Talk:2017 New York City truck attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latest

Now possibly 6 people are dead according to CNN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Radio reports are saying that the assailant had a BB gun, not a firearm. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we need both of the "Lower Manhattan" and "Tribeca" categories?

Resolved

Isn't the Lower Manhattan category unnecessary if we are using the Tribeca category? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I see it's already removed. epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Great!, I'll mark this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"List of terrorist incidents in New York City" or "Terrorism in New York City"

Resolved

Given Category:Terrorist incidents in New York City, should we create List of terrorist incidents in New York City, or even Terrorism in New York City? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support That seems reasonable to me. There definitely seems to be enough instances to create one. ToxicOJ (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support We have a large number of solid articles, going back many years. Alas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: User:PhilipTerryGraham has created List of terrorist incidents in New York City. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Truck Image

Can I upload an image onto the article of the actual truck used that I retrieved from a news source’s website? ToxicOJ (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to find out the licensing for the image first. In many cases, it won’t have the proper licensing to be used on Wikipedia. If anyone on Wikimedia uploads their own work or a public domain/fair use image, wel can use it. Codyorb (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@ToxicOJ: if you are the owner of the image's copyright, or that the image was released under a free license, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If the image is copyrighted, and you have reason to believe that usage of the image will have greater encyclopedic value than the free-licensed image being currently used, you can upload the image locally to Wikipedia, in acordance with the Non-free use rationale guideline. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 23:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

On the same topic, do we want to keep the current image of the Home Depot Load 'N Go Flatbed Truck (not actually used during the incident)? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep - While an image of the actual truck used would be preferable, this image displays the identical type of the vehicle used in the attack (down to the company from which it was rented). This provides useful context in giving readers the ability to see the exact type of vehicle used. A similar use of an image is at another ramming article, 2007 Glasgow Airport attack. If a photo of the actual vehicle used becomes available, it should replace this image. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the earlier message, I have an image of the truck used in the attack from a news website, but I don’t know how to upload it without violating Wikipedia’s copyright rules. Does anyone know how to upload it directly to Wikipedia as the previous comment said?ToxicOJ (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Injured

In attack section, we say "causing at least eight fatalities and fifteen injuries" whereas in the victims section, we say "Eight people were killed and more than 12 were injured in the incident". So which is it, 12 or 15? We should be consistent. werldwayd (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

15. epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree anyone editing the article, info box, attack, victims sections, should updt stats and cite sources. The attack was perpetrated 3:05 pm EDT 31 Oct 2017. It is now 8:08 am EDT 1 Nov 2017. Not even 24 hrs. It may actually be days before all injuries are reported by hospitals to authorities. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection

I think, to protect the article from vandalism (especially due to the nature of the perpetrator being linked to IS, which may inspire racist vandal attacks), the page should be protected so that all edits have to be reviewed before getting published. This is an effective way of still letting people edit, but stopping the edits that can do damage (vandalism, pageblanking, etc). AllyGebies (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles are not pre-emptively protected. If this article does attract a significant amount of vandalism (which is not unlikely) then at that point it should be reported to WP:RFPP. Funcrunch (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not true! Many articles with known vandal vectors are protected pre-emptively. Have a chat with Admin andythegrump.

See also section

Resolved

This section seems too long, maybe that it would be better to link to a few list-class articles? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Other locations" part could be replaced with a link to Vehicle-ramming attack, or rather the list on that page. --ChlorideCull (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've boldy replaced the list with wikilinks to lists. Galobtter (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved, so I am marking the section as such. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Special needs" bus?

In the Attack section: "The driver then collided his truck with a school bus that transports students with special needs" Is there a source for "special needs"? None of the references in the paragraph describe it as anything other than a school bus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The bus serves two schools in Lower Manhattan and transports students with special needs. WWGB (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of point of view and Trump.

