Talk:2016 Nice truck attack

Wrong biographical information

- Article states he was born in Nice. This is incorrect.

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

- Source 28 (a Guardian article) doesn't say when he moved to France, but is stated for saying he moved to France in 2005. 129.15.64.220 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

- It's stated that the perpetrator was divorced, according to a BBC article (source 14). However, source 28 (a Guardian article) states he isn't divorced. 129.15.64.220 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Seventh major attack"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The text in the article may not make the terrorism link explicitly, but the sourced article does. ansh666 16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK English is preferred ONLY for consistency, we should still use 'universally understood' when poss. In this case 'truck' is more universal (linked to HGV as it is). HOWEVER do we need to slavishly follow spellings of translations from French. Sure, NYT is going to translate 'ized', while the BBC is going to used 'ised', but since neither is the original French quote, doesn't consistency trump verbatim? Obviously if a US source says something we quote verbatim, but why for translation? Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Fox News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renault Midlum truck?

Renault Midlum 'A similar truck' to the one used

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

This article isn't really a reliable source, but it says that it appears to be a Renault Midlum 220.12. Another interesting question is how Bouhlel was able to hire the van, as it is classed as a large goods vehicle under European law and an ordinary license does not permit a person to drive this type of vehicle. It has been reported that Bouhlel did not have the relevant license.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment +IanMacM+ and link. I have removed the mention of that particular truck [2] as not in cited sources. 220 of ^Borg 06:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources are saying "similar to a Renault Midlum" rather than confirming that it is one.[3] It probably is a Renault Midlum judging by the photos, but there needs to be direct confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree, seems likely to be one. One of the few that even mention it say it "is" a Midlum, [4] but no really authoritive sources. Time will tell. 220 of ^Borg 07:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Allahu Akbar

In this edit this sentence was removed unexplained

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fun Fact: If you reportedly say "Allahu Akbar" before cutting a few people and getting shot, they'll write a Wikipedia article about you. If you rant and rave in English before cutting a few people and getting shot, they'll write a couple sentences in Westfield Hornsby about you. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Oh wait, per the esteemed Daily Mail, he totally shouted "Allahu Akbar", too. I guess the key is doing it right after a bigger attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail as source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-confirmation? Here is the link to Nice Matin, [5]. Note that somebody archived it. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Because I was only going to agree it was best left out if you came back with nothing. Sorry for the confusion, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Collapsing off-topic discussion unrelated to editing of article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} @Nsaa and Ianmacm: Apart from the issue of this edit, it looks like User:John really is on a specific crusade against the Daily Mail: here, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, something at Amber Rudd about the Daily Mail, Chris Grayling, David Davis, Amber Rudd, Theresa May[6][7], Tony Blair, Andrea Leadsom, Appropriate Adult (still using the "no tabloids on BLPs" line), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack&diff=prev&oldid=727744025 2016 Ataturk Airport attack. And that's only in the span from July 1 to July 18! Now the excuse is that he is against tabloids, but it is curious that Daily Mail, one of the UK's largest newspapers, is described in tabloid journalism as a "middle market" tabloid, as opposed to red tops. According to the Daily Mail article, it has received various awards on journalism. So it seems like he is single-handedly trying to create a policy against using this newspaper, which I don't think is really well rooted. From what I've seen, Daily Mail tends to pick up everything it can, which occasionally means it has wrong facts but most of the time makes it an invaluable resource for digging deeper into an issue. My response would never be to delete it, but to find extra sources for contentious claims made from it. So I think that some serious discussion is needed of his deletionist approach here. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Just an observation, but this is starting to sound a lot like a noticeboard and not a discussion of article improvement. May want to take conversation about individuals to your or their talk. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I think we should start at WP:RSN. If they want Daily Mail banned, they can make a bot, and if not, they can tell him to quit it. Though I rather wish someone would also make him quit deleting "not notable" information from articles... Wnt (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking into the claim itself, this French source has an interview with a witness who says the man yelled "Allahu akbar" three times. (At least, that's how they summarize the interview; I can use Google translate on the text but not on the interview itself) The BBC describes the claim as "fake" solely because "no official source" had said it, which is perhaps illustrative of their world-view but not really very persuasive to my way of thinking. Heavy.com reviews many of the other reports of this. I would say it is not absolutely sure but I certainly would not dismiss the idea out of hand based on OR. I mean, can you really keep your speed at 50 miles an hour all the time that you're mowing down a crowd of people? Wnt (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:DUE is the way to go on this one. Why does it matter even if it were true, other than to support the WP:POV that he was an Islamist? What is the prevalence of this information among reliable source? Are there articles specifically about him saying this and exploring its implications, or is this a trivial fact, given passing mention, as unconfirmed gossip, in few sources? It seems a lot like it might be the latter. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This guy gets it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:05, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Pretty much. The ones I cited above ([8][9]) were specifically about the phrase; this hinges in large part on it; this discusses it, and many others mention it. It is emblematic of some fundamental questions about the attack. Was this a "sleeper agent" enjoying his wine, women, and pork believing all his sins would be forgiven when he died in the attack, as has been said of other Islamic terrorists? Was this someone who wanted to suddenly make 'amends' for an irreverent lifestyle, as has been claimed about the Orlando shooter? Or is this a bigoted public trying to press an anti-Muslim narrative onto a killing by someone who just happened to be nominally a member of the religion? Well, it's mostly guesswork so far, but the question is important and answerable, and pieces of data like this add up to a potential answer. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've not found anything on BBC News which discusses this. So Wnt please give your BBC source.

