Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image

Rue des Orfèvres at Christmas (2011)

Rue des Orfèvres at Christmas (2016)

Rue des Orfèvres at Christmas (2016)

Why does this article have an image of Christmas decorations from 2014? I've removed it once, as not relevant, but it's been returned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep it - it is an excellent illustration of how the attack area typically looks at this time of year.XavierItzm (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep it Agreed with the above, it's an illustration and it's useful for the readers since it helps to better understand what the assault area looks like in this period.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly marked as 2014. Does illustrate how the area would've looked like on the night of the attack in 2018. If an when we have more relevant photos - then the current one should be replaced - but at present - it is the sole photo we've got. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest another choice of pictures. The shooting started in Rue des Orfèvres, which is a pretty street near the cathedral. Many photos on Commons show it with Christmas decorations, just as it also looked like yesterday, as you can see here: Category:Rue des Orfèvres (Strasbourg). --Edelseider (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

not opposed to any of the above - look good as well. Just don't overload the article with too many. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done, --Edelseider (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed {{coord|48|34|54|N|7|45|03|E|region:FR-67|display=inline,title}}; the coordinates given resolve to a point inside the cathedral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone provide the correct coordinates, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Now found. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Neudorf

Neudorf (Strasbourg) could do with being expanded from the French-language equivalent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to translate this around noon, if nothing urgent comes up in between. Rama (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Now done; thank you, Rama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing source

@Gianluigi02: What source were you referring to in this edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of victims and sources

Hello, and thank you to the contributors of the articles.

Please keep in mind that this is a very hot topic where sensationalist coverage is both bound to occur and very harmful: in particular, for the number of victims, the highest number is not necessarily the most current, nor the most precise. Prefer official sources (the Préfecture du Bas-Rhin would be the local authority in charge, [1]) and beware of unserious sources (I see that we already have links to Fox News, I would see this as is dancing on the fine line between sensationalist reporting and politically-motivated infotainment with little regard for reality).

Good continuation. Rama (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As of now, it is almost impossible to understand the way the victims are counted. The Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace, from Strasbourg, which should be the best informed and most accurate paper, recently wrote Le dernier bilan provisoire est de 2 morts, 1 personne en état de mort cérébrale, 12 blessés dont 6 en urgence absolue, which means there are 2 dead people and one brain-dead person. What is the difference between "dead" and "brain-dead", isn't brain death the irreversible passing of a person? I really don't understand why such a distinction is made, it only seems to cause confusion. Unfortunately, since 6 of the 12 injured persons are "extremely seriously injured", the final number of fatalities will probably grow. A sad time for that lovely city! --Edelseider (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though to you and I the distinction may be irrelevant, for medical and legal purposes there is a distinction and DNA may just be reporting what a hospital has stated. Here's a paragraph from the lead of the brain death article:

Brain death is used as an indicator of legal death in many jurisdictions, but it is defined inconsistently. Various parts of the brain may keep functioning when others do not anymore, and the term "brain death" has been used to refer to various combinations. For example, although one major medical dictionary[6] considers "brain death" to be synonymous with "cerebral death" (death of the cerebrum), the US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) system defines brain death as including the brainstem. The distinctions are medically significant because, for example, in someone with a dead cerebrum but a living brainstem, the heartbeat and ventilation can continue unaided, whereas in whole-brain death (which includes brainstem death), only life support equipment would keep those functions going.

