot. The full quote also makes it clear that the writer claims ISIS (via Adnani, who is dead) inspired the attack, not planned, funded or directed it, as "responsibility" implies. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the use of the word "inspired". But the quote did not make anything clear. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure it did. It referenced the call made to billions of strangers nearly three years ago. Makes it clear a living commander didn't phone these fuckers personally to ask a favour last week, as the vaguer "ISIS claims responsibility" might. Not sure where you saw anything about glory, marvel, winning, God or primary sources; it clearly wasn't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. You are referencing something that's not in the article. Do you have a problem with the current wording? Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

None as of now. You? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

16th victim

There was 1 dead in the explosion, 13 in Barcelona, and 1 in Cambrills. That's what you read everywhere. The article mentions a 16th victim, who was apparently stabbed in Barcelona after the ramming. Nobody's reporting this.

The stabbed woman is the 1 person dead in Cambrills. emijrp (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There were 13 victims in La Rambla, and 1 more by injuries. So total victims in La Rambla is 14. emijrp (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. All media that I'm reading say 13 in Barcelona and 1 in Cambrills. -- I think the 16th victim mentioned in our article is a stabbed person in Barcelona (not on the Ramblas) supposed to have been stabbed by the ramming driver during his flight. But this is a mere theory and has not been confirmed. The confirmed death toll seems to be 1 + 13 + 1 = 15, not 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.14.185 (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the 16th victim seems to be the stabbed person. It's now being reported that he was stabbed by the Ramblas attacker. So apparently 16 is correct.

Is it? I still haven't heard anything about the Ramblas attacker doing that except for the sole source (the Australian) about it in this article. Dreadwyrm (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Some media still treat it as a theory (for example, the Guardian), some treat it as fact (for example, the Daily Mail). So yeah, it's still not safe and I think we should be careful, but at least it's out there now. At first, the whole thing wasn't mentioned anywhere except wikipedia.

La Rambla/Las Ramblas

Might it be good to decide which form of the name we're going to use and then be consistent? Harfarhs (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Moussa and others dead in Cambrilis

Moussa Oukabir, Said Aallaa, Mohamed Hychami and two others are the ones shot dead in Cambrilis. As the attackers of Cambrilis, they are definitely the ones. (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/barcelona-attack-terror_uk_5996fedde4b0e8cc855d4676) Younes Abouyaaqoub is supceted to be the driver and his documents were found in a second van in Vic (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/19/manhunt-van-driver-police-search-foryounes-abouyaaqoub-final/). I think this needs to be added and adequate changes made to the article to reflect this. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail article

The Daily Mail has found something to make a fuss about on Wikipedia, but it isn't this article. It's unclear which article(s) they are referring to, but Dabiq (magazine) is a possibility.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The chumps at the Daily Mail simply don't understand the nature of Wikipedia, nor what is meant by free speech and freedom of expression. The 'newspaper' is best ignored. 86.153.24.78 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Until now, Wikipedia has largely avoided the spotlight" suggests they've never used Google. Googling their quote ""to improve coverage of Islam-related articles" finds no discussions on Wikipedia, but "to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles" is part of the WikiProject Islam template. I hope they're not wasting time trying to talk to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Says the content was added "just 12 days ago" and includes stuff al Qaeda (presumably Inspire) published "just six days ago". Not sure how that timeline works, but might narrow it down. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it does. 1,221 bytes of "inappropriate external links" yoinked today. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated but apologies InedibleHulk for removing your comment - Upon entering my !vote above instead of getting an edit conflict it decided to remove peoples comments ... no idea why but regardless my apologies. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

All good. It's happened to me, too. Back on topic, the same user also yoinked 1,094 bytes from Rumiyah. Allegedly for copyright violations, not fear of the British government. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The DM article is, as ever, sloppily written. None of this material is/was actually hosted on Wikipedia as far as I can see, although it might be available via various citations and external links. There was a debate at Talk:Dabiq_(magazine)#Issue_Link_list in 2015 about whether the magazine itself is a suitable external link. At the time of writing, this particular link is still up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

