Talk:2017 Barcelona attacks/Archive 2

Requested move 18 August 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2017 Catalonia attacks. No such user (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Barcelona attack → 2017 Catalonia attacks – To 2017 Catalonia attacks. 213.151.46.208 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this one. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  08:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Cambrils was clearly another attack Krmkra (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Killmeyle (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Catalonia is an accurate reflection of what took place as the 3 incidents are believed to have been perpetrated by the same terrorist cell, as opposed to using Barcelona which merely reflects the one incident. However, the 3 incidents should be grouped together under a singular umbrella, as law enforcement believes they were related events... Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If there were two attacks, shouldn't we have two distinct articles - this one for the Barcelona attack and a new one for the Cambrils attack? -- de Facto (talk). 10:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was about to make the same point. This morning it has been confirmed that one of those injured in Cambrils has now died Zanoni (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The events intersect in ways that would make seperate articles repetitious and unclear IMO. Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose this rename for same reason as DeFacto and Zanoni. Keep this about Barcelona event, SPLIT talk on events in other cities into separate articles. Too soon to jam them together, let cops actually investigate if they were coordinated or if ISIL is just capitalizing on tragedies coinciding this week. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article for 2017 Catalonia attacks could follow the format of the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks (which has separate articles for the Charlie Hebdo shooting and Hypercacher Kosher Supermarket siege), with at least a separate article for the Barcelona attack. User2534 (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Reaper7 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I might have formatted something wrong, i'm new to Wikipedia. Agree with User2534, the articles should be formatted like the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks. MarcusOfMichigan (talk)
 * Oppose The purpose of Wikipedia is to make information readily available to persons using the most common terms for the article. Giving terms not in common use for the purpose is not how Wikipedia works - it uses the terms used by the reliable sources cited. Collect (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support88.12.65.9 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment How is this proposal different from the one below? Are people voting in both? Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - mostly concentrated in Barcelona and mostly refereed to that name in the media. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose; only the attack on the Ramblas was an attack; Cambrils only the ill-faited attempt to escape police and Alcanar an accident while preparing some expolsive device. So there only was one attack, that in Barcelona. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Should be renamed '2017 Catalunya Attacks' to take into account Cambrils
Then all the attacks can fit comfortably under 1 neat umbrella. The attacks that happened in Cambrils and the subsequent killing of the 5 terrorists there is directly connected. Reaper7 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this, inadequate proof. Isil taking credit for 2 things and cops saying hey think that is true is worth evidence we must mention but must not agree with pre-conviction. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a cat in hell's chance, (in case it isn't obvious, 'Catalunya' is Catalan for the region which Eng speakers call 'Catalonia' and Spanish call 'Cataluña'). The proper place to educate we ignorant English speakers is within articles, not in titles. We refer on WP to 'Germany', not 'Deutschland', 'Florence', not 'Firenze', 'Wales', not 'Cymru', 'Munich' not 'München', 'Greece' not 'Ελληνική Δημοκρατία' or 'Ελλάδα', and 'Scotland' not ' Alba'. I can't imagine why we would do that! Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It should be change 2017 Catalonia attacks, not Catalunya. 88.12.65.9 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with the opinion of the IP address above me, with the same conclusion that it should be referred to as Catalonia Attacks...Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Change name of article from 2017 Barcelona attack to 2017 Catalonia attacks
The attack on Barcelona is just one of many. There has also been in Cambrils and other places. It would be wise to change the title to encompass everything.

Edit: Othe people also supports 2017 Spain Attacks or 2017 Spain Terror Attacks because is more easy to english people to recognize Spain instead of Catalonia. I am not english, so you guys decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRichic (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

TheRichic (talk) 2:39 PM, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * support - made the exact same topic you did as you made yours. Reaper7 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support - currently its just a wrong title. Tshuva (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support - Ugly Ketchup (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support - Calicodragon (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support - The Spanish wikipedia has already changed to 2017 Catalonia Attacks, for example. I would say "2017 Catalonia Terror Attacks", as otherwise it is unclear if it is a virus attack, a military attack, or what. XavierItzm (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME the name should be determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Most UK sources I've seen use "Spain attacks" or "Spain terror attacks" . -- de Facto (talk). 15:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support - 2.139.28.236 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support Gvstaylor1 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support - related attacks in Catalonia. Jim Michael (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose - the attack was on Spain for being member of anti-ISIS coalition, not on Catalonia. It would look very odd. Also the minor attacks were not far from Barcelona.Gaditano23 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That theory is posited by an anonymous Internet account which says the exact thing, verbatim, for every attack by a Muslim in a coalition state. It's sometimes correct, but only how a broken clock sometimes is, and less regularly. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME, Catalonia is a much more familiar term in Spanish than in English and something that is clearer in English would be preferable to this. All these attacks were close to the major city, Barcelona. The Olympics (1988?) weren't called the Catalonia Olympics. The text can make clear that these were close to and in the city. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cambrils is 75 miles from Barcelona. That's not that close. 2601:204:C900:9F63:4C36:B22:B988:CC13 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BBC and Guardian are still referring to 'Barcelona' and treating other 2 events as 'off-shoots'. Commonname rather than geographical accuracy was my logic. Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The 1992 Summer Olympics weren't called Catalonia 1992 because the Olympic Games receive the name of the city in which they take place. Eight years before, they were called Los Angeles 1984, which is not to say that California isn't well known by English speakers worldwide. F (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Our naming logic is 'Commonname', which means what most people will look for, not what they may have heard of. There are countless examples (eg Pearl Harbour attack), where the event is much bigger than the geographical descriptor. From what I see at present, the events here are still mainly being referred to as Barcelona-related, that may change. Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The terror cell was involved in all attacks, which occured in three different cities in Catalonia. So that name would be more appropriate.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of so-called "waves of terror" are just media inventions, but this one literally went A-B-C. English people know what Catalonia is, and if they don't, that's why educational sites like ours exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Since it appears there were several planned terrorist attacks targeting the entire region around Catalonia, the name change makes sense and is more inclusive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – As the article it's named in other languages (Spanish), it should be "2017 Catalonia attacks", including Barcelona, Cambrils and the rest of related attacks. --Politges13 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet in Catalán it is called ^https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atemptat_a_la_Rambla_de_Barcelona Atemptat a la Rambla de Barcelona] so not sure this argument has any weight.