Talk:2016 Nice truck attack/Archive 5

RfC on Mia Bloom Inclusion
Should Mia Bloom's statement be included in this article on the 2016 Nice Attack?

" Mia Bloom, a 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".[55] "

20:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes It should be expanded, as well. She's trained and experienced in the field, and offers an alternative view to the preponderance of French politicians towing the line. If not her, someone with similar credentials, similar perspective and a similarly well-sourced linked article. Hell, why not even go for a third opinion? All part of WP:NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Above RfC with partial signature initiated by . Timothy Joseph Wood  21:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Prev discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes - Per . Bloom seems qualified enough to be credible. Parsley Man (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No As someone who has been involved in the Mia Bloom article for a while (first overtly neutral editor in a decade), I do not feel her comments justify inclusion on this article. Without going through all the comments, media statements, wiki history (i.e. in a position that can easily be challenged), I do not feel that this mid-level academic of a different field (is a professor of communication but an expert in terrorism?) warrants the ONLY academic/expert comment on the perpetrator (but does not get a mention on the main article of perpetrator??). I would expect many thousands of viewpoints opined in the wake of this incident across all forms of media. I don't think hers is worthy of inclusion here. Rayman60 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment it depends. I support the statement if there are others making it. Somebody needs to be quoted for that and she is just as good as any other person. I do not support if the view is a very tiny fringe view. Hollth (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No Her comments were written on 17 July (possibly earlier) before the majority of details had been released by the official investigators. That happened on 18 July in a long 12:40 announcement from François Molins. Quite probably she has changed her views after learning more facts; possibly she has updated her commentary to take into account newly available information. If she has not done so—and so far that seems to be the case—her commentary has little value beyond guesswork. Her article quotes sources which even she would acknowledge have been superseded by events. Four days afterwards, with Molins' statements at her disposal, has anybody checked for updates? I found nothing on Twitter beyond Trump plagiariam, female terrorism, etc. She has presumably gleaned a fair amount of publicity from posting this blog piece. By acting as a mirror website, Wikipedia is now adding to that. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes/No The virtue of her comment is that she is articulating clearly what many are saying or implying, ie we don't know to what extent this is a disturbed or a radicalised person. She herself has little authority and better sources should be found to support that thought. Where is also relevant, there are other commentators trying to understand what this attack is and a brief section collating those thoughts would be better than present position. These motive speculations are an important feature of this event, this messenger isn't particularly. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No (seeing that people involved can participate): As mentioned, she is the only academic to get a place in the article. And since she is a Communications professor at Georgia State with a research focus on child soldiers, she is no where near the most qualified individual. If you read the article, it does nothing but speculate. There is no 'proof' whatsoever, and the basis is simply 'it's not like other attacks by ISIS so it probably isn't by ISIS.' And even if it wasn't ISIS, her claim that it is just a mentally ill person has NO basis, as she knew and knows nothing about the individual. She is not an expert on anything, let alone mental illness. It's just her speculating, as I said. There is an ENTIRE article for reactions, so there will likely be room for her 'commentary' in there. There is no reason Mia Bloom should get room in the main article when major world leaders and leading academics have to go into the reactions article. If we put all speculation by college professors, there would be no room for any actual facts. I know this is wikipedia and not a paper encyclopedia, but could you see Encylopedia Britannica putting the opinion of a minor college professor in their article about Pearl Harbor? It's absurd to think Mia Bloom should be anywhere near the MAIN article.75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No What is the seemingly so extreme importance of this Mia Bloom-person that renders her to be the single person to be so important that she warrants special inclusion along with what is otherwise parties directly related to the investigation itself along with government sources. On top of that, she is presented almost as the bottomline summary of the entire investigation. Also she doesn't offer anything new beyond speculating about details that are already included in the section. Anyone read WP:UNDUE? User2534 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. WP:UNDUE. As User:Timothyjosephwood pointed out recently:
 * "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 others."
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , the uh...argument may hold somewhat less weight now that the reference to her is in a different section. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It still goes for the article as a whole, and I think the current solution is actually worse because now she's the only individual specially cited in the entire section. User2534 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Breaking news "Nice attacker plotted for months with 'accomplices'". Mia Bloom and other nonsense should be removed ASAP. User2534 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Wasn't making an argument, just pointing out the context of the comment. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In "Investigations" I added a summary of Molins' latest statement, added to the lede by User:User2534 (thanks!), and removed the Bloom comment since it was superseded by events. There are additional details that I have omitted, eg the filming of the scene of the attack by one of the accomplices on 15 July, the ages of those due to be charged (22 to 40), etc. Probably the whole of Molins' statement was televised, so French sources could be useful. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Well, you won't find me complaining about this decision ;) cheers.75.151.5.228 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mathsci Uh...I'm pretty sure that's not an option with an ongoing RfC. There are multiple yes votes, so it's not a candidate for WP:SNOW. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can put it back in, if you want. In my haste I inadvertently added the new Molins information to the wrong section ("perpetrator" instead of "investigations"). Perhaps the RfC should be restarted given the new events. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it never should have started to begin with, because options were still being discussed that didn't all fall neatly into include vs. exclude. Pinging the yes votes (InedibleHulk, Parsley Man, EvergreenFir, Pincrete), to see if anyone has a serious issue with us just moving on with our lives. If no one takes issue I'll close the RfC. I'm not totally uninvolved, but I haven't voted, and don't really have a side I'm on.  Timothy Joseph Wood  19:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Timothyjosephwood No objection to you closing. Endorse what you say about RfC wasn't the way, but the IP didn't know. I was reading Mathsci's article edit a minute ago and approve. We should continue to be very cautious and not treat this as 'case closed'. I was in London during the Tube bombings and know the police got some things disastrously wrong due to a wish to be seen to be successful and plain jitters and many false stories circulated then. Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't had enough time to keep on top of this. Busy irl. Seems like info has changed. Will trust a close based on that new info.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly just following 's lead based on his reasoning. Parsley Man (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm not following how Bloom's quote has anything to do with Molins'. Can loons not conspire, or does planning an attack mean ISIS did it? In any case, I'm a few hours away from being traditionally drunk for three days, so I guess that counts as moving on with my life. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Images
Thanks to Wehwalt and Timothyjosephwood for giving us images of tributes from the site of the attack in Nice. I have added the image from the French article with the French flag at halfmast to illustrate the three days of national mourning (no such pictures from Nice are available). This is the only image in the French wikipedia article and it is a reminder that the disaster took place on Bastille Day with which the flag is associated. I think these images belong in the reaction section. They are not appropriate to the investigation section, particularly beside the revolting SMS messages quoted there. I hope this is OK. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am considering a gallery. I haven't perused Flickr terribly yet to find additional photos with suitable licenses. It may be worth posting somewhere on fr and asking someone to just walk out there with a cell phone and snap some. The current images I added were of pretty poor quality and needed cleaning up. Is there a fr commons, or is commons just commons? Timothy Joseph Wood  21:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is still the issue of the image in the background section. Looks fine on mobile, but on wider monitors right justified mucks up the infobox, and left justified mucks up the spacing between it and the following section. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We already tried a gallery. I feel that the victims table should be collapsable but that its normal state should be uncollapsed. I haven't found anything on flickr—I have looked several times. I think we have enough images at the moment. When we get more content we can worry about finding images. The spacing problems happen in many articles. I actually am quite dubious about the value of the timeline box. The map is useful but has to be clicked for any information. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that both the victim and the timeline are full-screen and uncollapsed by default on mobile. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism
The only confirmed statements we have so far were given by Prosecutor François Molins on Thursday. He spoke at great length and there is a 12:40 video of everything he said about the suspects and radicalisation (it is in the VDF citation). He has said that at this stage no links have been established with Islamic terrorist groups. The investigation is ongoing and the 5 suspects have been charged "in relation to a terrorist attack". There is no need to change the categories until some further statements are made by the Prosecutor. It's premature at the moment. We certainly don't say it in the article, which is relatively carefully written, so there is even less reason to say it in the categories. I should add, however, that in his press conference on Thursday the prosecutor consistently referred to the perpetrator as "the terrorist", but not the "Islamic terrorist". Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the group is linked to ISIL or not is irrelevant to the general Islamist motives for the attack: since when are direct links to an organisation required for ideological/religious categorisation? There are numerous terrorists of all kinds that don't have direct links to any organisation. And since you invoke their charge as evidence ("in relation to a terrorist attack"), as far as I'm aware there aren't separate laws for every type of terrorist: a terrorist is a terrorist. User2534 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This happens on literally every article on mass killings, and terrorism has already been added and taken away from this article probably a score or more times. Without qualification, this needs consensus before it's added.
 * Having said this in no uncertain terms, repeatedly adding this content without consensus, even over the course of several days, does constitute an edit war. So find sources, and get consensus or stop adding it. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here: category with ISIL and with Islamic terrorism. I am inclined to agree that categorising as part of ISIL is premature (if the category is strictly limited for direct organisational links to the organisation), but the Islamic terrorism label is by now clearly supported by direct sources (AFP+), statements from government sources and evidence about the perpetrator himself and the investigation into other charged. User2534 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this has come up before, but simply saying "AFP" does not constitute "providing sources". Timothy Joseph Wood  13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, only a few sources are referring to 'Islamic terrorism', the AgenceFP was early days. Other sources are being more equivocal. I don't understand the rush to add these categories. Any link to ISIL (except poss. 'copy-cat') seems less likely. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement of Molins on Thursday was quite explicit.video At the end of his prepared statement at the press conference he described how six magistrates would proceed with the examination of the suspects to confirm the charges that would be brought against them later that day. In the last seconds of the conference he said that investigators would further examine the possibility of links, as yet unestablished (des liens non établis à ce jour, je précise), with terrorist organisations, notably ISIS (Daech). Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Description of attack - significant errors?
Comparing this with the French version and what can be read on French sources, this account seems quite inaccurate and contradicts the geography. The sourcing is bizarre. German sources, the Daily Mail, US sources, but nothing particularly reliable. The incident with the motorcyclist has been described recently in Nice-Matin and my understanding is that it took place near the Hotel Negresco.