The section contained in this folder, while adressing NPOV, is mostly about a topic that is only tangentially related to the article. Please stay on topic.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to the Telegraph, some american newspapers consider that cyclists (and pedestrians) killed by motorized vehicle drivers are the result of what they call a ”cowardly attack”, when this is not reported in this wikipedia article. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this! According to the Guardian, Trump twitted ”I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!”. As this has been reported by an international newspaper (notoriety criteria) I assume it should also be reported in this article (NPOV criteria). And one would agree with Trump: Being politically correct is fine, but not for cyclists killed by motorized vehicle drivers: too many cyclists (and pedestrians) have been killed for too many decades. Britain’s roads are many times more deadly than terrorism. (And to be fair, some other countries’ roads are many times more deadly than Britain’s roads) With traffic comes air pollution that kills even more people: 12,000 air pollution deaths a year are directly attributable to road transport. As motor manufacturers have cheated on emissions tests, cars may bear far more of the pollution blame. Pedestrian deaths rose by 12% last year, with serious injuries to cyclists up by 8%. About 100 cyclists die as a result of collisions or coming off their bikes on the roads in Great Britain each year. And more than 3,000 are seriously injured (Facts are not limited to UK while those numbers are: each countries its statistics) Other countries other statistics: In 2016, in NYC citywide, there was 10775 pedestrian injuries, 148 pedestrian kills, 4592 bicyclist injuries 18 bicyclist kills due to Motor Vehicle drivers. This is possibly too much unless if accepted? In the USA, in 2015, 5,376 pedestrians and 818 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts). These two modes accounted for 17.7 percent of the 35,092 total U.S. fatalities that year. This is also possibly too much unless if accepted? The cyclists (and pedestrians) are yet the victims of the motorized vehicle drivers with PM 2.5 which kills slowly (say in months), they are also victim of the unsafe driving which kills immediately (that is in more or less than 30 days in KSI). This makes the cyclists use cameras. This is not how things should work: Motor vehicle drivers should have a safety education program which teach them how to drive safely. An Extreme Vetting Program should ensure that only those who have the skills to drive safely can access a driving license and a motorized vehicle. If this was working properly cyclists (and pedestrians) would not been killed in a so impressive quantity, and people would not need camera to report such issues. An Extreme Vetting Program should also ensure that those safety skills are periodically monitored. But it is not enough, because motorists are both aggressive and violent. Something should be done for motorists not being neither aggressive nor violent. Some advertising blame cyclists for being in a bad position when a HGV lorry truck turn in a junction. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this! Hope some people with influence or responsibility, some people with capacity, push for improving the picture, in this wikipedia article or in real life, taking into account NPOV & safety consideration. Just a quotation to close this critic of the wikipedia article: ”Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!”. Donald Trump, 1 November 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC) References

2017 Manhattan attack

"2017 Manhattan attack" should also re-direct to this page. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support the redirect, this is what I looked up to get to this page. 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Created Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Map

Wondering if a map displaying just Lower Manhattan would be better? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I created this, would it be good? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lower_Manhattan_Terror_Attack_2017.jpg 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this map good?

I made a map, should we use it? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lower_Manhattan_Terror_Attack_2017.jpg 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's good, but that map only shows where the pickup ended up, at West and Chambers. The attack began farther north, at Houston and West. Here's the New York Times's graphic. Paris1127 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I could see a map like this used in the "Attack" section, but not the infobox. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"See also" link: Vehicle-ramming attacks

Should Vehicle-ramming attack be linked in the "ssSee also" section? E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per fact (irrespective of motivation) and because it is usual on pages about Vehicle-ramming attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:ISIL terrorist incidents in the United States?

Is Category:ISIL terrorist incidents in the United States appropriate to add? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"See also" link: Terrorism in the United States

Since there's already disagreement, should Terrorism in the United States be linked in the "See also" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I already removed it. Abductive (reasoning) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I see the link now appears in the infobox, which works for me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support As this incident is already being treated as a terrorist attack by the FBI.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support the addition because Mayor Bill de Blasio referred to it himself as “an act of terror”. ToxicOJ (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support As per the Governor, the Mayor and the FBI.E.M.Gregory (talk)
• Support per above Governor, the Mayor and the FBI and all major newspapers call it a terror attack.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Post-1932 politics?

