Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Proposed merge with 2017 Brussels Central Station attack

 Requesting immediate archiving...

The other article is longer. Rævhuld (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for in the news (main page)

I have nominated this article for in the news. Please visit the nomination page and discuss if it should be included on the main page or not. --Rævhuld (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Islamic?

I can see no sources, especially official Belgium ones that describe this as 'Islamic'. Given the attempted modus operandi, the probability is that it will prove to be so, but at the moment this is pure conjecture, AKA WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • All sources that I've seen report that the man yelled the Takbir moments before he was shot. That at least describe it as 'Islamic'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.179.41 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't, that's called WP:OR.

Allahu akbar

I have added the shouting of Allahu akbar as a fact, as stated by the Belgian magistrate and published as an AP report in the Chicago Tribune, and to a later report in the New York Times. It needs to be in the article as a fact, with all of its ambiguous connotations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 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. DrStrauss talk 18:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


2017 Brussels suicide bombing → 2017 Brussels explosive attack – How can it be suicide bombing when an explosion occurred, but the suspect was shot by soldiers while trying to escape? It doesn't sound like suicide to me. --Rævhuld (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @Inter&anthro: The problem with that is that from what we know, the suspect did not commit suicide, rather he tried to. The explosives failed to do much of anything other than make a loud noise, and the attacker was shot dead by soldiers. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2017 Brussels attack is sufficient 'suicide' would be pure conjecture at present, 'name of station' added if felt necessary. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and move to snow close this. It's just fine, per precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until another significant attack takes place this year, its more logical to follow the existing naming scheme ArticCynda (talk) 11:39, 25 June 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.

Use of quote

E.M.Gregory regarding this text "The attack is understood by analysts at the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times," followed by several quotes, which you attributed here. You can't attribute a quote to three sources unless they all use this exact text. I could not immediately see which the actual quote came from, but may I suggest that the attribution is amended to whoever actually is being quoted or the text is paraphrased/reorganised? Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Renard article pub. by EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations

Edit restored as verifiable, reliable. Note that Graceful Slick makes a false claim even in the edit summary, asserting that the terrorist is merely "mentioned in the first sentence," when he is the subject of the first paragraph Slick, gives little evidence of having read beyond the first sentence. Renard begins this scholarly article by calling the Brussels Central Station bomber "the new face of jihad in Europe." To Renard, he fits the model of the “homegrown terrorist fighters (HTF)", exemplifying the type to which Renard directs his concern in this article [1]. Graceful Slick, s I pint out here and elsewhere in the AfD, has a pattern of making sweeping assertions about articles that are contradicted by the contents of the article she is dismissing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory what do you gain with dishonesty? Here is where you took the partial and misleading quote: "Jihadi movements rely on three constituents: the hard core, comprising the organisation‟s central leadership; a network of “veteran fighters” who socialised with the hard core before returning home to build local franchises or cells; and a wider militant base, encompassing the broader pool of “sympathizers” and potential “homegrown terrorist fighters”, only connected to the hard core by aim and ideology.11 If the first of these constituents seems weakened today, the network of fighters and the militant base remain unaffected". Where is the perpetrator mentioned anywhere in this quotation? I never questioned the "new face of Jihad" comment so that is a strawman.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Forgot this quote: "From this unprecedented pool of “sympathizers” to the...". Also no mention of the terrorist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • An interesting - if highly creative - reading of a pretty straightforward paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't consider reading the source for what it actually says as "creative" but thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Saying someone is (part of?) "the new face of Jihad", would make a great headline, but what does it mean? I only looked briefly at the source, so won't offer a reading, but it is completely uninformative if we neither know what this 'new face' is, nor how it differs from the old one. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Improper close of AfD