From the clinical death Wikipedia article: "Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain human and many other organisms' lives." See also Death#Problems of definition and Legal death. AHeneen (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @AHeneen:. As a matter of fact, it is now reported that the brain-dead person has died: https://www.dna.fr/actualite/2018/12/13/strasbourg-l-assaillant-toujours-introuvable. --Edelseider (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The hunt for Chekatt

Maybe worth mentioning: as a woman in Switzerland had thought to have seen him aboard of a train between Basel and Zurich, the whole train was stopped and searched: as it turned out, in vain (https://www.dna.fr/faits-divers/2018/12/13/une-voyageuse-croit-voir-cherif-c-un-train-immobilise). As long as that vicious killer is at large, there will be a lot of disruption in the area between Eastern France, Southwestern Germany and Northern Switzerland. --Edelseider (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The "Investigation" section was updated to "Investigation and manhunt". Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Motivation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Various editors have added links and templates suggesting an Islamist motivation for the incident; none of these have been cited, so I've removed them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Apart that the shooter shouted "Allahu akbar" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46535552), which may be a clue. --Edelseider (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not evidence that the motivation was Islamist: the shooter might have been a Muslim motivated by something else (maybe the first victim was, say, his love rival) or a fascist trying to stir up hatred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, but according to the serious newspaper Le Monde, he became radicalised in the years 2013 to 2015, while in prison, and has been registered as a potential radical terrorist in January 2016 (for "radicalism", read "islamism"): C’est lors de ce dernier passage en prison en France, de 2013 à 2015, que le suspect se serait radicalisé. A cette époque, il a attiré l’attention des services de renseignement pour des violences, pour la radicalisation de sa pratique religieuse, et son prosélytisme. En prison, l’homme « incitait à la pratique de la religion sous une forme radicale, mais rien ne permettait de détecter un passage à l’acte dans sa vie courante », a précisé le secrétaire d’Etat à l’intérieur, Laurent Nunez, sur France Inter, mercredi matin. En janvier 2016, il est inscrit au fichier des signalements pour la prévention de la radicalisation à caractère terroriste (FSPRT). --Edelseider (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, for for "radicalism", I do not read "islamism". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Then you may act in bad faith, because the words "religion", "pratique religieuse" and "prosélytisme", even if they are in a foreign language for some people, are clear enough. They translate as "religion", "religious practice", and "proselytism". Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT may apply. --Edelseider (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you think I'm acting in bad-faith then WP:ANI is that way --> Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, Islamism is not a religion, it is a political doctrine. Everything you cite here indicates a religious practice, not a political one. Pigsonthewing's caution is commandable and his rigour in his treatment of the subject is a standard to live up to. Rama (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies loud and clear. Here's another source:
Chérif Chekatt, a criminal who fell into radical Islam

With regard to Rama's comment, the issue is that it is both. A very potent mix, indeed, as there is no separation of mosque and state. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it says he fell into radical Islam. It doesn't say that the attack was motivated by that. As to "not hearing", even that citation was not in the article until you added it a few minutes before your comment; made hours after mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

And yet the references to Islamism have been restored to the article, still with no citation suporting them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No motivation has been stated yet. We should not speculate motivation based on religion or unrelated (non-terrorist) criminal history. Kingsif (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source showing that this was "part of Islamic terrorism"? If so, it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, the templates and categories making the claim should be removed/ changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be right. It is possible his shouting "alah Akbar" as he gunned down the victims was just his way of saying "good evening, folks." For all we know, this was simply a multicultural misunderstanding, and we should not read anything into "la radicalisation de sa pratique religieuse" and "prosélytisme", nor "radical Islam", as enumerated by the sources above. XavierItzm (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

So the answer to "Does anyone have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism'?" is "no". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Many participants in the so-called "Manif Pour Tous" are linked to hard-core Catholic fringe groups, yet I do not see it implied that their homophobia stem from their catholicism. Same here. Rama (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

So, the terrorist was a jihadist, yet we know nothing of his motivation?
French police say the gunman is one of 12,000 ‘gangster-jihadists’ who exist under the radar

Maybe the above might give a clue as to his motivation. XavierItzm (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

ISIL recognized Chekatt as one of their "soldiers", thus his motivations are officially quite clear now. I added that content to the article with some sources (in French). Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Everytime somebody loses a pencil, ISIL claims that as one of their terrorist attacks. These claims are absolutely not to be taken as face value.

