Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 15 December 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

---

2018 Strasbourg attack → 2018 Strasbourg shooting – Why use the vague term 'attack' when 'shooting' is a much better suited word? Not to mention it makes it consistent with similar article titles like Charlie Hebdo shooting or 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Wq639 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that shooting is better than attack, because it's more precise. Strasbourg shooting would be better; we don't need the year in the title, because there haven't been any other notable shootings in Strasbourg. Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting Brainist (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep "attack", as it was a terror attack, or, better yet, title it the 2018 Strasbourg terror attack. XavierItzm (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Closed off-topic debate

"Terror attack" doesn't really mean anything; it's a suggestive term news media use when saying "terrorism" would potentially be inaccurate/libellous. We definitely shouldn't use that phrase in the title of an article (or anywhere else, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Tell it to Wikipedia, see if you can convince her: "List of Islamist terrorist attacks". XavierItzm (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC) That doesn't say "terror attack" either. It says "terrorist attack". "Terror" and "terrorist" are not interchangeable. TompaDompa (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Go tell the New Yorkers: "September 11 attacks". XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC) You've lost me. That doesn't say "terror attack" either. My objection is to your suggestion that the article be named "2018 Strasbourg terror attack", specifically because "terror attack" does not have any real meaning, and not because of any objections to the word "attack". TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC) That's OK. Look: you have the 9/11 attacks, you have the Strasbourg attack. The only real difference is scale. XavierItzm (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Not only is it just wrong to compare this to 9/11, the reason for confusion is because you have been insisting on using the term "terror attack", and then use as evidence a page simply called "attacks", and then be patronising about it. And this is after it was requested you stop with this debate separate to the discussion at hand. Stop. Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC) We don't title articles "terror attack". Please resume discussion on whether it should be called "shooting" or not. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting. Rama (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting, it was, by the way, the name i gave to this article when i created it. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What's the justification for including the year? Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, France, like other countries are repeatedly targeted by this kind of actions, if, in the future, there is another shooting in Strasbourg, the year will be useful in order to differentiate them. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't name articles based on what might happen in the future. If another notable shooting happens in Strasbourg, we would change this article title at that time. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What's your point with including the date ? Indeed, this shooting occurred in 2018. also, many Wikipedia articles have a title that contains a date. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

See my comment below about WP:NCEVENTS: for events, the title should usually include three elements when, where, and what. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point. WP:NCEVENTS even explains «There are no other [xyz] articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier.» XavierItzm (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it had been a knife attack would we call the article 'Strasbourg knifing'? Almost certainly not. So what's special about an attack with guns as opposed to any other implement? Attack is a better description. 86.148.182.127 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well what about this for instance, 2018 Paris knife attack? --Wq639 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and there are others, including 2016 Hamburg stabbing attack, 2017 Hamburg knife attack, 2018 Hamburg stabbing attack & Munich knife attack. However, the reason against changing this article's title to include shooting is that The Guardian article states that CC stabbed some of his victims. Jim Michael (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

These article titles might suggest '2018 Strasbourg Shooting (or Gun) Attack' for the current article, but it's then getting unwieldly, so my preference is still '2018 Strasbourg Attack'. 86.148.182.127 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article states that CC also used a knife in this incident, hence attack is a better word to describe it than shooting. The only other notable crime in Strasbourg - the Strasbourg Cathedral bombing plot - wasn't an attack. Therefore the best title would be Strasbourg attack. Jim Michael (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting name change. It better describes the damage done than the vague word "attack". I mean editors accuse each other every day on Wikipedia of attacking each other and no one dies. "Shooting" is more accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - as this was a shooting & knifing attack - hence not just a shooting. Examples of shooting above were all "pure" shooting situations. Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