List of victims

Why has this table been deleted [4], and without discussion? It seems to summarise important and widely reported information in a compact format. HampsteadLord (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My line of reasoning was that the table took up an excessive amount of vertical space (it really was enormous), looked a bit like a scoreboard which is kind of distasteful, and doesn't really contribute anything of value to the reader's understanding beyond what could be expressed in prose. I have no objection to summarizing the key points of the table in text form in the "Casualties" section. TompaDompa (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been done for almost every terrorist attack in the recent years, and suddenly it's distasteful? Plus it seems out of line of other terrorist attacks, since it's on almost every one of them. Atleast the big Western terror attacks. 2016 Brussels bombings - Victims and November 2015 Paris attacks - Casualties

The thing that could be removed are the injuries table, but for the actual deaths of the people, you can go change every terror attack page then, since usually they have this sort of table on them. Yes, it looks distasteful, but this is about information, not about your feelings. Kef274 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the table for casualties should be reinstated. This is usually the case in these articles.Yan.simkin (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's stupid here, and stupid elsewhere. Do you see this sort of point tallying in the reliable sources we're meant to reflect? Just wastes space and turns tragedy into a competition with arbitrary rules. Why should Spain be leading the pack when it buries five people and is done with them? Shouldn't France be winning with 32 injured who retain French citizenship and potential to burden its health and social systems? Until the game has verifiable rules, it should be called off as synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The injuries are not that important, but deaths are, and need to be included. HampsteadLord (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Deaths are more important to friends and family, but there's no recurring effect on the dead themselves or their countrymen. The seriously injured won't soon forget why they can't move, look or think like they used to, and the public (even those who aren't born yet) will continue to see this event's consequences through them. Those who can't work still need to cover living expenses on top of their medical expenses, unlike the dead (who save money). When ranking national impact rather than familial, the injured are far weightier. Even so, without knowing the seriousness of each injury, we can't give France or Spain the gold medal with any certainty and shouldn't hazard a guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If table height is a problem, table can be collapsed adding these values to CSS "class" parameter "collapsible collapsed". emijrp (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Translation from Spanish

this source is almost certainly mistranslated : "According to the investigation initiated by the security forces, the attacks perpetrated in Barcelona and Cambrils would be the work of a terrorist cell composed of 12 members, of which Abouyaaqoub would be the only one at large.

The use of 'would be' in both cases makes it hypothetical. Most likely correct Eng. is 'were' and 'was' for the first and 2nd uses respectively, but I'd rather a fluent bilingual person made the change. Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The source text is:
«Según la investigación iniciada por las fuerzas de seguridad, los atentados perpetrados en Barcelona y Cambrils serían obra de una célula terrorista compuesta por 12 miembros, de los cuales Abouyaaqoub sería el único huido.».
The quoted text as of now, is:
"According to the investigation initiated by the security forces, the attacks perpetrated in Barcelona and Cambrils would be the work of a terrorist cell composed of 12 members, of which Abouyaaqoub would be the only one at large."
The source text, in fact, proposes a hypothetical, i.e, «serían», which could be translated as "would be", "might be", or "could be." I agree that a native English speaker would probably not use "would be" twice in a row, but in Spanish the journalist chose to use «serían» twice in the same sentence.
In any event, I am not sure I would characterize the quote as a mistranslation, even if the translation is probably subject to stylistically improvement. I thank you for scrutinizing these things and encourage you to raise any other issues you see. XavierItzm (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

In English, this use begs the question "would be .... if what?" eg he would be the only one at large ... if he escaped, which makes no sense in context. The first use makes more sense, but looks improvable, since the attacks were not hypothetical.