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not anymore: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atemptats_de_Catalunya_de_2017. RPR (Talk) 11:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a separate article Atemptat de Cambrils, so the above counter-argument fails. (In the light of later news, all the attacks were perpetrated by the same gang, so no reason now for separate articles.) Pol098 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: and the rest of related attacks, where exactly would they be? A self-harming accidental explosion while planning an operation, is not 'an attack'. Attempting to escape from police, is not 'an attack'. What we are left with is Barcelona, and a (largely thwarted) 'response' attack at Cambrils. No other locations were attacked. 2 is not 'many', 'multiple', 'diverse' nor any of the other descriptions used. And the rest of related attacks = and the related attack in Cambril.Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Multiple attacks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Diverse attacks in Catalonia, not just in Barcelona city. As these attacks happened in different places in Catalonia, not elsewhere in Spain, 2017 Catalonia Attacks would probably be better. Most of other pages have changed the name to "2017 Catalonia Attacks" -including the Spanish Wikipedia-, so I don't see any political "bias". And again, t's not a matter of "press usage", since i.e. the 2015 Paris attacks were named "January 2015 Île-de-France attacks". So as the attacks were across Catalonia, it would makes more sense. RPR (Talk) 14:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Idk if Catalonia attacks is the optimal name (I can't come up with a better one), but at least it's more accurate than the current one. Cambrils isn't in the province of Barcelona, and not even close to the city itself — 100 km (60 mi) away. F (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It is more accurate name. Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should remain as is or be changed to Spain or Spanish attacks which isn't perfect either. The issue si the political situation in Catalonia, calling these the Catalonia attacks plays into the hands of the independence supporters and we cannot do that without violating our neutrality policy. This is less so with Spain than Catalonia but arguably could be so with Spain as well, so best to leave well alone. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is El País an independentist source? I don't think so. https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/08/18/inenglish/1503055355_632860.html88.16.214.239 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - It didn't happen only in Barcelona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ricardo_canedo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo canedo (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because non Spanish people don't know the name of the region.--Jane955 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * SupportIt should be like January 2015 Île-de-France attacks. I'm sure Ile-de-France is a less common name than Paris in any language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.214.239 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per COMMONNAME and most if not all sources are going by "Barcelona attack" (187,000 results for Catalonia attack and 9,540,000 results Barcelona attack) so clearly "Barcelona attack" is by far the COMMONNAME. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would strongly keep the name as it is. This was clearly an attack intended to kill as many civilians and tourists visiting Barcelona as possible. That was the plan. Other incidents described in the article happened either by accident or unplanned as a result of the terrorist cell being destroyed. There is no proof whatsoever that the intended target was Catalonia as a whole. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support -It make more sense. --Kippelboy (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It encompasses more than just the city of Barcelona, and happened across Catalonia, so I find it appropriate. B.Lameira (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The COMMONNAME argument here doesn't make that much sense to me. The Barcelona got the most press coverage because it was the most high profile and most successful, but keeping the article with that title limits the article's scope. It's like saying the article "2016 New York and New Jersey bombings" should be "2016 New York bombings" because most of the bombings happened in New York. This was a series of planned and unplanned attacks throughout Catalonia, which caused multiple deaths. FallingGravity 17:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Except no 'attack' took place at one location (an accidental explosion during preparation is not an attack) and the 'attack' at the second location was largely thwarted. Attempting to escape police road blocks etc is not an attack either. Presumably bombs actually went off in New Jersey, rather than the perps simply preparing or running away to there? Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cambrils section: "The five individuals inside were wearing fake suicide vests, and attacked bystanders with knives. A 63 year-old Spanish woman was stabbed to death." Sounds like an attack to me. FallingGravity 21:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So Barcelona + Cambrils (largely thwarted, but yes an attack) = "a series of planned and unplanned attacks throughout Catalonia" does it? 2 isn't a series, 2 isn't many, several, diverse or any of the other terms employed above. 2 is 2, one major and the other apparently reactive and largely a failure from their point of view. Events took place all over the Catalonia coast, but most of those events were not attacks. Pincrete (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryob (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support - All of it happened all across Catalonia: planned in Alcanar (South) by young people from Ripoll (North), and performed in Barcelona (centre) and Cambrils (South). The Ramblas attack was only a part of the plot. And if we decide to keep the name it would only be acceptable if we created a new article for the Cambrils attack (as Catalan Wikipedia has done). InterMARCtional (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: The Ramblas attack was only a part of the plot., yes but the article is mainly about what happened, not what was plotted. Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The name should be that which a person using Wikipedia would be most likely to use. As I find the reliable sources refer to "Barcelona" then it is likely that any user would be far more likely to use "Barcelona" than any other specific term.  By the way, one may note the presence of editors and IPs with "few if any edits" opining here. Collect (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support88.12.65.9 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support - Unless the articles get split, or a related attack happens outside of Catalonia, I fully support changing the name of the article to 2017 Catalonia attacks. The name 2017 Spain attacks should be a redirect for now, unless a related attack happens in Spain outside of Catalonia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support  A lot of the argument to oppose is based on the suggestion that non-Spanish people will not be familiar with the term "Catalonia", whilst this may be the case the news, at least in the UK, is using the term Catalonia to a large degree. If long term people prefer to refer to the attacks as the "Spanish attacks" then the name can be changed if felt necessary, however it should not remain as it is because the current title is not accurate. 2A02:C7F:414:0:BC93:E5F2:37DF:DFF1 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support  the terrorists targeted different cities of Catalonia (Barcelona and Cambrils). Also some Mossos d'Esquadra, Catalan Police, actions took place outside of Barcelona (Alcanar, Ripoll, Subirats... all Catalan cities). I think that the most accurate description of the article would be 2017 Catalonia attacks --Auledas (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It is more accurate name. Aadrover (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Barcelona, Cambrils, Alcanar, Ripoll and Subirats are cities of Catalonia.--Medol (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Actually Cambrils was not an attack but the attempt to escape; also Alcanar was no attack but an accident while obviously preparing a bomb. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re:Cambrils was an intentional attack by 5 different terrorists, armed with knives, who rammed a car into pedestrians but were quickly killed by the Mossos d'Esquadra, that were already deployed after the incident of Barcelona (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/barcelona-cambrils-terror-attacks-what-we-know-so-far_uk_59969b66e4b01f6e801dc140). The driver of the Barcelona attack was killed later in Subirats, a small town near Barcelona (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/21/europe/barcelona-attack/index.html). --Auledas (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Catalonia is an accurate reflection of what took place as the 3 incidents are believed to have been perpetrated by the same terrorist cell, as opposed to using Barcelona which merely reflects the one incident. However, the 3 incidents should be grouped together under a singular umbrella, as law enforcement believes they were related events... Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Given the events outside of Barcelona it's a more accurate name. Sunomi64 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Change name of article from 2017 Barcelona attack to 2017 Spain attacks
