This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
User Ianmacmreverted comments by professor Ruud Koopmans at Humboldt University. The comments by Koopmans are relevant as they are a direct response to the interviewer's question: Herr Professor Koopmans, spätestens seit den Anschlägen von Berlin und Nizza fragt sich die westliche Welt: Wie viel Gewalt steckt im Islam? Haben Sie eine konkrete Antwort?. So clearly Koopmans, who is an expert, think the response he gives is relevant to this truck attack. Also, per WP:AUDIENCE, an article is supposed to provide context. AadaamS (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this because of WP:TOPIC. It's standard academic blather with no specific relevance to the motive of Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. It could just as easily have been added at half a dozen articles about Islamic terrorism.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with ianmacm. To the limited extent that this is related to Nice, this is simply saying that Islam - or at least many Muslims - do not share Western liberal values. How does Islam's view of women or gays relate to the Nice event? Pincrete (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this sort of thing before and the consensus was not to give a motive for the attack unless it came from the investigators. The comments by Ruud Koopmans are about Islam in general, not the Nice truck attack in particular.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Koopmans gives statistics which have no direct relevance to the attack. Wikipedia articles are not social sciences essays. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had a very troubled background which is at least part of the reason for the attack, but the angle that he did not value women or gays because he was a Muslim is more like speculation than based on knowledge of Lahouaiej-Bouhlel or what the investigators said. The investigators were cautious about giving a specific motive. His article says "According to a cousin of Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's wife, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was not a religious person and did not attend a mosque. The Guardian noted that his lack of religious piety is typical for the French and Belgian subjects involved in terrorist rampages earlier in 2016."--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Koopmans is an expert, if he says statistics are relevant to a direct question, then they are. An editor on ENWP cant unexpertise him. Has any academic criticized Koopmans? I have asked once already if you can provide any WPRS for your attacks on Koopmans. How is "a cousin" WP:RS? Is the Guardian the WP:BESTSOURCES on a terrorist attack in France? A professor is a stronger source than a newspaper. AadaamS (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Koopmans was asked a general question and gave a general answer. The women and gays angle is not directly linked to the attack by investigators. This is rather like the Orlando nightclub shooting where initial media reports suggested that Omar Mateen had targeted Pulse because it was a gay nightclub, but this was subsequently called into question.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Reword attacks from Nice to put the date between Nice and the attack. When reading in another page and the link has turned purple due to past use it can at first appear to be talking of the adjectival word nice ie a nice truck attack. A lot of people who need Wiki are unskilled in English and can easily pick things up wrong. change 2016 Nice truck attack... to Nice 2016 truck attack or 2016 truck attack Nice
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support: When I was a small child, I came across biscuits with the word "NICE" on them. I thought that this meant that they were nice biscuits due to my lack of knowledge of the French Riviera at that time. The proposed article name change might help to address this ambiguity.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:I also as a child made ianmacm's 'biscuit error', but that is what it is isn't it? - A childish misunderstanding that fails to have yet learnt the difference between Nice and nice. The implication of making the change here would be that any article capable of such a 'misreading', would also need to be changed. Nice tramway, Nice model, OGC Nice and how about the city itself? Why is that not ambiguous? Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not proper form, and I find it hard to believe anyone familiar with Wikipedia would seriously assume it would describe a truck attack as "nice" in the title of an article. The fact that the N is capitalized and it comes after a year indicates to me that any potential confusion is overstated. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
IP 131.251.10.14, Regarding this edit, if one says that on a certain date, a certain thing occurred, which killed n people, of course it implies that they were killed on the 'certain date', rather than over a period, simply as a result of what happened on the 'certain date'. Of course the key issue is that n people died, when and how they did is relevant, but not crucial information, so a footnote is preferable to elucidating in text, but the clarification benefits the article. I'm not sure what your objection to footnotes is, they are often used for exactly this 'clarifying' purpose.
WP:BRD makes clear that when your change has been challenged, as it has several times, you take the issue to talk, not edit-war. If we - and other editors - can't agree, there are mechanisms. Please make your case here, not edit war. Pincrete (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