  • User:TheGracefulSlick Your closing of the AfD was improper, as you have been made aware. Your explanation for not immediately reopening the AfD you improperly closed was "I believed the synth needed to be immediately addressed before the fate of the article could be ruled upon."[2] In fact, content disputes on the talk page during an AfD are routine. Is there a rule stating that an editor can arbitrarily close an AfD because, in her opinion, there are problems with "SYNTH"? Unless you can cite such a rule, you might be well advised to retract your improper closure, reopen the AfD, and allow it to run the full 7 days.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory and how do you propose I reopen the AFD when the page is on full lockdown? It is more than a "content dispute" when synth is deliberately included in the midst of an AFD. No, I would say that is disruptive, especially when the same editor consistently applies synth, OR, and BLP violations while similar AFDs are in progress. Edits that improve the article are encouraged but when the article is in worse condition and new problems arise, we have a serious concern. The longer that AFD continued, the more synth and hastily-paraphrased news commentary would have been added, which all means more work for the same small group of editors who have to clean it up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And if you actually need a policy to explain why I thought closing an AFD disrupted by synth was warranted, try this one -- only one, but crucial, sentence. Seeing how I already told NorthAmerica1000 I plan to be more cautious and foresee synth at similar AFDs, I suggest you drop the stick and focus on fixing the new problems your edits caused with the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you ask an administrators NorthAmerica1000 and MelanieN whether the AfD should be reopened. It would, of course, bring more eyes to the two RfCs above. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory no I think I am just going to focus on cleaning up the synth you introduced to yet another article. I suggest you try to help out and stop this needless bickering. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note That we've all noted that someone of note noted that it is noteworthily noted that let it be noted .... that if anyone (be it EMG or TGS) has anything of note to complain about, they should to take it to WP:ANI, this bickering on talk is tiresome. Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment about the closure of the AfD: It was improper. A nomination can only be closed as "withdrawn" if there are no !votes to delete. But there was a "delete" !vote, which means the nomination cannot be terminated even if the nominator withdraws. I will reopen it and restart the 7-day clock.
I would like to repeat, as I noted above, that the article is currently locked in the hopes of productive discussion here on the talk page, aimed at resolving the differences that led to edit warring. But the discussion here is still way too personal and focused on criticism of each other. Please try to talk about what should be in the article and not about the actions of other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

More WP:SYNTH

E.M.Gregory when you have the time, please address the latest synthed material added to the article. The source you included is not making the same claims. Instead it says, ISIS also claims or issues statements on attacks by other means, namely its al-Bayan Radio news bulletin and Rumiyah magazine. Attacks in the West reported on in Rumiyah have included the June 2017 Champs Elysees attack and the June 2017 Brussels Central Station attack, both of which were commented on in issue 11 of the magazine. All you can really say is ISIS makes comments in other media outlets other than Amaq; that belongs in an article about ISIS's use of media, not here. Nowhere does the source call the perpetrator a "soldier of the caliphate" or that Amaq News covered it. Maybe they did but this source is not saying that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on MILAN SCHREUER and DAN BILEFSKY article in New York Times