"Could be" would make more sense in both uses (ie it's possible, but not certain).Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I've updated the translation as follows: «According to security forces investigators, the attacks perpetrated in Barcelona and Cambrils could be the work of a terrorist cell composed of 12 members, of which Abouyaaqoub might be the only one at large.» People are welcome to pitch in if they see room for improvement! XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And it all becomes utterly moot, as WWGB goes ahead and summarily deletes all translations of sources cited in foreign languages! Yippee ki-yay! Wowza! XavierItzm (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG, "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided" (emphasis added) WWGB (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Islamic

Are we sure this is a Islamic attack? If an American falls and scraps their knee, ISIL would claim responsibility. 2001:569:7911:C900:E0E5:6CA7:C471:F57D (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The terrorist wrote on internet back in 2015: "I would kill all the infidels, would only allow the muslims who follow the religion". XavierItzm (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The leader of the terrorist cell was an imam... any more questions...? XavierItzm (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The mother believes the imam may have radicalized her son but at no point does the source call him the leader of the terrorist cell...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Then they must be Jehovah Witnesses. Really people, name the things what they are.Yan.simkin (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, quite sure. 100% sure it is Islamic.Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Organization

I realize the aspects of this incident are still changing because of the investigation and search, but can we please tidy up this article? There are currently six "paragraphs" in the lead, most consisting of one sentence. The same issue can be found in a few sub-headers. For some reason, the "suspect" section is becoming a full-blown list of biographies containing inessential information -- what do we get from knowing a suspect quit his job "abruptly"? Like I said, I realize the facts are still emerging, but this is just sloppy and nonsensical.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, text says 1 woman killed in explosion, infobox says 2, if you look down to 'suspects' you find an iman who AFAI can see MAY be a suspect and may be person 2. Different figures for injured all over the place and I can't work out who (dead or alive) is accused of having done what/where/when. I gave up. Basic copy edit and differences between may be/is/were thought to be need to be applied throughout. This is a confusing story with unfolding elements, but at the moment our account isn't very coherent and is careless.

I would point out that 'perpetrators' means 'people who did the crime', not accomplices and at present we only know that people have been arrested 'related' to the crime. That relationship may be trivial or serious and certainly doesn't make them 'perpetrators'. BLP certainly applies to the arrested, besides this adds to the incoherence, when everyone is equally guilty of everything, nobody is actually accused of anything. Pincrete (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

«what do we get from knowing a suspect quit his job "abruptly"? »
Cited by multiple WP:RS.
(1)We go by what the WP:RS say, not by what editor may "get" or not get.
(2) In any event, it is important to underline that the imam was no longer employed at his mosque, as it would adversely impact all of the people who currently worship there, don't you think? Or would an editor rather, by omitting this key piece of information, cast aspersions on the congregation? I, for one, don't think that would be fair to the mosque's worshippers, but hey, if you wanna take it out...
(3) The fact the imam quit his imam mosque job is relevant, as it raises questions as to the behavior of the suspect. To mention another terrorist example, in the San Bernardino islamist attack, Wikipedia reads: «Farook had been quiet for the duration of the event, and that he had been looking at his phone before his departure» Perhaps TheGracefulSlick would care to go edit that article, as perhaps he might not "get" anything from the terrorist looking at his phone before he started the attack?
Look the bottom line is that going by what editors "get" instead of what the WP:RS say, we get into this sort of I "get", you "get".
I for one, propose we stick to the WP:RS.XavierItzm (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We've been down this road before XavierItzm. Being sourced is a necessary, but not a sufficient reason for inclusion, otherwise we would be recording every piece of trivia printed everywhere on the planet about this event. I'm not going to comment in detail, 'cos I haven't looked at the imam material. BTW, I think TheGracefulSlick is a she. Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xavierltzm: I actually fully intend to edit this article. One of the unfortunate inevitabilities about these kinds of articles is a large portion of editors stop giving a damn about them in a week or so. That is when I can try to fix this mess, when edit conflicts are less likely. Readers (and the victims) deserve a coherent article which keeps speculation and useless trivial to a minimum. I apologize if you do not like the critique of what is partially your work but shabby edits deserve a level of criticism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

French injured

Is there any explanation on why so many French people were injured? I know many French people visit Barcelona but it doesn't seem statistically likely unless they were a group and some light structure fell on them, especially if none of them were killed. It would be interesting to clarify 32 French injured and zero deaths unless the initial figures were wrong?Gaditano23 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaditano23 France is Spain's northern neighbor and over 120,000 Frenchmen live in the country. There is nothing particularly peculiar about there being that many French injuries; be thankful that those are not deaths. Unless you have multiple RS analyzing this statistic, there is no reason to emphasize the amount of injuries French people suffered in this incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