As for the gunman, he was a petty criminal whose motivations could as easily have been suicide by cops. We simply do not know at the moment. Your urge to jump to conclusions is unserious, unrigourous, unscientific, and the best thing you can do with it is to reflect on the reasons you feel so. Rama (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christmas Market Name

I think it's worth having a translation of the German name of "Christmas Market". --DeeM28 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As indeed we do - the first sentence of the "Background" section is "The Christkindelsmärik is the Christmas market in Strasbourg". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not German, it's Alsatian. Rama (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rama: Good spot. What abut "Neudorf"? And other terms? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Neudorf means "new hamlet" in both Alsatian and Standard German, so it's difficult to say, although from the locality you could attribute it to Alsatian too. On the other hand, "Christmas market" (litterally "market of child Christ") is written Christkindlesmarkt in Hochdeutsch, so you can spot the difference. Something like märik is typical dialect. Rama (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Language templates

Why were instances of {{lang|fr changed to {{lang-fr with |label=none? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This has been corrected already. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Not so: the later form are still in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

And now I have had to restore several language templates that were removed completely. That anyone would do this beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

...and again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of people injured

We have new, uncited figures for the number injured; and those in the lead/infobox do not match those in the body/ table. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Some misconceptions

I see a number of misconceptions that keep reoccurring in this article:

• Islam and islamism are not the same thing: one is a religion, the other is a political doctrine.
• islamism and terrorism are not the same thing: most islamists are quietists, the very few who support violent action make a disproportionate amount of noise and attract a disproportionate amount of attention.
• being a petty criminal, even a violent one, and being a terrorist, are not the same thing. As of now, the perpretator was apparently know for the former, but not the later
• being a terrorist apologist and being involved in terrorist plots are not the same thing; here again, the perpretator was apparently know for the former, but not the later (much like in the US many people have the flag of the Confederation on their cars: they may be suspected of neo-Nazi sympathies, but this is insufficient grounds to suspect a terrorist conspiracy)
• The "Fiche S" is basically the French Security services shit-list for inside use only. It carries no judicial weight, it has been known to contain hearsay and unsourced judgements of value etc. It is not specific to islamists, nor to terrorists. Many similar files and programmes aim at filing people before they become terrorists. Entailing that you find people there who are not. Not yet. Or not known to be.
• Racial profiling is not condoned by French authorities. There is an appalling amount of de facto racism in the police (much like in many countries), but this is not official policy and it shoul not be suggested that it is.
• There is such a thing as suicide by cops (A suicide by cops may constitute terrorism as well). At the moment, as far as I know, we do not know the motivations of the perpetrator.

I am sure there are more. In any case, these traps can be easily avoided by rigourously quoting reputable sources. Rama (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Suicide by cops" can not have been the motive since Chekatt had several armed encounters with the cops and always violently resisted or fled; indeed, the fact that he went into hiding although he had been injured, and that he died opening fire shows that he rather did want to kill than to be killed. --Edelseider (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

People who commit suicide by proxy tend to imitate patterns that they see in the news. In the US it is "madman shots people and is killed on the scene"; in France it is "madman shots people, escapes and is killed a few days later" — exactly what happened. So no, I do not think that resisting arrest and fleeing precludes a suicide by cop, and on the contrary I find it likely that the perpetrator got exactly what he expected, and possibly hoped for. Rama (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any serious source (neither Médiapart, Politis or Le Monde diplomatique, nor Valeurs actuelles or Dreuz.info) for the claim that in France it is "madman shots people, escapes and is killed a few days later" - it sounds awfully artificial. --Edelseider (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is what happened in numerous high-profile terrorist cases such as Khaled Kelkal or the 2015 shooters. I am surprised you would contest that. Rama (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is pure WP:OR, unless you have a credible source stating as a fact that there is a rule (and not a series of coincidences) such as In the US it is "madman shots people and is killed on the scene"; in France it is "madman shots people, escapes and is killed a few days later". --Edelseider (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you started making assumptions on the killer's state of mind from some of his actions, I am merely pointing out that there are alternative explanations to what you propose. The burden of proof is on you. Rama (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rama: Since the above section is closed, i'll answer to your accusations toward me (unserious, unrigorous and unscientific). Let me see if i understand well.

