Talk:June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack

ISIS
Again I have removed the mention of ISIS from the lead as their claim is baseless. Linking to their "news agency" is like saying ISIS did this attack because ISIS says so, we need it to meet WP:V by adding sources that back this claim up as the truth. As far as terrorism goes, last I saw this was still under investigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He wrote a farewell letter addressed to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Linking to ISIS is not wrong. --Rævhuld (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many terrorist attacks (if that is what this is) are carried out in the name of ISIS but that does not mean the group itself coordinated the attack; It's called a lone wolf. ISIS also claimed responsibility for an incident at a Filipino casino but that turned out to be a robbery gone wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the attacker has clearly linked himself to ISIS - by a declaration, then this is clearly ISIS linked (as the perp admits inspiration by ISIS - who is inspiring Muslims to rise up and strike). When ISIS just claim responsibility - it is a different matter, though still worth mentioning as it is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So ISIS links itself to the attack, the attacker links himself to ISIS, but we shouldn't include ISIS here because it has nothing to do with ISIS? I don't get it. --Rævhuld (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event
Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event
 * Alfred Nemours (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that this article be merged and redirected to List of terrorist incidents in France. The subject had three days (I'm being generous) of news coverage immediately following the incident and has not been addressed in any significant way or shown to have had a significant societal impact. Please do not show me passing one-sentence mentions of the attack in reports regarding other incidents because, as we should now, they do not contribute to WP:CONTIUEDCOVERAGE. Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, and WP:GEOSCOPE, this incident does not necessitate a standalone page but, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, can be merged. Much of the relevant information from this attack is conveniently listed at the proposed merge destination but I still am seeking some sort of consensus before making the move. If everyone is WP:SILENT, I have unanimous consent to merge.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that useful information is inevitably lost when articles are merged into lists. WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you stopped reading after you read "Merge proposal". You would have noticed I addressed WP:PRESERVE in my rationale. All of the actual "useful information" is already addressed in the list.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging major contributors to the article for a more thorough discussion in accordance with WP:MERGE procedures:, , , , (I did not ping Gregory because he is already aware of the discussion). Please read my rationale and analyze the article to help come to a consensus.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Sorry, I messed up your username.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to add to my rationale, WP:RAPID obviously no longer applies. The incident received coverage for about three days and disappeared from view, aside from brief passing mentions in media reports about other attacks. No WP:LASTING impact was established and a merge can/will retain essential information. At this point, we have an article with background info already better covered elsewhere (like the merge destination!) and trivial facts about the perp.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's notable enough to have a standalone article and information would get lost by implementation in a list.--Rævhuld (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * can you explain what useful information will be lost? May I remind you Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Look at the list and its source, and tell me with all honesty if it does not cover the essential components of this incident. And even if it doesn't, this merge discussion can address that with another sentence or two.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Graceful cites appropriate Wikipedia policies that apply here which include WP:PRESERVE. I disagree that information would be lost on lists as we have featured lists here on Wikipedia that easily summarize things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment at least a discussion was opened for this, as opposed to the nominator's move to make another article into a redirect without any discussion whatsoever. User2534 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * relevance? Are you going to participate here...or what? Per WP:BOLD and WP:MERGE I could make a redirect I thought was uncontroversial. This article has been through an AfD so such a move would need a consensus. I can happily begin a discussion there as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that this page had a well-attended AfD less than 2 months ago. And AfD that overwhelmingly ivoted to Keep this article.  This appears to be a sneaky attempt to overturn the consensus reached at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am getting awfully tired of you casting aspersions. Consider this a final warning to stop. You literally asked me to slow down my AfDs now you are asking me to start an AfD?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You believe terrorist attacks are non notable. I believe that many, this one included, pass WP:NCRIME and that we can keep articles on stabbing, shooting and ramming attacks with ideological motivation and international new coverage.   of course, you are the editor who has been WP:HOUNDING me, following me around, WP:BLUDGEONING me on talk pages, maligning me and attempting to merge this and another terrorism-related article after a series of articles on terrorist attacks that you brought to AfD were kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What a stupid assertion. Of course, many terror attacks are notable. What is more laughable, the editor who has accused me of having lower standards for Israelis and wrote the textbook for WP:BLUDGEONing talk pages, is now accusing me of hounding and bludgeoning. I hope you realize I have the terror, crime, and political projects watchlisted in order to participate at AfDs. Is that hounding? Should I remove them from the watchlist because my dedication to following policies does not follow your personal opinions?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Slick references this discussion WP:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Slick's attitude is typified by his edit at WP:Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010), in his Nom for deletion of an article about a an Israeli soldier sitting in the drivers seat at a red light in peacetime who was tabbed by a terrorist who leaned into the car to stab him.  "Sadly, these types of incidents are common on both sides and it requires noteworthy evaluation overtime to be consider more than news."   The soldier died.  The fact is that such attacks are not "common on both sides", as Slick would have it. Like the one Slick attempted to delete, Attacks by Israelis on random Israelis are no more "common" than are attacks by French citizens visiting other countries.  It is, in fact, hard to think of anything like the series of 6 attacks on uniformed gendarmes and soldiers by Islamism-inspired perps in or near Paris in 2017, or the Murder of Lee Rigby, being carried out by Israelis, or by French civilians visiting a Muslim country.  Slick simply has a generally dismissive attitude towards the notability of terrorist attacks.  We differ.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am glad we are sticking to the topic of what was supposed to be a civil discussion. Certainly, AfDs regarding attacks in other countries will contribute to this incident in France. I may as well close this since you have once again tainted the discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories / templates
I removed the templates / cats as premature: diff. The article states: Until the terrorism has been confirmed, I believe to have the terrorism-related templates and categories in the article. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "...the incident is under investigation as possible terrorism".
 * Further edit to address the same concern and to remove OR; preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2018

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

Not moved. bd2412 T 23:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack → Champs-Élysées car ramming attack – Clearly disambiguate from April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack and also clarify that it's a car ramming incident (WP:RECOGNIZE). Also removes the need for a year, which is especially beneficial here as it's already a pretty long 'June 2017'. Gateshead001 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose we use the year and in this case the month helps. Why all these RMs to make articles more difficult to identify?? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't you see how unnecessarily long this title is? It also creates much confusion with the April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack article name. --Gateshead001 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I choose to oppose because WP:COMMONNAME. MayMay7 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.