The distance between the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée is not 2 km as claimed. It is 500m. The whole account seems to be quite wrong.

The account on the French page seems accurate.

Did the casualties start at the Lenval Hospital when the lorry turned onto the Promenade des Anglais as claimed in the article? Apart from the Newsweek, it is unsourced. It isn't mentioned in the BBC source.

I am going to check this section comparing it with the French article, where editors know the geography a little better than the editors who wrote this section. What I might do is translate the French section into English with their sources, so that it can be compared with what is written here. Individual victims as well as local heros have been discussed in detail in Nice-Matin, which in these matters is highly reliable for obvious reasons. Agence France-Presse is also reliable and has given descriptions of the victims and their circumstances, whenever these are known.

Below I have produced a translation with references (in French) of the paragraph on the attack in the French article. There are innumerable errors in the English article; in particular there is complete confusion about the topography of the Promenade des Anglais and details of what happened. Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Errors in the English version of the attack section
The truck moved around in the Magnan quarter of Nice prior to the attacks, which was obviously carefully timed. The police barriers were not mentioned. I don't think there is any need to mention names, e.g. that of the motorcyclist, or make specific reference to the first fatality. There is no mention of the pedestrianised zone. There is no mention of zigzag motion. There is total confusion about what happened within the pedestrianised zone. There is a bizarre repetition. The events concerning the motorcyclist took place at the Hotel Negreasco. The first gunfire happened there. The article confuses those events with the ending at the Palais de la Méditerranée. That involved police marksmen, not the motorcyclist. There is no need to mention Molins, since the French newspapers give an accurate account of what happened. His remarks refer to the final chase between the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée and just confirm the press accounts. I intend to correct these errors, trying to incorporate the correct order of events as recorded in the French article. I am somewhat shocked by how badly written the English section is. I will try to find out how those errors occurred. If people used BBC News I cannot believe these errors would have crept in. They had good maps early on and have never had a dismissive attitude to the various landmarks on the route of the killer. Mathsci (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking of maps. Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I started trying to improve it and remove the repetition and correct the order of events but was quickly reverted. There's a thread above . Frankly its probably best to just translate the French version and reuse the French citations, if that's permissible. Most the citations here are just early news reports, Daily Mail, more reputable British tabloids, and the BBC. Rob984 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. I would be in favour of a slightly modified version of my translation of the French section, with attribution to the French article when it's added. They have a long way of saying intersection which can be shortened and the precise description of the police barrier is there because of the recent scandal. I think that it's possible to get France24 and BBC News sources in English to cover this with some of Le Monde content and possibly Nice-Matin. I cannot actually see the point of the time line since it goes against the chronology of the article. Since there are plenty of things it doesn't mention (reconaissance on 12-13 July), I would almost be tempted to remove it. It doesn't help the article, because the real narrative is more complicated, even about the attack. Mathsci (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Checking timings and initial press conference of Prosecutor
The first press conference of Molins was given in the late morning of 15 July. The first confirmed information came from there. (The only confusion, discussed in the French media, was whether the lorry was a refrigerated vehicle. It was not.) Molins gave an estimate of approximately 22:45 for the time the truck turned onto the Promenade des Anglais. He then explains how an initial analysis of CCTV footage showed that L-Bouhlel recuperated the truck at 9:34 at Auriol, arriving on bike which he put in the storage area of the truck. He then says that the truck was again caught at 22:30 in the Magnan quarter at 22.30.

The version of the Attack section stated that the vehicle had appeared in Magnan quarter at 22;10. These were sources. Neither source mentions this timing. They mention barriers blocking off the Promenade des Anglais at the point of entry (on rue Lenval), but I have not so far found any confirmation of that in the French press or media.