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The question asked by the RfC, that of whether the cited sources was properly paraphrased, is not clearly addressed by many of the comments below. A closer is required by policy ...just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. Evaluating a discussion such as this which is rather diffuse requires the most conservative reading to prevent super-vote issues or otherwise attempting to judge the issue instead of evaluating the arguments. With these two points in mind, the only clear consensus emerging from the below discussion is that the text does not have consensus for inclusion as originally quoted. There is an apparent rough consensus that the New York Times article referenced is a source that should probably be included in some form but clarifying that rough agreement and what form the text would take if it were to be included are beyond this closing statement. A new RfC that proposes one (or possibly multiple) definitive formulations of the statement which can be clearly supported or opposed is likely called for. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the Times source being properly represented by the current text? This attack is described by the New York Times as an example of the phenomenon by which some second and third- generation Europeans of Moroccan immigrant ancestry who "start with petty crime and then search for an identity as a way to frame their illicit activity, or to atone for past misdeeds" are "drawn to jihadist ideology."[3]TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory you have once again reinserted material that misrepresents the source. You claim this attack is described in such a way but here is what the source actually says: "Often, according to experts who have studied the phenomenon, future militants start with petty crime and then search for an identity as a way to frame their illicit activity, or to atone for past misdeeds". In other words, Moroccan militants as a whole are being described this way, not the perpetrator. Unless, can you point to me where this perp is described in the way you claim? Because it certainly isn't found in this source.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • June article references recent attack in "in London; twice in Paris; and, on Tuesday night, in Brussels... (segues to detailed description of Brussels Central Station attack committed by) " a Moroccan citizen, had assembled the bomb at his home in the working-class Molenbeek section of Brussels... it once again shined a spotlight on Belgium, a country that has been used as a base by many jihadists. Some developed extremist views in Belgium and then went to Syria and Iraq before returning. Militants based in Brussels have been linked to (multiple terrorist attacks)... A number of militants involved in those earlier attacks had roots in Morocco, including (multiple additional Moroccan-origin terrorist)... Many Moroccan men were recruited in the 1960s to work in Belgium’s mines and factories on temporary contracts but stayed on, eventually joined by their families. Many then became Belgian citizens, and it is their children or grandchildren — albeit only a tiny fraction of the population — who have sometimes been drawn to jihadist ideology. Often, according to experts who have studied the phenomenon, future militants start with petty crime and then search for an identity as a way to frame their illicit activity, or to atone for past misdeeds. Islamic State supporters come from many backgrounds: The man who attacked police officers outside Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris on June 6 was an Algerian, and the man who rammed into a police convoy on the Champs-Élysées on Monday was a French citizen. (wake up, the next dude is our Central Station bomb boy) Oussama Z., born in 1981, had lived for several years in Molenbeek, which was also the home of some of those connected to other attacks in the city and in Paris. “He probably made the bomb there,” the prosecutor’s office said after Oussama Z.’s home was raided, giving no specific information about the explosive used, other than saying that “chemical substances and materials” were found that could have been used in bomb making. The authorities said the man was known to police for sexual misconduct but not for terrorism. ( followed by 6 sentences on political context.) I do not see this as SYNTH. To me, it reads as a clear placement of this particular terrorist in a category of ... exactly what I wrote on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory where is Oussama Z. described in the way you asserted? You quoted the majority of the source (without breaking it into paragraphs) yet he is never described in such a way -- Moroccan militants as a whole are. Where you told me to "wake up" (ironic) Oussama Z. is bunched with "Islamic State supporters" so what exactly was your point? He still is never described in such a way.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC) ("wake up" was a simple courtesy to editors scanning this block of text; please AGF. I knew that you had unpaywalled access to the Times or you could not have made the argument you made.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory, I'm sure the addition of this text was well intended, but it's probably copyvio (even on talk), could we just have the relevant sentence(s)? In a previous discussion I know of an editor being sanctioned for using his own translation of a block of text. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: I have full-protected the page to stop the edit warring. Both of you have been here long enough to know better. Please work it out here in the interim, and please discuss in good faith without accusing each other of things. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - @TheGracefulSlick:, @E.M.Gregory: what text, what source exactly are being discussed in this RfC? Gregory did post the source above, not the version of text in question. Without a clear question (text+source(s)) - it is hard to comment. I suggest you place the text (or link to diff) clearly in the lead of this section.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs to be modified, but should be in. I think this should be in, however I do not think it is correct to state "as an example of the phenomenon". The NYT is giving previous attacks by Moroccan-Belgians as a background to this attack, not the other way around. The "start with petty crime and then search for an identity as a way to frame their illicit activity, or to atone for past misdeeds" bit is qualified in NYT with an often, and is not applied directly to this perp (though later it is stated he was known to police for sexual misconduct). It is correct to frame this information on previous attackers as background to this attack.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Proposed rewording: According to the New York Times, within Belgium's large Moroccan immigrant community, it is not uncommon for the for those among the "tiny fraction" of the second- and third-generation Europeans who become attracted to militant Islam to "start with petty crime and then search for an identity as a way to frame their illicit activity, or to atone for past misdeeds" to be "drawn to jihadist ideology."