To what extent was the knife used in the attack then? As far as I understand the fatalities were shot by the gun, and much of the media have called this incident a 'shooting', with little if any coverage about him stabbing. --Wq639 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As stated, it was not just a shooting, but a knife was also used. Attack covers a situation where multiple types of weapon were used. 129.67.116.97 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The incident wasn't just a shooting as people were also stabbed. Therefore 'attack' in the title would be better. JBergsma1 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – a knife was used as well, and besides, "shooting" sounds like a contest. --Edelseider (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Agree on 2018 Strasbourg shooting. --Dans (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Note - WP:CRITERIA requires "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". In this case, the parallels between the 2018 Strasbourg attack and previous attacks, such as the article title September 11 attacks indicate the use of [identifier] + [attack] is the norm. XavierItzm (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting again that this is not comparable to 9/11 in any way, and therefore the title doesn't need to be consistent with that. However, more similar events are the (perhaps more notable, and more fatal) 2017 London Bridge attack, and the relatively similar (except by weapon) 2017 Westminster attack. Year + identifier + "attack". In both those cases, there were other articles which required the year to be included, and the Jacksonville Landing shooting, for example, doesn't have the year (and uses "shooting", though the one attacker used two guns and nothing else). Kingsif (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Würzburg train attack (ax and knife,) 2016 Normandy church attack (explosives and knives,) 2017 Orly Airport attack (pellet gun,) April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack, (shooting,) 2017 Levallois-Perret attack (car ramming,) 2017 Notre Dame attack (hammer and knives,) Carcassonne and Trèbes attack, (shooting.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

See my comment below about WP:NCEVENTS: for events, the title should usually include three elements when, where, and what. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose because attacker attacked people with both a knife and a revolver. And because "attack" is our common usage in terrorist attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. --LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 13:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Attack" covers it, "Shooting" doesn't quite cover it. There is no good reason to limit the scope of the article title and thereby make it slightly less accurate. Captainllama (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Because it is not wrong. WWGB (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support rename, the shooting is the primary event - the presence of a knife is fairly incidental. Also support retaining year - it helps to identify the subject, not simply differentiate it from other events in Strasbourg. Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

He stabbed some of his victims, so the knife was a significant part of the attack. We usually use attack when there are multiple types of weapons used, and often even when there was only one type. The year is only needed in the title to disambiguate, otherwise we'd name our articles 1987 Hungerford massacre, 2001 9/11 attacks, 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting, 2018 Toronto van attack etc. In any case, many years in the future, a high proportion of people looking for this article won't remember its year, hence they wouldn't type the year in the search box when looking for this article. Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

See my comment below about WP:NCEVENTS: for events, the title should usually include three elements when, where, and what. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree on the basis that it wasn't just a shooting. It might be better to change the title of the CH shooting to "CH shooting attack" or just "attack on CH". Sweatisoftheessence (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per what others have said about a knife being used, that makes it more of an attack then a shooting even if the shooting was the main way of causing harm. TheMesquito^buzz 11:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - as mentioned by several others, news reports indicate that he knifed several victims. Even if the shooting was the main part of the attack, I think that the knifing incidents should make the the title "attack" and not just "shooting". Also, some have said that the year should not be included, but the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions says that event page names should include when, where, & what, unless another name is more common or the event is easily known without the year (eg. "Tenerife airport disaster", "Chernobyl disaster", "Charlie Hebdo shooting", "September 11 attacks"). WP:PRECISION says that "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." The events naming convention is thus one of the exceptions to the precision criterion. I think just "Strasbourg attack" is too vague, because "attack" could imply one of the many times the city was militarily attacked in its history. AHeneen (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Chekatt had pledged allegiance to the "Islamic State", this is now established

• https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/22/europe/france-strasbourg-attacker-intl/index.html
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46660217
• https://tribune.com.pk/story/1872594/3-strasbourg-attacker-pledged-allegiance-daesh/

--Edelseider (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a terrorist attack. Pigsonthewing says so. Alivebills (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't misquote me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep removing the Islamic terrorism template, so... Alivebills (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Andy Mabbett the ultimate holder of truth here? This is just incredible! --Edelseider (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