French border is just about 150km north of Barcelona 83.60.242.139 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick I didn't quite get your "thankful" comment regarding a terrorist attack on my country. Anyhow, turns out it was 28 French, 13 Germans injured. Other nationalities seem to hover around the 3 to 5 figure. I guess that sounds about right for Las Ramblas, and I assume Spaniards would be among the 28 categorized as "unknown" for the moment.Gaditano23 (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaditano23, I know from past experience that the 'injured' numbers, both the 'nationality' and total numbers almost always become inaccurate and contradictory very quickly. Initial figures tend to be confused, but be based on 'ambulance' figures. Later, the follow-on figures tend to include people who 'walked away' on the day, but 'walked in' during the next few days. Just letting you know! Injured figures are often problematic, with little distinction between very major and fairly minor injury. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alcanar survivor accused of terrorism

Out of concern for WP:BLPCRIME we should not refer to this man accused of terrorism as a terrorist, only report which media police have done so, unless he is convicted.

By extension, referring to any of the men killer in Alcanar as terrorists seems like something to also avoid as that could impact trial of survivor. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Just because they had TAPT, which the NYT calls "the Islamic State’s signature explosive, TATP", and 120 propane cylinders at the Alcanar house, does not mean that the men at Alcanar were islamic terrorists in any way, shape, or form. For all we know, this could very well end up being deemed by the government a case of workplace violence, for which there is precedent in the U.S., or mental issues, for which there is precedent in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. One must always look at precedent. Or it could be that the people are freedom fighters, or scientists researching the chemical Acetone Peroxide. We just don't know at this point, and have no way of knowing. In any event, any survivors at Alcanar are mere suspects at this point, and if determined that WP:BLPCRIME has any relevancy here, it must be applied in full to the extent that it may apply. No exceptions of any sort. XavierItzm (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, they are dead, hence there is gonna be no trial. BLPCrime does not apply. The living suspects are included in a seperate section and there are no references to them being terrorists HeinzMaster (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP also applies to the recently dead, but that isn't the main point, which is that it is no part of our function to even slightly act as judge or jury and it is a disservice to readers for us to do so. We don't try to follow these rules because we are stupid or naive, simply because what is possible or even what is probable is different from what is known. XavierItzm, no WP:OR means NO OR, not "only a little OR when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face". Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a case of WP:BLPCRIME here, as the accusation is not made in Wikipedia's voice, is made by major reliable sources as cited, and thus Wikipedia is not acting as "judge and jury" here as long as reliable sources are given. Collect (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that we were currently "acting as judge or jury", except in the sense of caring one way or another how much evidence (eg gas canisters, TAPT) pointed to them being terrorists. A ton of evidence on its own counts for nothing, an explicit statement from investigators (with or without evidence), is rendered verbatim without question by us. Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

References

ENGVAR?

Anyone know what WP:ENGVAR this should be? Appears to be mostly UK spelling, but not wholly. Before anyone says, they speak Spanish/Catalan in Barcelona, so British English has NO connection to the subject what so ever, (apart from being inherently superior of course !) Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The first edit was in British English - or at least, not American English - so I would support sticking with that. -- de Facto (talk). 18:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Abdelbaki Es Satty · two incompatible affirmations, here

1. . He died in the accidental explosion in Alcanar on 16 August. [105]
2. . Es Satty is believed to have died in the initial Alcanar house explosion.[114]

Both, today, at the same section, only one paragraph. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed "is believed" is correct, date is correct, Alcanar is correct. Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ooops possibly not, "It was confirmed by Spanish police that Satty was among etc" suggests that his death might now be confirmed, I don't have time to check/fix, I hope someone will. This is happing a lot on this article (people only changing one piece of text). Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

OK fixed, Es Satty's death is now confirmed.Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Locations on info map