The latest news bulletin on BBC News is about statements just released by the Procureur de Paris on the attacker's recent radicalisation. It mentioned analysis of his home computer. All that is useful and might already be available in French. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...well...

• The Heavy piece isn't super-duper IMO. It's a mostly entertainment site reporting a reported report. I don't exactly see a 3AM tweet from The Sun as a high-quality reliable source. And the Telegraph quote is very tentative and rumor-like. Overall, the piece is worse than a media echochamber; it's a meta analysis of the media echo chamber
• The 9News piece is entirely about how trivial details/hearsay like this and preexisting biases have mucked things up.
• The piece from The Telegraph is at best an extended opinion piece and at worst a glorified blog.
• The original, (our good friend Pepe) machine translated, is "heard several times". There's nothing in the original French as far as I can tell that could be construed as shout, which is what you get when you go from the original, to the telegraph op ed, to heavy, to the Wikipedia article. All in all it seems to be the report of poor Pepe, ground through the media machine until it makes a stunning headline.

Even if it wasn't a single quote dragged through an echo chamber, the pieces (besides the original) are not about the quote; they are about either speculation as to whether or not he was an Islamist, or criticism about exactly that type of speculation. That's the only reason the quote is included in the pieces, and that's the only reason it is included in the WP article: to imply that he was an Islamist.

Wikipedia is not a detective agency. It is, as you phrase it, "guesswork", or as I would phrase it, "rumors and speculation". If sources say he is Islamist then so should WP. If sources disagree, then so should WP. If sources of dubious seriousness pick up on a minute detail to push a larger narrative that he was Islamist precisely because we don't know, then no, WP should probably not follow suit. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the BBC News reference was actually an anti-reference, but not IMHO a good one: [10] Equating "not officially confirmed" with "fake" just struck me as wrong, and I was commenting on that above. As for the speculative aspect -- I agree, this is tenuous at this time, but since the topic is broached it's no harm to keep track of it here on the talk page. I also think it would be reasonable to say what the witness said he heard, staying as close as possible to the original primary source, and toss in a few more of these refs dangled off of the end of it, but not make more than a sentence out of it, and not make it sound authoritative (i.e. say this witness said...) Wnt (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

But the article doesn't discuss rumours propagated by social media. Nice-Matin interviewed a witness who recounted his experiences, whatever value that has. The judiciary seem to have completely ignored it. That's what the article says. The BBC also ignored it. But you get 3 out of 10 for trying to give the impression that your coming here was anything other than an attack on User:John. Although I don't usually agree with him, he is right about the Daily Mail. If we used your "standards" and allowed the Daily Mail as a source, we would have a section of the article on the perpetrator's recent sex partners. Wikipedia according to Wnt. No thanks. Mathsci (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Or is this a bigoted public trying to press an anti-Muslim narrative onto a killing by someone who just happened to be nominally a member of the religion?" (How dare those evil "bigots" notice patterns!) @Wnt:: The cognitive dissonance here is truly astounding for someone with a userpage emblazoned with quotes like "Journalism means publishing something that others are trying to hide" and "There is a view that one should never be permitted to be criticized for being even possibly in the future engaged in a contributory act that might be immoral, and that that type of arse-covering is more important than actually saving people's lives. That it is better to let a thousand people die than risk going to save them and possibly running over someone on the way. And that is something that I find to be philosophically repugnant." If you can't see why, then you're beyond saving.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: My point is that there are multiple hypotheses out there. I don't happen to believe that one, but it definitely seems to be implied by some of the news coverage that talks about what a lousy Muslim the perpetrator was. A key concept in science is falsifiability - if you are not able and willing to consider the contrary hypothesis to your theory, then you do not have a theory at all. A practical implementation of that is if the people editing an article all decide he obviously did it out of generic Muslim belief, then covering facts that would back up a jihadist perspective seems to them to be unnecessary. It's not enough to know what you know, you have to prove it, and to teach others all knowledge on a topic a Wikipedia article therefore should aspire to cover all the sourced statements from every point of view. Wnt (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

So, having thoroughly hashed this out (multiple times), maybe this is a middle ground.