The attacks were on Spain and targeted Spain, not a particular region. Also most common name is Spain attack or Barcelona attacks, not Catalonia attacks which is barely used by the press.Gaditano23 (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Barcelona attack should be kept. A new article Catalonia attack should be open, to make a complete description of the plot. But Te attack at Barcelona merits a separate article. As to widen the territorial extension and name it Spain attack, I also oppose. For the same reasons we could name it Europe attack, or Christendom attack. The actions were limited to Catalonia territory, including north (Ripoll), center (Barcelona) and south (Cambrils and Alcanar).--Auró (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: As mentioned, the target was specifically on Spain as a country for its involvement in the anti-ISIS coalition. The fact that the attacks occurred in Catalonia were mere coincidence. I agree with keeping this article as separate but the wider one should be 2017 Spain attack, particularly now that we know there is a link with the 2004 Madrid attacks. Also Catalonia attacks in contrary to WP:COMMONNAMEGaditano23 (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you said it. 2004 Madrid attacks and not 2004 Spain attacks.83.55.126.197 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This attacks didn't happen elsewhere in Spain but Catalonia. It's not a matter of "press usage", since i.e. the 2015 Paris attacks were named "January 2015 Île-de-France attacks", and as it states on the page: "From 7 January 2015 to 9 January 2015, terrorist attacks occurred across the Île-de-France region, particularly in Paris. So since the attacks were in Catalonia, "2017 Spain attacks" makes no sense. -RPR (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reaper7 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two attacks has in common that take place in the same region. Barcelona in the province of Barcelona and Cambrils in the province of Tarragona are in the same region, Catalonia. 83.55.126.197 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too broad a description, worst of 3 choices (Bar, Cat, Spa) IMO.Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose88.12.65.9 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the attacks targeted only Catalonia. --Auledas (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose since there was only the attack in Barcelona; Cambrils was the attempt to escape police, Alcanar no attack either but a spectacular misattempt to construct some kind of explosive device. (Terrorists commonly do not attack their own compound.) --Matthiasb (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cambrils was an attempt of attack, they were not escaping from police.83.60.66.78 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I regret to say that it's early days to use up the "Spain 2017" title. Hopefully Barcelona and Catalonia would be OK in this respect.Pol098 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


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

Consensus reached to change name of article to 2017 Catalonia attacks
Vast majority support the move, but nothing has happened. Strange? As of now we have 28 editors so far supporting the renaming of the article, only 8 editors against - and yet that 8 seems to control the article. Reaper7 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A significant number of editors oppose the move, and on merit there are good reasons not to:
 * 1) The press across the world refers to it as Barcelona or Spain attacks not Catalonia attack 2) Catalonia was not specifically targeted, Spain was, 3) reasons for moving the article may be political, especially in the light of recent segregation of victims between "Catalans" and "Spaniards" by Catalan government spokesmen 4) The main attack was in Barcelona, the event Alcanar was more of an incident than an attack and the one in Cambrils was foiled. Gaditano23 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not just based on a vote count but has to take account of all concerns whilst at the same time respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (like WP:COMMONNAME) - see WP:CONCENSUS.


 * I agree with . WP:COMMONNAME states: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above. "Catalonia Attacks" is the least prevalent of the options. "Barcelona Attacks" seems to be the most common, followed by "Spain Attacks". -- de Facto (talk). 16:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gaditano23 and de Facto about COMMONNAME. There is often a trade-off here, Pearl Harbour attack included other targets on Hawaii, as well as PH, but nobody calls it the Hawaii attack. 2016 Normandy church attack only happened in one small village, but how many English speakers are going to remember Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray ? Pincrete (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Gaditano23.  Either 2017 Barcelona terror attacks or 2017 Spain terror attacks. XavierItzm (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not agree. Cambrils is not Barcelona. Alcanar is not Barcelona. Ripoll is not Barcelona.83.55.126.197 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * More to the point, Alcanar and Ripoll (etc), were not attacked. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * User:No such user Please see this subsequent thread. I kindly request you undo the page move, it was not warranted in this case. Gaditano23 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Pincrete, Gaditano23, and de Facto about COMMONNAME. As I've mentioned elsewhere, "Catalonia attacks" is being used to describe the subject of this article in the headlines of major English publications like the NY Daily News, Politico, KMOV, AzerNews, and Reuters. FallingGravity 20:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody argued, or should have argued, that "Catalonia attacks" is never used, merely that it is much less used. This MAY change, or conversely papers/books may revert to seeing Cambrils as simply a 'side-show' to the Barcelona events. Such 'inaccuracy' often happens, most of the important events of the Battle of Midway, didn't happen at Midway, a lot of the recent attack at London Bridge actually happened in an adjacent area called Borough Market, both of which are in Southwark. The Battle of Hastings wasn't either at or for Hastings, whilst the Battle of Britain was almost entirely fought over one small area of SE Britain, (but was for control of all British air space). Pincrete (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the Suspects section in violation of WP:BLP?
IS having a section with "Suspects", and especially subsections with their names in violation of WP:BLP or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With one exception they are dead. The living one is well-cited in numerous reliable sources. IMO, no breach of WP:BLP for him. WWGB (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WWGB BLP applies for recently deceased people too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a BLP violation if named as suspects, it is however a very inefficient and unclear way to arrange the (very limited) available info IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How about renaming to "People killed by he police during suspect manhunt"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

To be blunt, yes. Specifically WP:BLPCRIME. TompaDompa (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I've seen absurd things on Wikipedia, but this takes the cake. The authorities have released the names of the terrorists they have killed, and people are censoring their names? Nutz! XavierItzm (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * More to the point, it is a muddled mess. It isn't clear who has been accused/cleared of anything. btw, XavierItzm the police have not "released the names of the terrorists they killed", they have "released the names of people killed whom they suspect/allege etc.". I realise it's difficult for some people to understand, but police are human, and like all humans they make mistakes and nobody has suggested censoring their names (except you) simply ensuring that the info about them is accurate, which at present it does not appear to be largely because it's muddled, almost incoherent. Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not unknown for the police to get it wrong when naming suspects, or even to shoot an innocent person dead. However, in the Barcelona incident some of the people suspected to be involved are dead so WP:BLP does not apply directly, while Younes Abouyaaqoub is named in multiple reliable sources as a suspect. This isn't a huge problem unless the police subsequently change their minds on this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP also applies to the recently dead, see WP:BDP. TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was reminded of this incident where British police arrested the wrong man. Hopefully the Catalonian police know the names of the people they shot dead, and are looking for the right person as the driver of the van.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * «police have not "released the names of the terrorists they killed", they have "released the names of people killed whom they suspect/allege». Dude.  Please.  The 5 shot and killed terrorists were on the black Audi that ran over 4 people.  They got out of the car and started stabbing people, killing a 63 year old woman.  