Talk:2016 Nice truck attack/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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,[1] 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 Unsupported by other sources and withdrawn from the web, the Nice-Matin interview is compromised journalism and unfortunately not a good source.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.[2]

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.[3] 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, 19 July 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,[4] 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[5] 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, 19 July 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)

Have you tried listening to the woofers? Maybe not a rumour, but a rumbling. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 20 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)

I think we really need to at least try to explain to Gucci that his argument is wrong even on on its own merits. To be clear, the issue is not that his logic is flawed or his conclusions are necessarily wrong. Rather, even if one agrees with Gucci's rationale, it should still be obvious that his edits incorporate original research. What Gucci said above bears repeating: "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?" I know that is just a rhetorical question, but it has a correct answer, and the answer is yes. If the source does not mention Louise, Wikipedia cannot use it to declare her testimony "fake." This is the case regardless of how obvious it may be to a Wikipedia editor that the source's refutation of Peppe also casts doubt on Louise. A Wikipedia editor's assumptions are not WP:RS. Gucci, I know you are still a relatively new editor and this may be a limitation of Wikipedia that you find particularly irritating, similar to your dislike for Wikipedia's reference markup. But what you are proposing is, in fact, the textbook definition of WP:OR. Wikipedia may be wrong, but you have to abide by its policies while you edit here. Despite your stated disdain for "group-think" (something all of us doubtless share), there is another policy we all have to accept, WP:CONSENSUS, and in this case the consensus is clearly against you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that the above is purely for Gucci's own future reference, as the current version of the text—which explicitly states that the BBC was referring only to "the rumors on social media"—does not violate WP:OR, and should be satisfactory for everyone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't resist continuing this fun discussion, despite it no longer relevant to the page. Coninued on TTAAC's page.Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Radical Islamism

To what most sources are saying. Can't we just add radical islamism as motive?JBergsma1 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) JBergsma1 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

in the infobox I mean. JBergsma1 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not? JBergsma1 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No publicly-known motive. The "most sources" you refer to are guessing or lying. Wait for police. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, I understand. JBergsma1 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

+ infobox is meant to be for anything 'clear cut', even 9/11 doesn't have one in the infobox. My suspicions here are that we are dealing with something new in which 'disturbed individual' and 'informally radicalised' merge. I don't think the world has yet invented a term for that. Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Those have been around forever. English has a ton of terms. Madman, lunatic, kook, nutcase, sociopath, oddball, psycho, freak, maniac, weirdo. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I just learned a new one. Loon-wolf. I love it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

= a man who 'defecated all over the place" and shredded his daughter's teddy bear' Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The term "loon wolf" is also used in this news article to describe Man Haron Monis. It is a good description of a person for whom mental problems and extremist religious beliefs overlap. Max Abrahms may have coined this term.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fake former lawyer

Here is a reason for treating these unconfirmed press interviews with caution.[6] This concerns a lawyer who claimed to have represented L-Bouhlel in court in March concerning charges of violence. He made various statements to the press. When summoned to give evidence by investigators, he explained in a telephone interview with the person issuing the summons (bâtonnier) that there had been a misunderstanding and L-Bouhlel was not his client. Neverthless he gave a further press interview the day after; he was admitted to hospital after an attempted suicide on 20 July. A cautionary tale. The first paragraph of the article needs to be checked to see whether his interviews were used to justify the text. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• The false lawyer account had been added to the French article. Perhaps the English article is still using false information supplied by him. I will check. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I checked and the reports of violence mentioned the claims by the person fraudulently claiming to be the former lawyer. I replaced them with the Huffington Post-Le Monde reference from the AFP which cites his estranged wife's lawyer. That is now used on the French wikipedia, who have a whole section on the fake former lawyer, including his attempted suicide yesterday. Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, while your removal of discredited info is 'spot on', I don't see any case for including a 'fake lawyer' section, it seems a distraction as it hasn't been picked up in Eng sources AFAIK. As a side comment, thankyou for bringing your French expertise here, to the best of my knowledge you are the only native level speaker contributing. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't suggesting adding one. It's a cautionary tale for editors. Probably not the first. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we use Fair-use picture to mention the attack?

It seems the whole article don't have any picture related to the attack. Besides, there still don't have any free picture until now. Should we use Fair-use picture to mention the attack? Otherwise, some reader may think that the article just like travel catalog. It is meaningless to without the attack picture.--Wpcpey (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some of the images look more like they came from a travel brochure than being designed to illustrate the attack. While they are nice enough photos, they do have WP:PERTINENCE problems. Flickr may be of use here, as fair use should be avoided where possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely some major incongruity here. The text is about violence, death, terror and darkness. The pictures are about celebration, beach, hospitality and light. I don't think that's how balance is supposed to work. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's the same problem known as "File photo" in the mainstream media. Someone goes off to the library and finds images which are sort of relevant. There should be an attempt at WP:FIT otherwise some of the images in the article should be dropped.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

These are not travel pictures. Both locations figure in the narrative about the attack. Indeed the day beforehand, as the Prosecutor explained on Monday, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel made a second reconnaissance trip on the Promenade des Anglais, stopping his heavy goods vehicle in front of the Hotel Negresco with lights flashing as he reversed to retrace his route. There were many fatalities in front of the Negresco. The shooting of L-B took place just outside the Palais de la Méditerranée. So the images illustrate quite accurately the parts of the pedestrianised zone where the attack took place. Most maps on news sites mark them, including ours. Nocturnal images were chosen on purpose because they match fairly closely the sort of lighting on numerous non-free imagesfof the attack on the web. Before choosing these images, I searched flickr and the whole of Commons (one contributor has taken thousands of pictures charting large areas of central Nice, including a series of images of the Promenade des Anglais).