I think we can safely ignore a lot of the sources based on reporting a reported report, as far as establishing the veracity (not due weight) of the claim. The French paper seems to be the source for everything, and everything else is just an echo chamber, unless someone can find another independent claim. So why don't we just flatly say exactly what the situation is (shitty paraphrase follows). TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

On DATE the FRENCH NEWSPAPER reported an interview with an eyewitness who recounted hearing "Allahu Akbar" during the attack.^{FRENCH CITE} This report was referenced by other organizations including The Independent, The Daily Mail, etc., and etc.^{SOURCES FOR DAYS}, with some reporting that multiple witnesses heard the perpetrator shouting the phrase. Officials have not confirmed the report, and the BBC described it's spread on social media as a "fake".^BBC

As discussed above, maybe someone in the street shouted "Allahu Akbar", but I doubt if it was the driver of the truck at 50 MPH, and the sourcing is thin on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and, as you have pointed out in reference to your own reasoning in this vein, that entire argument is complete WP:OR. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's my WP:OR but the sourcing is also thin and contradictory. It may have been down to confusion that some people thought they heard the driver of the truck shout "Allahu Akbar". I'm wary of this going into the article on the basis of the current sourcing and think it is better out than in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as veracity goes, there is really only once source: the original interview. TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support for including the BBC, but in a revised form. To the best of my comprehension, the BBC described the actual claim as a fake—not its spread on social media (what would that even mean?). The BBC page cites tweet as an example of the "fake". The tweet contains a video of the attack as evidence. This video was taken from nearly the same vantage point as the guy who told Nice-Matin that he heard a shout of "Allahu Akbar". Also note that the the truck is not moving at 50mph when when the alleged "Allah" shout is heard at the 6-sec mark.) Clearly, the tweet with video and the "witness accounts" are referring to the same noise. According to the BBC piece (reasonably interpreted), the noise you hear in the video is not "Allahu Akhbar" and hence they call it a fake. It also seems like there are some men in uniform chasing after the truck. Funny how we've heard nothing from them—just from the guy at the balcony. So to sum up: the BBC has called this "Allahu Akbar" stuff a 100% fake, and this should be stated clearly. Obviously the BBC is an both relevant and reliable here. The rules mandate that it be included, at least until we hear something from the police Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the BBC isn't calling the interview with Pepe a fake. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The BBC is calling the claim that the perpetrator shouted "Allahu Akbar" false. Not calling the tweet fake, or an interview, or its social media whatever fake. They are saying that the claim is fraudulent. I recommend you watch the video—as disturbing as it is—if you are still not sure what the BBC is talking about.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to the confusion about what is being characterized as "fake", here is my proposal:

On DATE the FRENCH NEWSPAPER published an interview with an eyewitness who recounted hearing "Allahu Akbar" during the attack from a balcony,^Nice-Matin, with similar reports being circulated by other news organizations^{Independent, Telegraph etc.} and in the social media^tweet. Officials have not confirmed these reports, while the BBC has included this claim in a list of "false social media rumors"^tweet about the attack.^{BBC. "This tweeter suggests he can hear Allahu Akbar in the seventh second of this video of the Nice attack", the BBC reported in reference to a tweet sent out shortly after the attack.}

I am including the tweet because it is reference in the BBC piece and is an important piece of context here.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict with the below. Do you have a cite for the tweet? TimothyJosephWood 21:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the tweet. Same one the BBC clipped.Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tweet don't work none. TimothyJosephWood 22:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Gosh darn it. Think I got this to work good.Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I like it. I mean, if we have to mention it all for some reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

• I support the first proposal here or the second. It is stretching BLP to quote the BBC's "fake" designation when their remarkable logic is that the lack of a government source makes something fake, and perhaps it would be better to quote them explicitly on that point, but they are a source and they did say it. I repeat that the assumption the vehicle was constantly going 50 MPH right up to the moment the guy was shot is a particularly bad case of WP:OR - and it annoys me when people try to take stuff out with OR that is so much poorer in quality than that which is routinely removed when used to put data in to an article. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2...or 3

Ok, so, version 2, with refs added including clarification that BBC was talking about the video in particular, and not about the original Nice Matin interview.TimothyJosephWood 21:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

On 15 July the Nice-Matin reported an interview with an eyewitness who recounted hearing "Allahu Akbar" during the attack. This report was repeated by other outlets including The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, News 9, and Heavy reporting that the phrase was "shouted" by the attacker. Officials have not confirmed the report, and the BBC examined a video purported to include the attacker saying this, among a number of instances of false claims about the incident spread on social media, and called it a "fake".

References

Collapsible table of casualties?

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

The number of injured should not decrease

I just changed 18 critically injured in the infobox to 52. This is about an event in time, which will have always critically injured 52. Victims recover, but they still were injured. That's the important thing. If we treat it as a developing story rather than an incident, not only are we pretending to be a newspaper, but there will be zero people in critical condition soon enough and then we'll have to say nobody was seriously hurt. Keeping a running tally also makes counting however many of the minorly-injured recovered over the next day or two tricky. I'd wager it's over a hundred (physically, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I'll assume it only looks like you reverted for no reason. Care to fill in the blank? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:43, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Your ping did not work. The sourcing in the infobox works fine, but not in the body of the article. I don't know who wrote the text on casualties. I improved the source in the body of the article and rewrote the text as follows: "The figure of 303 indicates the total number of people admitted into hospital with injuries after the attack; some of these admissions did not occur immediately." The discrepancy between the initial number of 202 and the final number of 303 is because some patients were not admitted immediately. The BBC checked their information carefully so no extra scrutiny is required.