Someone's mom.  The cops killed the 5.  Where is the "suspect" "allege" ?.  Do you dispute that the 5 were in the black Audi?  Incredible.  Next thing, will you say maybe this was workplace violence?  People with a top pay grade have said it before! XavierItzm (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * as crazy as it may seem Spain, like many European countries, has a court system. Even if in broad daylight in front of dozens of cameras these suspects killed all these people, they are still the accused until they are found guilty of a crime or crimes. Your response clearly shows you do not understand this and that is very troubling, considering the live suspect(s) always receive a trial in these incidents.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * XavierItzm, then say "Police shot dead persons A,B, and C, who, they say had done X,Y, Z and are looking for D who they suspect of W", that's relevant, sourceable, clear and informative, whereas "XavierItzm/Pincrete thinks it's obvious to any 5 year old that these people are really QQQQQ!", is not sourced, informative or even remotely interesting. Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ... ps no one has suggested removing the names or claims and no one thinks that this is "workplace violence". You really need to learn to read and to stop projecting your cliches onto others. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * TheGracefulSlick - "Spain, like many European countries, has a court system." If you think there will be a trial for any of the 5 dead islamist terrorists in Cambrils who ran their black Audi over 4 people, got out, stabbed a 63-y.o. woman to death, and got killed by police, well, then, may I interest you in a bridge?  XavierItzm (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You completely missed the point. Can you at least pretend you have a WP:NPOV? It is not up to you to call them terrorists; at this point, they are suspects. Personally, I think they are the scum of the earth for what they are accused of doing and the world is more than likely better off without them but my opinion -- as yours -- means jack shit. Everything needs a source so wait for RS to confirm they are terrorists. If you cannot handle such sensitive BLP concerns, step away from the article until other editors have settled this issue with RS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Naming Suspects (and calling them perpetrators)
Most of the names in the "Arrests" and "Driss and Moussa Oukabir" sections are major violations of WP:BLPNAME policy. Being arrested doesn't necessarily implicate guilt. FallingGravity 17:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilt is not implied.Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I've removed their names. FallingGravity 17:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the names again, and renamed the section 'suspects'. We are simply causing quite unnecessary problems for ourselves by naming people who, although arrested, have not as yet been charged with anything (some may never be charged, dozens of people were arrested following recent UK events, 95% of them were released without charge). We also cannot call the section 'perpetrators' when it covers living uncharged people - and even those who are dead - their roles within the plot are not yet fully established. Apart from BLP concerns, why imply things are known which are not? It is known they were in the car, it is known they were shot dead, it is known that police say they were part of the cell, and in some cases had active parts. Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This section in its current state is still a blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME despite the fact that all but one participant in this discussion seem to have reached some kind of consensus against it. Besides this violation, the section is inconsistent with regards to depicting the involved people as suspects or perpetrators and presenting information as facts, investigative results or investigative assumptions. Also, some of the personal background information rather belongs to tabloids rather than to an encyclopedia. And even if their names are to be mentioned, valuable information is too scarce to warrant individual subsections. May we shorten this? --Walfisch5 (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This issue comes up repeatedly (whether BLP applies to the recently dead) and never seems to get answered. Personally, I would say that - at a minimum - BLP applies very, very, strictly to the 4 living suspects. Regarding the dead ones, it hardly matters IMO whether the strictest application of BLP applies to them, since - more importantly - no reader is served by us presenting speculation as to anyone's role in the event (even informed speculation made by police) as though it were fact. We shouldn't treat someone's death as a licence to write speculations/assumptions as anything other than that. Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding demonstration
I have added a couple of sentences on the demonstration. Pointless to ignore it.Gaditano23 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've heavily pruned it, it was getting too partisan about who booed whom about what. That stuff might belong on the referendum page perhaps. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is partisan. It is an exact description of what happened and summary of reliable media coverage. Its like saying that demonstrations against the government following the 2004 Madrid attacks is "partisan". I'm adding an additional source. Gaditano23 (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * But other sources tell a different story, and the whole issue is getting dangerously off-topic. The march is clearly a significant public reaction, but precisely who supplied/asked for/brought the flags is unclear. Some marchers may have been anti- many things but the only relevance is the 'anti-terrorism' 'solidarity' angle. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That is your personal opinion but I have to say contradicts sources available. And there is a lot missing such as the parallel pro-independence counter demonstration protesting presence of non-catalans/non-independence supporters in the main event. It is the first anti-terrorism demonstration in the western world which is politicized in this nature. The fact that the demonstration itself was "off-topic" is relevant enough to wikipedia readers. Otherwise we are misleading them into thinking this was just another show of European unity. I don't know what different story is told by other sources but I have not seen them and we should focus on what sources say. Perhaps you don't speak Spanish or Catalan and are not sufficiently exposed to the coverage of the event?Gaditano23 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Guardian records a broad range of protests, none of which predominated, where we say 'many' it says 'some'. I understand what you are saying about this being more than a 'candle vigil', even Gdn records that, but am anxious to not allow this to go "off-topic". I'll wait to see what others think. (Very little Spanish and about 20 words of Catalan!) Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness of response by Mossos ... impact on referendum
This text is copied from my talk about this text, modified slightly by me here:

Concerning the discussion on Mossos, answering your question I think it is worth having because it is, and will be in increasing intensity, the centerpiece of a very sour discussion that will affect Catalan and Spanish politics during the next 2 months. I understand your unwillingness to make explicit references to the Catalan referendum, but it is not just the elephant in the room (that would be an understatement), but rather the mammoth in the closet. I obviously wouldn't write this in an encyclopedia article, but the fact of the matter is that the "controversy" on the Mossos' job would have never taken place, say, in 2011. In the next few weeks you'll find it increasingly difficult to contain this discussion and keep it isolated from the situation in Catalonia. We all need to make an effort to be impartial and stick to the facts but it will be nasty. CodeInconnu (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * CodeInconnu, I largely disagree, though I am happy for other editors to decide whether this is neutral (have other sources not said how crap Mossos were for example?), whether it is relevant and whether it is timely (are we better to wait to assess IF the attack affected the referendum). Is this just WP:COATRACK, ie using this article to comment on the referendum issue? I realise the depth of feeling in Esp/Cat, but we are writing for an Eng-spk audience who, will go over to the referendum article if they want to understand those issues. Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK take for instance, if you want to give the "crap Mossos" side due room, the tweet by the editor of "El Periódico", which fueled the main argument AGAINST the work of the Mossos. If I, you or anyone else mentions that tweet, where he alleged (50 min after the Rambla attack) that the CIA had passed intel to them months earlier, then you also need to mention:
 * 1. that his newspaper is and has always been contrary to Catalan self-determination (otherwise you cannot justify the barrage of criticism he got for the next two weeks; a mere faux-pas with no ideological intention would have been forgotten earlier)
 * 2. the fact that it was taken at face value by Spanish-speaking media (otherwise you cannot justify why the situation was ripe for 3.)