Is there a particular logic or standard to which locations should be included in the info map at the top right of the article? Right now it shows the sites of the Barcelona attack, Cambrils attack, and the Alcanar explosion. Now there is also an incident in Subirats, and Ripoll is mentioned often in the article as where many of the perpetrators lived/grew up. I would consider these two places important enough to the events and far away enough from Barcelona to warrant their inclusion in the map. Reade (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Only logic I am aware of is that the map should remain clear/readable on all screen sizes (ie not too much info) Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Casualties statistics

@Emijrp: I appreciate your edit to collapse the statistics table just for desktop view. However, the mobile view doesn't collapse it. Also, per MOS:COLLAPSE, unless it's to hide redundancy and the lengthy table, we should be cautious about collapsing content, like a table, unless there's a good reason to collapse it. As a user using the desktop view, I just felt forced to click the "show" button to see number of deaths of various nationalities. Why not remove "collapsed" to turn class parameter into "wikitable sortable floatright collapsible" while retaining the show/hide button? --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion to concerns raised here #List of victims. You can remove it, I don't mind. emijrp (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been done. --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we add a "Suspects" in the fatality chart? It can add up the total actual casualties... Because its over 20 if you include them.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2017

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: Not moved., snow oppose. No such user (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Barcelona attack → 2017 Barcelona van collision – I believe titling this an "attack" is presently a violation of WP:BLPCRIME guidelines that we not assert any living person has committed a crime unless they are convicted of that crime. I believe we should call this a collision until there is a conviction for that reason. Otherwise it violates BLP which should be of higher concern than what the media (who has no BLP policy as strong as Wikipedia's) is calling it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This was not a road traffic accident. Unless clear evidence emerges to the contrary, someone did this thinking that their chosen deity was going to be so proud of them, like many similar incidents of this kind.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • not interested in your WP:OR, whether or not this was accident or attack is decided in court not tabloids. It violates BLPCRIME for us to assert it was an attack. Instead we should be reporting which notable sources called it an attack. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest speedy close as another rename discussion is open above. What is the logic, this wasn't only in Barcelona and wasn't a collision! Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • a van hitting people, whether accidental or intentional, is very much a collision. These move discussions are by separate nominators and over separate issues. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This was not a road accident but rather a vehicle ramming. Also, the ramming aspect was not the only part of the attack so there is no reason to make it appear as if it was by changing the title in this manner.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • any evaluating admins should note that this is arguing a straw man, I proposed we use COLLISION, not ACCIDENT. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• @ScratchMarshall: mhmm, and what is your response to the fact the "collision" was not the only component of the attack, and that there are connected attacks discussed in the article which have nothing to do with the van being used as a weapon?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was as much a "collision" as other Islamist attacks have been deemed to be "workplace violence" (USA) and "mental problems" (Germany). But moving forward, all terrorist vehicular attacks such as Nice, Stockholm, Paris, Barcelona, can be called "collisions" in Wikipedia! Yeah! That's the ticket!. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. @ScratchMarshall: If I hit you with a hammer, did you collide with the hammer or did I attack you with the hammer? This was a series of coordinated attacks done by the same individuals, which has been proven multiple times by sources straight from the police. HeinzMaster (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

technically the hammer collides with me if you do that. Police are not juries, police statements do not qualify as convictions and do not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME requirements. I can see many objecting here on grounds of personal opinion and not policy. It seems like a coordinated attack to me too! I get it. But allowing this is a BLP violation. Our opinions do not matter, opinions of media do not matter, only whether a criminal conviction has happened where the government has decided they are at fault. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: Last I checked, that BLPCrime talks about living people, I have never heard about convictions for dead individuals, so your argument is mute. Most of the terrorists are dead, so unless they get a Ouija board, they are never getting one. The article you keep linking for mentions living people, so your argument is especially mute.HeinzMaster (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - and why has this move request been opened whilst another is still under discussion further up this talk page? Jim Michael (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because of the other move request. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Snow oppose - I believe the editor only opened this to make a WP:POINT on Talk:Unite the Right rally. The move obviously isn't going to happen, could an un-involved admin assess the consensus, and if they agree, close this now? Power~enwiki (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For the nominator ScratchMarshall's discussion at Talk:Unite the Right rally, see this. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH Neo-Jay, this is not to make a point, I legitimately think it should be renamed out of concern for the men who were arrested, abiding BLPCRIME. I hadn't read the article until it was pointed out at which point became aware if the problem. This is not a vote folks, if policy does not back your objections your input should be discounted. If we are going to constantly ignore BLPCRIME instructions then they should be eraser and we can march bravely forward into calling 99% of celebrities rapists/traitors because some source makes the claim. Never mind conviction requirements, seems to be the line of thought here? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: I did not say that this was to make a point. I just provided a link for the content that Power~enwiki mentioned so that other readers could understand the context and make their own judgments.--Neo-Jay (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall, there is a difference between whether a 'crime' occurred and who, if anyone, was responsible for it. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Though everyone notes the absurdity of the move, I point out here that reliable sources do not call the event a "collision", that they do use the term "attack" and that this does not involve WP:BLPCRIME at all as such. Collect (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Controversy Section?