What happens on November 2015 Paris attacks? Four images. M. Hollande, a 2009 image of the Théatre Battaclan, a picture of police cars outside the Bataclan the day after the attacks and a picture of the Sidney Opera House lit with the colours of the French flag. (For those unfamiliar with Nice, I recommend using the option on google maps to do a virtual drive along the Promenade des Anglais.) Please look at the archives for previous discussions. Any new usable images are likely to appear first in the French article. Mostly non-free images have been deleted quite rapidly. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be at least one image of the attack itself, not just the buildings and beach area taken on a nice day. Boston Marathon bombing has managed to do this. There are plenty of images taken around the time of the attack, but licensing is the problem as ever.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt the setting of the event (space-wise, anyway) is sufficiently illustrated, and relevant. But as this isn't an article about the setting, it shouldn't be the predominant (almost only) theme. The November attack article is also guilty of this. Good illustrations of the whole event are compositions of the actors, action and setting. Two out of three (like the parked November police trucks) ain't bad, but one out of three is a failure to communicate. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Agree a pic of the immediate aftermath should be included if at all possible. I don't think the OTHERSTUFF re:2015 argument overcomes the PERTINENCE of such an image to the article. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Please look at the article. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"The white truck in the distance on the Promenade des Anglais on the morning after the attack" is still a bit thin on WP:PERTINENCE; it doesn't even show the truck clearly and is mainly an image of a police car. Surely there must be something similar to Boston Marathon bombing, even if we have to keep looking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pertinence? Monsieur, vous êtes vraiment un petit ... Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Getting closer, though. Merci. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I have no idea about what pictures we are allowed to use...but BBC has a lot of good pictures http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36801161 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

None of them. Once this free image is available, any argument for a non-free image is pre-empted. Even before this image appeared, there had been about three or four different non-free images in the article which were deleted almost immediately. Anyway this image was taken by a wikimedian, Michel Barada, at 7 o'clock in the morning after the attack. He took it from the police barrier, which we cannot see. He already cropped the photo to create this image. If you want something better, just keep a look out on the French page. I hadn't even noticed it until just now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nay, good sir. What disqualifies non-free content from fair use is a free equivalent (ou équivalent). And nine other things, too. But if you can pass the whole test, you can "steal" the best one for the job. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That does not explain why all the non-free images so for have been deleted. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably had a poor (or no) rationale attached. Or met a deletionist who just wasn't hearing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's administrative policy in all cases like this. It happened about five or six times. User:Moonriddengirl is the expert on all of this. Mathsci (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's SDAT policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator - details supplied by Molins

Most of the info about L-Bouhlel now comes from reports of briefings by Prosecutor Molins (most or perhaps all of these briefings were televised). These bit of informations have come in dribs and drabs. The fact that he had multiple casual sexual encounters with both sexes came out during the weekend or earlier. The quote I added about the police profile of L-Bouhlel before he became radicalised was made public by the AFP on Monday and appeared in many French newspapers. Writing this material as if they were announced at the same time serves no purpose. The section has evolved so that the first paragraph is on his family life and the second on his religious background and what investigators have discovered about his radicalisation. Is it fair to that we keep it that way? One editor has tried to mix the two up and made it look as if Molins announced everything at once. That is not correct. Perhaps there's a way of describing that information has been released in dribs and drabs. I think it's a good idea to separate his personal life and his religious life into different paragraphs. How do others feel? Certainly we cannot mix up two sources in one sentence to suggest that Molins announced everything at once. Mathsci (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

In the "Perpetrator" section, the claim that the attacker was not religious is repeated twice, and the claim that the attacker was a promiscuous bisexual is repeated twice. I tried to fix this but the info was duplicated again by User:Mathsci, so I've taken it to the talkpage.

On religion, it says: Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". Neighbours reported that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel rarely spoke to them and showed no interest in religion. Why should this be mentioned twice in one paragraph? Surely the second mention can be removed?

On his sex life, it says in the first paragraph: Police analysis of his mobile phone has shown that after this separation he had numerous sexual relations with both men and women. Then in the next paragraph it says: Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life. Why can't this be dealt with in one line?

I suggest removing the repetition and re-wording as follows:

François Molins, the prosecutor leading the investigation, announced that information gathered since the attack suggested that, until shortly before the attack, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". His partners included both women and men. Neighbours also said Lahouaiej-Bouhlel rarely spoke to them.

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Asarlaí: There is already a section above on this. I have merged your section into that section with reformatting. Please read what I wrote and respond. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to your questions, this is not duplication, because the long quote is my translation of what Molins said (the French original is reproduced in the footnote). He chose to differentiate two separate points, namely interest in religious issues and religious observance. That's what he said and we follow that. The other point is that he briefed the press several times. The bisexual material came first. The profile in the explicit quote came later. He did not repeat the bisexual material there. He only mentioned a 74 year old male helping the police with their enquiries, claimed by some to be the perpetrator's lover. There is other information later on that comes from briefings. So there is no need to synthesize what the prosecutor said, if it only came out bit by bit in dribs and drabs. My point about the two paragraphs, with different themes, stands. It took a long time to arrive at that sentence, involving several people. I don't think there is any consensus to change it. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 20 Jul 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, it is duplication – the same info is being repeated twice when it doesn't need to be. His sex life is mentioned twice – in the 1st paragraph (which you say is meant to be about his family life), and again in the 2nd para. His irreligion is mentioned twice in the 2nd para.

In my proposed version there is no needless duplication. The 1st para would talk about his background, marriage and criminal record. The 2nd para would talk about how he (until lately) wasn't religious, so that's the best place to mention his eating pork, drinking and being promiscuous. My wording doesn't imply it was Molins who made the "bisexual" claim, and it doesn't imply that everything came out at once.

All stories come out in dribs and drabs, but that doesn't mean we must write things down in the order they came out. That would mean writing "On Saturday they announced X, then on Sunday they announced Y, then on Monday they announced Z" etc. That would be silly, and I haven't seen any similar articles which do that. ~Asarlaí 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are alone on that.

• The first paragraph is about the perpetrator's personal life, family and psychological makeup: his violence, his psychotic personality, his inability to form lasting relationships, his undefined sexuality.
• The second paragraph is about Islamic or non-Islamic aspects of his life and his possible Islamic radicalisation.

