Jump to content

Talk:2017 Barcelona attacks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 475: Line 475:
::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. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 17:38, 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. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:CIVIL|keep civil]]. [[User:Impru20|Impru20]] ([[User talk:Impru20|talk]]) 18:01, 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 [[WP:CIVIL|keep civil]]. [[User:Impru20|Impru20]] ([[User talk:Impru20|talk]]) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:::"Also, remember to [[WP:CIVIL|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. [[User:CodeInconnu|CodeInconnu]] ([[User talk:CodeInconnu|talk]]) 18:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:39, 16 September 2017

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)[reply]


2017 Barcelona attack → 2017 Catalonia attacks – To 2017 Catalonia attacks. 213.151.46.208 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The events intersect in ways that would make seperate articles repetitious and unclear IMO. Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose It should be change 2017 Catalonia attacks, not Catalunya. 88.12.65.9 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TheRichic (talk) 2:39 PM, 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, August 18, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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, August 18, 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not anymore: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atemptats_de_Catalunya_de_2017. RPR (Talk) 11:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support Multiple attacks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - It is more accurate name. Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Huh? - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - Given the events outside of Barcelona it's a more accurate name. Sunomi64 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Well, you said it. 2004 Madrid attacks and not 2004 Spain attacks.83.55.126.197 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cambrils was an attempt of attack, they were not escaping from police.83.60.66.78 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Gaditano23. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree with Gaditano23. Either 2017 Barcelona terror attacks or 2017 Spain terror attacks. XavierItzm (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
More to the point, Alcanar and Ripoll (etc), were not attacked. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
WWGB BLP applies for recently deceased people too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP also applies to the recently dead, see WP:BDP. TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
«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)[reply]
@Xavierltzm: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guilt is not implied.Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I've removed their names. FallingGravity 17:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 19 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: Not moved., snow oppose. No such user (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


2017 Barcelona attack → 2017 Barcelona van collision – I believe titling this an "attack" is presently a violation of WP:BLPCRIME guidelines that we not assert any living person has committed a crime unless they are convicted of that crime. I believe we should call this a collision until there is a conviction for that reason. Otherwise it violates BLP which should be of higher concern than what the media (who has no BLP policy as strong as Wikipedia's) is calling it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This was as much a "collision" as other Islamist attacks have been deemed to be "workplace violence" (USA) and "mental problems" (Germany). But moving forward, all terrorist vehicular attacks such as Nice, Stockholm, Paris, Barcelona, can be called "collisions" in Wikipedia! Yeah! That's the ticket!. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. @ScratchMarshall: If I hit you with a hammer, did you collide with the hammer or did I attack you with the hammer? This was a series of coordinated attacks done by the same individuals, which has been proven multiple times by sources straight from the police. HeinzMaster (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

technically the hammer collides with me if you do that. Police are not juries, police statements do not qualify as convictions and do not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME requirements. I can see many objecting here on grounds of personal opinion and not policy. It seems like a coordinated attack to me too! I get it. But allowing this is a BLP violation. Our opinions do not matter, opinions of media do not matter, only whether a criminal conviction has happened where the government has decided they are at fault. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ScratchMarshall: Last I checked, that BLPCrime talks about living people, I have never heard about convictions for dead individuals, so your argument is mute. Most of the terrorists are dead, so unless they get a Ouija board, they are never getting one. The article you keep linking for mentions living people, so your argument is especially mute.HeinzMaster (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the nominator ScratchMarshall's discussion at Talk:Unite the Right rally, see this. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH Neo-Jay, this is not to make a point, I legitimately think it should be renamed out of concern for the men who were arrested, abiding BLPCRIME. I hadn't read the article until it was pointed out at which point became aware if the problem. This is not a vote folks, if policy does not back your objections your input should be discounted. If we are going to constantly ignore BLPCRIME instructions then they should be eraser and we can march bravely forward into calling 99% of celebrities rapists/traitors because some source makes the claim. Never mind conviction requirements, seems to be the line of thought here? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ScratchMarshall: I did not say that this was to make a point. I just provided a link for the content that Power~enwiki mentioned so that other readers could understand the context and make their own judgments.--Neo-Jay (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ScratchMarshall, there is a difference between whether a 'crime' occurred and who, if anyone, was responsible for it. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Alcanar survivor accused of terrorism

Out of concern for WP:BLPCRIME we should not refer to this man accused of terrorism as a terrorist, only report which media police have done so, unless he is convicted.