Next a BBC News source is used to quote witnesses sighting the truck in the Magnan quarter and on the Promenade des Anglais biding for time. In the BBC article, a local resident describes the truck moving on small streets before taking the Promenade in the direction of the airport and then doubling back. The same witness was interviewed by Nice-Matin. The witness and her partner were travelling by car to attend the firework display. They were running a bit late. At around 22:00 she says that at the intersection of avenue de Californie and avenue de Fabron they drew up next to a white truck, which she thought was the truck involved in the attack. She said that she they'd passed the the truck before that and it had been driving in an odd way, speeding up, then slowing down, speeding up again, then slowing down again. When they got to the intersection with avenue de Californie, they took the direction of the Prom'Party while the truck took the airport direction. This intersection is at the turning onto Promenade des Anglais after rue Lenval heading out from Nice. So far there has been no mention of barriers marking off the Promenade des Anglais in the French media or press. But the Nice-Matin article is a witness statement that the truck was already in the quartier Mangan at at 22:00. I am not sure that wikipedia has to worry about that and make definitive statements which are quite irrelevant to the article. I will continue looking at what was said. Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The quartier Auriol is not an official quarter in Nice. It is very close to L-Bouhlel's apartment at 62 route de Turin, at the intersection with rue Georges Chapel. Continuing along rue Georges Chapel leads to Pont Vincent Auriol, which, apart from being a bridge, is in a large industrial area. (the "R" in RICHARDSON is the point of reference). Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am looking for descriptions in the French media as to how the truck got on to the Promenade des Anglais. Here is one in L'Obs.Attentat de Nice : le récit de l'attaque, minute par minute "Venant de l’aéroport, situé à l’est de l’avenue, un camion blanc de 19 tonnes roulant à vive allure surgît sur la Promenade des Anglais après avoir franchi les barrières de sécurité à hauteur de l’hôpital Lenval." Also 22h50 : "C'est à ce moment-là qu'ils l'ont tué" This source gves the time of 22:50 as when the truck was halted and 22:30 as the approximate time that the attack started. It decribes the truck as travelling from the airport (on l'avenue de Californie) before turning on to rue Lenval and then Promenade des Anglais. It states that it breached the security barriers at the level of the Fondation Lenval children's hospital. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a source Comment le camion a-t-il pu circuler sur la promenade des Anglais pourtant fermée à la circulation? which states that there were no barriers far enough away from the centre of Nice. This source from francetvinfo is used in the article. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The timings in the French article that I used, taking the sources in the French wikipedia article, unsurprisingly seem to be correct. They mention the municipal police officers at the Centre Universitaire Méditerranéen and Erlbaeko has discovered a more recent source, La policière responsable de la vidéosurveillance à Nice, where the police officer in charge was interviewed (this interview was reported in many places, because it is regarded as a scandal in France that the national police delegated security measures to the city). French editors already used this to determine the timings. The time that the truck was sighted at CUM was 22:33. There are so many reasons to look at French sources rather than sources from countries with no particular ties with France (e.g. India). Mathsci (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Another recent article in lejdd contains a chart of security barriers for the Prom'Party in Nice for July 14. Here is the article.[http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/CARTE-Les-positions-exactes-de-la-police-municipale-le-14-juillet-a-Nice-799018 CARTE. Les positions exactes de la police municipale le 14 juillet à Nice] Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Truck out of control
Re. What's WP:UNDUE about that? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The content is already in the article. Also see below and when creating a new section, use the "new section" button to avoid edit conflicts. Your understanding of WP:CENSORED is quite skewed. Timeline boxes are written in very brief summary form, not as parallel articles providing alternative content to the main body of the article. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sandra Bertin's leaked internal CCTV report as a source?
(ec) Erlbaeko seems to be creating a parallel article in his timeline box. I added a collapsible option which he removed. Presumably he wants to force his own POV on others. Sandra Bertin, the police officer responsible for CCTV monitors in Nice, is in a legal dispute with the Minister of the Interior in France over policing and security arrangements for Bastille Day in Nice. She has released to the press and media numerous details of her second-by-second summary of sightings on the Promenade des Anglais from CCTV footage on the evening of 14 July. These are inappropriate for the article and even more inappropriate for a timeline box which is a summary. Erlbaeko already added one of the video surveillance supervisor's timings to the timeline box, but there are hundreds more. Eelbaeko is creating his own parallel article in the timeline box. If he continues adding content of this kind, I will report him at WP:ANI for disruption and schadenfreude. Here is the latest article from Nouvel Obs. Two more timings leaked by Bertin are mentioned.


 * 22:35:15 - member of national police running after truck;
 * 22:35:20 - member of municipal police running after truck; truck is at intersection of Promenade des Anglais and rue Meyerbeer.

It is highly inappropriate to add this kind of detail to the wikipedia article and particularly inappropriate to try to concoct a timeline from such detail. Erlbaeko seems oblivious to the context. He claims wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, so can add whatever he finds.

In writing an article on a horrific national disaster, however, we try as much as possible to adopt the measured tone of responsible sources. Please could he not add leaked timings like this to the article? They are from leaked documents, there are probably hundreds more and they are WP:UNDUE, hardly part of the narrative. Perhaps in Scandinavia this fascination with minutiae of a horrific disaster is fashionable, but please not here on wikipedia. Erlbaeko has been warned by an arbitrator about his editing already. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not restricted to report the viewpoint of the "Minister of the Interior in France". We try to represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Report it wherever you like. Again, what's WP:UNDUE about saying the police reported a truck out of control? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just more WP:IDHT. Where did the timing 22:33 come from? It is one of the leaks that I mention above. Please try to understand what "summary" means. Who says anybody is "reporting the viewpoint of the Minister of the Interior in France"? Not me. You're the person adding information indiscriminately and out of context. That is what WP:UNDUE is. Look at 2011 Norway attacks. This is wikipedia not wikileaks. Perhaps you've mixed up the two? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's 10.33pm or 22:33 (not 20:33). From a news article in the Guardian, a WP:RS. "Sandra Bertin, a municipal police officer who was on duty in charge of a CCTV control room, told the Journal du Dimanche that local police reported the lorry at 10.33pm as it began its carnage." The Journal du Dimanche article provides more details. I have no reason to doubt her, and the first police report of the truck is obviously relevant in a timeline. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the complete newspaper interview. La policière responsable de la vidéosurveillance à Nice : "On m'a mise en ligne avec le ministère de l'Intérieur". The title reads, "The policewoman responsible for CCTV in Nice: "They connected me to the Minister of the Interior"] (23 July 2016). This is all about that controversy and the ongoing legal actions. This information was leaked by Sandra Bertin who is currently in dispute with members of the government. The timings come from her report. Let's look at what's in that French newspaper, as that is the source. The Guardian, aka the Grauniad, has a reputation for making errors, often unintentionally, so it's best to look directly at the French article. That is the source, not the Guardian. Here is  the start of the interview, which concerns Bertin's dispute with the Minister of the Interior, still ongoing. Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

More chronology from Sandra Bertin
Bertin prepared a detailed report which might possibly be available in its entirety. Exclusif : la chronologie de l'attentat du 14-Juillet établie par la policière de Nice. This is useful as a check for accuracy, but probably not as a source. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Lengthy reproduction of French article removed per WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE. Please do not paste verbatim reproductions of non-free text onto Wikipedia, even on a talk page, even for a short amount of time. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Content removed a second time per WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE. Do not post full texts of copyrighted works on Wikipedia. This includes talk pages. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You couldn't wait for me to correct the translation, could you? How helpful. Mathsci (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Per WP:COPYPASTE: "While your user page and talk page may include brief quotations from copyrighted text, Wikipedia cannot host extensive copying of non-compatible copyrighted material anywhere, not even in talk or user pages, not even temporarily." This is not a negotiation. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you were impatient: and perhaps you were reasserting your antipathy to French sources. This was a short quote, a small part of the interview, and only designed to be there temporarily while I polished the translation. I haven't finished proof-reading yet, if you permit it. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "not even in talk or user pages, not even temporarily" The content was a violation of Wikipedia policy. Period. Further, the assertion that I have removed copyrighted content posted in violation of policy because I have "antipathy to French sources" is 1. patent nonsense and 2. a personal attack, this type of which you have already been warned about once. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not there any more, so why all these bold letters? You have rejected French sources, claiming that you were justified by wikipedia policy: I call that antipathy to French sources. Hardly a personal attack. I am interested in getting an accurate and properly sourced article. From my experience the French sources are the best at the moment, although like all media reports, they are never from error (see below). Mathsci (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Further personal attacks or further copyright violations will likely result in a noticeboard report, as your edit warring already has. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

