Talk:2016 Nice truck attack

Total dead figures

Our chart appears to add up to 876, as far as I know the 84 total hasn't altered but I couldn't find a single place with nationality figures to verify where the error is. Any ideas?Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Check the tables on the French and German sites. That should probably help track down the error. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there are a few people with double nationalities, listed with two countries but not noted as such. Gap9551 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I found one error, + FrWP says only 5 Italians, not 6 using this source , and this, which I think says 4 + 1 US-resident Italian. Non parlare Italiano!

The article says 6 Italian victims, then it lists 4 Italians and 1 dual citizen US/Italy. Go figure. 51.7.118.91 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

FrWP also says no Romanians, but three Swiss (our 2), I speak even less Romanian! Some may be dual nationals as noted. here is the FrWP if anyone can help check. German WP is worse than ours (54 unidentified), which is a good thing really as meine Deutsch ist shchrecklich. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

The number of killed doesn't add up. The official figure is 84, yet the total in the column comes up to 87.--Vihelik (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Damn dual citizens! Or damn vandals, perhaps! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Dual citizens pertain to the injured. It appears that the killed were all holders of only one citizenship each.--Vihelik (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the very first source, there seem to be three dead Algerians, not five. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

And "at least three" Moroccans. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I subtracted three, and now we're at 83. Something wrong with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Added back two Algerians, fixed citation. Should be at 85 now. Counting the killer? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the 1 UK dead Telegraph, Guardian and UK For Office, makes no mention. The source for 1 is EuroNews of the same date, which claims to have got the info from the UK For Off. I 'Googled' and searched Gdn website and couldn't find any UK dead.

The total figure is wrong again so I put 1 'not confirmed'. FrWP has 4 Moroccans, not 3, but I could find a source for that, even the Fr source is wrong.Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent developments: Sandra Bertin's chronology and 2 further arrests

I was going to add this earlier, but other editors intervened. The complete chronology from CTTV has been described here in Marianne (magazine).. Exclusif : la chronologie de l'attentat du 14-Juillet établie par la policière de Nice The timings are in words. This is the CCTV report submitted by Sandra Bertin. Here is a rough summary, not a translation. It happened very quickly indeed.

• 22:33 truck reported at 65 Promenade des Anglais, Centre Universitaire Méditerranéen --> 90 kmph
• 22:34 54 Prom des Anglais 60kmph --> rue Cronstadt --> 27 Promenade des Anglais
• 22:35 driver spotted, approx description, dark clothing --> national police in pursuit --> rue Meyerbeer --> Palais de la Méditerranée --> truck immobilised

Beforehand:

• 22:32 Fabron bypass --> direction Prom des Anglais

No footage for entry point, most probably 57 [sic] Prom des Anglais, nr Lenval Hospital

This is a rough summary of her report. Obviously 57 is a typo in the newspaper. I have omitted all details of atrocities committed on the route. There is no account of what happened once the truck was immobilised. Any further information can be obtained by reading the article. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the content of the article needs to be slightly rejigged to give a better version of the speed of the truck and the fact that the attack itself took place within a period of less than five minutes. There has been no accurate information on the timings when the truck was halted.

Numerous press and media sources in French and English report that two further arrests were made on 25 July in the area where the perpetrator lived (route de Turin, quartier des anciens abattoirs); one of those arrested has appeared with the perpetrator on a selfie taken beside the truck. That selfie was first published on the main French TV channel TF1 and widely redistributed. Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Point of entry on Promenade des Anglais is Ave de Fabron, not Rue Lenval

Looking at the Marianne article again, Bertin's report actually states that (in paraphrased translation) "after looking back at the CCTV footage, camera 60 "PDA Fabron" shows the white heavy heavy goods vehicle arriving on the south side of the Promenade des Anglais at 22h32m33s by the entry slip road at avenue de Fabron (bretelle d'accès Fabron) travelling eastwards." The report states that "it is difficult to tell when the lorry mounted on to the pavement, but this seems to have happened at the level of the Centre Hospitalier Universtaire Lenval opposite number 157." The entry road was rue Lenval; it is a small one-way road leading off the Promenade as mentioned below. I will slightly modify the text in the Attack section and very slightly rejig the accompanying map and annotations on Commons to take this into account, without going into unduly minute detail. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hotel Negresco