By extension, referring to any of the men killer in Alcanar as terrorists seems like something to also avoid as that could impact trial of survivor. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Just because they had TAPT, which the NYT calls "the Islamic State’s signature explosive, TATP"[1], and 120 propane cylinders at the Alcanar house, does not mean that the men at Alcanar were islamic terrorists in any way, shape, or form. For all we know, this could very well end up being deemed by the government a case of workplace violence, for which there is precedent in the U.S., or mental issues, for which there is precedent in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. One must always look at precedent. Or it could be that the people are freedom fighters, or scientists researching the chemical Acetone Peroxide. We just don't know at this point, and have no way of knowing. In any event, any survivors at Alcanar are mere suspects at this point, and if determined that WP:BLPCRIME has any relevancy here, it must be applied in full to the extent that it may apply. No exceptions of any sort. XavierItzm (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, they are dead, hence there is gonna be no trial. BLPCrime does not apply. The living suspects are included in a seperate section and there are no references to them being terrorists HeinzMaster (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP also applies to the recently dead, but that isn't the main point, which is that it is no part of our function to even slightly act as judge or jury and it is a disservice to readers for us to do so. We don't try to follow these rules because we are stupid or naive, simply because what is possible or even what is probable is different from what is known. XavierItzm, no WP:OR means NO OR, not "only a little OR when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face". Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a case of WP:BLPCRIME here, as the accusation is not made in Wikipedia's voice, is made by major reliable sources as cited, and thus Wikipedia is not acting as "judge and jury" here as long as reliable sources are given. Collect (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying that we were currently "acting as judge or jury", except in the sense of caring one way or another how much evidence (eg gas canisters, TAPT) pointed to them being terrorists. A ton of evidence on its own counts for nothing, an explicit statement from investigators (with or without evidence), is rendered verbatim without question by us. Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ RAPHAEL MINDER; RUKMINI CALLIMACHI. "Spain Looking for Moroccan Man in Barcelona Attack Investigation". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 August 2017. They also found traces of the Islamic State's signature explosive, TATP, which is relatively cheap but highly volatile because it explodes at low temperatures.

Casualties statistics

@Emijrp: I appreciate your edit to collapse the statistics table just for desktop view. However, the mobile view doesn't collapse it. Also, per MOS:COLLAPSE, unless it's to hide redundancy and the lengthy table, we should be cautious about collapsing content, like a table, unless there's a good reason to collapse it. As a user using the desktop view, I just felt forced to click the "show" button to see number of deaths of various nationalities. Why not remove "collapsed" to turn class parameter into "wikitable sortable floatright collapsible" while retaining the show/hide button? --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion to concerns raised here #List of victims. You can remove it, I don't mind. emijrp (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's been done. --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add a "Suspects" in the fatality chart? It can add up the total actual casualties... Because its over 20 if you include them.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French injured

Is there any explanation on why so many French people were injured? I know many French people visit Barcelona but it doesn't seem statistically likely unless they were a group and some light structure fell on them, especially if none of them were killed. It would be interesting to clarify 32 French injured and zero deaths unless the initial figures were wrong?Gaditano23 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaditano23 France is Spain's northern neighbor and over 120,000 Frenchmen live in the country. There is nothing particularly peculiar about there being that many French injuries; be thankful that those are not deaths. Unless you have multiple RS analyzing this statistic, there is no reason to emphasize the amount of injuries French people suffered in this incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
French border is just about 150km north of Barcelona 83.60.242.139 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheGracefulSlick I didn't quite get your "thankful" comment regarding a terrorist attack on my country. Anyhow, turns out it was 28 French, 13 Germans injured. Other nationalities seem to hover around the 3 to 5 figure. I guess that sounds about right for Las Ramblas, and I assume Spaniards would be among the 28 categorized as "unknown" for the moment.Gaditano23 (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gaditano23, I know from past experience that the 'injured' numbers, both the 'nationality' and total numbers almost always become inaccurate and contradictory very quickly. Initial figures tend to be confused, but be based on 'ambulance' figures. Later, the follow-on figures tend to include people who 'walked away' on the day, but 'walked in' during the next few days. Just letting you know! Injured figures are often problematic, with little distinction between very major and fairly minor injury. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral and original research casualty table needs deleting

As we know, we are obliged to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid original research in this article. In my opinion, the casualty table falls far short of either of those goals. By using primary sources (individual national reports of specific people or families) rather than an official centralised 'count', the table content is pure OR. Some casualties are citizens of more than one country - yet are are only listed under one - which? And how was the default sort order decided? Alphabetical is generally regarded as neutral, but there seems to be a weighting applied here - who decided that? The totals don't tally with the contents either - there are currently 15 deaths itemised in the table, but the total gives 16.