English translation
This is the complete newspaper interview. La policière responsable de la vidéosurveillance à Nice : "On m'a mise en ligne avec le ministère de l'Intérieur". The title reads, "The policewoman responsible for CCTV in Nice: "They connected me to the Minister of the Interior"] (23 July 2016). This is all about that controversy and the ongoing legal actions. This information was leaked by Sandra Bertin who is currently in dispute with members of the government. The timings come from her report. Let's look at what's in that French newspaper, as that is the source. The Guardian, aka the Grauniad, has a reputation for making errors, often unintentionally, so it's best to look directly at the French article. That is the source, not the Guardian. Here is  the start of the interview, which concerns Bertin's dispute with the Minister of the Interior, still ongoing.

I will translate part of this now. She has given subsequent interviews to other newspapers and media, as mentioned above. Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"I will remember that time all my life: 22:33. I was in front of the monitors of the CSU with our police team. At that point we received an alert of a lorry that had gone out of control from the municipal police positioned on the Promenade. We immediately retrieved the image on the screen and sent out an interception order. (...) The lorry finally passed by national police officers, who opened fire and demobilised it. The time was 22:34."

Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My reading is that the second 22:34 is a misprint and that it should be 22:54. That's journalism for you. The interview is not about the chronology of the attack but about the relative roles of the municipal and national police, the fact that the municipal police were not armed, and so on. It clarifies when the attack started. But this precision is relevant neither for the article nor for the timeline. Other sources place the municipal police officers who raised the alert at the Centre Universitaire Méditerranée; later that was used as a crisis centre for counselling those traumatised by the attack. It's probably wise to look for follow-up. Mathsci (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your translation, but I like the content to be verifiable. That means that the readers must be able to check that the information is not just made up. If it is other sources that "place the municipal police officers" at the "Centre Universitaire Méditerranée", as you say, this edit is WP:SYNT. Please, do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: My reading is that the second 22:34 is a misprint and that it should be 22:54 Were that the case, 20 mins to cover less than 2Km, would be an average speed of under 6KpH. If the 22:34 is correct, we have something up to 2 mins to cover 2 Km, ie average of at least 60KpH. I am not of course suggesting we use my calculations, merely that we remain sceptical for now about timings which still seem unreliable. The video of 'the end' shows that police were very cautious once the lorry was immobilised (understandably), we've no idea how that delay fits in to times and, given the circumstances, probably few people looked at their watches and maybe only electronic timing will settle the matter. Pincrete (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is part the original interview. It is unreliable as a precise source. The Guardian article quotes it; it is even more unreliable as a source. It is useful for establishing a rough chronology, which is all we need in the article. As for the timing, my guess is that as soon as the truck entered the pedestrian zone it slowed down, because the crowds were denser and there were all the Prom'Party musical events still to come. I found even more detailed chronology elsewhere, reproduced from the rest of Sandra Bertin's official report. I think it's in this article. None of this seems remotely usable to me; but it is useful as a way of checking that we have written in the article text is not wrong. Pincrete found a very good way of expressing the damage done to the truck; as I have hinted (reports that firemen had to remove human limbs blocking the front axle) care with the tone is very important when writing this content. Mathsci (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of attack - WP:SYNTH adding arbitrary details revealed by investigation
The box created for the timeline of the attack has been discussed before. However, it it has been placed in the "attack" section which simply gives an account of the 25 minutes from the start of the attack to the killing of the perpetrator. It also mentions what was found in the truck (but not the mobile phone of course).

The current form of the timeline box has been concocted randomly by wikipedians to contain all the information they can glean from what they have read in the media. It is unhelpful because it could just as easily contain


 * 13 July, gun passed by Ramzi A. to the perpetrator,
 * 12-13 July, Perpetrator reconnoitres on the Boulevard des Anglais, sometimes with an alleged accomplice
 * 14 July, immediately before the attack perpetrator sends two audio messages too deplorable for the Prosecutor to describe

In other words an indiscriminate scrapbook of cherry picked statements from the official press conferences of the Prosectuor. It is not a summary of the attack.

The description of the attack was hopelessly wrong before I inserted a translation of the French section. Those details were ignored when User:Erlbaeko reinserted the timeline with the extraneous information from the investigation. Any timeline should restrict itself to the actual attack which lasted 25 minutes. It inaccurately described what happened in those 25 minutes, so I have removed it. I am still checking facts connected with the attack, but will leave the "in use" tag there while I carefully check for references. I see little or no reason to believe that CNN or the WSJ are the places to look. The use of sources like that might partially explain the confused and self-contradictory account we had before. This requires careful and thoughtful editing, not edit warring. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe a small timeline is appropriate. It is also common to have a timeline in attack articles. See e.g. November_2015_Paris_attacks or 2016_Brussels_bombings. However, I am sure we can improve it. Just don't remove it all after a two hour "discussion". Erlbaeko (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and btw... No, it does not "mentions what was found in the truck". Nor has it been concocted randomly. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All of this is unhelpful to the reader.


 * The attack only concerns the period from 22:30 to 22:55 when the driver was shot and killed. The translation of quartier latin is latin quarter in Paris. Why are Latin Quarter, Quartier Latin blue links? So we translate quartier as "quarter". Not neighborhood. Just as we say that 62 route de Turin is in the old abbatoir quarter of Nice. It's where the perpetrator lived.


 * During the 25 minutes of the attack no precise times are known for (a) the moment of turning onto the Promenade (b) the moment the municipal police reported the truck at the CUM (c) the moment the truck broke through the police barrier at Boulevard Gambetta (d) the incident with the motorcyclist in front of the Negresco when shots were fired by the perpetrator and then the police (e) the truck drew to a halt (f) the perpetrator was shot down. The precise times are not important and these events are not appropriate to summarise in a box as if they were a collection of cigarette cards. Contrary to what you say, when describing incidents like this we have to be careful and certain things cannot be included. The example I'm to trying to sort out is with the axle of the truck. It was not just flattened tires that caused the truck to grind to a halt. In French we can read "les sapeurs-pompiers ont du dégager des membres de l'essieu du camion". I won't even translate it. No doubt it is true and eye witnesses make references to the axle. No French newspapers mention this detail which could only cause added distress like the videos.