I understand the need for protection but I don't feel like this event fits into the category of politics (arbcom notice up top). Can someone explain the connection? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Immigration reform and stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Deadliest NYC terrorist attack since September 11, 2001

Many articles have listed this as the deadliest New York City terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, so it should probably be noted.Rlt152152 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable if multiple inline citation can support this claim. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It sounds trivial to me - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea since I think people looking up this information may want to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlt152152 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is the first deadly terrorist attack in NYC since 9/11 that involved civilians being killed, according to BBC. The Chelsea attack last year didn't kill anyone, and neither did the Queens attack in 2014. epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It would need an As Of ... Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is the first deadly attack since 9/11. I don't think {{as of}} is needed. epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's also the deadliest terrorist attack by an Uzbekistani in the history of the United States, perhaps we should include that. And what about the deadliest terror attack in the history of the human race committed with a rented Home Depot truck? We gotta emphasize how deadly, terrifying, and full of deadly terror this attack was. The actual figures just aren't impressive enough, so we should throw in a few meaningless comparisons. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A970:A762:9AF2:38D5 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, why not include the fact that it is the deadliest bike lane attack in the U.S.? Yes, this and the above are both unconstructive comments. Feel free to remove them. epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe how it is the deadliest attack ever in the U.S. for the month of November October? Seriously I agree with you though, this is trivial info at best that isn't encyclopedic. If you guys want to include it then link an article through the "see also" section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That was way back indeed in October, though Knowledgekid. The deadliest November attack is the deadliest attack on a US military base. Domestically, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

see also

Add boston bombing? Similiar background ofperps.Lihaas (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pier 40 image

Why does the article display an image of Pier 40 when the prose does not mention Pier 40? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of the Pier 40 and also that of a "similar" truck (not the actual one) are both questionable. I suggest replacement by more relevant pictures. werldwayd (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think both images should be removed. I'd remove the image of Pier 40, but would prefer to wait until others share their thoughts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now removed the Pier 40 photo as there is no evidence this was the actual place where the attack happened. The truck is more iffy for now and I opted to keep it giving time for inclusion of the actual truck in the coming hours, in which case the photo of this specific truck will merit deletion as well and replacement by a photo of the actual truck instead werldwayd (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pier 40 is at Houston Street, where the truck entered the lane. epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Move to 2017 Lower Manhattan attack done without consensus

Although I also opt for 2017 Lower Manhattan attack, this move has been done without consensus by User:Fuzheado. It is not the time for "bold moves" after all the discussion we had in which it was agreed the title should be 2017 New York attack. See above decision on adopting the title "2017 New York City attack". Discussion found in section "Requested move 31 October 2017" on this very same page. The decision came after a very long discussion involving many Wikipedia editors. I suggest going back to the original agreed title 2017 New York City attack and discussing move to 2017 Lower Manhattan attack. If suggested move finds support, then and only then move it. werldwayd (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree as this isn't a non controversial subject. The move was done in good faith but this is a big event followed by lots of people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If you note the closer comment on the move discussion, there actually was not consensus for the title "2017 New York City attack" either. The move discussion was closed because an editor moved the page to that title before a consensus was reached. Further discussion has continued in the section below. (In that discussion I suggested October 2017 New York City attack, FWIW.) Funcrunch (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. But clearly 2017 New York City attack has the widest support for now. It doesn't warrant a "bold" move by a single editor to 2017 Lower Manhattan attack particularly after so much discussion from so many editors and the opinion of this one editor prevails over all the others measured collectively. I still demand reverting to original 2017 New York City attack title. werldwayd (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry that I didn't see the second debate before responding to the first debate. However, I still stand by the bold move. I dove into this article today for the first time and immediately saw that the title was obviously problematic and ambiguous because of confusion with the Times Square attack in May. For a full explanation, my rationale is here: #Suggesting_title_to_be_changed_to_.272017_Manhattan_attack.27_or_.272017_New_York_City_attack.27. That said, I have looked at the requested move discussion (now green) and concur with @Funcrunch: - there was no consensus for moving it to 2017 New York City attack in the first place. So independently, my move back to the Lower Manhattan attack restores the title before that bold move was made. I'm happy to discuss it more here in this section, but I think the Lower Manhattan moniker is the best, which is what you see in the Wikidata item for "location" and other sources. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the move here, I just hope this title sticks for a bit before it is moved again is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply - I believe that "New York City" is a more recognizable term than is "Manhattan", and should be somewhere in the title. I am thinking about starting a move review on the issue of which title should be used. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Jax 0677. "New York City" is the common term, and the natural name to use.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm busy with a deadline or I'd make a more extensive reply but for now, please peruse List of terrorist incidents in New York City and you'll see plenty of uses of more specific terms in article titles – Times Square, Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn Bridge, La Guardia Airport, World Trade Center, et al. They don't have "New York City" in the title, and not all of those proper nouns are household names. This is just to give some context that there is a well-established precedent to go down one more level of detail. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I wish we would just discuss it here and decide here, but apparently a move review has been opened - Wikipedia:Move_review#2017_Lower_Manhattan_attack. Please make your opinions known there. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2017