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Note new wording to satisfy Pincrete's objection"E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"It is not uncommon for a tiny fraction?" It does not even make sense and it goes nowhere to addressing the most important issue, which is that there is no indication that the source is primarily discussing this case. Pincrete (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Does not belong it's SYNTH, since as others point out, much of the text relates to general info of how Belg Mor's come to be in Belgium and how "a tiny fraction" are drawn to "Jihadist ideology", any relationship to this instance is nowhere made explicit. It omits key qualifiers like "a tiny fraction" . It is COATRACK, since its main purpose appears not to be to inform about this instance, but to make an exaggerated claim about a specific demographic and it is UNDUE, since we have little indication that the person's ethnicity was the subject of any widespread discussion, a few general remarks about this case in a couple of sources is not good enough. If this info - in a more neutral form - were included in articles which deal with 'profiling' lone wolves, or Belgian lone wolves, I would not object, but this has no place here. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    SYNTH is a bit far - the NYT piece itself is about the June 2017 attack - this is there as background to this attack.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Citing New York Times article about this bombing: Brussels Train Station Bombing Renews Focus on Belgium as Jihadist Base] is hardly SYNTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It is classic SYNTH, you take a sentence here, stitch it to a sentence there and HEY PRESTO, it implies something which is not in the original. However, just as importantly, why is it HERE rather than a page about Jihadists/lone wolves? Do we start discussing how some blacks come to be involved in violent crime on the OJ Simpson page or how some Jews become involved in fraud on the Robert Maxwell page (whether to condemn or condone)? Why would we? Because it is possible to stitch-together an implied relationship between the general and the particular case by cut and pasting from an article and claiming the relationship is made explicit in the source? No, we don't unless the source says something explicit about 'the Juice' or 'Captain Bob', not about blacks or Jews in general, or some blacks and some Jews. It is patently dishonest to do so when the only connection is happening to be in the same article, rather than anything explicitly stated about the individual event.
If you take out the SYNTH what is left? There are quite a few Moroccans in Belgium, a small number of whose descendants are attracted to Jihadist ideology. Some perpetrators of violent terrorist crimes start off committing petty crimes. So? What has it told me about this event? The quality of the source is irrelevant to whether it is SYNTH.Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz I agree with Pincrete's assertion that this content would be better suited for an article on lone wolves but can work on a compromise if the revision makes sense. We are at an understanding that the currect wording needs changing, correct? My issue is the text used in the article actually described Moroccan militants but never connected it to this specific incident -- and certainly did not use it as an example despite what the current version of the article says . How can we make it fit? Quote the source but explain that it doesn't exactly translate to this attack? I just do not see the point in preserving text when the source doesn't connect it to the bombing, and I do not believe the reader gains any more knowledge on this incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It is quite clearly relevant, to the NYT at least, that this is not the first terrorist attack by Belgian Moroccans of a certain background. This should be stated.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note That this NYTimes article is cited in a scholarly paper (Pascarelli, Paige V. "Identities “Betwixt and between’: analysing Belgian representation in ‘homegrown’extremism." Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression (2017): 1-24.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This RfC has never been about the quality of the source. We are nowhere closer to a solution with that comment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Depend on how this scholar of terrorism and redicalization uses/understands the NYTimes article. Since, as you say, it is a quality source, Pascarelli's understanding of the source can be used to to support the phrasing we use. paywall problem: does anyone have access to this Taylor & Francis journal?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory I never said anything about the quality of the source because this isn't about the source; it is about how it is currently being misrepresented with WP:SYNTH. The current wording states this attack was considered an example by the piece but nowhere does it make that assertion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Derrrr .... Comment Quite a bit of the disagreement above is about whether: "This attack is described by the New York Times as an example of the phenomenon by which some second and third- generation Europeans of Moroccan immigrants" is SYNTH, and whether the NYT piece is about Belgian terrorists in general, rather than this instance. Well folks, if it isn't SYNTH, then it is incredibly stupid of the NYT, since the perpetrator is not any kind of European, first, second or third generation. He is a Moroccan national who arrived in Belgium as a 20 year old adult in 2002. Why none of us noticed this I'm not sure, but E.M.Gregory, Icewhiz, can I assume that there are no objections to removing a sentence that cannot possibly be true and asking TGS to close this RfC? Pincrete (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A 15-year resident of Belgium, originally from Morocco. Seems quite relevant in regards to previous terrorist incidents carried out by Moroccan community members in Belgium - so no, I would say this is incredibly stupid by the NYT to point out previous instances of Moroccan-Belgians and terror.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
His nationality and residence is already stated. This RfC is about whether the source supports the text, not about whether most Belgian/European terrorists have a 'Moroccan connection', which would not belong HERE even if it were true. Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There were a number of problems in the original text (and I think they were corrected in the article since this RfC was opened) - however providing as background material to a terror attack by a Belgian Molenbeek resident, with Moroccan roots, that several previous attacks were carried out by people of a similar background would be relevant - as can be seen in the NYT's (and others) treatment of this matter.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The text is not supported by the source. Wanting to highlight the perps background (and getting it wrong!) is pretty COATRACKy and certainly not a valid reason for the text, not for continuing the RfC. Unless someone articulates a valid reason - it goes. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