 * So to reiterate, what you have written is a piece of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR not found in any newspaper or news site. It tells the reader nothing about the attack which is hardly described. It chucks around little bits of evidence. I am quite glad the Prosecutor did not quote the two deplorable audio messages of the perpetrator sent just before the attack. Otherwise they'd be straight in your "uncensored" timeline. The police investigation has almost nothing to do with describing the nature of the attack. Mathsci (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please could you not edit the "attack" section until the "in use" sign has been removed. It could take a few hours to research the material about the axle. This is delicate material and nothing you want to insert refers even remotely to any possible content in that section. Please respect the sign. At the moment I'm trying to figure out whether any reputable news source had a reasonable way of describing the damage done to the truck that caused it to stop. Perhaps none did. I do not want to say that emergency services had to remove limbs caught up in the front axle. Can you please try to understand that and allow me the time to find out how this is treated in allowable references, if at all. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not SYNT or OR. It is all sourced content. We do f. ex. have two sources that says the driver was shot dead by police app. at 23.00. From Reuters: "Approximately 2300: The driver is shot dead by police". From National Post: "The truck came to a stop at 11 p.m., approximately 15 minutes and two kilometers after [the] rampage had begun. Do you have a source that says "The truck [...] ground to a halt at 22:50”? I can't find it. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Would point out that the 22.45 source says 'around 22.45' and is Calcutta Telegraph, the 11.00 source says 'approximately'. It's a bit difficult to build a firm case around 'approx.' figures. Also, I realise it's synth, but to take 15 minutes to cover 2 Km would mean an average speed of 8KpH, 5 MpH. Reduce the time to 10 mins doesn't change much, 7.5 MpH. Perhaps the only thing likely to render precise times is security video evidence which may surface at any inquest or trial. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All the info is defective and WP:SYNTH. The SMS message was described completely on 21 July when Molins said Ramzi A., the 21 year old French-Tunisian, was charged and placed in custody. The message was described in full in the Le Monde citation in the main article from 22 July, "Je voulais te dire que le pistolet que tu m’as ramené hier, c’était très bien, alors on ramène 5 de chez ton copain. C’est pour Chokri et ses amis." That's Choukri C., another person arrested. So why use outdated sources as if nothing's happened since 17 July? That is just dishonest. The timings are also wrong. Before the current detailed info was available, the press was clutching at all sorts of little titbits released by the investigators. But that has changed now. On 21 July, plenty of other messages were described prior to the attack some later than 20:27. And there were the audio messages. Erlbaeko has spoken of censorship. But by adhering to this outdated 17 July timeline, synthesised from the Reuters timeline below, he is trying to censor all subsequent events which have been quite dramatic and quite changed matters. Also we say quarter not neighbourhood for districts of cities in France as I've said. The sentence about the bike is totally absurd. (The bike was found in the truck but so what?) On 17 July very little was known. Ramzi A. gave L-Bouhlel the gun on 13 July. Where is that in this so-called timeline? Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Copy of Reuters timeline from 17 July
This timeline box was copied by user:Erlbaeko from a projected timeline written by Reuters. It's pout of date. All the infromaion has been superseded by the detailed information provided the Prosecutor in his detailed announcements on 18 July and 21 July, when 5 suspects were charged and placed in custody. Erlbaeko is using one single source which he has synthesised with others, even more out of date. This is highly disruptive editing. Here is the Reuters timeline:


 * Note: Lengthy reproduction of Reuters article removed per WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE. Please do not paste verbatim reproductions of non-free text onto Wikipedia, even on a talk page, even for a short amount of time. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It goes on as editors can verify themselves until 17 July with the arrest of the Albanian couple. At least Reuters was trying to be up to date on 17 July. This is a news article frozen in time and rather useless considering subsequent developments and more information from Molins (18 & 21 July). All information originates in him, no matter whether Erlbaeko accepts that or not. Erlbaeko's editing is truly appalling. The text can even be removed as a blatant copyvio. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, cut the crap. If you are able to find better sources, then fix it. If not, then get consensus before you remove sourced material. And talking about OR. The map you uploaded is OR. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reuters seems to be unreliable. They updated the timeline recently only adding that 5 arrested people were due to be charged on 21 July, but have not worked out that's it already happened in the night of 21-22 July. There is a timeline for November 2015 Paris attacks. It describes each of the many attacks and is obviously justified. It does not describe SMS messages, selfies, bike storage arrangements, etc. It gives details of each attack. Charlie Hebdo shooting has no time line.


 * What would be useful instead of your timeline is a clickable map which describes what happened and where on the route. Although the precise timings are not known, it's useful to annotate what happened where, which is known. Libération has maps like that. That is because one of the main issues now is why this could have happened when France is in a state of high security, Why were the national police not properly deployed ... Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have created an annotated map to describe the course of evens during the attack. The timeline did not give details relative to the attack section and the news sources were out of date and superseded. Newspaper sources are subject to being superseded so sources can be invalidated. The sources used for the timeline were selective. A teenager could have used the material presented by Prosecutor Molins to synthesize a reconstruction of events between 11 July and 14 July, including two reconnaissance trips on the Nice waterfront. That woud be inappropriate for a wikipedia timeline box, Why fabricate a timeline that has never been published by cobbling together statements, leaked by the investigors, from out-of-date newspaper reports? Reuters have still not mentioned that the suspects have been charged and detained in custody to be examined by six magistrates in Paris. Anyway no timeline for Charlie Hebdo shooting and the timeline for November 2015 Paris attacks catalogued the precise times of attacks in different parts of Paris. A map seemed better here and we can wait to see what other editors think. Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't say the timeline is perfect, and if you are able to provide sourced content, you are most welcome to update it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Just don't repeatedly remove sourced content without consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be accurate. I have not found any english translation. Google translation here. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Translations and derivative work copyright
Putting this here in case it is any benefit for those who have watched the removal/addition of content here today. I removed the English copy/pastes as copyvio as can be seen above. I did not remove the translation from the French because I was unsure what the relevant policy was. This was later removed by Biwom.

I posted on Media copyright questions asking for clarification and have received no response. But the question appears to be moot as the appropriate policy seems to be that regarding derivative works.

As it pans out, because the translation is derivative, Wikipedia would need the original copyright holder's permission to use it in a way that is inconsistent with WP:NFCC, which reproductions of large parts are. It would be acceptable to use "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author" and do so in article space (not, it would seem, talk).

So the only way to proceed in-line with policy as far as I can tell, is for non-French speakers to rely, as best they can, on machine translation, use fair-use editor translations in the article only, and provide only what French language content is necessary so as to help the article be verifiable.

As a note to all involved, since this appears to have come up, WP:NOENG does allow the use of non-English sources, so long as equal-quality English sources are not available. The same policy also suggests that editor translations be accompanied by the original passage translated, which we may need to remedy if we have not done this consistently in the article. This means that probably all of the direct quotes from the main investigator need to have footnotes attached with the original French. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have sought advice from administrators whom I know. There is no precise answer at the moment; the arbitrator whom I asked couldn't commit himself. It seens at the moment that translating a few sentences is fine, which is all that was required here for discussion and context.