Perhaps your ideas are suggested by the three words in French that Procureur Molins said on Monday, namely vie sexuelle débridée which I translated as "unbridled sex life". Before Molin's statement was moved into the article by me yesterday, the content was attributed to neighbours and the word promiscuity was used. It was the same list of non-Muslim acts. Lack of religious observance, eating pork, drinking alchohol, promiscuity, taking drugs. The content about bisexuality was added in the first paragraph, also by me, because that's what happens in the French article. It was decided not to link to bisexuality as they did there.

You decided that the nature of his sexual encounters—with both sexes—was alleged. You wrote that twice. What is currently in the article is correct. The sources actually say that his mobile phone records show that he had contacted many possible sexual partners and those whom he actually tried out ("auditionné") were recorded as conquests on his phone. That's what the briefing from Molins said. There was no reference to the Muslim religion, just a statement of what they found on his phone. Why did you write "allegedly" in the article?

You want "bisexuality" to be added to the Prosecutor's list. You seem to think vie sexuelle débridée means that. Your previous juxtaposition of sentences and your present similar proposal is an overt way of suggesting to the reader that Molins' words also covered bisexuality. You may think that, but there is no indication that is what he meant. Using the word "duplication" is a way of presenting that as a fait accompli. But no, it's just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure which two versions are being debated. Both editors have made multiple edits today. Diffs? TimothyJosephWood 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci I already pointed out that my proposed wording does not imply it was Prosecutor Molins who made the bisexuality claim. Have a look at my proposed wording again: François Molins, the prosecutor leading the investigation, announced that information gathered since the attack suggested that, until shortly before the attack, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". His partners included both women and men. As you can see, the bisexual claim is not included as part of Molins' quote and is not attributed to him.

Timothyjosephwood, I'm simply proposing a version which doesn't duplicate the same information twice, and deals with sex life in one short line rather than two separate lines. My version is above in green and is similar to this. Mathsci's version here mentions the attacker's lack of religion twice and the attacker's sex life twice; I think there's no need for that. ~Asarlaí 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Either version seems alright. Personally, I would subsection it into something along the lines of Religious beliefs, Personal life, or similar, and then generally beef them up. We do seem to be, one way or another, preparing to either shorten the section and direct toward the main, or merge the main into here.

Also for what it's worth, the Bloom portion of Mathsci's version is my edit, trying to find a compromise to an issue that apparently led to an RfC below. TimothyJosephWood 23:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't misrepresent sources. Since Asarlaí has not explained why he used the word "allegedly", I now assume that he has not read the French sources. Since he's decided on his own that the French phrase "vie sexuelle débridée" covers "biisexuality", we should not make any change from what's there currently. So once more, Asarlaí why did you write "allegedly" twice? Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I also removed the short phrase saying that L-Bouhlel had "sworn off alcohol" as undue. It relied on one single report in The Local (how reliable a newspaper is that?) that a neighbour had offered L-Bouhlel a glass of wine which he had refused. One source like this is insufficient, to make a statement in wikipedia's voice that has not been confirmed by the police. I also not that even the BBC are slightly less literal with their translations.[7] They translated "débridée" as wild and "très eloignée des considérations réligieuses" as "far from religion". I've seen other translations. Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And again Asarlaí is objecting to the fact that Molins is quoted as saying that L-Bouhlel was "très eloignée des considérations réligieuses, ne pratiquant pas la religion musulmane." Asarlaí finds it "repetitious" but that is what he said. Also I should point out to Asarlaí the the juxtaposition of unrelated phrases is a well known method of suggesting some relation not in the sources. It is blatant WP:SYNTHESIS. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Local is a web-based organisation that translates parts of foreign language newspapers for ex-pats, often without attribution. It's not reliable. Libération does discuss the issue of abstinence here.[8] They write: « Une voisine de ​Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel témoigne. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlelt aurait récemment cessé de boire de l'alcool, a laissé entendre une de ses voisines à l'AFP, alors que d'autres témoins ont au contraire évoqué sa consommation d'alcool lorsqu'il vivait avec son épouse, dans un quartier périphérique du nord de Nice. «Je regardais le match avec la France. Il est venu et il m'a dit, comme j'avais réussi un examen, "tu m'invites pas à boire un verre ?" Je lui ai dit "je n'ai pas de vin" et donc il a apporté une bouteille et il m'a dit qu'il ne buvait pas, qu'il s'en allait. J'ai rigolé, je lui ai dit "quoi, tu ne bois pas, tu fais le carême ?", il m'a dit : "non, mais je ne bois pas"». Présenté comme quelqu'un de taciturne et de très distant par la majorité des témoins interrogés par l'AFP, le Tunisien de 31 ans semblait avoir néanmoins tissé un lien avec cette voisine, d'après son témoignage. Ils s'étaient rencontrés dans la cage d'escalier, alors que le chauffeur-livreur était en quête de cigarettes et la voisine l'avait orienté vers un autre habitant, qui en vendait. » Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Another version of the AFP interview.[9]Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire press briefing of François Molins from 18 July (in French). It lasts 12:40.[10] Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci,

• No sources are misrepresented in my version, and nothing is wrongly attributed to anyone.
• I'm not even proposing to use the word "alleged", so that's irrelevant. My proposed wording is His partners included both women and men. The editor who first put it in the article wrote "reportedly"; that was changed to "allegedly" because it seemingly hadn't been confirmed by authorities.
• I'm not objecting to Molins' quote at all. I'm objecting to the fact that his irreligion is repeated again after Molins' quote. The article reads Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a young man completely uninvolved in religious issues and not a practising Muslim, who ate pork, drank alchohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sex life". Neighbours reported that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel rarely spoke to them and showed no interest in religion. There's no need to write that neighbors/friends said the same thing as Molins, because Molins got most of his information from neighbors/friends to begin with. ~Asarlaí 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT. You used the word alleged twice in the article. If we're just discussing the paragraph, the two sentences do not involve any contradiction. These are two diiferent things: the official police report; and the press reports. Sometimes the press have been misled by those they interview (see fake former lawyer). We just have to follow the sources and work out whether they are reliable. No WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Mathsci (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of IDHT on both sides. The only issue here seems to be that Asarlaí wants to group things topically, and Mathsci wants to group things by source. Are you all even reading each other's comments or do you have your retort pre-planned on your sandbox for copy/paste? TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not quite right. I'm happy with things as they are. The first paragraph containing personal details: family, behaviour, psychology and personality defects. The second charting his Islamic radicalisation. I don't want bisexual mixed with Islamic; it was never said and is now rather irrelevant (bye bye, sugar daddy). The announcements today change things very dramatically. We must move on. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mia Bloom?