 * 3. the fact that he tried to back his tweet with an alleged CIA report that turned out to be the transcript of another, undisclosed, speculatively apocryphal text, full of mistakes that could only be made by a Spanish speaker and debunked even by Julian Assange who chimed in to ask for the editor's resignation; also the fact that he changed his version constantly, saying it was a "transcript", it was not CIA but something else (after saying it was CIA) and finally that the typos and language mannerisms were due to the encryption process (a hell of an intelligent encryption if you ask me)
 * 4. the fact that the document in 3. was also taken at face value by most Spanish media.
 * 5. the fact that the argument used to contest all of the above is the fact that Mossos have been sidelined from Europol for years (despite asking to be included therein), whereas other regional law enforcement have been included in Europol.
 * so in the end, the divide between the media offering one side and the media offering the other is exactly that between the unionist side and the side which is either pro-independence or not entirely hostile to the concept (e.g. Público). Catalunya and its volatile political situation comes up whether or not you want it. Separating this article from the referendum is important and as essential as, say, having separate articles for 9/11 and "War on Terror", but that doesn't mean there are no overlaps.
 * I'm happy to have this discussion copied and pasted to the Talk Page if you want. Feel free to quote me. CodeInconnu (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I was careful enough not to mention the word 2017 referendum explicitly in that paragraph. I agree explicit mentions to it are best avoided. CodeInconnu (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Implied allusions to it should even more be avoided. It is part of the background to this event, it is very unclear if or how the event might impact on the referendum. If neither the national nor regional govt. does anything really stupid, it may well generate a lot of heat, but no actual impact on the vote. Any reader who wants to understand the issues in the referendum can follow the links. Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of what I wrote is even implied, unless you consider self-government and referendum to be identical or indissociable concepts. Anyway, the sentence "News sources have asked whether the attack would affect the vote in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum" isn't mine. But I would also keep it. You need to remember that what is written and referenced so far makes primarily reference to the subject matter--namely the attacks, and anything else is peripheral. Just because the peripheral is also briefly mentioned doesn't mean those sentences or cited references (all of which are respected newspapers, whose editors decided that the peripheral is also worth noting) should be erased. Otherwise Background should also be erased from Charlie_Hebdo_shooting on account of there already being a Charlie Hebdo article. Erasing every single reference to the current period is not realistic. I could understand your point if an overlong or tendentious chapter were devoted to this, but I'd say the article is actually too careful to avoid the current climate. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * CodeInconnu Your proposed edit is at best very funny (I wasn't sure if it is meant to be sarcastic?? "Trapero widely lauded for his non-partisan" - a new chief of police who uses Twitter to insult non-Catalans and who was appointed to ensure the police toed the line with the independence agenda - his predecessor was fired for being excessively non-partisan) We are not on wikipedia to push political propaganda, even if I'm sure everyone here have their personal views based on media coverage. But directly contradicting reality is non-constructive editing. Let's focus on reliable sources and what they.Gaditano23 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Gaditano23, you got it all wrong; I'll be benevolent and put it off to you being late to the discussion. I never contested the elimination of that sentence, my discussion with Pincrete was about the rest of the paragraph, which does belong to the article. Someone else erased the sentence mentioning Trapero and I was fine with that. Concerning your comments on Trapero, he didn't insult anyone on Twitter, I think you're mistaking him with Pere Solé, the director of the police, plus he made those comments long before being appointed to his new capacity. Trapero is their Commissioner, not their director, and he was too busy chasing terrorists (who had been under the Spanish radar longer than he probably knew, and according to some sources were even CNI informants) to say anything on twitter. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion is precisely why I think coverage of 'referendum issues', should be kept to a bare minimum on this article. Other than the fact that the independence referendum is in the background, we should nor become involved in specifics and the issues and passions will have almost zero meaning to an Eng-spk readership. There is an article for the referendum issue. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pincrete don't get me wrong I don't think a long section on the Mossos debate should be included in this article. CodeInconnu Right my apologies. I thought you had drafted that para. I was indeed mistaking him with Sole.Gaditano23 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pincrete, that seems to contradict what you've done earlier: leaving the sentence that mentions the referendum "News sources have asked whether the attack would affect the vote in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum" intact, but then surreptitiously trying to remove the one that wasn't, without it being agreed upon in the talk page. I've said it once and I'll say it again, if you want to offer all sides to the story I'm all for it, this is a wikipedia article after all. Why don't we start with the alleged CIA report full of Spanish language malapropisms that later became an NCTC report, after that neither of the above and now is swiftly stuffed under the rug by most Spanish media? That is the main argument against. Oh that and the one (long defused two weeks ago) about Belgium asking for info on the Ripoll Imam and the Mossos giving none because they had none themselves, since they're not allowed into Europol by the Spanish authorities--the same authorities that had been tailing the Imam since at least 2013. I already told you Pincrete, the discussion you seem to dread is unavoidable these days. All I'm trying is to modestly contribute to it being civil... PS/ apologies accepted Gaditano. CodeInconnu (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No contradiction at all, saying that the attacks could influence the referendum is not 'wading into the whirlpool' and documenting in real time, (this source says this today another source says the opposite tomorrow) what impact it is having today. This article is about the attacks themselves, and addressed at an audience who don't have a vote in the referendum and who are quite free to go over to the 'ref' article if they wish to understand the 'ref' issues. It serves neither 'side' in the referundum, and it certainly doesn't serve the average WP reader for (what in the end is speculative) text about 'impact' to dominate this section. I don't 'dread' any conversation except in the sense that it demeans this article for it to be used as a political football. When the dust is settled, when the referendum is over, a clearer position might emerge about whether these attacks had any impact at all. I know the Madrid train bombings are widely thought to have impacted that election, but it is also widely thought that this is because the existing govt. misrepresented events to the public. If neither Madrid nor Barcelona, do anything daft, the impact(s) may well balance out. Regardless, we should not become parties to that controversy and the average WP reader is going to care very little about the detail IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not trying to play political football--a measure of my good faith is the fact that I speak about the (allegedly flawed and ostensibly mendacious, till further notice, and swiftly forgotten by the Spanish media) CIA argument here, instead of placing it all on the main article, duly referenced, because if the dust needs to settle anywhere it's precisely on the CIA controversy--and the dust won't necessarily settle after the referendum; it will settle when things are clearer and responsibilities are probed, which may be before or after that. You, on the other hand, are talking about whether one or both governments will do anything "daft" or "stupid"; how do you know daft and stupid things haven't already been done, perhaps the CIA allegations being one of them? Who are you to decide what is daft and what is not? We need to find a common ground and that is the fact that the task by Mossos, *as far as can be currently proved*, has been lauded by respected mainstream media--and that the same media have been vocal in establishing links, with an open mind, between those successes and a hypothetical capacity for self-government. If you have trouble with that, I suggest you discuss it with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or Wall Street Journal. CodeInconnu (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a nobody, who along with 99+% of the readers of this page, does not even have a vote. Though even if we did, it would be the duty of WP to avoid influencing - or appearing to influence - how we used that vote. Given that, I presumed that it was self-evident that doing 'something stupid', meant doing something that voters thought was stupid in some way. The acres of text you are generating, shows how easily this article could go off-topic. I have little interest in whether Cat has a capacity for self-govt, of course it does, maybe it really would be better alone as some think, but it tells nobody anything about the terror attack to even discuss the topic here. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. WSJ, Guardian and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung decided that the current climate IS relevant to the reactions to the attacks, and have even speculated on what it reflects about Catalonia. I didn't decide it, and neither did you, they did. This isn't me or a self-proclaimed nobody writing from a blog and suddenly expressing their personal view that Catalan self-government matters or doesn't matter here, this is three established and respected newspapers. If you can find references countering those views, you are more than welcome to add them too. Is it understood now? CodeInconnu (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only Gdn piece I know of, is an opinion, not a Gdn editorial, opinion pieces carry the authority of the writer, not the paper. Frankly, it doesn't matter if Queen Liz, Pope Francis and whoever else have "speculated on what it reflects about Catalonia" or its independence ... it still has no direct relevance to the attacks, only to the referendum.