 * Since I'm not French, my starting source has often been BBC News, which runs like CNN. Nevertheless I have found seen errors which are sometimes corrected, but not always. French media and newspapers follow this particular event even when new news stories emerge like 2016 Normandy church attack. At the moment they are the main source, and English language newspapers reproduce snippets, sometimes not accurately. We have to work with what there is. In writing articles on Bach cantatas prior to 2006, the main source was in German. It was translated into English then. Of course prior to 2006, people were not that interested in sources. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * has said a short excerpt is fine; otherwise a paraphrase. Mathsci (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I do not consider to be short. As I already stated . — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Diannaa My translation had several paragraphs. Here is what I would add, using my translation:


 * "I will remember that time all my life: 22:33. I was in front of the monitors of the CSU with our police team. At that point we received an alert of a lorry that had gone out of control from the municipal police positioned on the Promenade. We immediately retrieved the image on the screen and sent out an interception order. (...) The lorry finally passed by national police officers, who opened fire and demobilised it. The time was 22:34."


 * Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The length of this non-free excerpt is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically this, we have to treat it the same way as we would a copyrighted work in English. The translation is irrelevant because it is considered "slavish", with regard to originality, and the amount of skill that goes into the translation actually makes it more slavish, because it, in principle, makes it more of a true copy of the original work.
 * An excerpt of this length is not something I think anyone would take issue with, except perhaps in the case that the original work was also this short length in its entirety, so that it was a reproduction of the whole. In that case, I really don't know how fair use would apply. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked experienced administrators, with a detailed knowledge of wikipedia policy. Dougweller (an arbitrator) was not sure, but did recommend Moonriddengirl, whom I'd alsready asked, and Diannaa, who commented on Doug's user talk page and then here. Both Moonriddengirl and Diannaa are known wp experts on copyright. The attack section has to be slightly rewritten to give a clear indication of the extreme rapidity of the attack, i.e. that the period between the start of the attack until the demobilisation of the truck lasted less than four minutes (see below). Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes? I'm not sure why you're trying to defend their credentials. The community of active admins and higher is a pretty small one. No resume needed. I'm fairly certain most everyone is acquainted. More to the point, we all seem to be in agreement. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When there are non-obvious copyright issue, standard practise on wikipedia is to ask an expert directly. I explained to you why these people are experts. You, for example, are not an expert on wikipedia copyright policy. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And you were wrong. Timothy Joseph Wood  10:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Map
The map is outdated, so I removed it. The time 22:45 and 22:55 is wrong. The truck route is wrong (it did not cross over at Hotel Westminster, ref video). It's also unclear from the reports I have seen whether it turned left or right onto the Promenade des Anglais. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * user:Erlbaeko The map was changed on commons this morning using the information discussed above. The times are 22:30 start and 22;25 end. The route on the map is correct starting at rue Lenval (147 Promenade des Anglais) and ending at the Palais de la Mediterranee. (11 Promenade des Anglais). All maps show this direction in every source. Please go and read up on the geography of Nice. Or remove the cache on your browser. Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Spelling out the direction. All sources state that the truck entered the Promenade des Anglais at rue Lenval at the level of the Hopitale Lenval, 147 Promenade du Anglais. It was reported by municipal police at 65 Promenade des Anglais shortly after that. It broke past the police barrier at Boulevard Gambetta, then there was gunfire at Hotel Negresco, then after a police chase it halted next to the Palais de la Mediterranee at 22:35. He was shot down by police at some time after that. This is on both maps. Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then the times are ok. That was probably some caching. The BBC article we use as a source says the "lorry then turned on to the promenade heading south-west towards the airport". Ref. BBC Erlbaeko (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was probably was the cache. The current guardian article used in the text is fairly accurate. At around 22:00 the truck was sighted by an eyewitness at the intersection of avenue Fabrol and avenue de Californie turning towards the airport (reported in Nice-Matin and discussed above). The police CCTV report above says that the truck was sighted on CCTV on Fabrol bypass around 22:32. Nice police surmise that the entry point was at rue Lenval because of subsequent footage and timings. The main thing is that the attack lasted less than 5 minutes. I found that surprising initially, but not after thinking about and realising the enormity of what he had done. Apart from eyewitness reports, there are no confirmed timings for the period after the truck was halted and the driver shot dead by police. This could have taken five or time minutes. Reports say that the driver remained inside the cabin. The national police know what happened but have not released details so far. There are various scandals connected with the CCTV records. Le Monde and other press media have seen CCTV the report, discussed and summarised in the previous section. Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And the truck route is still wrong. It did not cross over at Hotel Westminster, ref video). Erlbaeko (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The twist in the map is an unimportant detail. However, the CCTV footage report in Marianne, summarised above, gives full details of the motion of the truck as captured on CCTV. There was a police chase, the tires were completely damaged, the front bumper and grill were detached, the front axle was blocked from the carnage, etc, etc. The base map is used on about 100 wikis including the French wiki. Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe details like that are important. Please, fix that. It did not cross over at Hotel Westminster. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the draughtsman on commons who created the base map, meant his squiggle to indicate in an approximate way that the truck headed away from the pavement into the traffic lanes. The person who created the base map on Commons is user:Ali Zifan. Why not have a quiet chat with him? Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he meant, but we have that episode on tape. Also the point where the truck was shot at and stopped is filmed. It's here. 43.6948°N, 7.2634°W Ref. image and video. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That video also shows that the tires were not damaged on the right side. Only the front left tire were damaged. Ref image. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that a video is allowed as a source on wikipedia? Explain here where on WP:RS that is allowed? Is this even related to possible content for the article? There are eyewitness accounts in newspapers about limbs caught up in the axle, removed by firemen; like the tire damage and dislodged front buffer, described in newspapers, these are summarised in the phrase "badly damaged". So why are you even discussing this? Whatever damage there was—a topic untouched by wikipedia—it was sufficient to bring the truck to a halt. Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just got tired of all your bullshit claims. Like that "the tires were completely damaged" as you claimed above. OR is allowed on the talk page. Not in the article. Ref. WP:OR. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As explained, it's not in the article, so why discuss this here? Note, however, that the French article has "les pneus crevés". Newspaper reports also write it in the plural. Express your exasperation in a letter to the newspaper or media sources that use the plural; or alternatively go over to the fr.wikipedia.org and make known to French editors how much their use of the plural distresses you. I'm sure you'll be warmly received. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)
 * The sources used in the article place the truck on the pavement and 3 traffic lanes on the seaward side of the Promenade before the chase. I cannot tell what the squiggle is supposed to mean, or whether it was intentional. It seems to be an unimportant graphic detail and probably has no significance. I will recheck the French base map. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The French use the same base map. The Promenade des Anglais has seaward pavement, traffic lanes heading east, grassy central divide, traffic lanes heading west, pavement. The photo taken by a wikipedian in Nice shows the truck halted on a seaward traffic lane. Since 100 wikipedias use the same base map, I don't see any need to go into microscopic accuracy. Mathsci (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RS: "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources" (Pro tip: Ctrl+F "Video") Timothy Joseph Wood  14:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The attack happened very quickly. All the videos I have seen—only in connection with writing this article—were made by specific named individuals who were interviewed afterwards in the press. These videos were taken in the last few seconds and the last 300 metres, either as the truck slowed down to a halt or when it had stopped next to the Palais de la Méditerranée. The course of the truck, and the fatalities on the way, are described in great detail in the article in Marianne (magazine) mentioned in the section immediately above this. I'm quite willing to ask experienced administrators if videos are useful for writing articles about disasters like this and how they migt be used: I would ask Newyorkbrad, Dougweller, Moonriddengirl, Diannaa, Drmies (who's been to Nice), John, Roger Davies (who knows the South of France well) or Philippe (who's French). What particular content were you thinking of? Mathsci (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of any content. I was responding to your challenge of "Where did you read that a video is allowed as a source on wikipedia? Explain here where on WP:RS that is allowed?" So...that is the part of RS where that is allowed, and those are the criteria a video has to meet. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why mention it on this talk page? I was referring to specific amateur videos made during or immediately after the 5 minute attack of which there are precious few (two, three, four perhaps?). You interpreted it as a challenge, but it wasn't. Examples of videos that I have obviously used as checks for content are the videos of the 3 press conferences of Molins. They are useful guides while preparing content, but I wouldn't use them as sources. At least not so far. Mathsci (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked a question. I answered it. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you. Please assume that next time. Did you have something to say about the base map of Ali Zifan, or are you just here to play parlour games? Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Truck's movements prior to turning on to Promenade des Anglais
o The BBC News summary used in the Attack section mentions an interview in Nice-Matin with a Nice resident, late for the firework display, who she saw the truck driving strangely on rue Fabrol and at around 22:00 turning on to ave de Californie towards the airport. The original report and lengthy interview in Nouvel obs is described on this page further up. The BBC account does not explain that this was prior to the attack, where Nice-Matin makes it abundantly clear. Carefully written later sources describe the entry point on rue Lenval. The Guardian article is fairly accurate and was written after more information had been disclosed. The CCTV chronology describes where the truck was at 20:32 (Fabrol bypass) and several seconds later (65 Promenade des Anglais) from which the surveillance police in Nice determined the path between the two. None of this is in dispute. Errors did occur in early reports in the press, particularly in the international press. It is fairly easy to detect them and find later more reliable sources. Mathsci (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BBC do explain that it was prior to the attack: ''""He was speeding up, braking, speeding up again and braking again. We thought it was weird," said Laicia Baroi. She described how the lorry then turned on to the promenade heading south-west towards the airport. But it was not for another half hour before the attack began...", ref BBC. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The original interview is already discussed in detail here Talk:2016 Nice attack. It was in Nice-Matin and in considerably more detail giving the street names.Le témoignage de cette femme qui aurait vu le camion fou dès 22 heures The BBC used this interview which they summarised, omitting many details. The original statement was, ""Je l'avais vu un peu avant, il conduisait bizarrement. Il accélérait, freinait, re-accélérait, re-freinait... On a vraiment trouvé ça bizarre." But anyway why reinvent the wheel, when I've already discussed this above.