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

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) page moved already. Discussion can be continued below, but this is no longer a RM because the page has been moved. Disclosure: I opposed this title. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 West Side Highway attack → 2017 New York City attack – Evidently there's a bit of disagreement on the name of the article. I think it's best we gain a consensus on this. Which name would be more appropriate for the article? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title; considering support for any other title. To distinguish with 2017 Times Square car crash, which some people initially called an attack. epicgenius (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support West Side Highway is simply too parochial. I do see the need to disambigulate from the "2017 Times Square car crash", however, unlike Times Square, no one outside the metor region has a clue what the West Side Highway is. Plus this a truck attack, and that was a car crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• But do Note suggestions further up the page to move to 2017 Lower Manhattan truck attack, or to 2017 New York City truck attack, both of which which would also work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: I think that the name should be this because the "west side highway" could be confusing for people not familiar with New York. Maybe instead mention the west side highway in the article. Also add in the word truck. "2017 New York City truck attack" 173.54.215.179 (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• How about 2017 Lower Manhattan attack - since the Times Square incident was also in Manhattan? --regentspark (comment) 21:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Too specific. Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would prefer something ending with "....vehicle ramming attack". Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: support 2017 Lower Manhattan attack instead (we both suggested this at the same time, but I got an edit conflict!) Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support: '2017 New York City attack' is a more notable title per WP:COMMONNAME.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both the current title (because the West Side Highway isn't known to the large majority of people) and the proposed one (due to this not being the only notable attack in NYC this year). October 2017 New York City attack would be better. Jim Michael (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support change of title: I think 2017 New York attack is too general though. 2017 Lower Manhattan attack is the most optimal. I am particularly against the current 2017 West Side Highway attack. Our article identifies the location as "West Street" and also talks about the Lower Manhattan area. Our editors opting for the "West Side Highway" is to say the least puzzling if not questionable. From my limited knowledge of highways, I don't think highways as such have pedestrian sidewalks... But the incident happened on a pedestrian track. What makes the notion of a so-called "West Side Highway" even more confusing if not altogether counter-productive is that our article doesn't mention this highway even once. So why use it so mysteriously in the title!!! werldwayd (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• West Street is where the West Side Highway used to be, before they dismantled the highway (literally, it was largely on stilts) and made it into a street connecting with the res of the Manhattan street grid. And please don't go to Madison Square if you have tickets to a game at Madison Square Garden. New Yorkers are a traditional, hidebound, quaintly provincial folk who speak a language unintelligible ot other Anglophones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• That is the West Side Elevated Highway. West Street, 11th Avenue between 14th and 22nd Streets, and 12th Avenue are part of the West Side Highway that most New Yorkers use to refer to the boulevard that New York State Route 9A runs along below 57th Street. "Highway" is not wrong. Source: am a New Yorker. epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose more specific is better. Dont mind lower Manhattan (isnt original Manhattan in HollAnd?)Lihaas (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  No. The New York Manhattan is the original one (there is a newer one somewhere in Kansas). Easily recognizable. --regentspark (comment) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as an improvement to the current obscure title, which is certainly not the common name. Might I also take this opportunity to suggest that perhaps we incorporate Halloween into the title somehow? There is certainly a precedent to naming the holiday as part of the name of such an event when it occurs on major holidays. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support "West Side Highway" is most certainly not a name people are familiar with. "Lower Manhattan" is more recognizable, and it's also notable that the vehicle used was a truck, and that this was a deliberate act, therefore I believe "2017 Lower Manhattan truck attack" would be the best title. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence
• Oppose - I support the name "2017 New York City truck attack" for those in the world who are not familiar with Manhattan. I also support "October 2017 New York City attack", or other similar title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed title, would support title referring to the more-specific "Lower Manhattan" or even something about Halloween. Paris1127 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Both of the proposed titles' violate at least two of the five statutes laid out in the article title policy which these arguments are supposed to be based on - Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. as well as Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. In the situation of another terrorist attack happening this year in Manhattan or New York City, the proposed titles' would fail to distinguish this attack from others. Secondly, the proposed titles' lack consistency with those covering terrorist attacks as these article titles tend to include a specific location or a distinguishing detail of the incident. The proposed titles' fail to cover at least two of the characteristics in a solid article title. I believe that 2017 West Side Highway attack fits the description of an adequate title; if not to it's improvement include "Vehicle" or a sweeping change of title to include the fact that the attack was indeed a Vehicle-ramming attack Jr xander 02:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Who is going to recognize the name West Side Highway? We should be WP:PRECISE here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further discussion on title please

