This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
2018 Strasbourg attack → 2018 Strasbourg shooting – Why use the vague term 'attack' when 'shooting' is a much better suited word? Not to mention it makes it consistent with similar article titles like Charlie Hebdo shooting or 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Wq639 ( talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Closed off-topic debate
|
---|
|
{{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." The events naming convention is thus one of the exceptions to the precision criterion. I think just "Strasbourg attack" is too vague, because "attack" could imply one of the many times the city was militarily attacked in its history. AHeneen ( talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Not a terrorist attack. Pigsonthewing says so. Alivebills ( talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
You keep removing the Islamic terrorism template, so... Alivebills ( talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This article from Spiked calls the attack an "Islamist attack". That's for the people who ask for sources calling that islamist attack an islamist attack... -- Edelseider ( talk) 15:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The article also says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'." With a source to boot. Alivebills ( talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Alivebills ( talk) 21:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read the entire discussion. I wasn't citing the Spiked article, I was citing The Guardian. Alivebills ( talk) 22:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Then we should consider which source is more accurate in their content: NYT or The Guardian. I say The Guardian because it includes an actual quote from France's interior minister, an actual French government official, who says the Islamic State claim is bogus and opportunistic. We have yet to see a follow-up statement on that on his part. I can't access NYT because of its accursed paywall, so I don't know if there's a government official or counter-terrorism investigator who refutes the minister's claim. Alivebills ( talk) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I would like to point out that one of the dead is actually a Muslim. So if this was really an act of Islamic terrorism, wouldn't the attacker have made an effort to avoid hurting fellow Muslims? Alivebills ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The NYT article is asking me to subscribe for a dollar a week if I want to continue reading, and I can't get out of it. And how do we know that was even the case? That's called speculation. Alivebills ( talk) 22:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Alivebills is clearly and purposefully (but why?) mixing up the chronology of events. The chronology is the following:
When Castaner called ISIL's claim bogus, the allegiance video had not yet surfaced. He did not call the claim bogus in spite of the video, but before the video was found: [2], [3]. Alivebills is lying when he says otherwise and Wikipedia is a cesspit full of malign people, but this is not new. -- Edelseider ( talk) 12:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Alivebills is objectively wrong about what he thinks the page should say. However, I think he is honestly wrong and unaware of how Wikipedia operates, and I think ‘lying’ is too strong an allegation. Gwandon34 ( talk) 12:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The following facts have been established without a doubt, and reported by the BBC, the NYT, the Guardian, CNN, etc.
Alivebills pretends that an Islamic terrorist would not have killed a Muslim, as Chékatt has done. The 2016 Nice truck attack had claimed the lives of several Muslims who were in the crowd. It was called an act of Islamic terrorism.
There is no reason, except bad faith or worse, not to mention Islamic terrorism in that particular case. -- Edelseider ( talk) 11:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Rama, Pigsonthewing: What arguments are there as of now against including the category Category:Islamic terrorism in France, apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist? -- Edelseider ( talk) 15:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
"What arguments are there as of now..?"The same as before: If you have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism', it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, then templates and categories should not be making that claim.
"apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist?"Where have I ever given that as a reason? Making passive-aggressive insinuations of that kind suggests that you are not acting in good faith. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I don’t agree with the stronger claims made by Edelseiser. But is there any reason why this page should not describe this incident as a terrorist attack.
In my opinion, the New York Times article I have repeatedly cited puts the matter beyond any doubt. There is no reliable source I am aware of contradicting it (ie, any reliable source positively suggesting this was NOT a terrorist attack.
The only argument against this appears appears to be Aluvebills’ honest but misguided stance based on his own personal analysis of the situation, which is clearly irrelevant.
So I ask again, is there any sensible reason why this page should not follow the sources and label this incident a terrorist attack? Gwandon34 ( talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
2018 Strasbourg attack → 2018 Strasbourg shooting – Why use the vague term 'attack' when 'shooting' is a much better suited word? Not to mention it makes it consistent with similar article titles like Charlie Hebdo shooting or 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Wq639 ( talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Closed off-topic debate
|
---|
|
{{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." The events naming convention is thus one of the exceptions to the precision criterion. I think just "Strasbourg attack" is too vague, because "attack" could imply one of the many times the city was militarily attacked in its history. AHeneen ( talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Not a terrorist attack. Pigsonthewing says so. Alivebills ( talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
You keep removing the Islamic terrorism template, so... Alivebills ( talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This article from Spiked calls the attack an "Islamist attack". That's for the people who ask for sources calling that islamist attack an islamist attack... -- Edelseider ( talk) 15:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The article also says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'." With a source to boot. Alivebills ( talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Alivebills ( talk) 21:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read the entire discussion. I wasn't citing the Spiked article, I was citing The Guardian. Alivebills ( talk) 22:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Then we should consider which source is more accurate in their content: NYT or The Guardian. I say The Guardian because it includes an actual quote from France's interior minister, an actual French government official, who says the Islamic State claim is bogus and opportunistic. We have yet to see a follow-up statement on that on his part. I can't access NYT because of its accursed paywall, so I don't know if there's a government official or counter-terrorism investigator who refutes the minister's claim. Alivebills ( talk) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I would like to point out that one of the dead is actually a Muslim. So if this was really an act of Islamic terrorism, wouldn't the attacker have made an effort to avoid hurting fellow Muslims? Alivebills ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The NYT article is asking me to subscribe for a dollar a week if I want to continue reading, and I can't get out of it. And how do we know that was even the case? That's called speculation. Alivebills ( talk) 22:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Alivebills is clearly and purposefully (but why?) mixing up the chronology of events. The chronology is the following:
When Castaner called ISIL's claim bogus, the allegiance video had not yet surfaced. He did not call the claim bogus in spite of the video, but before the video was found: [2], [3]. Alivebills is lying when he says otherwise and Wikipedia is a cesspit full of malign people, but this is not new. -- Edelseider ( talk) 12:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Alivebills is objectively wrong about what he thinks the page should say. However, I think he is honestly wrong and unaware of how Wikipedia operates, and I think ‘lying’ is too strong an allegation. Gwandon34 ( talk) 12:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The following facts have been established without a doubt, and reported by the BBC, the NYT, the Guardian, CNN, etc.
Alivebills pretends that an Islamic terrorist would not have killed a Muslim, as Chékatt has done. The 2016 Nice truck attack had claimed the lives of several Muslims who were in the crowd. It was called an act of Islamic terrorism.
There is no reason, except bad faith or worse, not to mention Islamic terrorism in that particular case. -- Edelseider ( talk) 11:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Rama, Pigsonthewing: What arguments are there as of now against including the category Category:Islamic terrorism in France, apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist? -- Edelseider ( talk) 15:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
"What arguments are there as of now..?"The same as before: If you have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism', it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, then templates and categories should not be making that claim.
"apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist?"Where have I ever given that as a reason? Making passive-aggressive insinuations of that kind suggests that you are not acting in good faith. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I don’t agree with the stronger claims made by Edelseiser. But is there any reason why this page should not describe this incident as a terrorist attack.
In my opinion, the New York Times article I have repeatedly cited puts the matter beyond any doubt. There is no reliable source I am aware of contradicting it (ie, any reliable source positively suggesting this was NOT a terrorist attack.
The only argument against this appears appears to be Aluvebills’ honest but misguided stance based on his own personal analysis of the situation, which is clearly irrelevant.
So I ask again, is there any sensible reason why this page should not follow the sources and label this incident a terrorist attack? Gwandon34 ( talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)