Jump to content

Talk:2020 Nice stabbing

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


Requested move 29 October 2020

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2020 Nice stabbing → 2020 Nice attack – Almost all media using the term "attack". -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 10:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The links you've provided, only 1 uses "stabbing", most of media using words like "terror attack" or "knife attack" or simply just "attack". Hence "attack" will be best in this case. -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 11:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I agree with Manasbose's view above, the sources linked do indeed use "attack" liberally. A Thousand Words (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the person who named the city "Nice" in the first place. This is something that cannot be helped. Love of Corey (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The city is /niːs/, NEESS, not nice. --DragonFederal (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y don't u Name it as French 2020 terror attacks not only this article but also 2020 Paris stabbing article to the entire list world referring it as terror attack Ktdk (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Stabbing" is very precise about the weapon used. "Attack" is very vague and could refer to the weapon being a gun, bomb, truck, etc. The current title is succinct, correct and precise. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously, these sources need to check back with their sources, because THAT'S INACCURATE. Love of Corey (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal We will create a new article name 2020 French terror attack for the following articles 2020 Paris stabbing attack 2020 Nice stabbing with the following sections in that page Background subsections for background Background for Paris attack Background for Nice attack section number 2 Name :Incident Section number 3 Name Accused Section 4 Name Victims Section 5 Name Reactions Section 6 Name Protests Section 7 Name Subsequent Incidents Section 8 Name Aftermath Ktdk (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

or we can create 2020 French attack. I am saying this because this article size 20000bytes and a Paris stabbing attack article size is 7000 bytes when the article is completed we will get article size around 70000. Ktdk (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few problems with that suggestion. a) The 2020 Paris stabbing attack & 2020 Nice stabbing are notable enough for an article each. b) They aren't the only terrorist attacks in France this year; the murder of Samuel Paty also was. c) We don't usually use terror/terrorism/terrorist in the titles of articles. Jim Michael (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will name it as 2020 French atttacks or France attacks 2020 Ktdk (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SawnikTheHedgehog, Jim Michael if u see other Wikipedia pages or articles there are some names with attacks example September 11 attacks and 2008 Mumbai attacks. Ktdk (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Not the only attack - rename to "29 October 2020 France attacks" or something similar?

[edit]

There's been an attack in Avignon, where a man screaming Allahu akbar attacked police officers. Also in Jeddah Saudi arabia, where a man guarding the French consulate was stabbed https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-avignon-man-shot-dead-22924296 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-france-consulate-attack-guard-jeddah-b1420321.html

We should rename the article to "29 October 2020 France attacks" or something similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.78.219 (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only stabbing in NICE in 2020. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it's not the only attack today in FRANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.78.219 (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does taking place in the same region on the same day & appearing to have the same motive mean that this article should cover the Avignon incident as well, and have its title changed accordingly? Jim Michael (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. There is precedent as there's an article called January 2015 Île-de-France attacks. And those attacks took place across a few days, whereas these ones happened in a matter of hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.78.219 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as per nom. -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 14:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I added a "related incidents" section. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will readers who search for this really be searching by date or will they be searching for the most notable event, ie the Nice stabbing?VR talk 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vice regent: The Nice Stabbing will redirect to the requested title. Unfortunately, terrorism and decapitations are on the rise in France. Three attacks happened today. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • But are these attacks coordinated? If so, I would agree with the title change. If not, then we might even need to remove the "Related incident" from this article. Just because crimes happen on the same day, doesn't necessarily mean they are related (especially since they happen on different continents). The timing could be a coincident. It seems we will have to wait for authorities to reach their conclusion.VR talk 15:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Avignon incident sounds like a threat rather than an attack. The Jeddah attack wasn't in France, so a title covering all of them would have to be something like 29 October 2020 Islamist crimes. Jim Michael (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael That sounds a bit vague, don't you think? Besides I'm sure if we dig enough we can find other Islamist crimes that occurred on 29 October. We obviously wouldn't include those.VR talk 16:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the title is to cover the Nice, Avignon & Jeddah crimes (which I'm not sure it should), it would need to be something like that. Jim Michael (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Until some evidence of a link between the various incidents is established, it would be inapt to include the other incidents. It is not impossible that such a link exists, but it has not been established as yet. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y don't u Name it as French 2020 terror attacks not only this article but also 2020 Paris stabbing article to the entire list world referring it as terror attack Ktdk (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just create a "2020 Prophet Muhammad cartoon Stabbings" article? Or just "2020 Prophet Muhammad cartoon controversy", with the stabbings being mentioned as part of the controversy? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not yet clear that this stabbing was motivated by the cartoons. The victims at Nice had nothing to do with the cartoons.VR talk 12:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir

[edit]

An IP added that the former PM of Malaysia "lauded the attack".[6] That is not in the source given and there is no indication that his tweet was about the Nice attack in particular. In fact his tweet seemed to be more about colonialism. His remarks were also condemned inside Malaysia[7]. I'm removing this per WP:BLP.VR talk 16:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper doesn't seem to make a separation between the two things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.150.122.208 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He tweeted supporting muslim terrorism in general saying they 'had the right to kill millions of French people', posted just after the attack happened. You can try to deny it all you like, you can use ultra-partisan sources like the Guardian to insert some hot takes on it and try to blame nazis and white supremacists and whatever other boogeyman, but the internet doesn't forget. https://web.archive.org/web/20201029120322/https://twitter.com/chedetofficial/status/13217655875303383042A00:23C4:E08B:A101:50F1:E54:67B8:B72C (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes with their context are covered at Mahathir_Mohamad#Views_and_Controversies.VR talk 00:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly has to be in the RS - VR says at the outset it was not. But if RSs covering the attack do in fact cover his statements that the RSs say relate to the attack, then it should be covered. He is a highly notable person. And we follow the RSs - we don't apply our own views. 2604:2000:E010:1100:CDF3:92AA:55D4:7EFA (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Mahathir Mohamad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.238.18 (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avignon