"Mia Bloom, Professor of Communication at Georgia State University, questioned whether ISIL was involved in the attack or Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was "a mentally ill person with whom IS is opportunistically associating".[118]"

Why in the world is this part of the main article? She seems like a low-level academic. And she doesn't even state anything, it's just her 'questioning'. Any objections to me taking this out of the main article? Make yourself heard. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

She seems high-level to me, particularly in this field. Until recently, she was just "some commentators". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Her 'wiki' page is being discussed for deletion, and the main contributor is marked as having a close connection with the subject. She is currently a communications professor. She has no credentials to belong in the MAIN article. Leave her in the 'reactions to the Nice attack,' but no way does she deserve main article citing. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If you mean "briefly in 2006 before you got angry at this part", sure, it's a discussion. What sort of credentials do any of these politicians have in relation to the topic? Do you trust Amaq News Agency just because you like what their quote implies? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It isn't proposed for deletion, it's possible 'close connection to subject', (several anon IPs editing it substantially over the years).Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict: Other sources have questioned whether/to what extent this is ISIL, to what extent a 'disturbed person', the opinion is significant, though I'm not sure the individual making it is. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care at all. This wiki does not affect my life. I just think that Mia Bloom is a low-level, irrelevant source. She's a communications professor. But put it back if you want, I just think it's rather strange to put Mia Bloom's opinion while not mentioning the opinions of major world leaders, i.e Obama. But if Mia Bloom helps your narrative, be my guest. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict: :She is 'helping our narrative' only in that she is articulating a significant question, better sources may exist though. Obama, May, Merkel etc are basically expressing their sympathy/ horror/ solidarity. Very noble, but their good messages don't add anything to understanding the incident, hence 'relegating' them to reactions page. General opinion is that only official French reactions are worthy of recording here. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

So...honest question: Why do we have her in the article anyway? The individual people cited in the section are:

• French PM
• French President
• French Interior Minister
• French Defense Minister
• GA State Assistant Professor Mia Bloom

One of these is not like the other. TimothyJosephWood 14:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC).

As I've said the message is a significant one, which everyone is asking. The messenger may not be.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

And: hasn't the investigation already found numerous ties, ideological and otherwise to ISIL (short of him actually being launched from Syria, which admittedly seems to be the criteria for some)? In what way could ISIL still "opportunistically" claim responsibility for the speculated scenario of a random mad-man that couldn't care less about ISIL? User2534 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, one is a terrorism expert. If we're just looking for consistency, though, she does kind of ruin the "must remain vigilant" theme. If someone's found numerous ties to ISIS, the article doesn't mention them. Some guy does something terrible and headline-grabbing, Amaq sees an opportunity to ride coattails, publish ISIS rhetoric, finally get a Wikipedia article and score 10,000 Trending Topic points. Pretty straightforward. Like buying a Superbowl ad, just way cheaper. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict: The investigation has found some ties, we record them as accurately and neutrally as possible. We don't draw conclusions, we leave that to the 100s of investigators currently trying to establish the 'full picture', who have access to all the info. Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the uncle who heard from a relative that an Algerian indoctrinated the guy, the Associated Press found him, not investigators. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Question are we disagreeing about the message or the messenger? Pincrete (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. The guy who started this knocked her credentials and the fact that we didn't relay an explicit statement. Maybe relay a statement? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Both?...A little bit?...I guess? Given that there is a looong sister article on reactions to the attack, this section is kindof...prime real estate, and I think that ups the ante a little bit to justify the WP:DUE weight of inclusion. Sure, she's an academic in this area, but given that this is something everyone in the world is talking about, it's not immediately clear why her opinion stands out so prominently among probably scores or hundreds of articles per minute worldwide being written on this.

The message is pretty meh. Lot's of people are questioning this. It seems fairly common sense. So apparently this person or this publication is important somehow to make their meh opinion relevant for inclusion. But there doesn't seem to be a strong argument as to why that would be. TimothyJosephWood 14:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it be less meh if she explained why she thought France was targeted again, regardless of this guy personally? Talk of that part of the cause seems to be lacking here. Even if not her personally, someone should probably be quoted to that effect.InedibleHulk (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be appropriate in a section on motivation behind the attack, but that's already half the section on Investigation, and half the section on the Perp. Regardless, this isn't really a reaction so much as it is an extended commentary by an academic. Maybe the source really can add something to the article, but it seems quite out of place right now, and more examination of why France would be even more so, again, in a reaction section. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Those sections are half-full of stuff about why a particular Muslim might want to attack a state in general. I'm talking about talking about why a general Muslim might want to attack this state in particular. Maybe move her (or someone's) pertinent research into Background? All that stuff French politicians do to Muslims is at the very least why French politicians jump to assuming it was an Islamic thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on how it's done, so as not to be COATy. At the very least right now, I think we should move Ms. Bloom to the perp section, where there's already substantial treatment of possible ties to terror. Imma go ahead and do that. Should be fairly uncontroversial that this doesn't really constitute a "reaction". TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot tomorrow. Plenty has been written about it, and without context, these politicians' immediate suspicions may appear less warranted than they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be better to remove 'the messenger', leave the message, (some commentators?) and add additional sources? Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Depends on the additional sources, I suppose. There's a fine line between expert and pundit. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we take our cue from the French wikipedia and have several reaction sections?

I do not think Mia Bloom's comments have any place in the section on the perpetrator. The information there is almost exclusively derived from the police investigation or later confirmed by the police.