No source I have seen or used in the article mentions incidents outside Hotel Westminster. Unless a press or media source is produced, the content cannot be changed. Please give the sources which gives "alternative description" which contradicts all French newspapers. Mathsci (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

From The Telegraph article that is used as one of the souces for this info in the article: "Michael Zarzycki, 64, who is staying in the Hotel Westminster with his wife Heather, also 64, witnessed the attack from his fifth floor balcony. There was a motorcyclist who tried to get up to him, other people in the hotel said he was tugging at the door." and "They were driving alongside each other. The motorcyclist was trying to get up near the cab but he did not have a good enough grip and then he fell and was dragged below the tyres. He wouldn't have survived." and "It is understood the motorcyclist fell just before the lorry reached Hotel Westminster.". Erlbaeko (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

These events only became clear on about 21 July and were explained in Nice-Matin on 22 July and then in the national press. Since the truck was moving quite quickly, it is not possible to localise it, but it is possible to say where police came from. A cyclist saw the truck knocking people down, abandoned his bicycle (not his scooter) and then worked his way onto the running board of the truck, attempting to gain access to the cabin. The driver drew a gun pointing it towards the cyclist. It did not go off. At that point the motorcyclist, an airport worker with his girlfriend, threw his scooter under the wheels of the truck. This saved the cyclist and slowed down the bike. I'm not sure when the driver fired his gun, but it drew gunfire from the police who are stated as being at the Negresco. They pursued the truck until it finally came to a halt at the Palais de la Mediterranee. So there were two people involved, whom Nice-Matin interviewed: Alexandre Migues (bicycle) and Franck (scooter). Alexandre, Franck and a third person have received bravery medals from the city of Nice.La ville de Nice a honoré Franck, Gwenaël et Alexandre, ses trois héros de l'attentat This article gives details of all three . rue Meyerbeer is referred to as a reference point. Franck was presumed dead but on 21 July identified himself, withholding his surname. So I doubt any of this is accurately recorded in sources from 15 July. Here is the account of Franck.[1] I will have to work through this carefully as it's slightly complicated. Somebody unidentified initially presumed dead, run over by the truck, but in fact still living. So there were two people, one a cyclist on the running board, the other a motorcyclist who threw his scooter under the wheels of the truck. Evidently the later accounts are the reliable ones. Most sources confuse the two. it will take a while to work out. The action did not take place at a specific place as the truck was moving fast (60 kmph?) when these events started. Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about this sentence? "The progress of the truck was slowed down in front of the Hotel Negresco, when a motorcyclist abandoned his scooter and clung onto the running board of the truck in an unsuccessful attempt to get into the driver's cabin." In that sentence Hotel Negresco is faulty. As this video shows, and as The Telegraph article says, that incident occurred outside Hotel Westminster. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC

I am talking about what is documented in the press. The sequence of events is of a cyclist seeing the carnage caused by the truck, abandoning his bicycle (vtt), pursuing the truck and attempting to cling to and open the driver's door. This had slowed down the truck as the driver hit the cyclist through his window with a handgun. Meanwhile a motorcyclist, too late for the firework display, had joined the Promenade des Anglais at the level of the Centre universitaire mediterraneen just before the truck passed. Seeing the carnage and panic, he told his female companion to dismount and pursued the truck weaving his way through the pedestrians. He eventually caught up with the truck just after the cyclist had been hit. He drew up next to the cabin, forced his motorcycle under the front wheel of the truck while mounting on to the running plate. He hit the driver several times through the window before the police in pursuit (from the Hotel Negresco) caught up with the truck and opened fire.