• A gunman shoots down several people while saying "Allahu Akbar"
• He escapes
• Members of his close family (parents, brothers) are arrested and it appears that they're all radicalised islamists
• After a manhunt the gunman is shot down by the police
• ISIL recognizes (this is the word used by the sources) him as one of their "soldiers"
• As far as i know, all ISIL claims of terrorist attack on French soil were confirmed by the French authorities.
• Many serious French medias confirm his terrorist motivation https://www.bfmtv.com/police-justice/attaque-a-strasbourg-le-tueur-a-crie-allahou-akbar-1586569.html :"Au regard du mode opératoire et du fait que le tireur a crié "allahou Akbar" au moment de passer à l'acte, le procureur de la République de Paris confirme l'aspect terroriste de l'attaque de Strasbourg.")

That said, i confess that i should have said above "if ISIL's claim is true, then his motivations are quite clear", but sincerely, i find your above accusations toward me quite harsh, and your comment about "how i feel" irrelevant. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

All the elements you quote would be consistent with a stupid and desperate man committing suicide by proxy; ISIL is a laughable source, and BFMTV is what France has the closest to Fox News.

Nobody is saying that there is no terrorist connotation to this incident — of course there is. What I am saying is that we must not be seen as implying things that are unverified or downright false. Rama (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: the "recognize" sounds like badly-translated French, where the word would have the connotation of granting someone a status, not as stating a fact. Rama (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in the previous section on this matter: Does anyone have a reliable source showing that this was "part of Islamic terrorism"? If so, it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, the templates and categories making the claim should be removed/ changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and furthermore, other mass shootings typically do not have mentions of terrorism in the lead. The article on the Charlottesville car attack, which is a clear-cut terrorism attack, mentions "terrorism" only at the end of the lead and as a quote. Stating as a matter of fact at the present incident is a "terrorist mass shooting" at the start of the header is inconsistent with common practices. Rama (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point, you're asking for sources stating explicitly that it was an islamist attack while for now, we only have numerous evidences of such an attack but no official statement. Your request will find its answer when the French authorities will complete their investigation. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rama: I think you misunderstood me when i said that his motivations are clear, i was talking about the terrorist connotation of this attack, not the islamist connotation of the attack. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Even that is doubtful, or at the very least should be carefully qualified. If you can read French, see [2]: TL;DR, "real" terrorists, the ones with networks and sleeper cells and all the fancy stuff, do not go around annoying prison guards, going holier-than-thou on other detainees, and generally bragging about their rigourous practice of a religion that they actually do not even know well; the profile is more that of a desperado who explains his actions by retrofitting a religious narrative, than that of an actual holy warrior. Rama (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The terrorist connotation of the assault is not doubtful according to the article you posted (from the very serious "Le Monde"). Yes, i speak French with a professional level (i speak better French than English without any doubt). the article denies the Islamist motivation of the gunman, but not his terrorist motivation. In all the readable part of the article, Chekatt is referred to as "the terrorist" and he is listed as being part of a new wave of terrorism which has become dominant. As an aside, i would say that you have to keep in mind that French authorities condemn anyone who questions the terrorist nature of this type of attack as apology for terrorism ("apologie du terrorisme" in French), therefore, finding reliable sources denying the terrorist nature of the attack may not be an easy task. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ISIL

I thought it was our practice not to recognise ISIL's claims, which often do not stand up to scrutiny? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not strongly opposed to the mention of ISIL's claims in themselves, but I really feel our formulation must not lead readers to think there is any weight to these claims, at the moment. I have changed "recognized" (sic) to "claimed", accordingly. Rama (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