The French wikipedia article has a section where multiple French academics give their commentaries, psychological, political, historical, etc. We haven't included any of those so far in this article. Mia Bloom's commentary is of a similar type. The French divide "Reactions" into several sections. In national reactions they have

• Réactions des autorités - reactions of authorities
• Réactions des politiques - reactions of politicians
• Réactions des religieux - reactions of religious commentators
• Réactions de spécialistes - reactions of academic experts

They have a section on international reactions. As in this article, that is a separate article containing a list of the initial responses to the tragedy from leaders of countries and international organizations. The French have not provided a section for reactions like Mia Bloom's, but they have one for home-grown academics (Réactions de spécialistes). I suggest a new section on "Reactions of academics" or "Reactions of specialists". So either shunt this material to Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack or subdivide Reactions into "National reactions", "International reactions" (just the link to the Reactions article) and "Academic reactions" or "Expert reactions". Just a thought. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need multiple reactions sections in as much as it's not necessary to extensively duplicate the reaction article. As I've argued above, I'm not sure the Bloom piece is really a "reaction", as much as it is an examination or commentary. Having said that, I would support an "academic work/examination/commentary/something" section. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't duplicate it. Earlier, even after the Reactions article had been forked off, we had an empty section on "International reactions" with a "main" template to the article. Please look at the French article by clicking on Francais at the side. Then you can see what they do. There's no duplication. Mathsci (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea for the Reactions article, but it would invite too much crap here. The whole point of forking off was to shovel the crap to a darker corner of the site. No shame in making that corner better, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Once the RfC was opened, someone (I don't care who) added into the article that Mia Bloom is an expert on terrorism. All I did was ask for a citation and I'm a bad guy? There is no evidence that she is an expert that I am aware of. Certainly wouldn't be admitted as an expert in court. If it's in the article we should put it for what it is-- the opinion of a Georgia State professor. Let's call a spade a spade and not claim that Bloom's Huff Post-tier opinion piece is expert testimony. 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Further, it's obvious someone added 'terrorism expert' to strengthen their PoV. Why should it be included when whoever originally added Bloom's opinion didn't even put 'terrorism expert'? I'm being accused of an edit war but all I really did was revert the text to what it originally was (ie no reference to being an expert), at which point my reversion was reverted, and I simply returned it to it's original state again, before being reverted two more times. Anyway, throwing 'expert' onto quotes included on wikis is dangerous and misleading and altogether wrong. Special:Contributions/75.151.5.228 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You just added a comment on Talk:Mia Bloom saying the article should be deleted. You were replying to a comment written in 2006.[11] It was followed by a series of bizarre comments.[12][13][14] Mia Blloom's official univeristy homepage is here. Her most recent book was published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. The present version makes it clear that Mia Bloom expressed her opinion before most of the facts were available. Her area of expertise is terrorism, as stated on her university home page. My edit summary said "damage limitation"; the edit made it clear when she made these comments. In the RfC I did not support having her views being mentioned in the article.[15] Mathsci (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

After seeing the comment's inclusion in this article, I simply investigated who she was by going to her wiki page... once I got there I checked the talk and simply agreed with what people had said before me, what relevance the timing of those original comments holds, I don't know. Working at a grocery store does not make you an expert in grocery stores, just as working with terrorism issues does not make you a terrorism expert. I don't think anything I said was 'bizarre,' I am simply trying to participate in making Wikipedia better. From the response (and support) my opinions on Mia Bloom's inclusion show, this is an issue that some people feel strongly about. In bringing it up I don't think I broke any unwritten rules. I started the RfC so we could get a consensus opinion on whether Bloom should be mentioned, and instead someone edited the article so as to give her opinion more weight. I reverted that because I don't think that change should have been made, I didn't look at who made it.75.151.5.228 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Now superseded by events. Her statement looked mildly absurd in the investigation section given the latest report on the long term planning of the attack with the five accomplices who are due to be charged today. What she wrote was eminently sensible at the time and a number of expert commentators in France and elsewhere voiced similar opinions. Mathsci (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

July 21 charges

With the announcements and impending charges this afternoon, this becomes a current event again. I re-inserted the "current event" tag to reflect that things are subject to change. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

With all the new information appearing in the press and media, could editors leave the "current event" tag in place? The French article has the tag and they know better than us how things can change. The current events will probably change the way several key parts of the article are written, with new sections for those being charged. This is not an event frozen in time. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not the correct way to use Template:Current, which says "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It does seem that Ian is right on this one. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to look at what happened with recent terrorism acts, rather than having wikipedia policy interpreted for me. The same directives apply on en.wikipedia as on fr.wikipédia, so it cannot be quite as clear-cut as you claim. And unfortunately they've had three attacks recently. So I would assume they were in the know. I'll check what's happened in the past. When precisely do you think a tag like that is removed? When the attacker is killed? When all the fatalities have been counted? Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This template should be used sparingly. If any major developments occur, there are enough regulars here to update the article quickly. We're not bound to do whatever the French language Wikipedia is doing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently there is a major development and significant pars of the article are subject to change. Why did you not wait? Even if many editors cannot read it, the French article is of great use here (images, info, sources, etc), so the French, the French editors and even French nation should be treated with respect.

It takes a while to look over the previous articles. There's no record for the initial stage of writing of September 11 attacks: it was copied here in November 2001. November 2015 Paris attacks had the attack tag removed with this edit [16]. Was it done by an administrator. No it was done by User:HalloweenNight, a sockpuppet of User:Alvandria. I looked therefore at 7 July 2005 London bombings, two weeks after the bombings. The current events was still posted on 21 July 2007.[17] It was removed after 17 days on 24 July with this edit.[18] The number of fatalities there was less. It was equally horrific, attacking people going about their everyday lives. So if 17 days was fine there, I don't think policy supports ianmacm at all. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There may be precedent to argue for changing the guidance on the use of the template, but the guidance as it stands is pretty clear that it is intended for very limited use, and that's an argument for a much broader audience than this. I also don't see that there is a particular need at this time. Edit rates are pretty steady at one every few minutes, compared to the first few hundred edits on the article which often had several edits per minute. It does not seem to be the case currently that the actual second a person clicks on the article is going to dramatically change the basic information they get, even though the most up to date information may not yet be available. TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Names