I think the number 303 is the only number that should appear in the injured portion of the infobox, The number of critically injured should not be in the infobox in any form. I don't think the article can record the number that remain critically ill. It is something that is too hard to keep track of. Obviously if there are further deaths as a result of injury then this has to be recorded. The victims section should just have the total number placed in intensive care (i.e. classified by the hospitals as critically injured), as it does now. Mathsci (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this and with the point made by InedibleHulk. The infobox should just have the total number of people that got injured (at some point in time) and survived, and the prose can mention the initial number of critically injured. Gap9551 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of room in the body for both the initial casualties, and a reliably sourced "as of" update. I still lean more toward noting total and critical injuries contemporary with the event in the infobox, but just having the total isn't terrible, either. My main problem was with one gradually decreasing toward zero, and the minor ones never moving, despite healing faster. Made no sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

I also don't understand what "As many of those injured had not immediately reached out for help, many sources reported the total number of injured as 303" is supposed to mean. A little help? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

:Agree that the number of critically injured is a constant, however would a 'remain critical at date' satisfy the changing figure?Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Interview with Pépé on Nice-Matin

This video interview conducted on 15 July seems no longer to be available. Nice-Matin seem to have removed it from their website, apart from one still-shot. There is a partial transcript of the interview on a Canadian news channel,[11] but, apart from being mentioned briefly by the Daily Telegraph, it does not seem to have received any further coverage. It has been ignored by official investigators. It is not, however, a rumour circulated on the internet. It is an interview conducted by a local newspaper, not a national paper. It is the equivalent of La Provence in the Bouches du Rhone department, not at all comparable to Le Monde, Figaro, Liberation, etc. They have the painful task of covering these awful events, something for which they were totally unprepared. The worst sort of things that happens in the South of France are Corsican Mafia killings.

On the other hand the BBC article is about rumours circulating on social media. Nice-Matin is not part of that social media. The BBC have not assessed what the newspaper Nice-Matin posted. Perhaps it was even published in their hard copy paper (that is available only to subscribers, at the cost of 1 €.) I removed this content since there has been no follow-up and because Nice-Matin has removed the video interview themselves. If they set any store by it, it would still be available.

The editor who has added the content about fake interviews has edit-warred to keep it in. His editing, making an unjustified link between two unconnected sources, constitutes synthesis amd original research. If the video has been removed by Nice-Matin, as seems to be the case, it is no longer admissible as a source. Setting it up as a source and then using the BBC commentary on social media rumours to dismiss it serves no purpose. Unsupported by other sources and withdrawn from the web, the Nice-Matin interview is compromised journalism and unfortunately not a good source. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Bro. Do you even lift archive? Also see hasty proposal above which at least attempts to address the BBC issue and other general issues. TimothyJosephWood 19:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I have the link; indeed I remember adding a similar archived link to the article. The original posting is still available here.[12]

I made an error about the video which is right at the bottom and does work. I just hadn't noticed it there. I apologize for that error.