I propose we delete this table from the article and record just the verified totals. -- de Facto (talk). 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a mismatch between infobox (15), casualty table (16), short text (16 but not reffed), and 'expanded text' (13+1+1). I suspect that the 15 figure is correct and that the 16 is 'synthed' from the casualty table figures. As I say elsewhere, it is very difficult to keep the 'injuries' figures accurate in these situations because of the reasons de Facto gives and because 'injuries' often double after the initial day's figures, with wide discrepancies in figures used by sources.
I don't personally see what the table adds that would not be more clearly rendered in text. Death figures are usually accurate, but neither total nor nationalities are usually accurate for injured, especially when using sources from individual's 'local' area/country. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
nb mismatched numbers are now fixed (not by me!) 15 is correct figure and 16 must be synthed.Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose then to remove the injuries part of the table, and stick to the deaths. If a very specific table is needed, there is also one on the Spanish wiki of this page (which seems to be way more accurate then this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kef274 (talk • contribs) 2017-08-21T18:36:14 (UTC)

As discussion seems to have dried-up, I removed the casualties column, leaving the fatalities. -- de Facto (talk). 11:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table now uses a single source, which removes OR and makes the table content fully verifiable. -- de Facto (talk). 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's half as bad, so twice as good. But still nothing a sentence couldn't cover in less space. The table doesn't even fit in its section, spills over to Suspects after two rows. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, August 23, 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and that's what I proposed at the top here, but I couldn't muster enough support to form a consensus to delete it all. So the compromise of deleting just the non-fatalities was the best I could get. -- de Facto (talk). 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Wasn't blaming you, just appraising what remained. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

Additional victim

I believe there is now another victim, possibly a Greek person or a German of Gk ancestry (I have heard both and Gk sources often don't distinguish between citizenship and ethnicity, ie Pete Sampras is Gk!). I believe this person may have had their life support turned off. The numbers have been updated, but not the text or refs. Strictly speaking, this person should not be described as having been killed at La Rambla on the day, as they were one of the injured who later died of their injuries. If anyone knows about this or has access to sources, I can't seem to find anything. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tough one here is editing the lead to include this victim. I tried to earlier and gave up. Has it been done yet?Gaditano23 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not AFAIK, but I don't have a source on which to base/back up changes. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR?

Anyone know what WP:ENGVAR this should be? Appears to be mostly UK spelling, but not wholly. Before anyone says, they speak Spanish/Catalan in Barcelona, so British English has NO connection to the subject what so ever, (apart from being inherently superior of course !) Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit was in British English - or at least, not American English - so I would support sticking with that. -- de Facto (talk). 18:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelbaki Es Satty · two incompatible affirmations, here

  1. . He died in the accidental explosion in Alcanar on 16 August. [105]
  2. . Es Satty is believed to have died in the initial Alcanar house explosion.[114]

Both, today, at the same section, only one paragraph. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed "is believed" is correct, date is correct, Alcanar is correct. Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops possibly not, "It was confirmed by Spanish police that Satty was among etc" suggests that his death might now be confirmed, I don't have time to check/fix, I hope someone will. This is happing a lot on this article (people only changing one piece of text). Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK fixed, Es Satty's death is now confirmed.Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locations on info map

Is there a particular logic or standard to which locations should be included in the info map at the top right of the article? Right now it shows the sites of the Barcelona attack, Cambrils attack, and the Alcanar explosion. Now there is also an incident in Subirats, and Ripoll is mentioned often in the article as where many of the perpetrators lived/grew up. I would consider these two places important enough to the events and far away enough from Barcelona to warrant their inclusion in the map. Reade (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only logic I am aware of is that the map should remain clear/readable on all screen sizes (ie not too much info) Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack into this article