Is there any point in naming suspects, when the names are 'ciphers' anyway?Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether they are real names or not, I have removed them per WP:BLPCRIME in the case that they are. TimothyJosephWood 21:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Would a similar logic apply to the motor cyclist? He's more of a hero in the media, but might still not want to be named. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't have it both ways

If this is not a terrorist attack, why is it linked from Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic, as well as Islamic_terrorism#Selected_attacks? 93.33.187.200 (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not ask the editors who made the edits on those pages? This page is for discussing edits to this article and not general discussions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The first subject already occurs in the categories. Links with Islamic terrorism have not yet been confirmed. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Might have had something to do with this one saying people were charged with terrorism in the lead. Maybe best to spell the charges out in full there. The same people who don't read past headlines probably don't read past leads, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Added later. See below, Your lack of understanding of French laws on terrorism or the French language is appalling. Please educate yourself. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The "I speak French I'm better than you" shtick is getting a bit stale, and comments like these could easily be construed as a personal attack. Talk about the article; stop talking about editors. TimothyJosephWood 10:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't personally mind that bit, but if it ruins the atmosphere for other editors, I won't say it's OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do mind when the theme over the last week seems to be making similar comments to each editor here in turn. TimothyJosephWood 11:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism & terror offences

The 21 and 22 July sources confirm that the five suspects were being held on July 21 pending charges of terrorism. They were charged during the night of 21-22 July on terrorism charges. These charges do not mean that the were linked to an external terrorist group, but are part of French laws concerning terrorism. Le Monde states for example, Cinq personnes soupçonnées d’avoir aidé le criminel dans l’élaboration de la tuerie – toutes inconnues des services de renseignement – ont été mises en examen, jeudi soir, pour association de malfaiteurs terroriste criminelle. This is an aspect of French language. The acts of the perpetrator and his colloborators have been called acts of terrorism by the Prosecutor. Indeed he refers to L-Bouhlel as a terrorist in his most recent announcements. I am not suggesting that the wikipedia article has to do that. Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that the French invented the term La Terreur. Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:InedibleHulk seems to have his own WP:OR version of what he thinks is French law. His edits give the misleading view that those charged have been charged because they are associated with some external terrorist organisation. That has not been established nor is it recorded in any sources. The charges related to their joint activities with the perpetrator which constitute an "act of terrorism". BBC News uses the term terror offence. They give translations of the precise French legal terms under which the Tunisians and Albanians were charged. The six of them (including the perpetrator) constitute the terrorist group. Does IndebleHulk have his own private information. Has he read any of the sources, or was his editing just a knee-jerk reaction? He made his first edits to the lede when the url was missing, so it is unlikely he even read an English source (in this case BBC News). Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I said they were charged with murder and weapons offenses. Not all of them, three of one and two of another. Their association to a terrorist group isn't the crime itself, but complements "regular" weapons and murder crimes. If either of these constitutes an act of terrorism, source that claim. (And yes, I'd read the BBC one when I clarified the first time.) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an accurate paraphrase of this, which doesn't mention terrorism. There's "breaking the law on weapons in relation to a terrorist group" and ""murder by a group with terror links". Which one of those is the accusation of committing terrorism? (It's neither, if you need a hint.) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. Can you please take the time to read what I just wrote, instead of trying to paraphrase French legal terms? That is blatant WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no clue why you think that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, just to clarify, are you saying that in French anti-terror laws, the 5+1 (or 3+1 or X+1?), ARE the group referred to in the charges, ie no external group is implied in the charges? This I think in UK law would be accomplices to 'a conspiracy to commit ...'. nb I've amended Hulk, as people have been charged as 'accomplices/facilitators', not 'murder' itself. ... I noticed last night that BBC & Gdn were being very careful in their phrasing. We should be too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs)

Yeah, that might have been OR on my part. Just sort of assumed France was similar to Canada in lumping everyone together. If it's not, it's not (and if someone's feeling bored, maybe explain the French way at the Accomplice article). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I am assuming you have by now read the BBC News source which uses the term "terror offence". There was no URL when you made your first edit, so you almost certainly hadn't looked at the BBC News source then. I added it afterwards because I'd copy-pasted the title forgetting the URL. You think "teroor offence" is wrong somehow: you have now started a Crusade to correct it. So, rather than following what the source says, you invent your own commentary by playing playing around with the English translation of the French legal terms used for the charges. I'm sorry but that is blatant POV-pushing, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please remember that in the US you have your laws and agencies including Homeland Security. France has its own laws and agencies. The same is true in the United Kingdom, where I live and where we have had several terrorist attacks.

(The French Prosecutor has said that the group of six people, including L-Bouhlel, responsible for the Nice attack constitute a terror or terrorist group. No more than that. I think that your reaction to the word "terror" or "terrorism" probably stems from a misunderstanding of French language and French law. Nothing very serious. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Like I already said, I read the BBC source before I clarified the first time. Assuming I only read things I cite is pretty foolish. I think "terror offence" is vague, not incorrect. I thought "terrorism" was incorrect. If BBC goes on to explain in more detail, why should we choose the vaguest bit? It sounds close enough to terrorism to confuse readers into believing these people are accused of committing it, and many won't skip down to Investigation where we clarify. They'll just think these are five terrorists, so the attack was a terrorist act. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's vague but presumably their translation of an AFP bulletin. In France I don't think they differentiate between terreur and terrorisme. The BBC only gives a literal translation of the technical French legal terms, hence the quotation marks: they do not explain them. But some other sources might. Many other details, not mentioned in the WP article, were mentioned in Molins' press briefing yesterday. He summarised the criminal acts for which the suspects were due to be charged and gave the evidence. He had explained already in his press briefing on Monday that these details would be supplied at a later date. Yesterday he also gave a long account of the number of fatalities, the number of injuries, the number of unidentified victims, and all the measures being used to identify and repatriate them.