It is still active and consists of several interviews, recorded by Nice-Matin. It is directly available here.[13] The article has only a partial transcript of the interviews. The video lasts 5 minutes and 40 seconds. It is upsetting to listen to, if you understand French. Those interviewed are all local Nice residents. The relevant segment is from 1:15 to 2:09. Having heard the interviews. they cannot be said to be "fake". Some things that they said are too horrible to transcribe. They were all eye-witnesses, some of them caught up in the crowd; one was a waitress; and then Pépé a local resident whose apartment has a balcony facing directly onto the Promenade des Anglais. So yes Nice-Matin made these interviews in which five or six Nice residents retell their experience of the attack directly to the interviewer. No more than that. Pépé's apartment was just above the lorry and you can listen to what he says. I withdraw my statement about Nice-Matin. Nevertheless I don't think the video is useful for the article. It is a very moving document. If enough secondary sources discussed it, possibly. But that doesn't seem to have happened. I imagine French investigators when hearing it will simply recognise it as another outpouring of grief, not as a piece of documentary evidence that could be useful for their investigation. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You cannot pretend the BBC story describes the tweets "fake" without declaring the the tweet's content to be fake as well—that would make no sense. The content of the tweet and its video and the Nice martin interview is the same: the claim in both cases is that shouts of Allahu Akbar" were audible to someone observing the event from the balcony. You can watch the video yourself. Perhaps it will sound like "Allahu Akbar" to you, but apparently the BBC disagrees. Lastly there is no "BBC issue". It is a reliable? Yes. Is it relevant? Yes, explicitly. Is the BBC mistaken in calling the "Allahu Akbar" stuff fraudulent? We don't know that until we hear from the investigators. Maybe once the police watch this shocking video, they will vindicate the Nice-Matin story and debunk the BBC... but I wouldn't be too optimistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Who are you? There were no tweets, just these interviews with people who have lived their lives in Nice. As I said above, these were outpourings of grief. For the last few days, BBC reporters have been amongst these people, on the Promenade des Anglais and in the Place Massena, reporting on how Nice is gradually recovering from this tragedy and trying to make sense of things. The video you're thinking of is something completely different, not this. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we're talking across purposes. Mathsci and I were talking about interviews with eyewitnesses, not a video of the actual incident. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, clear. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually what the BBC says unequivocally is that the 'Allahu Akbar' story is not officially endorsed (or somesuch), that's a better term to use than 'fake', which seems to be used to headline and which only refers to the tweeting, not the initial claim, a claim which has clearly been made but all coming from a local source and single interviewee as far as we can tell.Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the word 'fake' and altered the phrasing from 'witnesses', since this may be a single witness. Pincrete (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with that. It is the only problem I can see with the content. I explain this somewhat lengthily below. Thanks for making that edit. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. There is no evidence that the Nice Matin and Twitter claims have nothing to do with each other. First, they are making the same claim: that the perpetrator shouted "Allahu Akbar". Second, they are making the claim from a similar vantage point and thus similar evidence: street noise heard from the balcony. So let's not assume that the BBC "really meant" to say: particul tweets used faulty evidence in support of allegations that might nonetheless be true. It's clearly list of false allegations, i.e. shit that never happened, according to the BBC. Maybe the BBC is wrong, sources that will appear in the future might give us the definitive answer. Until ten...Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sweet baby Jesus, what's going to happen at ten!? Oh wait, right. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to correct the current incorrect statements in the article which slightly misrepresent the sources. What do the two sources say?

• Nice-Matin, 15 July, reported later in the Telegraph: "On the day after the attack the regional newspaper Nice-Matin broadcast a five minute video of interviews with residents of Nice who had experienced the attack, one of whom stated that he had heard the driver shouting Allahu Akbar during the attack."

That is what the sources say. The person who said it is identified by his forename on the video and lives on the Promenade des Anglais.

• BBC News, 15 July: "In an article about the French government's directive against the circulation of false rumours during periods of heightened security,[14] BBC News stated that no official sources had confirmed tweeted rumours that the driver had shouted Allahu Akbar."

BBC News was not commenting on Nice-Matin. They were commenting specifically on social media and a specific tweet. Nice-Matin is not social media. They are the main regional paper. The current statement is acceptable provided the short phrase on "fake" claims is removed. The BBC News articles was used as a source for, "no official source had confirmed that the driver shouted Allahu Akbar." That was fine but labelling Nice-Matin's video as "fake" is a BLP violation about the man who was interviewed. These are people who experienced the disaster, not characters in an online video game. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing with Mathsci, but don't think the fake/false BBC claim important, they headline each section as 'fake', but don't textually say the story is either fake or false, merely unendorsed. I think the BBC description (and prob the text about tweets), merely confuses. A witness thinks he heard it, Nice-Matin printed it, other papers reported it, officials haven't confirmed it. What part do tweets play in that story?

Also what the BBC appears to be claiming is 'fake' is that it is possible to hear the words on a video. This is definitely getting two different things confused.Pincrete (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The tweets are a red herring. As is the French government directive on rumours, which has nothing to do with the attack. Your summary in your first post is simple and correct. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If we MUST have the 'BBC' fake tweets claim, we should seperate it textually from the 'Nice Matin' claim, which is unconfirmed officially, but an honest claim by a witness. Pincrete (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that the Nice Matin and Twitter claims have nothing to do with each other." Gucci, you are inverting the standard of evidence, thereby engaging in blatant original research and synthesis, and making a far stronger claim than the BBC can support.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Re Pincrete: And we indeed we must, because we don't know what actually happened. In the interest of truth, readers should be exposed to contrary evidence where such exists. More to your point, Nice-Matin makes no such claim—the guy they interviewed makes the claim. There is no doubt that the guy they interviewed really did make such a claim, just as there is no doubt that somebody tweeted a similar claim immediately after the attack. You cannot simply assume that these claims have nothing in common, and use that assumption to erase a relevant and reliable source source that begs to differ. To reiterate, readers should be exposed to such information, because some them are the very newsorgs we will later be citing. So lets nip group-think and citogenesis at the bud, shall we.