no. it stays. this is a nyt article about the very wikipedia entry at hand. yet you have said the nyt content on its article is "stupid". an inability to simply go by the sources is not appropriate. XavierItzm (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you read? How can the NYT describe this attack as "an example of the phenomenon by which some second and third- generation Europeans of Moroccan immigrants ...etc" when the NYT is clearly aware that the perp is NOT any kind of European. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Xavierltzm I know you tend to follow whatever Gregory and Icewhiz write unconditionally but you really need to actually read the NYT piece. The disputed text doesn't even refer to this attack. It's just WP:SYNTHed information.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Propose rewording: "The New York Times analyzed this attack in the context of previous terrorist attacks by jihadis with "roots in Morocco," and by second and third generation members of Belgium's large Moroccan immigrant community, where, according to the Times, it is not uncommon for those among the "tiny fraction" who become attracted to militant Islam to "start with petty crime and then search for an identity as a way to frame their illicit activity, or to atone for past misdeeds" to be "drawn to jihadist ideology."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You are making this all up! NYT is not talking about this attack and no amount of cut-and-pasting will make it so that they are! There is no reason to imagine that the ethnicity of this attacker was the subject of any discussion at all. Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Read the article, it is about THIS attack giving the previous ethnic attacks as background.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I did read it, single sentence early on about "shining a light", then profiling Belgian attackers in general, and describing the migrant group for a US audience. The present suggested text is simply a random cut-and-paste of what the source actually says. Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Pincrete, I fully expect that you will retract that accusation after you have read the article in question in this RFC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Retract what? If the source actually said ANY of the four widely different versions offered by you so far, you would be able to point to a few sentences where your text is sourced, instead of copying nearly 400 words above in the hope of bamboozling the discussion. Never mind the coherence, just note the acreage of text?.Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am asking that your retract your assertion that "You are making this all up! NYT is not talking about this attack." We are discussion an INDEPTH NYTimes article about this specific crime; an article in which this terrorist attack by an immigrant from Morocco with a police record for sexual crimes is set in the context both of previous terror attacks in Europe by jihadists with "roots in Morocco" and of terrorist attacks in Europe by young Belgian jihadis with Moroccan ancestry and previous records of minor crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
None of the (4?) versions of the text offered so far is in the NYT source, it's pure cut-and-paste synth. The NYT article is not about this attack, it is 'background info' on Belgian Islamists, that might be very useful on a general article about Belgian Islamists, but it says nothing at all about this attack, except the obvious, which is that this attacker was Moroccan. Your latest proposed text - like the previous ones - is nowhere in the source, except in the sense that individual phrases have been stitched together, seemingly randomly. So yes, you are clearly "making it all up". Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
the proposed txt is fime. it is beyond parody that some people say a nyt article about the brussels station bombing is not about "this" attack. has anyone ever advocayed for a narrower read of anything with a straight face? XavierItzm (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Opening sentence: "on Tuesday night, in Brussels... a Moroccan citizen ... assembled the bomb at his home in the working-class Molenbeek section of Brussels." … … … Towards the end: "Oussama Z., born in 1981, had lived for several years in Molenbeek, which was also the home of some of those connected to other attacks in the city and in Paris. “He probably made the bomb there,” the prosecutor’s office said after Oussama Z.’s home was raided, giving no specific information about the explosive used, other than saying that “chemical substances and materials” were found that could have been used in bomb making. The authorities said the man was known to police for sexual misconduct but not for terrorism". Everything else is about other Belgian jihadists/ other Moroccans in Belgium. The most you can extract from all that is that like others associated with attacks from Belgium, he was living in Molenbeek and known to police only for 'minor' criminality, all of which is already in the article. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