Yes, "terror" & "terrorism" is a language/culture problem. Anyway nothing excludes further investigations finding actual links between some of those involved and known terrorist organisations. The investigators have not said anything so far, but it's early days. Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I presume it's just a short way to sum up the charges for the lead, no different from simply calling them "five suspects" instead of naming them. In any case, I don't think we (you, I, Molins, BBC, AFP, whoever) disagree on the fact that three are charged as accomplices to murder and two with supplying a weapon. Only on what that implies. Any sort of paraphrase that gets across the agreed facts would be more informative than a blanket term. I'm 25 minutes away from starting my weekend, though. Whatever it says on Monday will probably be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci,InedibleHulk guys, give each other a break, you're both doing your best to keep this neutral and accurate as far as I can see! Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The charges were only made quite early in the morning, so did not occupy much time. What was harder was finding out when the accomplice revisited the scene of the crime. Some sources said 14 July, initially the BBC said 15 July in the evening. That's one reason for assembling all the sources. In the end I read and reread the sources in conjunction with what Molins actually said. Probably the visit was in the middle of the night. Molins speaks in a very dignified and authoritative way—he does not use English words like "selfie" or other neologisms; but he does use the English word "warnings" for parking lights. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Level of detail about 'accused'

There appears to be a reasonable job done now about which accused are charged with exactly what. It appears that the Albanian couple are accused of illegally supplying a weapon, with no present suggestion that they had any deeper involvement in any 'conspiracy'. Serious offence, but a whole magnitude different from 'mass murder'.

Do we need every detail about alleged involvement of the others? They've been charged, there is a significant amount of what might turn out to be 'proof', or what might be 'circumstantial' (they exchanged XXXX phone calls in the prev year, finger prints in the truck made sometime in the prev. XX days, a 'selfie' near the truck?). Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

General points re: new investigation details

• It would probably enhance readability to separate these two paragraphs into a subsection, with some topically appropriate header. Especially as I expect it will continue to grow.
• The six citations following "were known to intelligence services" is probably getting into WP:OVERCITE territory. Either the most pertinent couple of sources should be kept and others removed, or a footnote can be added expounding on the statement and the additional references can be added there. TimothyJosephWood 13:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Since apparently Mathsci took issue with separation: The last paragraph is flatly too long. On mobile devices and small resolutions it is going to be a wall of text. On Chrome mobile simulation for a Galaxy 5s it is almost twice a much text as can fit in a screen. Shorten it or divide it. Find a solution that fits you better, or I will reinsert the line break. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is a summary of Molins' press briefing yesterday. Some though will be required about how to break up the paragraph if have to do so. You created part of the problem yourself by insisting on given names not being used. It makes it quite difficult to refer to people; and the same thing makes breaking the paragraph difficult. But I will think about it. I am slightly peeved that nobody else, apart from Pincrete, had made any effort whatsoever to help adding content. In this case it was quite clear why French sources were necessary, as English language ones were wholly inadequate. What I want to do now is add content about the 22 year old French-Tunisian born in Nice, since I haven't does so up till now. As he was one of those charged, it would be appropriate to say something about him. After that we can do the split. Probably with the Albanians ending a first paragraph. The French-Tunisians and Tunisians in a second paragraph. And the conclusion and charging in the final paragraph. I will now add material on the 22 year old, so please be patient. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't decide not to use names. WP:BLP is Wikipedia policy.
• I'm fine with however you want to separate it. But the article is currently receiving about 10,000 mobile web views per day, so we cannot have a format that is unreadable on that platform. TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• I have added a subsection for the content under "21 July" for lack of a better title. Please replace with anything more appropriate. I couldn't think of a better header off the top of my head. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to be patient. If you had created any useful content about this particular, perhaps you could allowed some leeway. But why this impatience? I still have to puzzle out how to include some bits of this content. "Durant sa garde à vue, Ramzi A. a par ailleurs indiqué aux enquêteurs la cache d’une kalachnikov, évoquée dans plusieurs messages. A ce stade, « on ne sait pas à quoi elle était destinée », précise M. Molins." You are not helping. This takes time. But I'm happy with the breaks and the heading. Mathsci (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not helping? I haven't really changed any of the content. I've separated subsections and added a picture. I'm not sure what you're on about. TimothyJosephWood 15:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Security at event

A feature we don't cover at all is the criticism of lack of adequate security at the event, and the various claims, counter claims as to whether it was adequate. Thoughts?Pincrete (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There have been various claims about this, but not all of it is from reliable sourcing, eg in some people's least favourite source, the Daily Mail.[19] Bouhlel apparently told police that he was delivering ice cream in the truck, and some sources, eg CNN here have described the Renault Midlum as a refrigerated truck. The French government has apparently backtracked on this,[20] and the truck involved doesn't look like a refrigerated truck, because it has no refrigeration mechanism on the exterior. There have also been questions asked about whether Bouhlel had the relevant license to drive this type of vehicle on the roads. This incident will set off a rethink about how people are allowed to hire and drive large vehicles, but the sourcing at the moment isn't very strong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I discounted the 'ice-cream' claim, though it could be part of the security 'story'. Much of the criticism (fair or not), has focused on what level of policing and whether local or 'better equipped' police were present.Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been discussed from day one I think, and there are many RS in French and even in English (like this for example). I personally support inclusion. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There are apparently various laws on where and when this type of vehicle can be driven on the roads in France. There have also been claims that the French police failed to erect barriers to prevent vehicles from getting on to the Promenade des Anglais during the Bastille Day event.[21] This is something for the investigation, because the sourcing isn't very reliable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail? As mentioned below this is a story started by Libération. For a fête nationale with firework displays, areas usually open to traffic (including large delivery vehicles) are converted into pedestrianised zones. That often happens on May 1st, November 11th, July 14th, etc and other events like the fête de la musique. Like all old cities in France, lorries cannot travel on certain roads, but sometimes they have to, e.g. when delivering Picassos to the Musée Granet. Apart from these exceptional closures, the Promenade des Anglais generally has heavy traffic all the time, as it is a major axis of Nice. This material certainly does not belong in the investigation section. It's the same in Aix-en-Provence, in Marseille, in Lyon, in Toulouse and of course in Paris: the Champs-Elysée will be shut to traffic for the close of the Tour de France. Mathsci (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't let's get side-tracked about the Daily Mail, the issue is controversies about security. Their story is probably a 'red herring' AFAWK. Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of attempted destruction of evidence to investigation