I agree that "New York City" is better than previous, but I think we should definitely add "Truck" and maybe "Halloween" or "October" for easier identification, because of the previous Times Square event. Readers may not be familiar with our geography, so we need something to provide readers with quick recognition. 2017 New York City Halloween truck attack works for me. Comments? Tvoz/talk 02:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Good except for the "Halloween" part. It is confusing. If anything, we'd say October 2017...truck attack. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I agree - today it seems to work but in the future the Halloween part becomes irrelevant. October works better. I do think the truck part is important - and is more parallel to 2017 Times Square car crash. 2017 New York City attack is too vague - unfortunately we've had many attacks of one kind or another - only one truck attack, I hope.Tvoz/talk 02:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

October should be added to the title. Unless there's another notable incident in the next 25 minutes or so, there will not be another October 2017 attack in New York City to write an article about, so the article title October 2017 New York City attack should remain unique. Funcrunch (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I support all of the above (within this subsection). --Jeremyb (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NB: I did a bold move, with explanation here: #Suggesting_title_to_be_changed_to_.272017_Manhattan_attack.27_or_.272017_New_York_City_attack.27 -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit of disagreement on when the eve starts in any day, but nobody can seriously argue for 2 pm. Hallowafternoon, if anything. And that'll never fly. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - I think that "New York City" should be somewhere in the article title, since it is more recognizable than Manhattan. I am thinking about starting a Move Review. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

not 2017 Lower Manhattan Attack. Even Home Depot attack would be better and that is not a good title. I came looking for this article and found it odd that it is called Lower Manhattan. 2017 New York attack is better. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please also see the discussion at Wikipedia:Move review#2017 Lower Manhattan attack. WWGB (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who has identified suspect to media?

If it is John Miller then the article should be updated, it should not say "Police identified" - the Guardian reported that the first reports to the media were from unauthorized, anonymous sources - these are not regarded as very credible. I'm not sure why John Miller is in a separate section now, but if he is the official source for the ID and the early unreliable reports can be removed entirely. Any objections? Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a source for who exactly identified the suspect, but John Miller article says he is police. Hence, if John Miller identified the suspect, police identified the suspect. Natureium (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have any sources that John Miller identified the suspect, so if no sources are forthcoming, I will be restoring the Guardian version. John Miller is a point of public contact, but we need a name not just "police" when a high quality publication is reporting tat the source is unauthorized and anonymous. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Unauthorized and anonymous police sources are very credible and reliable. It's why journalists use them. He has been arraigned in court under his name by prosecutors which are part of police powers. Not sure why this is even being argued. --DHeyward (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Since he has been charged in court, as widely reported, under his name, where is the issue? 2604:2000:E016:A700:9594:9323:E31C:B9B2 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

God is great

Does a slogan shouted by the perpetrator merit inclusion in the lead? This isn't a tabloid. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A970:A762:9AF2:38D5 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tabloid has zero/zilch/nothing/nada/null set to do with it. This is a facet of the crime, and nothing else.50.111.60.244 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it a "facet of the crime"? I think it can stay in the article, but it is somewhat prominent in the WP:LEDE. Whether it is a facet of anything has not been established. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Shouting the Takbir is clearly relevant given this is covered by most, if not all, WP:RS. It should be in the body and in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar? If said, then I would say yes.Ramhorbronc (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