If anything, we treat ISIL claims as an unreliable source. Anything must be substantiated with a WP:RS for the dubious language to be rewritten. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we keep, remove, or amend the current claim, which says "Soon after his death, ISIL claimed him as one of their 'soldiers'."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"one of our soldiers" is standard Amaq terminology for "acting for reasons sympathetic to our cause" ie no tangible organisational link to IS. Amaq typically offer stronger language (and evidence) when a more solid link exists. The original source for this is AMAQ, since IS don't have any 'official' outlet for statements - and yes, Amaq will claim the bad weather is caused by them if it serves their purpose. We typically note such claims, without drawing conclusions from them or implying they are reliable. (Peu après l’annonce, Daesh l’a reconnu comme un « soldat » du groupe Etat islamique, a annoncé jeudi son média de propagande Amaq - Soon after, on Thursday, Daesh recognized him as a "soldier" of the Islamic State, through their propaganda outlet Amaq.) Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews item and cross-linking

Is there an article for this incident in en.Wikinews and is there a way to cross-link the items between the projects? AadaamS (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews stories are cross-linked with Wikipedia articles by adding them to the Wikidata item about the subject; in this case d:Q59647120. There does not yet seem to be a Wikinews story about this incident. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Modèle 1892 revolver

The "Modèle 1892 revolver" claim is not in the cited source, but is in the archived version. Has the claim been retracted, or is the page for rolling news? Is a better source available? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I have found several sources that back this detail: [3] [4] [5]. The francetvinfo one is the best in my opinon. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Adsed to article, and the original source removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

2000 attack by Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat

The 2000 attack was planned by an Algerian group called "Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat". This group later (2003 if my memory serves me right) gave allegiance to Al Qaida. When English-speaking sources mention an "al-Qaeda-linked grouped", they are making a fuzzy reference to the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. So please stop removing the exact name of the group. Rama (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: this also stands for the article about the SGPG and about the 2000 plot. Rama (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rama: It's not for us to overturn the court judgement. The sources I provided say otherwise. I suggest you read Strasbourg_Cathedral_bombing_plot#Trials_and_convictions. M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The section you link to points to operative of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, exactly as I say. Your version is just less precise and only reflects that English-speaking sources picture events in US-centric terms. I am flabbergasted by your insistence in removing this information. Rama (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

They were accused of belonging to a group with ties to al-Qaeda. Those charges ended up being dropped since the prosecutor failed to prove the link. If anything, we should add "alleged" to the link with al-Qaeda. M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be curious to see your sources for that, but in the meantime there is a wealth of sources stating that the 2000 Strasbourg plot was done by members of the SGPG. A casual search brings out [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Rama (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

They're all there in the concerned article, all you have to do is read them. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Chekatt Sr. also classified as a radical ("fiche S")

https://www.dna.fr/actualite/2018/12/16/le-pere-de-cherif-chekatt-temoigne-s-il-m-avait-parle-de-ce-projet-je-l-aurais-denonce
Interesting things to take away: He was opposed to his son's sympathy for ISIL and horrified by his crimes. Nevertheless Abdelkrim Chekatt fait l'objet d'une fiche S en raison de son fondamentalisme religieux. --Edelseider (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"terrorism" and "radical islamism" etc. in the lead of the article

From what French authorities said, the perpetrator was not known as a terrorist threat. He had a "Fiche S", which amounts to being on an arbitrary shitlist of the security services; furthermore he was on a list of suspected radical islamists — in his case, for annoying fellow inmates with his constant God-bothering. This is absolutely not the same thing as contemplating a terrorist attack.

The man was known as a violent, prolific petty criminal. At the moment we have no indication that the security services saw him as a potential terrorist; given that several sources have explicitly stated that it was not the case (see [12] for instance), I do not expect this to change. Therefore, nowhere should we say or suggest that the security services saw him as a potential terrorist.