Re TTAAC: I've not been terribly impressed by your logic so far. What you're doin is not OR—its OP (Original Philosophy). You argued before that the BBC "can't prove a negative", which implies that nothing can ever be shown to be a fake. A completely meaningless statement. The real criterion is falsifiability, and if something can't be falsified, its not worth discussing. In the real-world evidence is messy, so some bits will be falsified and other will remain uncertain. Now you come back with a "burden of proof" wisecrack, but its completely irrelevant. Do you think that when the BBC called out reports of the eiffel tower being bombed, they were not making no positive claim about the facts on the ground? In other words were they saying that "it may be true that the Eiffel Tower has been bombed, but the evidence in this here tweet just don't clinch it for us"? So let's not make any assumptions about what the BBC meant, or what the BBC has "actually" proved (blatant OR) and just cite the damn source, even if it does not fit someone's preferred narrative.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I've made every effort to make the relevant evidence here as explicit as can be—check the BBC footnote. What I won't accept is the premise that the BBC source and the video have no bearing on the claim about the killer yelling "Allahu Akbar". All the relevant evidence has been clearly presented—the rest is up to the reader and French detectives. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The BBC article in question was written in the immediate aftermath of the attack to assuage panic being spread on social media. It is not a particularly good source at all, and your selective use of the "False" headline to impeach eyewitness testimony recounted in Nice-Matin (not social media) on the same day is utterly preposterous. (Do we even know which article was published first? It would be a bit odd if the BBC "debunked" a claim prior to it being reported!) In point of fact, the actual text of the BBC does not make any statement even remotely resembling the spin you would like to put on it: "Messages were circulated that the truck driver shouted Allahu akbar, which is Arabic for God is great. As yet, no official source has said this happened. French prosecutors say no group has admitted carrying out the attack but it bears the hallmarks of jihadist terrorism." In other words, your summation is exactly right: "It may be true, but the evidence in this here tweet just don't clinch it for us"!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

False is the headline, fake is word right before the claim. So which do you prefer? "The BBC source is not particularly good"? OK, obviously all the source that simply repeat that he yelled "AA" without evidence other than "we heard reports" are much higher quality, Daily Mail here is the gold standard as we all know (covers everything from migrant rapists to migrant sex-fundamentalists). "Do we even know which article was published first?" It does not matter. The point is not that BBC refutes some eye-witness interviewed in some newspaper paper. The point is that the BBC discusses the same exact ISSUE. If you don't know what that issue is, watch the video as the kids say... and keep the word "balcony in the back of your mind". And look, I simply cited a reliable source verbatim in in a place where its relevant. The OR here is all yours: BBC is not good, BBC does not refute all evidence, other evidence exists, can't prove a negative, other sources say he's Muslim extremist, the BBC was not sure if the Eiffel Tower was really bombed or not despite calling it a "fake". OR it is, but frankly it's not MA-level work, nor even BS-level :)Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

BBC is not refuting the eye-witness, whom it does not mention, it is refuting a claim being tweeted that the words can be heard on a video. These are two distinct claims, one is 'fake', the other is sincere but may well be wrong. Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gucci has misunderstood this discussion. With the edit summary "rephrasing, some were worried that this gave the impression that the purported eye-witness was a social medium" and this edit[15] he has changed the text to, "The newspaper Nice-Matin published an interview with an eyewitness who recounted hearing "Allahu Akbar" during the attack from his balcony, with similar reports being circulated by other news organizations and on social media. Officials have not confirmed these reports, while the BBC has characterised the claim as false." Gucci changed "while the BBC has characterised the claim as a false social media rumour." Gucci should tell us what he means by Pépé being a "social medium" or what is "purported" about him being an eyewitness. Anybody editing this article should know what social media is. A person is not a social medium. Social media refer to internet communication methods like Twitter and Facebook. These are not people, they are modes of communication. The problem with the phrasing now is it implies the BBC assert that Pépé's interview involved deliberate falsehoods. I propose the following modification which contains everything we wish to say without accidentally implying that the BBC was making any kind of derogatory statements about the eyewitness accounts of those involved in the attack.

The newspaper Nice-Matin published an interview with an eyewitness who recounted hearing shouts of "Allahu Akbar" during the attack from his balcony, with similar reports being circulated by other news organizations and on social media. According to the BBC, officials have not confirmed these reports.

What do people think? Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is now whether it is worth mentioning this in the article because its veracity seems to have fizzled out. This is a good example of early news reports which are subsequently challenged and/or discredited.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I heard some interviews immediately after the attack live on BBC and there was a lot of confusion. The BBC interviewed a member of the British military, used to wartime attacks, but even he wasn't quite sure what he'd heard. I tried removing all of this material (before I discovered the actual video) but some editors didn't like that. I out worked another unambiguous version of the above and inserted it in the article. I drew a distinction between press reports and social media rumours. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I used to trust the mainstream press, till it was absorbed into the Internet. Now that that line's blurred 24/7, I trust video and police (in that order). Since I still haven't heard it from a cop or for myself, I still think this belongs only on the unencyclopedic side of the Internet for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