The bit about SDAT trying to have surveillance video deleted is currently shady, as far as what they're trying to hide goes, but since it pertains to evidence, it should be clearly relevant. Investigators and lawyers can't see what they can't see, can they? The Associated Press (per The Guardian) implies it has something to do with the underarmed police situation, so maybe it can be combined with Pincrete's proposed security part above, if consensus says this coverup means nothing to investigation. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The story Pincrete removed about SDAT placed there by IndeibleHulk is an example of security problems. France has been riven with disputes about inadequate security. There was the report in Liberation that the barriers on the Promenade des Anglais were inadequately manned and this has flared up into a political row. The SDAT story about CCTV footage is clarified here, for example, but it is irrelevant to the investigation. I assume that the investigators have copied everything from the short period when they want coverage to be deleted. As Le Point points out, today it has been explained that this exceptional request was made to prevent horrific images being leaked and then posted indiscriminately on the internet. The security problems belong in Reactions. The French article discusses this in great detail in "Revendications". They also discuss the 10 month jail sentence that one individual received for trying to sell souvenirs of the attack on the internet (Ebay possibly?). And the fake former lawyer. Apart from piecemeal additions, I doubt that there are sufficiently many editors interested in French domestic policy to cover that content comprehensively here. But perhaps a little is better than none. Mathsci (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to the 'SDAT' material, I just didn't think it was 'investigation' and putting it there implied something (???) . Merging with 'Security controversy' seems a good idea. Pincrete (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Filmed from Hotel Westminster

Re: [22] I believe when and where things happened is important. I re-added the sentence, but without naming Richard Gutjahr. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why. Numerous videos and 'pics' have circulated, are any of them known to be especially significant?Pincrete (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe all videos that show what happened are important. It’s also important to note that the Westminster Hotel, where the driver was first shot at, is only 200 m from where the truck stopped. Ref. smh.com and map Erlbaeko (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Importance isn't something we decide. There are probably many videos, 'pics', security 'films'. Who knows at present which may be crucial evidence. Unless any of these is widely covered in RS as having significance, the only notable thing is that some exist. Pincrete (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The video filmed by Richard Gutjahr from Hotel Westminster have been widely covered in RS. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt it is true, I doubt whether the majority of sources think it important. We could 'cite' many videos and a innumerable pictures were taken, why is this one special? Neither the text nor the sources say why this video is worthy of mention. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Request to delete CCTV recordings

French anti-terror police have demanded that the authorities in Nice delete CCTV recordings showing the attack. The demand has been refused. Worth adding to the article? Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Already discussed on this page. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots, It's in the article (or was), there is discussion above (subsection of security at event). Apparently it's been settled, copies of relevant stuff will be made for evidence, then originals deleted (I think that's it). Pincrete (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Motorcyclist in attack section

I am struggling to find the English word for this. "Incoherent"? It is written well, but not structured logically. I tried to correct this but was reverted by Erlbaeko because apparently it was "Not an improvement". I am not the best at wording and did request other editors copy edit the section, but I did remove the duplication and inconsistency which I think is most important. The issue is that the motorcyclist is mentioned twice. In the first instance, it implies that he pursued the truck, and attempted to pull the driver out before the "the driver continued for 2 kilometres". Then it states after "the driver continued for 2 kilometres" that the motorcyclist (Migues) again "jumped onto the truck, distracting and drawing gunfire". This is the same person so makes little sense. After researching, I have determined that the second instance is correct, that the motorcyclist jumped on the truck prior to it being stopped and the driver shot dead. The initial sentence is based on initial reports and synthesis. Facts are taken from sources, but the order of events is not correct. Rob984 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues with the attack section, but this video shows that a motorcyclist pursued the truck, that two shots were fired and that the driver then speeded up and plunged into the crowds. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Rob984, I noticed the same inconsistency myself. This is probably a result of early reports. Erlbaeko, we can't base text on the evidence of videos. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear from the video that he then "continued for 2 kilometres". I can't verify this in the sources. Sources seem to imply that he was stopped shortly after this.

Eric Ciotti, French MP for the Alpes-Maritimes département and present on the promenade des Anglais told Europe 1 that while people fled from the truck, someone jumped in and was able to help the police kill the man.

"A person jumped on to the truck to try to stop it," he told the radio station.

"It's at that moment that the police were able to neutralise this terrorist. The attacker fired at the police officers without hitting them and at the person who tried to stop him. I won't forget the look of this policewoman who intercepted the killer."

Up to three police officers reportedly ran 200 metres behind the truck trying to stop it, according to Le Figaro.

Hero motorcyclist attempted to stop Nice terror attacker, The Telegraph

The BBC source also supports this: Where the two police offices shooting before the truck "continued for 2 kilometres" come from, I'm not sure. But I don't think that relates to the motorcyclist. Rob984 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so the two police officers shooting is correct. They shot at the truck while the motorcyclist was climbing onto the truck. It then drives onwards with the motorcyclist still on the truck. It is stopped shortly after. Breakdown by France 24: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZooBPTJWlk ... Rob984 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Rob984 I think you are right. The early story is probably incorrect, but I've seen the same footage used to claim both narratives. The 'Youtube' is of course edited, but appears to support the 'endgame' the Telegraph is a bit unclear and refers to two 'stoppers', one being the Mcyclist. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The police shot at the truck or the driver shot at the police or the driver fired on the police, who then returned fire. Hard to say from the video. Anyway, the video is filmed from the balcony above the main entrance. You can actually see the Westminster logo light sign in it. Ref. Googles Street View. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This thread is about the role of the M.cyclist, the present coverage is muddled.Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone shed any light on this? The accounts of the role of the motorcyclist are 'muddled' at best. Plus should we name him? Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)