The third person to get a medal was also involved in this pursuit; it seems he was initially arrested because he was carrying a penknife. It is gradually possible to write a coherent account. The initial accounts describe the motorcyclist as having been run over, which is false. He had to have stitches because he also received a blow from the handgun. This is reported in Nice-Matin and then other French news media; it was first published on 22 July. This still requires some work and thought. It's still left to work out what happened with the third man and the police, using press and media sources. Then it should be possible to produce a two sentence summary, but not immediately. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

After carefully checking the content—the original sources were in Nice-Matin and then reported in less detail in French national news media—I have added what seems to be a correct version of what happened, as far as is known. In French the word "braqué" is used for struck or struck with a blow. (This is usually used in French newspapers reports of robbery with violence.) I am surprised that user:Erlbaeko has not responded to the detailed summaries I provided for this content before I added it. I wrote here that I would contemplate how to express this content succinctly. I slept on it. I will add material on the three medals in the Reactions section. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, "braquer quelqu'un" does not mean "to strike someone", it means "to point a gun at someone". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also "force open the cabin door" is an unlikely interpretation of the source. I find it more likely that he was hoping the cabin door would be unlocked, but unfortunately it was not.

So I would replace "was slowed down by a passing cyclist, struck through the window as he tried to force open the cabin door" by something along the lines of "was slowed down by a passing cyclist, who tried to open the cabin door but had to let go when the driver pointed a gun at him". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't thought that through carefully enough: braquage is used for armed robbery, not robbery with violence. I'll try to work out how to do that without mentioning the type of gun (which the cyclist said was taken out of a bag). Mathsci (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Related to that is the last bit of the abbreviated statement about the motorcyclist. I read the interviews again. "Il a mis un coup de pistolet sur la tête." The driver tried to fire his gun at the motorcyclist but it didn't work, so he struck him over the head with the gun. After that the driver succeeded in getting the gun to fire, at which point the motorcyclist slid under the truck as the police arrived on the scene. I will modify that slightly. Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reactions AfD supervote

It appears that the AfD for Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack has been closed via supervote, with a 23 to 18 vote in favor of keeping it being ignored by User:Thryduulf, who closed it as a Merge. Note that this is the kind of "merge" where he redirected the page and did not bother to return any of the content here, which IMHO is not even much of a merge.

Anyway, I'm on the fence whether to dump the whole 53K here and complete the merge as officially decreed, or to revolt entirely against this bad close. Wnt (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel I have explained why I closed the discussion the way I did in my closing statement, but if you feel that any of that is unclear or you want me to reconsider something you should first ask me on my talk page being specific about what your problem with the close is (and remembering that AfD is not a vote) rather than just casting aspersions here. Also, if you look at the page history you will see that it was redirected by user:Jax 0677 not me - I simply replaced the AfD tag with the tag indicating that it should be merged. Neither article was on my watchlist before this comment. Finally, if you actually read my closing statement (which I get the impression you have not) you will note that I explicitly said there was consensus to merge the prose from the reactions article and for the quotes to be added to Wikiquote, not the "whole 53K" being pasted into the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have moved much of the non-prose content to Wikiquote en masse. It is currently grossly out of alignment with WQ standards, but will be easier to fix on WQ, rather than piecemeal moving each quote from here to there. TimothyJosephWood 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I will try to get around to all the WQ formatting as best I can over the next few days. Anyone who wishes to help is, of course, more than welcome. TimothyJosephWood 21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should have to be on the defensive about quoting our sources directly. It is by far the most authentic way to present events, avoiding 'spin' and giving the principals an opportunity to speak in their own voice. Looking at that section in Wikiquote, it is obvious that it is a review of news content with no business being there. Few of these quotes are "quotes" in the WQ sense. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Some source digging will probably be required to bring things in line, I don't have the courage to delve into that task tonight. I don't see it as an issue with quoting sources directly, but with a majority of an article being quotes, and the trappings of quotes, without significant encyclopedic prose. Most of these, I expect, can be reduced to a quote and attribution with little context needed, other than a link to the WP article. TimothyJosephWood 00:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