• Since the BBC source in question is both RS and clearly relevant, there is no a priori case for deleting it or sectioning it off in such a way that it appears irrelevant to the larger issue. It is perfectly clear what that issue is: did the killer yell Allahu Akbar, yes or no? The BBC says no, referencing a tweet together with the actual footage of the event as direct evidence and the surprising lack of any official comment as circumstantial evidence. Did the BBC consider all possible allegations, including those in Nice-Matin? Of course not, that's impossible. Somebody could tweet a fresh allegation tomorrow and the BBC would have no answer. Should we also note that the BBC only called the rumors circulating on twitter prior to July 15th, to avoid offending those racist blowhards who tweeted after that date? If the Peppe guy is shown to be wrong, but another witness named Louise pops up, are were obliged to change the topic from "what Pepe said" to "what Louise said", making it clear to the reader that the refutation of Pepe is now irrelevant because the "real issue" is Louise's testimony? That's clearly POV pushing by way of OR. But since you've presented no evidence to show that Pepe and the BBC fake are completely unrelated (repeatedly ignoring my evidence to the contrary), it does not even qualify as OR--it's OH (original hypothesis). Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Gucci, for the nth time, BBC does not say that the story that he shouted this is fake. It says the story that one can HEAR this shouted on the video is fake. This is like 'was JFK shot from the grassy knoll? We don't know, but the story that you can clearly hear that shot on the Zagruder film is fake. The two are seperate issues. BBC does not even ask whether he actually did say it only says that it can't be heard as tweeters claim. Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you think that's what they meant to say and I am not buying. I am pretty sure that if they wanted to say: "Is the Eiffel Tower a pile of rubble? We don't know—but that pic in tweet #45353254....543 is clearly photoshopped", theyd have said so. Readers are free to interpret the merit and importance of the BBC's claim in any way they wish, which is why I deliberately avoided inserting any such interpretation into the commentary. Apparently you wish to lead to the conclusion that the BBC's finding is of limited importance in assessing the ISSUE (which again is not some tweet, interview etc, but the purported event itself). It is an article of faith for you that the witness heard something other from his balcony than what we heard in the video taken from a balcony. I don't share that faith, and therefore did not insert any OR content regarding the relationship between these two things. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that is an article of faith with me is that the BBC says that the video doesn't corroborate the 'tweet claim' about the video, they go so far as to call that claim 'fake'. They say nothing either way about whether the perp did shout 'God is great'. If many people come forward to back up the original witness claim, and French authorities give credence to it, we'll then know whether the witness was probably correct. Till then we only know that the witness claimed it, papers reported it (and no one knows whether he simply misheard something in a very stressful situation, or whether he is right). Pincrete (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment the 'tweet story', which BBC says is fake, appears to be a story that one can hear the perp shouting this on one of the videos. BBC is not saying either he did or did not say it, merely that you can't hear it on the videos. The various stories may have a 'chinese whispers' element but we don't know what that is and shouldn't conjecture. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator's sex life

Ever since salacious material on the sex life of the attacker started appearing in the fork article, I have been wondering when precisely editors would start trying to introduce that material here. Already a reference has been added about the perpetrator's 73 year old lover by Gucci, although no material in the article relied on that content or was even related to that content. If editors want to add those references or that content to the article, could they please explain why here. Personally I think the word bisexual covers everything. Extra content should not read like an extract from the life and times of the Marquis de Sade (who lived not far away in Lacoste, in the chateau now owned by Pierre Cardin). Three or four extra words would suffice. We should probably follow the BBC or Le Monde on this. BBC News has been a principal source so far. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been asked twice, and pinged once to comment on discussion there, and you have so far declined. You have been reverted twice on this article by myself (and more by others), and encouraged to engage in discussion. I think the take away is that starting a new thread and moving on, does not establish consensus. Please review WP:CON and try to reach it with regard to the contested edits. TimothyJosephWood 01:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, this page is not for discussions like that. On the other hand, since you mention consensus, you did not react at all to the material I added here on the interviews conducted by Nice-Matin. You reverted two brand new sentences that I had written and in the edits accused me of edit-warring. Those sentences are now essentially back in the article possibly because I had taken some trouble in explaining what actually was in the sources. That is how consensus works. I'm not sure why you the Nice-Matin source without knowing what it was about. Did you not feel slightly uncomfortable labelling the testimony of residents of Nice who witnessed these atrocities as "fake"? Or do you just not care? Mathsci (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You can remove reference to his bisexuality if it rubs you the wrong way—not a biggie for me at all. The reason it was added was a) reliable source, citing evidence b) relevant to the promiscuity angle. I didn't write anything about his bisexuality in the body cause it's not that important. A ploy for introducing his male lover? Just don't give me any ideas, please.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not what I said. I wrote bisexual is the only word I would use. Is that so hard to understand? Mathsci (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should add it to the wiki manual of style. But since the source I added made no mention of homosexuality, what are you even objecting to? The fact that somebody might put the word "homosexual" into the article in the future? I am as outraged about this grave problem as you are... truly outraged, befuddled, offended and shocked!Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The French have already solved the problem using a phrase to describe his promiscuity that links to bisexuality. That is all they did and it was a very elegant solution. They used Le Parisian which is fine. Are you writing in this outlandish way so that people won't take you seriously, or is there another reason? Mathsci (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Both this article and the article on the perpetrator should mention his bisexual lifestyle. Jim Michael (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This was a bit of a fucked-up way to say it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Not in the way you just tried. The French article does this quite well. They do it in this way:

He was involved in numerous promiscuous relations with both men and women.