That he had drifted into a form of radical islamism seems to be correct, as is his listing on a watchlist of the security services specifically aimed at such evolutions. Nevertheless, putting this detail in the lead of the article insinuates that it is a core fact in the affair, something for which we have at present no clue. Note that we do not say that the man had an unhealthy interest in fireams, for instance, although that seems equally true and certainly relevant to his last actions. Therefore, the islamist opinions of the perpetrator may be mentionned in the body of the article, but they have no place in the lead. Rama (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Rama, the Fiche "S" is a list of individuals deemed to be a "threat to national security", it's not an "arbitrary shit-list" as you call it. The "S" stands for "state security". Your own source says that he was also on the "Terrorism Prevention and Radicalisation Reporting File". He was on those lists because the French security services believe he was an "Islamist extremist", to quote them. I very much doubt he was put on such lists just for "annoying fellow inmates". That's your own opinion.

The security services didn't say said that they "never saw him as a potential terrorist". In the link you gave, an unnnamed source said they didn't expect him to mount an attack.

This man killed at least four civilians. He was on terrorist watchlists for "Islamist extremism", and the authorities say they're treating the attack as "terrorism". These are key points which most definitely belong in the lead. Noting them in the lead isn't "making insinuations", it's simply stating the key facts and nothing more. ~Asarlaí 19:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I know what a "Fiche S" is: it is a work document by the security services for their own use, which contains hearsay and unattributed testimonies, and that may be set up for people who are not violent. As such, it is a sort of shitlist by the State, and it is arbitrary since there no standard of proof nor judiciary value to it. Nothing can be inferred from the existence of such a document.

The "Terrorism Prevention and Radicalisation Reporting File" is a different document, which lists people who are not terrorists — which is rather logical since its aim is "terrorism prevention", i.e. preventing people from becoming terrorists.

The source I give has several quotes:

• aucun signe avant-coureur de passage à l’acte ("source close to the inquiry")
• n'a pas essayé de se rendre en Syrie, Il avait un profil qui ne paraissait pas inquiétant outre mesure ("Laurent Nuñez.")

Would you say of somebody seen as a potential terrorist that "his profile is not especially worrying"?

Similarly, the reasons for his files is given by two quotes:

• Il a été incarcéré à de multiples reprises et était connu de l'administration pénitentiaire pour sa radicalisation et son attitude prosélyte en détention en 2015. (Rémy Heitz)
• C'est à ce titre uniquement qu'il était suivi, de manière assez sérieuse, par les services de renseignement mais comme beaucoup d'autres individus qui ont pu manifester une pratique radicale religieuse en détention (Laurent Nuñez)

So yes, it is my opinion but most importantly it is the opinion of a Procureur de la République and that of a Secretary of State, entailing that it is also the opinion of the administrations for whom they are authorised to speak. Because some opinions are based on the study of facts.

By selecting facts and arranging them as you want, you can give almost any impression you want. That is what "tendentious" means. We do not know at the moment what motivated the attacks, selecting elements of the perpetrator's biography to construct a narrative is therefore neither objective nor neutral (are you tempted to mention the attacker's attraction to fireams? His match with the feminist concept of "toxic masculinity"? Why one thing and not the others, which are certainly as true and necessary to his crimes?), and is not legitimate. Rama (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your own opinion of the Fiche "S", the fact is, it's a list of individuals the French security services deem a "threat to national security". He was on that list because they believe he was an "Islamist extremist". If the French authorities, and all the main news outlets, deem these things important enough to mention, why shouldn't Wikipedia? If your worry is that we're overlooking the other main facts about him, then we can mention those too – for example that he has a long criminal record. I'm not minded to mention his "obsession with firearms" or "toxic masculinity" because no sources mention those things. As I said, the lead must summarize the article, but right now a big bit of the article is being overlooked in the lead. ~Asarlaí 20:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Navbox

Why remove Islamic extremism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivebills (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For the reasons given earlier on this page. In particular, note: "Does anyone have a reliable source showing that this was "part of Islamic terrorism"? If so, it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, the templates and categories making the claim should be removed/ changed." - which, no such source having being provided, they duly were. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Asarlai just said why it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivebills (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

[Ec] Also, at the same time as re-adding it, you removed a comment which said "Do not re-add {{Islamic terrorism in Europe}} without a citation; see talk page". Did you add such a citation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Because we do have citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivebills (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Which are? Do you see consensus to re-add it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Asarlai just said why.