Afd Concensus was keep by default I am informed since there was no concensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Suggestion that the contents of Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack be merged into this article. The Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack article is currently flagged for Afd and possible deletion and most of its content could be merged. The content relies heavily on Spanish language sources and needs thorough review and vetting by someone who speaks fluent Spanish. The article also relies heavily on twitter and other self published sources which need to be subjected to scrutiny. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd result for Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack was no consensus. Merge Discussion reinstated. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose the merging of this arbitrary collection of cherry-picked, primary-sourced comments into this article - it is pure WP:OR. We need to wait until a reliable secondary source interprets the data and assembles its analysis of world reaction, if one ever does. -- de Facto (talk). 20:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Octoberwoodland, please close this proposal. There is already a deletion discussion underway and it makes no sense at all to have both happening at once. I am probably entitled to close this myself, but would prefer that you do so.Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Why is this discussion even taking place? There is growing consensus at AfD to delete this in unencyclopedic quote farm. This needs to be closed so we can follow the outcome of the AfD as we are supposed to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No consensus is a draw. In a draw, Keep wins by not losing. Now that everything's stayed as it was, everything should stay where it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
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.

Controversy Section?

This is Spain we are talking about and there is enough material to create a controversy section, which we can all safely assume will grow exponentially over the coming weeks. Gaditano23 (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding one if you feel the material is strong enough. The criteria will be the same as any other content, ie whether there is sufficient coverage to justify it, certainly NOT what we assume MAY happen, WP:CRYSTAL. Sometimes these events spawn years of controversy, sometimes they fizzle out or become very peripheral very quickly. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't add it myself as of yet. But there are controversies regarding media coverage (e.g. Italian newspaper claiming terrorist was an independence activist), reaction of Catalan government in aftermath (Catalan and Spanish victims thing), CUP threatening not to attend rally and blaming King for attacks, Mossos being warned about imam prior to attacks, refusal by mayor of Barcelona to set up protective "bolardos", CIA warning Mossos of high risk of attack 2 months before... List goes on. All can be sourced. Just as was the case with the 11-M which became highly polarizing politically something similar is happening here - although not as extreme as the Madrid attacks which involved the government trying to cover up perpetrators until elections, government losing elections and a range of conspiracy theories being launched by major media outlets. Gaditano23 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, articles should not have criticism/controversy sections, because they often lead to a range of problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. This article isn't the best place to look at Catalan nationalism and some of the mudslinging that has occurred as a result of the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who has moved the article?? There was no consensus to move it