 * You on the other hand questioned the sources and tagged the article, suggesting that at 22:30 the truck might have turned towards the airport on Promenade des Anglais. A misreading of the sources. The short Nice-Matin article names the streets as ave de Fabrol and ave de Californie. Anyway Promenade des Anglais was closed to traffic at that time on 14 July. Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hotel Negresco
No source I have seen or used in the article mentions incidents outside Hotel Westminster. Unless a press or media source is produced, the content cannot be changed. Please give the sources which gives "alternative description" which contradicts all French newspapers. Mathsci (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From The Telegraph article that is used as one of the souces for this info in the article: "Michael Zarzycki, 64, who is staying in the Hotel Westminster with his wife Heather, also 64, witnessed the attack from his fifth floor balcony. There was a motorcyclist who tried to get up to him, other people in the hotel said he was tugging at the door." and "They were driving alongside each other. The motorcyclist was trying to get up near the cab but he did not have a good enough grip and then he fell and was dragged below the tyres. He wouldn't have survived." and "It is understood the motorcyclist fell just before the lorry reached Hotel Westminster.". Erlbaeko (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These events only became clear on about 21 July and were explained in Nice-Matin on 22 July and then in the national press. Since the truck was moving quite quickly, it is not possible to localise it, but it is possible to say where police came from. A cyclist saw the truck knocking people down, abandoned his bicycle (not his scooter) and then worked his way onto the running board of the truck, attempting to gain access to the cabin. The driver drew a gun pointing it towards the cyclist. It did not go off.  At that point the motorcyclist, an airport worker with his girlfriend, threw his scooter under the wheels of the truck. This saved the cyclist and slowed down the bike. I'm not sure when the driver fired his gun, but it drew gunfire from the police who are stated as being at the Negresco. They pursued the truck until it finally came to a halt at the Palais de la Mediterranee. So there were two people involved, whom Nice-Matin interviewed: Alexandre Migues (bicycle) and Franck (scooter). Alexandre, Franck and a third person have received bravery medals from the city of Nice.La ville de Nice a honoré Franck, Gwenaël et Alexandre, ses trois héros de l'attentat This article gives details of all three . rue Meyerbeer is referred to as a reference point. Franck was presumed dead but on 21 July identified himself, withholding his surname. So I doubt any of this is accurately recorded in sources from 15 July. Here is the account of Franck. I will have to work through this carefully as it's slightly complicated. Somebody unidentified initially presumed dead, run over by the truck, but in fact still living. So there were two people, one a cyclist on the running board, the other a motorcyclist who threw his scooter under the wheels of the truck. Evidently the later accounts are the reliable ones. Most sources confuse the two. it will take a while to work out. The action did not take place at a specific place as the truck was moving fast (60 kmph?) when these events started. Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this sentence? "The progress of the truck was slowed down in front of the Hotel Negresco, when a motorcyclist abandoned his scooter and clung onto the running board of the truck in an unsuccessful attempt to get into the driver's cabin." In that sentence Hotel Negresco is faulty. As this video shows, and as The Telegraph article says, that incident occurred outside Hotel Westminster. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC
 * I am talking about what is documented in the press. The sequence of events is of a cyclist seeing the carnage caused by the truck, abandoning his bicycle (vtt), pursuing the truck and attempting to cling to and open the driver's door. This had slowed down the truck as the driver hit the cyclist  through his window with a handgun. Meanwhile a motorcyclist, too late for the firework display, had joined the Promenade des Anglais at the level of the Centre universitaire mediterraneen just before the truck passed. Seeing the carnage and panic, he told his female companion to dismount and pursued the truck weaving his way through the pedestrians. He eventually caught up with the truck just after the cyclist had been hit. He drew up next to the cabin, forced his motorcycle under the front wheel of the truck while mounting on to the running plate. He hit the driver several times through the window before the police in pursuit (from the Hotel Negresco) caught up with the truck and opened fire.