{{Islamic terrorism in Europe}} Which of these attacks would you guys actually consider Islamic terrorism? Legit, I'm curious. And how do you narrowed it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivebills (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Those with reliable citations. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So would you remove any more from that list? I'd like to know which ones and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivebills (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

If I found them to be uncited, yes - and so should you or any other editor. Do let interested people know, on the template's talk page, if you find any like that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

But I do not know where to look. They're all clearly Islamic terrorism to me. If I'm going to understand why this should not be included I need more examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivebills (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No you do not. You simply need to understand that it will not be added without a reliable citation supporting it. WP:V - a core Wikipedia policy - explains in more detail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe has an article – Islamic terrorism in Europe. If entries are removed from one of those, they should also be removed from the other. TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on closer reading, Asarlaí was discussing a phrase in the lede, not the navbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alivebills (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Navbox, Motivation: Radical Islam - Support or Oppose?

Curious as to what other editors think. For me, clearly and obviously radical Islam at play (as per police reports, national security reports and the perpetrator's owns words) but my politics are centrist, so we must take into account what those editors of the left think also - for example when he screamed Allahu Akbar while shooting civilians - perhaps may just have seen a muslim friend mid shooting and wished to inform that friend that 'God is great.' For me however - clearly extreme Islam. So do you support or oppose 'Radical Islam' as the motivation in the navbox - please also provide refs, lets see what we are dealing with here.

• Support as per police reports and the perpetrator's own words as listed on this talk page. Zenostar (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Here it is yet again: "Does anyone have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism'? If so, it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, the templates and categories making the claim should be removed/ changed." No such source has been provided; and so they were. Your opinion as to what it is, is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Father of attacker admits his son was an ISIS supporter

I am a leftist apologist myself, but even I cant hide what this man's motivations were anymore.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenostar (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And again: "Does anyone have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism'? If so, it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, the templates and categories making the claim should be removed/ changed." No such source has been provided; and so they were. Your opinion as to what it is, is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Photo of Chérif Chekatt

@Sandstein: You uploaded a non-free image of the living person, File:Chérif Chekatt.png. I don't know why the image is necessary. It doesn't increase readers' understanding of the event itself; the article is not primarily about the suspect. George Ho (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I will remove the image pending decision on if French State media is fair use. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It could be seen as part of the ongoing effort to find him. See also https://twitter.com/PoliceNationale/status/1072933158407016449. --Edelseider (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Kingsif. I also added RFU and PROD tags; re-pinging Sandstein for notification. George Ho (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is as much about the suspect as it is about his crime. Given that he is a fugitive, there is also a compelling public interest in displaying his photograph so that he can be recognized by readers; this is why the police made the image available. I'll be re-adding the image. Sandstein 20:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that the police bulletin with his image and other info is more appropriate for the article because the manhunt is a main aspect of the subject. I think that the bulletin has more contextual significance (the 8th non-free use criterion). AHeneen (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently seems to have fair use criteria applicable. Wikimedia page should be updated. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Works by French authorities are not in the Public Domain in the way works by US Federal employees are. On the other hand, the photograph is an identity photograph, entailing that it was probably taken by an automatic device, and in any case that the very point of the photograph is to provide a standardised portrait of the subject ­— in other words to eliminate originality, which negates the source of copyright. It is therefore rather likely that the image is in the public domain for lack of originality. Rama (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, even with standards of the French law (c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France), the US law would also apply, meaning that the image is to be treated as "fair use" in the US. Moreover, the Wikimedia servers are located in the US; Wikimedia projects are primarily bound to the US law. Unsure whether WP:non-U.S. copyrights is precise on this. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Somehow, it's removed/orphaned; if anyone objects, please feel free to revert. George Ho (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I did. Sandstein 12:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Now it's re-removed. George Ho (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And the image is deleted as "replaceable"; the deleting admin Explicit must be contacted first if anyone wants the image un-deleted. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Explicit will now provide the replacement image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: WP:NFCC#1 does not require a free image to exist at the moment, but that the possibility for one to be created. We did not use a non-free image for Kim Jong-un simply because one did not exist and it was difficult to create one.