When a cat is called a cat

This article from Spiked calls the attack an "Islamist attack". That's for the people who ask for sources calling that islamist attack an islamist attack... --Edelseider (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, nice, they also say that climate change is overstated. cygnis insignis 19:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, so what? This is not about climate change. Do you have any proper argument, or just superficial remarks? --Edelseider (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, I like that they mix in some positive stories. Not offering argument, or expecting anything resembling one in return. The Koch magazine seems to have been only glanced at superficially and contradicts the grab. cygnis insignis 21:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The article also says "Soon after his death, the Islamic State claimed him as one of their 'soldiers' through their propaganda outlet, Amaq. Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister, dismissed the claim as 'completely opportunistic'." With a source to boot. Alivebills (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Alivebills, I didn't give them a click, for what I think are obvious reasons. Cheers for bringing the quotation. cygnis insignis 21:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Alivebills (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis Calling it a "Koch magazine" is just POV-pushing. Do you also talk about "Omidyar magazines" or "Soros magazines", or do you just point out perceived bias when it comes from conservative sources? You are using a straw man here, and being everything but an honest broker.--Edelseider (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, but they are Marxists, aren't they? cygnis insignis 22:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you are very naive to believe Alivebills on sight, because the article (the Spiked article, written by deputy editor Tom Slater) does not say "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'." at all. Nowhere. --Edelseider (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the entire discussion. I wasn't citing the Spiked article, I was citing The Guardian. Alivebills (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article, which has been repeatedly added & removed from the lead, clearly states that it was a terrorist attack. Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Jim Michael, yeah, I think I saw that somewhere. cygnis insignis 22:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Then we should consider which source is more accurate in their content: NYT or The Guardian. I say The Guardian because it includes an actual quote from France's interior minister, an actual French government official, who says the Islamic State claim is bogus and opportunistic. We have yet to see a follow-up statement on that on his part. I can't access NYT because of its accursed paywall, so I don't know if there's a government official or counter-terrorism investigator who refutes the minister's claim. Alivebills (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. This was (according to the sources) an Islamist terrorist attack carried out by a 'lone wolf' individual with (apparently) no official connection to IS. There is no contradiction there. Not all Islamist terrorism is carried out by IS members.Gwandon34 (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to point out that one of the dead is actually a Muslim. So if this was really an act of Islamic terrorism, wouldn't the attacker have made an effort to avoid hurting fellow Muslims? Alivebills (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article isn't paywalled.

Most victims of Islamist terror attacks are Muslims. Many Islamists hate Muslims of other divisions and/or believe that Muslims who are killed in Islamist attacks will spend an eternal afterlife in paradise. Jim Michael (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Alivebills, your question is irrelevant. The sources clearly state that this was a terrorist attack, so a terrorist attack is what Wikipedia should call it. Our own personal views on whether they rightly label this a terrorist attack mean nothing.Gwandon34 (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article is asking me to subscribe for a dollar a week if I want to continue reading, and I can't get out of it. And how do we know that was even the case? That's called speculation. Alivebills (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I read the whole article minutes ago & I've never subscribed to the NYT.

What exactly are you saying is speculation? Jim Michael (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a link to the article, only the mention of one. I'll note that if access if restricted by paywalls then googling the title may allow readers indirect and one-off access to that article. cygnis insignis 05:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

[1] Jim Michael (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Jim Michael, thanks, I had no trouble accessing that and will have a look later. I'm off to enjoy the madness in the midday sun. cygnis insignis 07:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Alivebills is clearly and purposefully (but why?) mixing up the chronology of events. The chronology is the following:

• Chekatt committed his attack
• ISIS claimed it
• Interior minister Castaner called that claim bogus
• a few days later, the video of Chekatt pledging allegiance to ISIL was found.

When Castaner called ISIL's claim bogus, the allegiance video had not yet surfaced. He did not call the claim bogus in spite of the video, but before the video was found: [2], [3]. Alivebills is lying when he says otherwise and Wikipedia is a cesspit full of malign people, but this is not new. --Edelseider (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Alivebills is objectively wrong about what he thinks the page should say. However, I think he is honestly wrong and unaware of how Wikipedia operates, and I think ‘lying’ is too strong an allegation. Gwandon34 (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

We should notice that Cygnis insignis trusted him on sight as soon as he saw me linking to an article from Spiked, and did his utmost to attack me ("climate change" - this is called whataboutery - "Koch magazine" - this is called ad hominem - "seems to have been only glanced at superficially" - this is just vile and stupid.) The point remains: people are asking for articles using the expression "Islamist attack" and I provided a link to an article using the expression "Islamist attack". I wonder why I came under such ruthless attack myself right after... --Edelseider (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A summary of what is known

The following facts have been established without a doubt, and reported by the BBC, the NYT, the Guardian, CNN, etc.