He is still alive so this is covered under WP:BLPCRIME - I don't think we should be adding statements about material facts or making a "case for terrorism" at least until it is clear what exactly he is going to be charged with (not sure why it is taking so long, or even if the charges will be Federal). I think editors are kind of getting ahead of things here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Any updates on who his attorney is? Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the perpetrator actually uttered these specific words himself. The media in the initial stages of the attack speculated about his identity wanting to point out he was a Muslim. In such instances, it is habitual to include assertions as if he used the term "Allah Akbar". It is a common ploy to include it to point out the religious affiliation and convictions of the attacker. But did he actually utter these words? That's not clear. And now we have it enshrined in our intro as a given fact. Congratulations to us for taking part in this ploy as sensationalism instead of opting for a more cautious approach. werldwayd (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

OR aside about media that is RS, it seems just about every RS is mentioning Allahu Akbar: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is steadily devolving into making a case for terrorism, which is exactly what we are not supposed to do under WP:BLPCRIME. What is the legal relevance of Allahu Akbar? I don't know because all we have are media reports, which are not very reliable at this stage. John Miller is a little more "official" (he did help introduce the nation to Al Qaeda on 9/11 and is generally a high level public figure for these types of statements), but that is still only the account of the police. We don't know what will happen in Court, or what facts will be accepted as part of a legal fact pattern and we shouldn't be reporting the "police" version while the suspect is still alive. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just about every RS is mentioning Allahu Akbar. We should, therefore, as well. By following the RSs, we make sure we aren't letting out personal political leanings push us to improper subjective censorship. 2604:2000:E016:A700:9594:9323:E31C:B9B2 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Image of suspect

Hasn't an image of the suspect by the police departments been released? If we can use them, I hope someone can add them here. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Detail of Non-fatal Injuries

Please add detail about those victims who were not killed. Being maimed or suffering paralysis are noteworthy: There is suffering beyond whether someone lives or dies. Without this information, the summary of the harm caused is incomplete. -- Newagelink (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agree that material should be added on the victims, several of whom will be maimed and crippled for life.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So to be clear, you'd like the article to go into the scope of these injuries rather than citing the number of people injured? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

see also: September 11 and americans

I assume there might be some room in the article to add this quote related to America, 11 september and the World Trade Center, might be in a see also section:

• “September 11, 2017, will be the 16th anniversary of the evil attacks on four planes, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, but did you know that for every single person killed on that truly awful day, over 200 people have since been killed on America’s roads? Yes, a total of almost two-thirds of a million people slaughtered in U.S. highway crashes, plus around 40 million injured, in just 16 years. And almost all Americans, including supposedly responsible politicians, completely ignore this hideous and unnecessary travesty because what?” Eddie Wren, Advanced Drivers of North America, Inc. — July 13, 2017. See: [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, comparing 9/11 to road accidents makes 9/11 look like small potatoes, but 144 billion American chickens makes the road carnage look humane. None of this is suitable for the article. WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no question of small potatoes or of making things look humane. Might be you consider that a truck killing pedestrians and cyclists has nothing to do with a truck killing pedestrians and cyclists, one being suitable for the article, while the other is not. Even if I do not understand your point of view, I would prefer to not argue against it. Anyway, it is obvious and commonly admitted that one of the two is a major threat.

But, on wikipedia exist wikilinks, and I believe some links should exist between articles, for related issues: safety policies, road regulations and so on... Might be one or several sentences might also be adequate.

Anyway, if there is a reference to the 9 11, I wonderhow it can be achieved to not have also a references to road safety issues.

This thread has been opened to find the right way to deal with it, with due weight, with No original research, and Neutral point of view, and to have help to do so.