AFD's are not decided by pure vote count, but by the merits of the reasonings behind those votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A comparable AfD for the parallel French "international reactions" article is happening over on fr.wikipedia.org. Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the merits of those arguments at all, let alone overwhelming the usual "no consensus". As in every single current AFD ever made we have a few people citing NOTNEWS compulsively without reading it - the policy doesn't say our articles have to be out of date or not include news, just that they treat news like everything else. We have people saying we do not "need to inventory" notable well sourced information - this is technically true; we do not need to write an encyclopedia, but it's what we were trying to do anyway. I mean, these arguments are not even in the league of the Keep arguments. It's more like, "let's sabotage the encyclopedia so it doesn't compete with somebody's paid news archive service." Well, alright, I don't actually know the motivation, but it's a sabotage of other editors' useful work, that I do know. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to relitigate a closed AfD discussion, what I will say is that your comments sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: you know where to find Wikipedia:Deletion review if you are that unhappy with the close, but note you will need to actually address the reasons given in the closing statement not just relitigate the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've gotten the Wikiquote in to some sort of shape, and added a link under the External links section. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New annotated map for "Attack" section

I have produced a new annotated map for the "Attack" section using tiles from Openstreetmap.org. The base map is more detailed although some detail has been lost while processing the image. I have tried to mark everything accurately. Rue Lenval runs one-way off the Promenade des Anglais as the map shows and as this google image shows.[2] I have not marked where the first fatalities occurred (107 Promenade des Anglais is given in a blog piece on the Le Monde website, so slightly further into Nice than the Maison de l'Agriculture at 113). Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim of Israel's role of false flag attack

Why can't the claim by Cynthia McKinney be added to the article? This has been supported by mainstream media such as the Times of Israel, Haaretz, Breitbart News and many more.

I added the following to the article:

---

Ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney claimed that Israel was behind the European massacres including Nice attack and creating false flag attacks. According to Dr. Kevin Barret, Richard Gutjahr was pre-placed on the balcony to film the beginning of the truck attack and by some strange “cohencidence” he just happened to be on scene to film the shooting in Munich. Richard Gutjahr is married to Einat Wilf, an Israeli politician and member of the Knesset.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartinesdio (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't give prominence to obvious fringe conspiracy theories. None of your sources are reliable, and the Haaretz and Times reports simply present the claim as an anti-Semitic canard. Acroterion (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

All it shows is that Cynthia McKinney should get out more.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, just because a former congresswoman verifiably made this statement doesn't mean it is relevant enough to the actual topic of the article to be included. This is discussed at length at WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's only the fact that she is a former congresswoman that is making this remotely notable. You can spend all day looking at theories like this on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, though this content may well be suited for inclusion on the article about the person, and I suggest discussion its inclusion there on the relevant talk. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Fun Fact: Gutjahr didn't film the Munich thing. He "just happened" to show up after he'd heard about it, because that's what journalists do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, August 1, 2016 (UTC)

Best friend

Although almost certainly not useful for this article, the 73-year-old friend of the perpetrator's family has spoken to the press: Attentat de Nice : les révélations du meilleur ami du tueur. Mathsci (talk)

Je suis Charlie

I have no idea whether the SMS messages between the perpetrator and his Tunisian friends were in French or Arabic. Certainly they were not in English. On 21 July the prosecutor described the contents of several text messages in French during his press conference. The phrase "Je suis Charlie" is what is remembered. The wikipedia article entitled I am Charlie is a redirect to "Je suis Charlie". When we write an article we are writing for a general audience. When readers in the US see "I am not Charlie," (a translation I made myself) I am not convinced they will understand the nasty reference. Hence the wikilinking. Would they understand "Je ne suis pas Charlie"? Perhaps US editors can comment here, instead of discussing irrelevant conspiracy theories à la Edwin Mullins of a US congresswoman, unknown outside the US. Mathsci (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE advises to avoid links in quotations. Further, by linking to the article within the quote, there is an implication that the phrase was indeed spoken in French, which, as you point out, we don't know. Wikilinking in a footnote provides the context just as accessibly, without including the implication, and without violating guidance in WP:MoS. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Best to include the French original in the footnote. (Personal attack removed) Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Accomplice vs Complicity

Looking at the phrase "complicité d'assassinats en bande organisée en relation avec une entreprise terroriste", with my limited French, but a general feeling that France follows a similar sort of common law to the UK and US. It seems they were actually charged with complicity, not as being accomplices, meaning that they may have been accomplices (generally someone present at the crime), or they may have been accessories (generally not present), or they may have been guilty of failure to report an imminent crime. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes your French is limited. (Personal attack removed) Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well you don't seem to have any intention of not issuing a personal attack at every opportunity, so I suppose going forward I'll just {{RPA}} you when it happens.