This is Spain we are talking about and there is enough material to create a controversy section, which we can all safely assume will grow exponentially over the coming weeks. Gaditano23 (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Try adding one if you feel the material is strong enough. The criteria will be the same as any other content, ie whether there is sufficient coverage to justify it, certainly NOT what we assume MAY happen, WP:CRYSTAL. Sometimes these events spawn years of controversy, sometimes they fizzle out or become very peripheral very quickly. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't add it myself as of yet. But there are controversies regarding media coverage (e.g. Italian newspaper claiming terrorist was an independence activist), reaction of Catalan government in aftermath (Catalan and Spanish victims thing), CUP threatening not to attend rally and blaming King for attacks, Mossos being warned about imam prior to attacks, refusal by mayor of Barcelona to set up protective "bolardos", CIA warning Mossos of high risk of attack 2 months before... List goes on. All can be sourced. Just as was the case with the 11-M which became highly polarizing politically something similar is happening here - although not as extreme as the Madrid attacks which involved the government trying to cover up perpetrators until elections, government losing elections and a range of conspiracy theories being launched by major media outlets. Gaditano23 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, articles should not have criticism/controversy sections, because they often lead to a range of problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. This article isn't the best place to look at Catalan nationalism and some of the mudslinging that has occurred as a result of the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Who has moved the article?? There was no consensus to move it

Most editors editing here consistently seem to agree that there are valid grounds not to move the article to Catalonia attacks. Gaditano23 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. There was no consensus and eventually general agreement not to move the article, particularly to Catalonia attacks, the least valid of three options.Gaditano23 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gaditano23: How so? As an uninvolved editor, I closed the #Requested move 18 August 2017 where I see a wide consensus to move to 2017 Catalonia attacks. You mentioned discussed in a separate section and it was agreed by most editors that the page should not be move but I don't see it. Just before that, I closed the concurrent #Requested move 19 August 2017 because it was apparent that the 2017 Barcelona van collision was inappropriate title. No such user (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to go now, but I point to your attention the #Change name of article from 2017 Barcelona attack to 2017 Catalonia attacks, where the proposal got an overwhelming support. No such user (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No such user I think there has been an overlap in the discussions which you missed. I tagged you in continued discussion further up. It was agreed by a number of editors (the most active ones here) that there was no grounds for a move specifically to Catalonia attacks for various reasons. Gaditano23 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