 * I'm not discussing this further, since we are just going round in circles. I think this text is WP:COATRACK and the only thing of interest to a non-Sp/Cat readership is that the attacks may influence the referendum. Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "opinion pieces carry the authority of the writer, not the paper": wrong. They may be personal opinions but the paper has the last word on publishing them, depending on whether they tie in with the paper's editorial line. That's the difference between a newspaper and Reddit or any other forum. Otherwise e.g. Nick Griffin or Richard Spencer could have published an article in the Gdn espousing their white supremacist beliefs--let me know if they ever have.
 * "Frankly, it doesn't matter if Queen Liz, Pope Francis and whoever else have "speculated on what it reflects about Catalonia" or its independence ... it still has no direct relevance to the attacks, only to the referendum" (boldface is mine): now THAT is sensu stricto a personal opinion. Mr or Ms Pincrete's opinion is that "it still has no direct relevance to the attacks, only to the referendum". Find a newspaper featuring this opinion among at least one of its contributors, and nobody should be able contest its inclusion in this article.
 * "I'm not discussing this further, since we are just going round in circles. I think this text is WP:COATRACK and the only thing of interest to a non-Sp/Cat readership is that the attacks may influence the referendum." Agreed on the first sentence, disagreed on the second. I think it is not WP:COATRACK and the attacks' influence on the referendum is as unproven and speculative, to say the least, as the status of the Mossos' response as a marker of self-government proficiency, because neither event (the referendum or independence) has taken place yet. So the word "may" applies to everything, as long as it's properly referenced. CodeInconnu (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You cannot use this to justify what FrankAll says], we have no idea what the FA piece is nor whether it has been reported in a partisan manner or not. Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC) ... ps the Gdn is famous for printing opinions from those it disagrees with, or has no official opinion about, it's called listening to the other point of view. If they wanted to identify the opinion as their own, they wouldn't call it an 'opinion piece'. It is silly to imagine that Gdn has some official position on whether Catalonia should be independent or not, or is competent or not, or thinks that Britain should have an opinion at all. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right on both counts, I've replaced "by foreign media" with "in foreign media" in that paragraph; I cannot uniformly state "in opinion pieces in foreign media" because WSJ is almost certainly closer to analysis than it is to opinion (it would be nice if someone could grant access to the full article) so it's best to play it safe. You're also right about Frankfurter, I need to look for the original source. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pincrete CodeInconnu Guys, the last sentence in the international response section is plain silly and NPOV. One (IMO idiotic) opinion piece written in the Guardian does not merit inclusion. I welcome counterarguments here before I take it out. We should not use the Mossos effectiveness or incompetence for political propaganda here for either side, otherwise this article will turn into a battlefield. Gaditano23 (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm staying out of this, beyond us saying that the attack MAY impact the referendum, I think it's all undue / borderline coatrack.Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pincrete I agree. Btw, in the Madrid Bombings article the situation eventually got so out of control they had to eliminate all political aspects and eventually spin it off into a new "conspiracy theory" article. The years of battling wasted a lot of time of a lot of people. Gaditano23 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Gaditano, I'm obviously not going to engage in an edit war with you. I've done something more intelligent than that. Hope you got my little message on your talk page. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is an international source which directly contradicts your carefully constructed paragraph. Do you really want to turn this article into a battlefield over the independence issue??? Do you want dozens of sources on the CIA and Spanish police warning the Mossos etc...? Don't you think its a bad route to follow? I'm with Pincrete . Just let it go. Focus on the terror attack, minimal to no discussion on identity politics and certainly no use of a terrorist attack for "national glorification" please. Gaditano23 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

After your last edit in the article, you're now in violation of the three-revert rule having made three reverts within less than 24-hours and not to one or two, but to three different editors, who seemingly agree that the controversial content is off-topic and not relevant to the article. I've read the discussion. Firstly: there's a full-blown constitutional and legal crisis between the Government of Spain and the Generalitat as of now, and no current source is–with all due respect–caring a fuck about what effect may the attacks have on the referendum, if those may have ever had one. The referendum is not even assured to be held. The whole discussion on what effect the attacks may have on it is just pointless. Secondly: the sources you are bringing forward are mostly opinion articles. Not from newspapers, but from particular people. That a newspaper publishes one's opinion does not make it supportive of such an opinion; that's what editorials are meant for. Opinions are not facts. And even if your sources were to be considered as valid (which, as I see, Gaditano already pointed out the absurdity of turning this into a mess of sources involving an unrelated theme), I can't see how this wouldn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:COATRACK. There's two entirely different topics being mixed in such a paragraph, and the only view given is one that is positive towards Catalan independence. This definitely doesn't respect NPOV, but even if we were to work this into a more balanced text, this would still be off-topic. Thirdly: from the current discussion I've seen you've opened an ANI on Gaditano23. It looks obvious that every other participant there but you see that as an absurd move. Then, I've checked your own contributions. Aside from being a new user, it looks like you're entirely committed to this article (and, more specifically, that section). All of your edits in Wikipedia but one (the first one, a typo fix) are related to this article, either directly (edits on article and talk) or indirectly (edits on Gaditano23 and Pincrete's talk pages over this issue, as well as the already mentioned ANI). It's obvious that you're the only one here seemingly supportive of keeping such controversial content, and that it is just you the one willing to engage in edit warring or in personal conflict with other editors. Let it go, because this will go nowhere. Impru20 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, let's wait a few weeks and we'll see. The only intelligent thing you've said among all of your hogwash is "there's a full-blown constitutional and legal crisis between the Government of Spain and the Generalitat". Let's see how that ends. There's no hurry to edit this now... CodeInconnu (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is about the attacks, even if there were a "a full-blown constitutional and legal crisis", it would probably not belong here beyond the briefest mention. 'Unfolding news' is not what we do - or should do. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is on the attacks. Unless there's some direct connection to other events, there's no point in showing off-topic material here. Also, remember to keep civil. Impru20 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Also, remember to keep civil" good advice, apply it to yourself, case in point "Firstly: there's a full-blown constitutional and legal crisis between the Government of Spain and the Generalitat as of now, and no current source is–with all due respect–caring a fuck about what effect may the attacks have on the referendum, if those may have ever had one." (Impru Dixit). By the way, shits and fucks are usually given, not cared [about]. Merriam Webster. You're welcome. CodeInconnu (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone seemingly didn't read the "with all due respect" note that came just before. Btw, WP:CIVIL is directed towards inter-editor behaviour. The "caring a fuck" note was not aimed at you, but rather, at sources at general when entirely ignoring the attacks at this point when covering referendum events. However, I see from your own replies both to myself as well as to other users throughout this discussion that you've much to learn about WP:CIVIL, so that's why I provided you with the link. Remind you that you ANI-ed another editor for much less than some things you've said here, so keep coherent with the editing standards you intend to apply to other editors and apply them to yourself as well. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page is not properly archiving