Most editors editing here consistently seem to agree that there are valid grounds not to move the article to Catalonia attacks. Gaditano23 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move. There was no consensus and eventually general agreement not to move the article, particularly to Catalonia attacks, the least valid of three options.Gaditano23 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaditano23: How so? As an uninvolved editor, I closed the #Requested move 18 August 2017 where I see a wide consensus to move to 2017 Catalonia attacks. You mentioned discussed in a separate section and it was agreed by most editors that the page should not be move but I don't see it. Just before that, I closed the concurrent #Requested move 19 August 2017 because it was apparent that the 2017 Barcelona van collision was inappropriate title. No such user (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go now, but I point to your attention the #Change name of article from 2017 Barcelona attack to 2017 Catalonia attacks, where the proposal got an overwhelming support. No such user (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No such user I think there has been an overlap in the discussions which you missed. I tagged you in continued discussion further up. It was agreed by a number of editors (the most active ones here) that there was no grounds for a move specifically to Catalonia attacks for various reasons. Gaditano23 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One last comment before I go: I closed the formal, widely advertised, debate to move to 2017 Catalonia attacks, with support of over 30 people. What happened later was an informal discussion between 4-5 editors. Feel free to open a WP:MR, but I don't think that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS beats the wider one. No such user (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No such user, not good enough, if you close a discussion, you should expect to offer some rationale. Your rationale appears to be 'counting votes', which is explicitly what these discussions are NOT. Here you say "I will address the issue soon", here "the matter is being discussed" .... ?????? We wait with baited breath. Perhaps you would care to address when WP:COMMONNAME ceased to be a core policy, and what in the discussion persuaded you that the common name in English (not Catalan or Spanish) is ' Catalonia attacks' rather than 'Barcelona attacks'. Commonname IS the wider consensus, ignoring it because a second minor attack occurred outside Barcelona is the 'local' argument.Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: I do not close based on headcounting. However, WP:COMMONNAME was barely touched upon in the debate, and the posters who did mention it (notably, yourself) only provided an assertion that "Barcelona attack" is the one, but did not provide much evidence. The title began as a descriptive one, WP:NCEVENTS being the relevant convention, and most posters pointed out that Barcelona is not a sufficiently WP:PRECISE descriptor for the "where" part. I did not feel that the close requires elaboration, as the consensus was so overwhelming. I shall explain further at the move review. No such user (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user: Re: However, WP:COMMONNAME was barely touched upon in the debate, and the posters who did mention it (notably, yourself) only provided an assertion that "Barcelona attack" is the one, but did not provide much evidence. I suggest you revisit remarks by Davey2010, - de Facto, - Collect (The purpose of Wikipedia is to make information readily available to persons using the most common terms for the article .... The name should be that which a person using Wikipedia would be most likely to use ... One of the three also has Ghits for the two terms demonstrating that 'Catalonia' is much less frequent in Eng sources). There are others making similar, less explicit arguments about the greater familiarity of 'Barcelona' as a term.
I am happy to acknowledge that the discussion centres - or should have centred - on whether the second attack necessitates the more accurate 'Catalonia' or whether we go for the less accurate, but more used (and more likely to be remembered in X years) term. Many people above are new editors, they are often arguing that there were many, many attacks (there were not, neither blowing yourself up, nor being shot escaping is 'an attack'), they were arguing that Sp or Cat WP had changed name. Not one supporter even addressed the commonname issue.
It's happened now and the world has not ended, but I'm sorry, what I see is 'counting heads', not weighing up valid arguments. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus to move - It should've been closed as "No Consensus" and I would've said this even if I !voted Support, There were good arguments on both sides and both sides went by one policy but in this case I'm not seeing a consensus. –Davey2010Talk 16:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that There was no consensus to move, valid arguments rather than 'counting heads' is what establishes consensus here. I don't feel strongly about the name change, but do feel strongly about the, frankly amateur, 'closing', which makes no attempt to indicate WHY these changers had the best arguments. Of course 'van collision' was not serious. Keep 'as is' was serious, largely because it is still the commonname in Eng sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move As No such user stated there was a huge amount of editors (over 30!) agreeing to move the article and giving very good reasons for the move. There were a small minority against - and they gave their reasons. It seems correct to therefore move the article to 2017 Catalonia attacks. Reaper7 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the commonname being used in English media is? A naming discussion is explicitly NOT a ballot, so 100s of editors voting either way(many of whom are new editors btw) is not the deciding factor. As I say above, it is the total absence of rationale above which is annoying, why did we bother? Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No such userWhat is the procedure for contesting the move. Most of us are unhappy with it, no valid reasons were provided and it was done without consensus. I do think it would be easier if you just undid it but otherwise we will have to contest.Gaditano23 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most are happy with the move. Why did you say: Most of us are unhappy with it? Reaper7 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gaditano23 - Just a suggestion but you could always go to WP:RM and have it moved back (under a controversial move perhaps?) and then No Such User could reopen and relist the discussion for another week or 2, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010I'm relatively new to wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to do it for me. I gave it a shot and failed. :-( Gaditano23 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Catalonia attacks" is actually getting some usage in English media. Examples: NY Daily News, Politico, KMOV, AzerNews, Reuters. FallingGravity 19:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I didn't even know Move Review even existed!, So as such I've now struck the above, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the map

I don't know if I agree with using a map of all of Spain, there are reasons against and reasons in favor. BUT, I think we don't need to point out Subirats or the Alcanar explosion. They are not of particular importance nor do they constitute attacks. The map is too cluttered now - more so having the map of all of Spain. Just keep Las Ramblas and Cambrils. The rest is just pointless IMO. We don't need a map showing where an accident occurred nor where the last terrorist was found a few days later. Gaditano23 (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that old map was clearer and that present has too much info. Here is a way of having 'scalable' maps, but I don't know how to do it.Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding demonstration

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1] were even CNI informants) to say anything on twitter. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Gaditano, I'm obviously not going to engage in an edit war with you. I've done something more intelligent than that. [2] Hope you got my little message on your talk page. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

CodeInconnu 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  1. ^ [4]
  2. ^ [5]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Barcelona_attacks&oldid=800949132"