I assume the only difficulty is to find the right words, the right place in the article, and the right sources to deal with it. Because using the wrong words would make people feel the road carnage look humane, while the goal of the article should rather be to be encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality of point of view and due weight, I suggest you read Polly_Toynbee in “What’s many times more deadly than terrorism? Britain’s roads”; her text is available online at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/25/deadly-terrorism-britain-roads-security-risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There are also governmental & American source who enter in such comparison. Read for instance “Deaths from international terrorism compared with road crash deaths in OECD countries” by N Wilson & G Thomson on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730293/pdf/v011p00332.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The first thing you'll need is a source which ties traffic death stats to to this event, like how other sources tied it to 9/11. Not enough to just cite the stats alone, even if you're entirely right about a meaningful and encyclopedic connection. Personally, you don't need to sell me on how much truly scarier the pavement is than the Caliphate; I grew up in a funeral home alongside Canada's deadliest (perhaps only) highway. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything in this article? Natureium (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If I may interfere, I had to already contain a similar bulk written below the "Page Protection" section. I concur with InedibleHulk; you 77.193.104.227 (talk) don't have to dump a ton of info to me about how what's truly scary is the pavement with statistics from my country, it struck me as a bit insulting. Also, I suggest you to read carefully WP:SOAPBOX, because this all strikes me as that.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The 9/11 part is a bit of a red herring (aren't they all?), but after reading 77's first post twice, I'm inclined to agree that this is an example of dangerous driving on America's roads. That's not to say it was an accident, but if pedestrians were more aware of their surroundings and vigilant about nearby fast gas-filled metal and glass, more could've swerved to safety. And that's not blaming the victims; anyone on any road can be hit by any car at any time. It just happens more when you're not watching the road.

Googled for a source saying as much, found nothing of the sort. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

While that is interesting, what do traffic statistics have to do with an article on a terrorist attack in New York? Natureium (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Used a road vehicle, happened by the road. Gotta protect people from the road, if they won't defend themselves. The killer's intent is a separate issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree in that an assessment about driving and road safety could perfectly fit in the article, whatever disagreement I have with the way 77 forwarded it here notwithstanding.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just no. No reliable sources have connected "road safety" to this event. The NYmag is not reliable for articles on road safety. (Because it's an idiotic connection) --DHeyward (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not stupid in Honolulu. Or maybe Ontario. But yeah, New York's too cool to care. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

By that logic and the fatalities, it's an argentian problem coupled with foreign drivers. --DHeyward (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Aye, too much Niko Bellic. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not sufficiently related.2604:2000:E016:A700:9594:9323:E31C:B9B2 (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If not the NYmag,

• what's about the nydailynews: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/nyc-urged-build-bollards-protect-bikers-terror-attack-article-1.3605088 ?
• what's about the kptv: http://www.kptv.com/story/36732653/safety-on-the-mind-of-portlands-biking-community-after-new-york-attack?
• what's about the wtop: https://wtop.com/living/2017/11/on-board-computers-and-sensors-could-stop-the-next-car-based-attack/ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That last one's the Associated Press, not WTOP, but it still counts. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

15th Vehicular attack in NA and EU

I'm thinking about removing the '15th vehicular attack in North America and Europe by jihadist terrorists since 2014' section, as 1, the suspect (at this moment), hasn't been identified exclusively as a jihadist, only as a person inspired by IS, and 2, as it says 'North America and Europe' (it has both continents combined in the stats). Should I remove or at least re-word the section? AllyGebies (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Jihadist" is a western term invented to describe perpetrators that are inspired by groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks. There is no "jihadist" club to be exclusively affiliated. The term, as it has been defined in the West, is separate from Jihad which is a much broader term. Whether this perpetrator considers this attack as part of Jihad is not relevant to whether he is described as a jihadist. --DHeyward (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Since 2014, most al Qaeda members and fans have simply been counted as ISIS members and fans. It's too complicated to have a news narrative with two bad guys, much less 15 minor villains with unique stories. I can see why the cloud/swarm/wave approach is appealing to some. Wikipedia doesn't have to play that game, though, not being episodic. I suggest we don't tie them all together like this; as best I recall from the news, none of these individual bastards even chatted online, much less formed an actual cohesive unit or followed a single plan. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, the term "jihadist" doesn't require they all be tied together or tied to anyone. It as a description created in the west to describe terrorist acts by Islamic extremists. It doesn't matter if it's a suicide bombing in the Turkey airport protesting a Muslim ruler or an attack in the Bataclan theater, an attack ine the pulse nightclub or truck attack in Paris or New York. Read our article on Jihadism to understand. Just like when we describe fascism or fascists, we don't require hoops of association with other fascists. It only takes someone acting in a violent way inspired by other fascists in history. Violent crimes "Inspired by Nazi Germany" is enough to label a person a fascist. Whether he knows or associates with other fascists is not relevant. Similarly, jihadists only need to inspired by ISIS or Al Qaeda or any of a dozen terrorist groups with similar ideologies. Whether he was inspired by hanging out in his basement watching ISIS videos or trained in Afghanistan to build explosives makes no difference in whether he is a jihadist. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