 * Does anyone know why this talk page is not properly archiving? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Never mind, problem solved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2017

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 09:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Barcelona attacks → 2017 Catalonia attacks – Per outcome of WP:Move review, this proposal is relisted. In order to reach a clearer outcome, I am restarting this discussion from scratch. I presume interested parties are watching the page, and will participate as they desire. This relisting is perfunctory; I have no preference on the question. bd2412 T 19:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support move for the reasons I listed above last time. But what happens if it is the same as last time? 85% majority argue for the title to be 2017 Catalonia Attacks - but the 15% keep getting the article relisted as 2017 Barcelona Attacks? Reaper7 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reaper7, I advise you to GIVE your reasons, even if you copy/paste them from last time, no one will remember them nor go looking for them. This discussion is NOT A VOTE, if opposers make a stronger policy-based argument, that will "win the day". Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move as per WP:PRECISION and WP:RELIABLE. Reaper7 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME, While I agree that 'Catalonia' is slightly more accurate, since the second attack and an explosion and several other related events happened outside Barcelons, nonetheless Eng-speaking sources are referring to this as 'Barcelona' by a massive factor. All these events were related to the initial attack in Barcelona and the text makes clear that some events were elsewhere in Catalonia. As another editor said in the previous discussion, "The name should be that which a person using Wikipedia would be most likely to use." and that is clearly 'Barcelona'. Many historical events are remembered with names that trade-off accuracy against ease-of-rememberance (Pearl Harbor attack happened inland in Hawaii, as well as in PH itself, most of the Battle of Midway happened well away from Midway, conversely, the Battle of Britain only happened in SE England, and this happened in a place which few will remember, and the Battle of Hastings wasn't in Hastings at all).Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME The Attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack in various points of Hawaii, so arguments related to a secondary failed attack outside Barcelona is invalid. The other incidents were not attacks at all, just incidents. In the English language the vast majority of sources refer to it as Barcelona attacks. The basic attack was in Barcelona and the objective was always Barcelona (even though the botched operation also led to a foiled attack in Cambrils). Note, I agree with Catalonia attacks being the name for the article in the Spanish wiki because that is the most common name in the SPANISH press and sources. In English, we should stick to Barcelona attacks. I also don't like the political connotations of presenting it as an attack on the political entity of Catalonia, which it evidently wasn't, so there is also an WP:NPOV concern here. Gaditano23 (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also noted the NPOV issue in my reply (to bring it down), but just to reply to you: Catalonia is an autonomous community. It is both an administrative and geographical region in Spain widely recognized as such, so I don't see where is the "political connotation" of using it as part of the title. Unless you specifically want to point to one or want to mix such an issue with the current Catalan crisis in Spain (which has nothing to do with this), the title by itself has no political connotation at all (not more so than using 'Barcelona', indeed). Impru20 (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRECISION. The scope of the article covers several events which happened throughout Catalonia (two of them did not even happen within the province of Barcelona, but in Tarragona), so 'Barcelona attacks' would not be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. Also, I'm not sure WP:COMMONNAME applies to 'Barcelona' given that, when most sources use it, do so to refer specifically to the Ramblas van attack. Yet they also use 'Cambrils attacks' to refer to the other event (i.e. the BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, EuroNews, The Telegraph, CNN, etc, when they speak of the 'Barcelona AND Cambrils' attacks), so COMMONNAME does not apply (unless you wanted to name the article as "2017 Barcelona and Cambrils attacks", which would also be PRECISE). I would not object to 'Barcelona attacks' if the only attack had happened in Barcelona, but Cambrils was also a target, and it was not a concurrent event to the attack in Barcelona (which is one of the main differences with other events I've seen reported here, such as 'Pearl Harbour attack', where the main targets were the port and the ships within there even if concurrently such an attack spread to other locations in Hawaii). We also have, for an example of a similar event, January 2015 Île-de-France attacks, which uses the name of a region as the article title due to attacks happening in different locations instead of just 'Paris attacks'. I also disagree 'Catalonia' has any political connotation of any kind, since it is a legal administrative division just as Andalusia, Extremadura, Galicia or any other autonomous community in Spain, so NPOV would not apply here, either. Impru20 (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quick comment Impru20 Note there is a solid rationale for "January 2015 Île-de-France attacks", which sounds very weird and normally against policy: There are long separate articles for each of the sub-components of that attack such as Charlie Hebdo shooting (which occurred inside Paris), hence the need for Precision. If we had an article on Cambrils attack then I would tend to agree with you. But in the case of Barcelona the Cambrils event is secondary enough to not require an article, particularly since it was not even planned for that location.Gaditano23 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find such a rationale in the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks talk page or anywhere. There were four events there, of which two (Charlie Hebdo and Dammartin-en-Goële) are covered in the same separate article, and another one (Fontenay-aux-Roses and Montrouge) has no separate article at all, with 'January 2015 Île-de-France attacks' covering all of these as a single chain of events (some of them having their own articles due to sheer size of information, but that is not something that could not happen here either). In this case, there are plenty of sources highlighting the Cambrils attack as a separate event to the one in Barcelona, so that already brings down the COMMONNAME claim (with 'Barcelona attack' referring only to the Ramblas van attack). That it was "planned" or not is not relevant for the title (the Barcelona attack was not planned the way it finally happened, either, nor was the Dammartin-en-Goële event). Again, see PRECISION: titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The scope of the article is not about the Barcelona attack only, but about the four events as a whole (it is even stated as such in the lead section and in the infobox, where all events are reported on their own). So, '2017 Barcelona attack' would be too precise to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. As for the NPOV reason brought forward, 'Catalonia' is a widely recognized name for the region in administrative and geographical terms, both within and outside Spain, so there is no political connotation use here either. Impru20 (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Impru20, personally, I think "Île-de-France attacks" is a bad choice of names, most people not familiar with France and Paris don't know that this is the correct local name for the 'Paris region'. Those with a basic knowledge of French will wonder where this 'French island' is, and why it was attacked, whereas most people will remember in 5 years time that attacks took place in and around Paris. 'Catalonia' is more familiar to English speakers than 'Île-de-France', but I still think that most people will not remember this event as happening in Catalonia. Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there's a random mixing of policies here. Most people opposing the move bring COMMONNAME, but don't bring up any sources showing that the whole chain of events (and not just the van attack in Las Ramblas) is dubbed as this in English media. This article's topical scope is not just on that attack, but on the whole chain of events, and I fear it is being overlooked by those bringing up COMMONNAME. Other examples brought here (Pearl Harbour, Hastings) focus on a single battle/attack, which is not the case here either (also barring the fact those are key historical events whose titles unambiguously meet all naming criteria). On the naturalness of the title (which I think is what you mean when speaking of "what are people going to search for/remember"), I think the issue here is that most people see this as an article covering only the Barcelona attacks, when it is referred to in a small section of the article only. If people want a "Barcelona attack"-only article, then one should be created. The topical scope of the article covers separate (even if connected) events, and the title should not only be NATURAL, but also PRECISE.