But if this is to be mentioned, his estranged wife should be mentioned and the reports that he beat her. There are many places where this has been reported. French wikipedia uses Le Parisien as their reference. Since the information was supplied by police investigators after examining his mobile phone and home computer, there is no need to mention a specific newspaper. Nor to write it out of context in a sensationalist way as you just did. A brief summary of what happened to his marriage is necessary, before anything like this is added. The French wikipedia article does this very well. It is concise, factual and properly sourced. Possible affiliations and research about terrorism done on his home computer are a separate issue covered in other parts of the article. Putting in the same sentence makes no sense: it looks like a Daily Mail headline. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Info about his marriage should be there as well - it's all relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

All done now. I adapted the French wikipedia approach. They describe in great detail the old abattoirs quarter of Nice off the route de Turin where he was lodged after his wife threw him out of their conjugal lodging. (I've done a virtual journey down the back streets there on google maps.) That was changed to "After separating from his wife". The BBC also has a comprehensive page on L-B which I summarised in a general way without explicitly mentioning beheadings. There does not seem to be any need for further content on the topic of this section, unless there is some unforeseen new development. Mathsci (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there something I'm not seeing about how "sexual relations with both men and women" is better than "bisexual relationships"? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

There is very little difference, and that phrase can be changed if you want to. Your method might be better as there is less blue, so it's less obtrusive. Le Parisien is a much better source than the other two. It was misrepresented as I explain below. So what if it's in French. Mathsci (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually the phrasing I adopted—a direct translation form the French wikipedia—indicates that these were mostly not relationships but casual sexual encounters. Perhaps there is another way of saying it, but relationship is not quite right. Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, but not a relationship. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Bisexual relations? Bisexual encounters? Whatever you call sex type things, with a "bi" tacked on? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

I went with the Clinton one. If that's no good, change it, but try for something short, if you can. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure the grammatically correct term is "bisect", as in "he bisected lots of men and women". TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I read about one guy. Were there others? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

...I...um...er...uh... TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Pedantic detail, but you can't have 'bisexual relations/encounters' (unless you are part of a three-some). What you have is 'sexual relations/encounters with both men and women.'Mathsci's original translation was probably correct. Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really 100% comfortable with references bisexuality. At least the unofficial standard on this list, that I've (regrettably) been involved in, the issue is treated more as a self-identification thing, i.e., gay sex doesn't make you a member of a gay sect; self-identifying as gay does. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We can say that he enjoyed a very active bisexual life, without saying anything about how he may have self-identified. Jim Michael (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If we avoided the word 'bisexual' and didn't use the link ie sexual relations with both men and women, is everybody happy?Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very happy with your solution. Even if fr.wikipedia.org used it, I still found the blue link obtrusive as I said above. It was like a subliminal message that dared not speak its name. We have to paraphrase in a neutral tone what the source said. Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Sexual relations" is pretty robotic/Spock-like in tone. The sky source (removed because apparently this is a pissing contest), said "lovers". I'm more in favor of just saying "relationships with" and achieve accuracy in vagueness. Romantic, sexual, platonic, just-didn't-work-out, whatever, it's covered. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

We should go with Mathsci's translation, which is more like 'relations' or 'encounters', we don't need to romanticise the source. Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Estranged wife released ?

At present we say "Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's estranged wife and a man were arrested", I'm pretty certain she was released without charge. I cannot fix this myself (RL calls), but we should fix this. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I think the BBC write that she was released after a day. BTW thanks for cleaning up the sentence on Allahu akbar. Note also that editors are trying to add personal details about his promiscuous lifestyle without any mention of his wife. Many of those editors are active on the fork article, where the lede describes the perpetrator as a Tunisian terrorist living in France. Mathsci (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Two days. I fixed it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation of source

In an edit summary Timothyjosephwood stated falsely that the article in Le Parisien[16] made no mention of L-B's sexual realations. That is a false claim. Being charitable, I will just assume that User:Timothyjosephwood cannot read French. The article is used on the French wikipedia, is in a good newspaper and states the following. "Les noms de nombreuses conquêtes féminines, mais aussi masculines, ont été identifiés dans son téléphone portable. La plupart d'entre elles ont été auditionnées." If Timothyjosephwood has no command of French, he should not be edit warring in this way. I will report him at WP:ANI if he continues in this way. Mathsci (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope Timothyjosephwood will explain why he grossly misrepresented this source and used two poor quality sources instead. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the references all say the same thing, and are all used to support the some content...so...who really cares? Second, it appears I was looking at the wrong source.

Third, (although this was not my original intention) this is the English Wikipedia, and we should probably prefer English sources, so that content can be verified by readers, who are presumably here because they speak English.

Finally, if you think I am edit warring, WP:AN3 is the appropriate board to post on, not WP:ANI. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be in a particular language. If information is duplicated, use the English language source. But French sources are acceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)