The perpetrator of this attack is still alive, so the possibility of creating a freely licensed photo still exists. Even if he was dead, precedent has shown that the use of a non-free image about the perpetrator in the article about the attack and not a biographical article did not comply with WP:NFCC. The uploader Sandstein should be well aware of this. ℯxplicit 04:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Coming in here to correct you: at the time of your comment, he had been dead for three days, a fact advertised on the main page in the news, and in the lead of the article, and on the image file page. Kingsif (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: Maybe we should discuss images of suspects and perpetrators at WT:NFC. Shall the issue be discussed there right away, or what else? George Ho (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: You have asserted that the image is "replaceable". How so? Or would you care to reconsider your deletion rationale, now you know the facts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thank you for correcting me, I did indeed misread the infobox in 2018 Strasbourg attack#Attacker.

@Pigsonthewing: That does ultimately not address the replaceability issue, as noted on File talk:Chérif Chekatt.png by both Jayron32 and Thryduulf. Where is the evidence of the extensive search for a non-free image of the subject? Did any contributor reach out to people who possibly could be in possession of such a picture (family, friends, witnesses, etc)? Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg regarding the use of a non-free image of Sally Brampton three days after her death, which was replaced within two weeks when someone made an effort to obtain a freely license image as an example. Additionally, as I mentioned above, the precedent that disallows use of a non-free image of the perpetrator in the article about the attack as opposed to its use in a biographical article about the perpetrator remains unaddressed. I have yet to see any WP:NFCC-related justification for the use of this image. ℯxplicit 14:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've seen several claims that a fair use image here would not be replaceable - although they essentially all boil down to "he's dead", not even "he's dead and I can't find anything on Google images" (even the latter is, per long-standing precedent, not sufficient). However nobody has even attempted, as far as a I am aware, to demonstrate compliance with NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Noted that Explicit believes Wikipedians should "reach out" to the family of recently killed suspected terrorist, or to witnesses of a terrorist atrocity, asking for pictures. I trust that no-one is either stupid or callous, enough to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice assumption of bad faith their Andy. In previous discussions it has been made clear, by Explicit and others, that reaching out should be done in a sensitive manner (e.g. by waiting - there is no deadline) but this is not the only way to find free images, also as repeatedly noted. You will also note that there is no provision in the NFCC for allowing a fair use image because it might be insensitive to contact some of the people who might have a free image and/or may release a non-free image under a free license. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The only assumption of bad faith is yours: "Did any contributor reach out to people who possibly could be in possession of such a picture (family, friends, witnesses, etc)? ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh? How does Explicit asking a simple question asking whether anyone has done those things demonstrate that I am assuming bad faith? You are the person who believes that Explicit is asking people to be "callous" or "stupid". There are good reasons why it is probably too soon to reach out to those people, but the fact remains that unless you or someone else has made a thorough attempt to locate a free image (for example by reaching out as described) then it is not possible to be certain a fair use image meets NFCC #1. Not that this is at all relevant until point 8 (which you are still ignoring) is satisfied. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Islamic State claimed the attack

Maybe we should mention that the Islamic State claimed responsibility of the attack through its Amaq news website, but also adding that it didn't give any evidence.

In addition, it seems that the attacker was supporting IS, but we have to wait until the investigation is over in order to be sure. Gre regiment (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The article already says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. Thank you! How did I miss it? lol Gre regiment (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

References