 * In the case of the 'Île-de-France' article, it may be a title which is not very natural, but then, it is just as precise as needed (whereas using 'Paris' would be far too precise). Also, Wikipedia's title for the article covering the region is, indeed, Île-de-France, and not 'Parisian Region' or 'Region of Paris', no matter how much more likely are people going to search for these. Subsequently, the event article's title is named like that as per WP:NCE structure: when, where, what. The same would be applied here, IMHO. Impru20 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose re common name and Catalonia is POV and hence contradicts our NPOV policy. Catalonia is not a country or a city, I'd prefer to see Spain attacks except that Barcelona is the common name. We must be very careful to be neutral re Catalonia in this tense political time and not take sides and Barcelona is the neutral option. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment 'Catalonia' is the widely recognized name for the autonomous community/region comprising the territories where the events happened, both in English and Spanish sources. WP:NCE does not require the place of the event being a "country" or "city", so there's no POV issue here at all. Also, 'Barcelona' is only the common name for the van attacks in Las Ramblas, but plenty of sources refer to the Cambrils attack separately . Impru20 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly that 'Catalonia', is in no way PoV and the 'independence' issue should be irrelevant here. Scotland is still Scotland whether it is part of the UK or a country in its own right. Pincrete (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRECISION as there were locations outside Barcelona involved, and it is therefore misleading to describe all of these incidents as being Barcelona attacks. In response to the point made by, it is not POV to use the term Catalonia, since regardless of any current political crisis, Catalonia is recognised as a region, and these incidents were confined to that region. We are merely describing events that occurred in a particular part of a country, and the independence referendum has nothing to do with this topic anyway. This is Paul (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly that we should not get involved either way with any 'local' disagreement about the status of Catalonia. Catalonia EXISTS, currently as a region and it is not PoV to either use, nor not use that name here. Whatever we choose to call this article is neither acknowledging nor denying any aspirations or claims that Catalonia might have to independence. Most readers on Eng WP are not going to be concerned at all about that issue in relation to these attacks. Whilst we would not want to offend either Catalan nor Spanish readers, their preferences are not our primary concern. Pincrete (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per COMMONNAME and most if not all sources are going by "Barcelona attack" (2,790 results for Catalonia attacks and 20,200 results Barcelona attacks) so clearly "Barcelona attack" is by far the COMMONNAME. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above !vote was copied from the above RM but obviously I've updated the results as well as changed the results from "attack" to "attacks"- Although it's not in the millions like it was above it's still a huge amount compared to Catalonia so as such as I still believe COMMONNAME would apply, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. When I see Barcelona attacks, I instantly know what you're talking about because that's how virtually every news source (at least in America) referred to it. When I see Catalonia attacks, I'm confused and think that it's some other attacks that I haven't heard of before. Catalonia attacks could also potentially be considered Original Research and Point of View because there are very few sources are calling it that. JDDJS (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak support for move - If many of the attacks mentioned in the article did not occur in Barcelona, then I support move to 2017 Catalonia attacks or 2017 Spain attacks. However, if 2017 Barcelona attacks is extremely common, then I can support that as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the first attack took place in Barcelona, a second attack took place in Cambrils (quite some way from Barcelona) a few days later. Other events relating directly to these two attacks, (including a - presumed accidental - explosion), also took place some distance from Barcelona, but were not attacks. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support move WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. The attack that occured in the night after the Ramblas attack didn't occur in Barcelona, so calling the incidents the 'Barcelona attacks' isn't geographicly accurate . So '2017 Catalonia attacks' is more suitable per WP:RELIABLE.JBergsma1 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Even if we unanimously agreed we can't find Cambrils, it still wouldn't be in Barcelona. Likewise, not having known Catalonia existed prior to this is no reason to continue believing we still don't recognize the name. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move176.86.24.48 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most reliable sources call this the Barcelona attack, and so should we. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is how it is widely known in the reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:PRECISION: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." It is simply inaccurate to refer to the series of attacks as the "Barcelona" attacks. We are not here to perpetuate lazy falsehoods. A redirect from "2017 Barcelona attack" to the more accurate title is appropriate. Regarding English-language source usage, many of those sources were specifically referring to the event in Barcelona not the wider series of attacks. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. We are here to perpetuate lazy falsehoods, if those "lazy falsehoods" are corroborated by the majority of reliable sources. See WP:VNT. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But the "majority of reliable sources" refer specifically to the event in Barcelona when referring to the "Barcelona attack", not to the wider series of events which do also constitute the primary topical scope of this article. I've seen no one of those basing their claim on COMMONNAME commenting that a majority of sources also refer to the other main attack as "Cambrils attack". "2017 Barcelona and Cambrils attacks" could be argued under COMMONNAME, but definitely not "2017 Barcelona attack" (which does not comply with PRECISE either). Impru20 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the question is what the common name is for this event in English-language sourcing. I have not seen any evidence at the move review, the last RM, or this RM that the proposed title is more common way of referring to it in English-language sourcing. Without that evidence, the title should default to staying at its current title. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME that supersedes WP:PRECISION. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


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