One last comment before I go: I closed the formal, widely advertised, debate to move to 2017 Catalonia attacks, with support of over 30 people. What happened later was an informal discussion between 4-5 editors. Feel free to open a WP:MR, but I don't think that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS beats the wider one. No such user (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No such user, not good enough, if you close a discussion, you should expect to offer some rationale. Your rationale appears to be 'counting votes', which is explicitly what these discussions are NOT. Here you say "I will address the issue soon", here "the matter is being discussed" .... ?????? We wait with baited breath. Perhaps you would care to address when WP:COMMONNAME ceased to be a core policy, and what in the discussion persuaded you that the common name in English (not Catalan or Spanish) is ' Catalonia attacks' rather than 'Barcelona attacks'. Commonname IS the wider consensus, ignoring it because a second minor attack occurred outside Barcelona is the 'local' argument.Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I do not close based on headcounting. However, WP:COMMONNAME was barely touched upon in the debate, and the posters who did mention it (notably, yourself) only provided an assertion that "Barcelona attack" is the one, but did not provide much evidence. The title began as a descriptive one, WP:NCEVENTS being the relevant convention, and most posters pointed out that Barcelona is not a sufficiently WP:PRECISE descriptor for the "where" part. I did not feel that the close requires elaboration, as the consensus was so overwhelming. I shall explain further at the move review. No such user (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@No such user: Re: However, WP:COMMONNAME was barely touched upon in the debate, and the posters who did mention it (notably, yourself) only provided an assertion that "Barcelona attack" is the one, but did not provide much evidence. I suggest you revisit remarks by Davey2010, - de Facto, - Collect (The purpose of Wikipedia is to make information readily available to persons using the most common terms for the article .... The name should be that which a person using Wikipedia would be most likely to use ... One of the three also has Ghits for the two terms demonstrating that 'Catalonia' is much less frequent in Eng sources). There are others making similar, less explicit arguments about the greater familiarity of 'Barcelona' as a term.

I am happy to acknowledge that the discussion centres - or should have centred - on whether the second attack necessitates the more accurate 'Catalonia' or whether we go for the less accurate, but more used (and more likely to be remembered in X years) term. Many people above are new editors, they are often arguing that there were many, many attacks (there were not, neither blowing yourself up, nor being shot escaping is 'an attack'), they were arguing that Sp or Cat WP had changed name. Not one supporter even addressed the commonname issue.

It's happened now and the world has not ended, but I'm sorry, what I see is 'counting heads', not weighing up valid arguments. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to move - It should've been closed as "No Consensus" and I would've said this even if I !voted Support, There were good arguments on both sides and both sides went by one policy but in this case I'm not seeing a consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that There was no consensus to move, valid arguments rather than 'counting heads' is what establishes consensus here. I don't feel strongly about the name change, but do feel strongly about the, frankly amateur, 'closing', which makes no attempt to indicate WHY these changers had the best arguments. Of course 'van collision' was not serious. Keep 'as is' was serious, largely because it is still the commonname in Eng sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support move As No such user stated there was a huge amount of editors (over 30!) agreeing to move the article and giving very good reasons for the move. There were a small minority against - and they gave their reasons. It seems correct to therefore move the article to 2017 Catalonia attacks. Reaper7 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And the commonname being used in English media is? A naming discussion is explicitly NOT a ballot, so 100s of editors voting either way(many of whom are new editors btw) is not the deciding factor. As I say above, it is the total absence of rationale above which is annoying, why did we bother? Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No such userWhat is the procedure for contesting the move. Most of us are unhappy with it, no valid reasons were provided and it was done without consensus. I do think it would be easier if you just undid it but otherwise we will have to contest.Gaditano23 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Most are happy with the move. Why did you say: Most of us are unhappy with it? Reaper7 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaditano23 - Just a suggestion but you could always go to WP:RM and have it moved back (under a controversial move perhaps?) and then No Such User could reopen and relist the discussion for another week or 2, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Davey2010I'm relatively new to wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to do it for me. I gave it a shot and failed. :-( Gaditano23 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Catalonia attacks" is actually getting some usage in English media. Examples: NY Daily News, Politico, KMOV, AzerNews, Reuters. ^Falling_Gravity 19:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Done - I've now listed this at RM (Uncontroversial), once moved No such user can reopen and relist the discussion, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't even know Move Review even existed!, So as such I've now struck the above, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Since there is controversy, I transferred the move request to controversial move requests. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I decided to move the discussion to Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2017_August#2017_Catalonia_attacks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing the map

I don't know if I agree with using a map of all of Spain, there are reasons against and reasons in favor. BUT, I think we don't need to point out Subirats or the Alcanar explosion. They are not of particular importance nor do they constitute attacks. The map is too cluttered now - more so having the map of all of Spain. Just keep Las Ramblas and Cambrils. The rest is just pointless IMO. We don't need a map showing where an accident occurred nor where the last terrorist was found a few days later. Gaditano23 (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that old map was clearer and that present has too much info. Here is a way of having 'scalable' maps, but I don't know how to do it.Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack into this article

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.