15th(?) Vehicular attack by a Muslim in NA and EU is more accurate. Skirts around terrorist or jihadist, and the Muslim faith of the attackers is factual, not a matter of POV / intent.Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Jihadist is better, for reasons stated. And we are not splitting hairs by counting non-jihadist Muslims, as Ally's approach would have us do.2604:2000:E016:A700:9594:9323:E31C:B9B2 (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the opening has been changed from 'A man drove a pickup truck' to 'A terrorist drove a pickup truck'. Should it be reverted, or left as it is? AllyGebies (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

'Terrorist' is fine and accurate as it is widely accepted as a terrorist attack. . --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted, no need for sensationalism in the first sentence, we are not The Daily Mail. WWGB (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with DHeyward that terrorist is fine for reasons he points out.2604:2000:E016:A700:9594:9323:E31C:B9B2 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist. He is a terrorist. Not only the Daily Mail but all major media that I have seen are calling him a terrorist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Then you're reading unethical media. Someone facing charges should be presumed innocent. Even if he's proud of himself and the President has already sentenced him to death on Twitter. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing with InendibleHulk. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, even if they did the attack. Only the courts rule if the person is guilty or not. AllyGebies (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

why ISIL not ISIS?

literally nobody in the united states says ISIL except....Obama used to? I just think it's interesting and I always take note of who writes ISIL. People call it ISIS, why doesn't this article reflect that? <preparing for verbose explanation of wikipedia rules, or having this message deleted> 207.89.35.197 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Im honestly not sure but im pretty sure the "worldwide standard" is to call it ISIL. Remember Wikipedia isnt just for americans. Walkyo (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotta call it something, and Wikipedia's main article is called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Good a reason as any for a sitewide standard. Globally, this thing has three common names; everyone knows what everyone else means, so they're all equal, if it weren't for the whole Levant-starts-with-L deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Move Review tag should remain at top of article

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Move_review.2FLog.2F2017_November about whether the {{Move review}} template should remain at the top of this article. If it should not, then there should be a serious discussion about how the visible template text is worded. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia_talk:Move_review#Move_Review_tag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected??

Last time I was here this page wasn't protected. Why is it now protected? Im still new to Wikipedia, so I'm not "confirmed" but was there vandalism or anything that caused the article to become semi-protected?? Walkyo (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected to stop false or misleading information, while the investigation is still going on. The protection will be turned off on November 5th. AllyGebies (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Change wording - IS to Intermediate School to prevent confusion with the Islamic State

I've never edited a wikipedia article before and am not sure that I am allowed to / should do so.

I just have a semantic request. Under the "Aftermath" header, it states:

"Stuyvesant High School and IS 289 were placed on lockdown...."

I propose changing IS289 to Intermediate School 289 to prevent confusion with IS referring to the Islamic State. Maybe no one else was confused by this but I was :)

Thanks

2605:E000:4E46:9F00:9CCB:5866:28CC:1114 (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have now changed "IS" to "Intermediate School" exactly as you propose wisely. werldwayd (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable edit. Residents of NYC might know what IS stands for but not all school districts have Intermediate Schools so many people would not recognize IS 289 even if they did not confuse it with Islamic State. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That −is− [has the state of being] a good comment.2604:2000:E016:A700:9594:9323:E31C:B9B2 (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone has changed it back to IS. 68.142.180.84 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This is fine now because it is "IS 289 Hudson River Middle School" so it's clear that it's a school and not Islamic State.