I don't think you need to be a native French speaker to be able to tell what "complicité" means, it's the same Latin root and...basically the same word. TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The French word for accomplice is "complice", so your "logic" breaks down. If your "logic" were applied to "eventuellement", it would be translated as "eventually"; but the correct translation is "possibly". (Personal attack removed) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference remains, that in English, being charged as an accomplice implies involvement in the actual crime, while being charged with complicity is a broader change with a lower standard of involvement (e.g., intentionally providing someone with a weapon with which they later commit a crime). TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is French law not American law. There are specific French laws about terrorism, many of which have been written fairly recently. Complicité in this context is "being an accomplice". There is also Simon McBurney's Théâtre de Complicité. If you have no knowledge of the French language, why make these speculative attempts to POV-push about words outside your vocabulary? You're forcing others to follow the same route. But if editors are bilingual, why should they? Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Because in English being an accomplice which is what the article currently states generally means you took part in the crime as the crime was occurring . It seems fairly clear that these individuals were charged with what we in English would call complicity, because they do not appear to have been present at the crime, aiding in the crime at the time the crime was committed. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-French speakers

User:Timothyjosephwood tagged a quotation for verification in a paragraph with five sources added, three of them to Frenchpress/media. The quote, transcribed from the 21 July press conference of François Molins, was contained in the Le Monde source at the end of the paragraph. I have no idea why that was not carefully checked, but evidently it wasn't. The phrase "et nique" has been omitted as an obscene expletive similar to a four letter English word. Perhaps it was originally an Arabic swear word in the SMS message. Editors with a limited knowledge of French should WP:AGF. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't failing to WP:AGF. I just assumed that, because it was coming from Le Monde, that the original was in French. I also knew that providing the original quote with a high degree of accuracy was probably not something I could do myself.

I wasn't implying that the quote was inaccurate. I was just tagging it as a situation where the original language should be provided as a matter of form. WP:AGF works both ways. TimothyJosephWood 14:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not been following things closely enough. Almost all information about the investigation after the attack has come in press conferences delivered by the Prosecutor. He has spoken on 3 occasions so far. On 15 July, on 18 July and 21 July. The reports are available as complete videos all of which have been linked on this talk page (and its archives). The news media have transcribed his statements ("dictée" for those who've learnt French), in particular the SMS messages. The original language was probably Arabic: I still use a French mobile phone account here in the UK, but have no idea how texting works in Arabic with a French fournisseur d'accès. Wikipedia policy tells us nothing here. Mathsci (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Making edits without checking the sources

This seems to be what User:Timothyjosephwood is doing at the moment. He looks through the text and, if he dosen't like something, he doesn't check to see whther it is an accurate representation of what is in the sources. Instead he simply removes what he doesn't like and claims it is non-neutral editorialising, In this case he removed the phrase "leaving the windscreen and cabin door riddled with bullet holes". I don't understand why Timothyjosephwood is suggesting that is "non-neutral editorialising" since these words paraphrase what is recorded in the news media cited. There is nothing controversial here at all. Could Timothyjosephwood explain his edits. Did he read the sources? Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A news source is not an encyclopedia. They may say "riddled with bullets", "smashed through the crowd", "careened down the street" or any similar such language to their heart's content. That doesn't mean WP uses this language, because it is non-neutral, euphemistic, editorialized, and otherwise non-encyclopedic.

You need to take a break, and consider dialing back your persistent WP:OWNership of this article. If you cannot bring yourself to discuss and edit with others in a constructive collaborative manner, rest assured this article will get on just fine without you.

However, I would greatly appreciate it if you would not make me go to the trouble of compiling your multiple warnings for and violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:EW for a noticeboard post, because I'm pretty sure I can otherwise find something more productive to do with my time. You may consider this a final warning on all grounds atop multiple final warnings you have already been given. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)