---

Suggestion that the contents of Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack be merged into this article. The Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack article is currently flagged for Afd and possible deletion and most of its content could be merged. The content relies heavily on Spanish language sources and needs thorough review and vetting by someone who speaks fluent Spanish. The article also relies heavily on twitter and other self published sources which need to be subjected to scrutiny. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The Afd result for Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack was no consensus. Merge Discussion reinstated. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the merging of this arbitrary collection of cherry-picked, primary-sourced comments into this article - it is pure WP:OR. We need to wait until a reliable secondary source interprets the data and assembles its analysis of world reaction, if one ever does. -- de Facto (talk). 20:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Stronly support merge as for the reasons listed in the proposal. Reaper7 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, please close this proposal. There is already a deletion discussion underway and it makes no sense at all to have both happening at once. I am probably entitled to close this myself, but would prefer that you do so.Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why is this discussion even taking place? There is growing consensus at AfD to delete this in unencyclopedic quote farm. This needs to be closed so we can follow the outcome of the AfD as we are supposed to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No consensus is a draw. In a draw, Keep wins by not losing. Now that everything's stayed as it was, everything should stay where it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just let this one go and move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2017 (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.

Non-neutral and original research casualty table needs deleting

As we know, we are obliged to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid original research in this article. In my opinion, the casualty table falls far short of either of those goals. By using primary sources (individual national reports of specific people or families) rather than an official centralised 'count', the table content is pure OR. Some casualties are citizens of more than one country - yet are are only listed under one - which? And how was the default sort order decided? Alphabetical is generally regarded as neutral, but there seems to be a weighting applied here - who decided that? The totals don't tally with the contents either - there are currently 15 deaths itemised in the table, but the total gives 16.

I propose we delete this table from the article and record just the verified totals. -- de Facto (talk). 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a mismatch between infobox (15), casualty table (16), short text (16 but not reffed), and 'expanded text' (13+1+1). I suspect that the 15 figure is correct and that the 16 is 'synthed' from the casualty table figures. As I say elsewhere, it is very difficult to keep the 'injuries' figures accurate in these situations because of the reasons de Facto gives and because 'injuries' often double after the initial day's figures, with wide discrepancies in figures used by sources.

I don't personally see what the table adds that would not be more clearly rendered in text. Death figures are usually accurate, but neither total nor nationalities are usually accurate for injured, especially when using sources from individual's 'local' area/country. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

nb mismatched numbers are now fixed (not by me!) 15 is correct figure and 16 must be synthed.Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I would propose then to remove the injuries part of the table, and stick to the deaths. If a very specific table is needed, there is also one on the Spanish wiki of this page (which seems to be way more accurate then this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kef274 (talk • contribs) 2017-08-21T18:36:14 (UTC)

• Support removing injuries and keeping just fatalities, as a good start. -- de Facto (talk). 18:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As discussion seems to have dried-up, I removed the casualties column, leaving the fatalities. -- de Facto (talk). 11:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The table now uses a single source, which removes OR and makes the table content fully verifiable. -- de Facto (talk). 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That's half as bad, so twice as good. But still nothing a sentence couldn't cover in less space. The table doesn't even fit in its section, spills over to Suspects after two rows. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's what I proposed at the top here, but I couldn't muster enough support to form a consensus to delete it all. So the compromise of deleting just the non-fatalities was the best I could get. -- de Facto (talk). 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Wasn't blaming you, just appraising what remained. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional victim

I believe there is now another victim, possibly a Greek person or a German of Gk ancestry (I have heard both and Gk sources often don't distinguish between citizenship and ethnicity, ie Pete Sampras is Gk!). I believe this person may have had their life support turned off. The numbers have been updated, but not the text or refs. Strictly speaking, this person should not be described as having been killed at La Rambla on the day, as they were one of the injured who later died of their injuries. If anyone knows about this or has access to sources, I can't seem to find anything. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The tough one here is editing the lead to include this victim. I tried to earlier and gave up. Has it been done yet?Gaditano23 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not AFAIK, but I don't have a source on which to base/back up changes. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)