• Chérif Chekatt's father is a Fiche S Islamic fundamentalist, as are some of Chérif Chekatt's brothers.
• Chérif Chekatt was considered as a gangster-djihadist and had shown radical religious practices in Islam.
• He was a Fiche S, too.
• During the attack, he shouted "Allahu akbar".
• According to his father, Chékatt was fond of ISIL, while his father was not.
• Once Chékatt died, ISIL called him one of their soldiers.
• This claim was taken with scepticism by French authorities and called bogus by Interior Minister, Christopher Castaner.
• A few days later, a USB stick containing Chekatt's pledge of allegiance to ISIL was found, vindicating ISIL's claim.

Alivebills pretends that an Islamic terrorist would not have killed a Muslim, as Chékatt has done. The 2016 Nice truck attack had claimed the lives of several Muslims who were in the crowd. It was called an act of Islamic terrorism.

There is no reason, except bad faith or worse, not to mention Islamic terrorism in that particular case. --Edelseider (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Rama, Pigsonthewing: What arguments are there as of now against including the category Category:Islamic terrorism in France, apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist? --Edelseider (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, I imagine ISIL want it in the category, along with the twenty odd mentions of 'terror' in the article. Not an argument for exclusion, but worth considering when making this a priority and damning all and sundry, stating "Wikipedia is a cesspit full of malign people", making personal attacks, and opening complaints on anyone who shows up. Have you considered whether you might be better disposed not drawing attention to what these terrorists want to be talked about ad nauseam, sowing fear and hate. cygnis insignis 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"What arguments are there as of now..?" The same as before: If you have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism', it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, then templates and categories should not be making that claim. "apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist?" Where have I ever given that as a reason? Making passive-aggressive insinuations of that kind suggests that you are not acting in good faith. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, you didn't want to read the article that I provided. Instead, you used whataboutery ("climate change") diff and ad hominem attacks ("Koch magazine") diff. And you relied on Alivebills's summary of another article to get an idea of the article that you didn't want to read diff, thus making a display of your closed-mindedness and holding me in open contempt through your accusation of me not having understood what I had read diff. Now, why of all people should I even speak with you? Didn't you show that you were biased against me from the very moment you spouted "climate change" (something completely off topic and only designed to malign my contribution to the debate), and didn't you insult my intelligence by claiming that I didn't understand what I read? --Edelseider (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, you are correct that I attempted to malign the source, Koch backed 'marxists' fuelling a culture war for their personal profit. Likewise, a source that is clearly involved in global warming pseudo-scepticism is extremely dubious to editors who value V and RS. You can safely characterise that as me being 'triggered'. That is about the business of content, however, pointing out those contradictions is unlikely to de-radicalise this interaction and its boisterous to and fro. My personal interest is to fight war itself, my success in helping others to liberate themselves is about 3–5 %, maybe less, getting to 10% would be a notable success. My editing focus has been elsewhere, things I think deserve more attention, but for the radicalism, indignation and pings drew me back here. cygnis insignis 02:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, why do both the French and the German Wikipedias call the attack an "Islamist terror attack"? Granted, French Wikipedia does, generally speaking, suffer of a credibility problem, but that is not the case of German Wikipedia. This is not whataboutism but a serious question. There is at present no "smoking gun" in the form of a minister or public prosecutor having declared it officially to be what it no doubt (!) is, but it doesn't prevent our colleagues from labelling it, does it? Why? And, as I said, there is at least one English-speaking outlet that used term: One of the grimmest details to come out of the Islamist attack on a Strasbourg Christmas market last week – in which 29-year-old Chérif Chekatt killed four, left one brain dead, and injured 11 others – was that one of the men killed had emigrated to France to escape the Taliban. --Edelseider (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t agree with the stronger claims made by Edelseiser. But is there any reason why this page should not describe this incident as a terrorist attack.

In my opinion, the New York Times article I have repeatedly cited puts the matter beyond any doubt. There is no reliable source I am aware of contradicting it (ie, any reliable source positively suggesting this was NOT a terrorist attack.

The only argument against this appears appears to be Aluvebills’ honest but misguided stance based on his own personal analysis of the situation, which is clearly irrelevant.

So I ask again, is there any sensible reason why this page should not follow the sources and label this incident a terrorist attack? Gwandon34 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Gwandon34 I am afraid you will get no answer because our opponents are satisfied with the article just as it is. I can only hope that it will turn out at some point that Chérif Chekatt had doubted climate change or drove a diesel car, or both. --Edelseider (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)