[edit]

On the same day, police killed another attacker in Avignon. But this man was a member of a far-right group[ and possibly gave a Nazi salute. Does it belong in "related incidents" of this article?VR talk 00:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It followed the Nice attack by hours, and some WP:RS is covering it alongside the Nice attack. I'd say there's something there for now. I did think about your point, though, which is why I renamed the section to "Subsequent incidents". Love of Corey (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the section feels anecdotic to me and akin to WP:NOR 176.150.122.208 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody but me notice that in the early days of such incidents, there is always an unnamed witness or two who is conviced that they heard an assailant shout "Allahu Akbar", even when the assailant is a right-winger assaulting a person of North African descent. Good reason to be sceptical about such coverage in the immediate aftermath. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is possibility. But another possibility is that "Allahu Akbar" was said by the victim (Muslims use the term in times of distress). The news are saying the victim of the far-right attacker was someone of "North African descent". Yet another theory is that the far right are engaging in false flag tactics (I'll dig up the news source on that).VR talk 12:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite kill

[edit]

I understand the desire not to have needless citations. But in deleting these citations, were any deleted that provide the necessary support for statements in the text? If not, no problem.

Also - separate question there used to be a dying statement quote, that was cited to an RS. Why was it removed (previously).

Finally, the RSs report - repeatedly - how many children the victims had. That was in there, with RS support. That has also been deleted. Since the RSs in number think it appropriate to reflect, I believe we should as well - even if an individual editor is not interested in it.--2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F3:ACC9:E3FC:DC09 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of children of the victims is not relevant here. It does not explain the reason they were killed, nor are we writing a biography. WWGB (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Corey - you really have to stop deleting stuff without edit summaries. And refs that support text. C'mon, guy.
As to that policy, this obviously is not the memorializing of a deceased friend, relative, acquaintance, or the like. And it is standard to have a victim's section in these type articles. With, among other things the name of the victim(s), gender, age, marriage status, children, job. Nor to WWG's point do gender, age, marriage status, and job explain why they are killed - that's just WWGB making up his own personal rule, that cannot be found in any policy .. sometimes people do that. True, we don't do make those entries for your friend, relative, acquaintance or the like, who are not victims in a notable event, or the perpetrator. But we do do that in articles. How do we decide what is proper to include? Same as always - unless we are trying to push a personal view, over all else. We hold off our personal leanings. And reflect what the RSs reflect. Which are - exactly what I mentioned. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F3:ACC9:E3FC:DC09 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The personal lives of victims, regardless of the details, are not of any encyclopedic significance in these kinds of articles. We don't have articles or entries for all 3,000 or so victims of the September 11 attacks, now do we? Love of Corey (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is I am sure evident to you. That's why you are not deleting the names of the victims here. That's not a serious comment. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F3:ACC9:E3FC:DC09 (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no victim names in this article. Indeed, such inclusion would require consensus on this talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and victim lists in tragedy articles. WWGB (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See? I was using WP:NOTAMEMORIAL correctly. SMH. Love of Corey (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there are three victims, listing them with some details would not take excessive space. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion by WWGB / morning prayers

[edit]

This deletion (diff) by WWGB was done with the comment So what, hundreds of millions prayed that day also, nothing notable about his prayers. This reason to delete is faulty on the following grounds:

  • The deletion violates WP:PRESERVE in that it removes WP:V verified material cited to a WP:RS reliable source
  • The material is relevant as the actions of the perpetrator is directly referenced in the context/prelude of the terrorist attack, WWGB cannot unilaterally decide it is irrelevant when the WP:RS contradicts.
  • The comment itself amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  • The notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:N apply whether material deserves a WP:STANDALONE article, it does not apply to article content. The relevant guideline here is WP:V, verifiability and the added text passses.

Hopefully this can be resolved without further accusations of edit warring. Restoring material which erroneously deleted in violation of guidlines is appropriate, it is not edit warring. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims are required to pray five times daily. That the attacker prayed on the morning of the attack is neither unusual nor significant. It is no more important than noting "he dressed before the attack" or "he ate breakfast before the attack". It is merely part of a daily routine that Muslims are obligated to follow. Its specific inclusion here suggests that it was atypical, or somehow related to the attack.
Just because something is verifiable does not mandate its inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:EXCESSDETAIL provides "What is its connection to the topic's notability? Any indiscriminate detail should be removed. ... Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject."
Other editors are invited to comment on whether an obligatory daily ritual warrants inclusion in the article. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the source says I have read it and clearly the source thinks it is relevant and an expert has mentioned it on social media in the context of the attack. Frankly I am quite comfortable writing this in the article but if you are going to block it in violation of what the source and expertise says, I am much more comfortable having the source and an expert on my side of the argument than a non-expert (which we both are). All you have so far are opinions, but I have the source and reference expertise. Are you sayint the sources and expertise should be ignored? A Thousand Words (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obligatory by any law, and nobody knows if all people of faith in France observe their religious duties. Similarly, the article states that one of the victims was there for praying.--Skylax30 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w A Thousand Words. Let's follow the RS sources. Not the leanings of any particular editor, instead. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6D33:D64C:D645:5E79 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as sources cover this prayer activity it merits inclusion. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New draft article

[edit]

There is a new draft article here that may interest people: Draft:Jean-François Ricard

--2604:2000:E010:1100:6D33:D64C:D645:5E79 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, it should be promoted into an article. Material can always be added later per WP:WORKINPROGRESS. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nice_stabbing&oldid=1252331968"