Talk:2016 Nice truck attack

Requested move 28 June 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 17:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

2016 Nice attack → 2016 Nice truck attack – Clarification. 'Attack' could be anything, including non-terror-related offences that occurred there. Gateshead001 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I choose to oppose because WP:COMMONNAME. MayMay7 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support addition of truck helpful to readers who might get year wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom.  samee  converse  13:13, 8 July 2018 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

reverts of comments by professor Koopmans

User Ianmacm reverted 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)

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)

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)

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)

His answers are about more than just values, they are primarily about violence. Ianmacm do you have any WP:RS which show that Koopmans is prone to blathering? AadaamS (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A NICE ATTACK?!?

Ehm, guys... are you sure that you want to call this slaughter a NICE ATTACK? The city's name is quite unlucky, I think it should be better use other words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandrea91 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

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

Bertybear (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You would need to start a requested move discussion for this. "2016 truck attack in Nice" would be more clear, but most of our articles about events follow this format. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2019

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

---

A Nice biscuit

2016 Nice truck attack → 2016 truck attack in Nice – As the two above posts say, the current title is like a garden-path sentence that causes a strange ambiguity at first. This move would add clarity, at the cost of no longer being WP:CONSISTENT with similar articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom and the two previous sections. Good reason for an exception in this case. Station1 (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose. Stick to convention. What would a "nice truck attack" be, in any case? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose per Pincrete. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose If you cannot understand that "Nice" is a place, that's your own problem, not the encyclopedia's._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zxcvbnm, who makes the point perfectly. -- Veggies (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2019 (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.