 * The third person to get a medal was also involved in this pursuit; it seems he was initially arrested because he was carrying a penknife. It is gradually possible to write a coherent account. The initial accounts describe the motorcyclist as having been run over, which is false. He had to have stitches because he also received a blow from the handgun. This is reported in Nice-Matin and then other French news media; it was first published on 22 July. This still requires some work and thought. It's still left to work out what happened with the third man and the police, using press and media sources. Then it should be possible to produce a two sentence summary, but not immediately. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After carefully checking the content—the original sources were in Nice-Matin and then reported in less detail in French national news media—I have added what seems to be a correct version of what happened, as far as is known. In French the word "braqué" is used for struck or struck with a blow. (This is usually used in French newspapers reports of robbery with violence.) I am surprised that user:Erlbaeko has not responded to the detailed summaries I provided for this content before I added it. I wrote here that I would contemplate how to express this content succinctly. I slept on it. I will add material on the three medals in the Reactions section. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Actually, "braquer quelqu'un" does not mean "to strike someone", it means "to point a gun at someone". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also "force open the cabin door" is an unlikely interpretation of the source. I find it more likely that he was hoping the cabin door would be unlocked, but unfortunately it was not.
 * So I would replace "was slowed down by a passing cyclist, struck through the window as he tried to force open the cabin door" by something along the lines of "was slowed down by a passing cyclist, who tried to open the cabin door but had to let go when the driver pointed a gun at him". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't thought that through carefully enough: braquage is used for armed robbery, not robbery with violence. I'll try to work out how to do that without mentioning the type of gun (which the cyclist said was taken out of a bag). Mathsci (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Related to that is the last bit of the abbreviated statement about the motorcyclist. I read the interviews again. "Il a mis un coup de pistolet sur la tête." The driver tried to fire his gun at the motorcyclist but it didn't work, so he struck him over the head with the gun. After that the driver succeeded in getting the gun to fire, at which point the motorcyclist slid under the truck as the police arrived on the scene. I will modify that slightly. Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reactions AfD supervote
It appears that the AfD for Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack has been closed via supervote, with a 23 to 18 vote in favor of keeping it being ignored by User:Thryduulf, who closed it as a Merge. Note that this is the kind of "merge" where he redirected the page and did not bother to return any of the content here, which IMHO is not even much of a merge.

Anyway, I'm on the fence whether to dump the whole 53K here and complete the merge as officially decreed, or to revolt entirely against this bad close. Wnt (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel I have explained why I closed the discussion the way I did in my closing statement, but if you feel that any of that is unclear or you want me to reconsider something you should first ask me on my talk page being specific about what your problem with the close is (and remembering that AfD is not a vote) rather than just casting aspersions here. Also, if you look at the page history you will see that it was redirected by user:Jax 0677 not me - I simply replaced the AfD tag with the tag indicating that it should be merged. Neither article was on my watchlist before this comment. Finally, if you actually read my closing statement (which I get the impression you have not) you will note that I explicitly said there was consensus to merge the prose from the reactions article and for the quotes to be added to Wikiquote, not the "whole 53K" being pasted into the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved much of the non-prose content to Wikiquote en masse. It is currently grossly out of alignment with WQ standards, but will be easier to fix on WQ, rather than piecemeal moving each quote from here to there. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will try to get around to all the WQ formatting as best I can over the next few days. Anyone who wishes to help is, of course, more than welcome. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should have to be on the defensive about quoting our sources directly. It is by far the most authentic way to present events, avoiding 'spin' and giving the principals an opportunity to speak in their own voice.  Looking at that section in Wikiquote, it is obvious that it is a review of news content with no business being there.  Few of these quotes are "quotes" in the WQ sense. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some source digging will probably be required to bring things in line, I don't have the courage to delve into that task tonight. I don't see it as an issue with quoting sources directly, but with a majority of an article being quotes, and the trappings of quotes, without significant encyclopedic prose. Most of these, I expect, can be reduced to a quote and attribution with little context needed, other than a link to the WP article. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * AFD's are not decided by pure vote count, but by the merits of the reasonings behind those votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A comparable AfD for the parallel French "international reactions" article is happening over on fr.wikipedia.org. Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the merits of those arguments at all, let alone overwhelming the usual "no consensus". As in every single current AFD ever made we have a few people citing NOTNEWS compulsively without reading it - the policy doesn't say our articles have to be out of date or not include news, just that they treat news like everything else.  We have people saying we do not "need to inventory" notable well sourced information - this is technically true; we do not need to write an encyclopedia, but it's what we were trying to do anyway.  I mean, these arguments are not even in the league of the Keep arguments.  It's more like, "let's sabotage the encyclopedia so it doesn't compete with somebody's paid news archive service."  Well, alright, I don't actually know the motivation, but it's a sabotage of other editors' useful work, that I do know. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to relitigate a closed AfD discussion, what I will say is that your comments sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you know where to find Deletion review if you are that unhappy with the close, but note you will need to actually address the reasons given in the closing statement not just relitigate the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've gotten the Wikiquote in to some sort of shape, and added a link under the External links section. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New annotated map for "Attack" section
I have produced a new annotated map for the "Attack" section using tiles from Openstreetmap.org. The base map is more detailed although some detail has been lost while processing the image. I have tried to mark everything accurately. Rue Lenval runs one-way off the Promenade des Anglais as the map shows and as this google image shows. I have not marked where the first fatalities occurred (107 Promenade des Anglais is given in a blog piece on the Le Monde website, so slightly further into Nice than the Maison de l'Agriculture at 113). Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent developments: Sandra Bertin's chronology and 2 further arrests
I was going to add this earlier, but other editors intervened. The complete chronology from CTTV has been described here in Marianne (magazine).. Exclusif : la chronologie de l'attentat du 14-Juillet établie par la policière de Nice The timings are in words. This is the CCTV report submitted by Sandra Bertin. Here is a rough summary, not a translation. It happened very quickly indeed.


 * 22:33 truck reported at 65 Promenade des Anglais, Centre Universitaire Méditerranéen --> 90 kmph
 * 22:34 54 Prom des Anglais 60kmph --> rue Cronstadt --> 27 Promenade des Anglais
 * 22:35 driver spotted, approx description, dark clothing --> national police in pursuit --> rue Meyerbeer --> Palais de la Méditerranée --> truck immobilised

Beforehand:

No footage for entry point, most probably 57 [sic] Prom des Anglais, nr Lenval Hospital
 * 22:32 Fabron bypass --> direction Prom des Anglais

This is a rough summary of her report. Obviously 57 is a typo in the newspaper. I have omitted all details of atrocities committed on the route. There is no account of what happened once the truck was immobilised. Any further information can be obtained by reading the article. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the content of the article needs to be slightly rejigged to give a better version of the speed of the truck and the fact that the attack itself took place within a period of less than five minutes. There has been no accurate information on the timings when the truck was halted.


 * Numerous press and media sources in French and English report that two further arrests were made on 25 July in the area where the perpetrator lived (route de Turin, quartier des anciens abattoirs); one of those arrested has appeared with the perpetrator on a selfie taken beside the truck. That selfie was first published on the main French TV channel TF1 and widely redistributed. Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Point of entry on Promenade des Anglais is Ave de Fabron, not Rue Lenval
Looking at the Marianne article again, Bertin's report actually states that (in paraphrased translation) "after looking back at the CCTV footage, camera 60 "PDA Fabron" shows the white heavy heavy goods vehicle arriving on the south side of the Promenade des Anglais at 22h32m33s by the entry slip road at avenue de Fabron (bretelle d'accès Fabron) travelling eastwards." The report states that "it is difficult to tell when the lorry mounted on to the pavement, but this seems to have happened at the level of the Centre Hospitalier Universtaire Lenval opposite number 157." The entry road was rue Lenval; it is a small one-way road leading off the Promenade as mentioned below. I will slightly modify the text in the Attack section and very slightly rejig the accompanying map and annotations on Commons to take this into account, without going into unduly minute detail. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)