* OMIT the New York Times commentary. It is not relevant to this bombing or the bomber. They are editorialising. Interesting comment but it has nothing to do with the individual who did the bombing: "Zariouh had lived in Belgium since 2002, ... and moved to Molenbeek in 2013." https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN19B2WK-OCATP

I agree with @Pincrete The NYT article is not about this attack, it is 'background info' on Belgian Islamists, that might be very useful on a general article about Belgian Islamists, but it says nothing at all about this attack, except the obvious, which is that this attacker was Moroccan.

Was Zariouh even a terrorist or was he mentally unbalanced? I found no articles indicating that he was part of any terrorist group. Granted, he lived in Molenbeek for a few years and was an ISIS sympathizer. 

  “This looks like the work of a lone wolf,” Lasoen said. “He did not know what he was doing. If this had been Daesh (Islamic State), he would have had better instructions about how to do this awful act.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-brussels-attacker/brussels-station-attacker-was-secretive-loner-idUSKBN19C2OA

  The driver, who was unarmed, was arrested at the scene. He was later described by the Belgian prosecutors office as mentally unwell. “It’s a mentally unstable person,” a spokeswoman for prosecutors said. Brussels has been on high alert since 32 people were killed in suicide attacks in March 2016. Many suspects linked to those attacks and the November 2015 massacre in Paris lived in or regularly passed through Molenbeek.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/08/belgian-police-open-fire-on-car--high-speed-chase-brussels-suburb-explosives

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

*KEEP the New York Times reporting. Obviously the news piece entitled "Brussels Train Station Bombing Renews Focus on Belgium as Jihadist Base" is all about this bombing and this bomber. And it is on the news section and not on the Editorial section. And all efforts to deny it are analogous to asking "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".XavierItzm (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And unless the NYT is incredibly intellectually lazy - forgetting what it wrote at the beginning of the article by the middle if it, it does not describe this attack "as an example of the phenomenon by which some second and third- generation Europeans of Moroccan immigrant ancestry ....", since the NYT is clearly aware that the attacker is not any kind of European or Belgian, 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation - so the comments NYT make about such Belgians cannot possibly be about him Getting the nationality of a perp right while castigating an entire demographic is 'angels dancing on pin-heads' is it? Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, lets not be coy, he was a resident of Belgium since 2013. He could be described as 1st generation. The NYT is not being lazy in this instance, merely associated related groups.Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, it is clearly WP:OR to speculate on the NYT's writing process. We go by the sources, Pincrete apparently does not. XavierItzm (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Re: "associated related groups" ' = they don't say he was an example of "some second and third- generation Europeans of Moroccan immigrant ancestry", nor AFAI can see as an example of anything. Re: We go by the sources, exactly! Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 13 December 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.

Proposing Move back to 2017 Brussels Central Station bombing

  • Because It was a more accurate, more informative title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"Testimonies of eyewitnesses and a photograph taken by a witness indicate a small incendiary device detonated, with limited explosive force, but with a loud "bang".[7] The size of the explosion suggests the device failed to function as intended, possibly as a result of poor manufacturing"
'Bombing' seems a bit far fetched, no objection to including 'central station'. .... Commonname appears to be 'attack', with occasional'failed bombing'. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree; the current title is appropriate. It was an attack. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I do support the proposal from this section. --Angerdan (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal. I will create a new move request below. @E.M.Gregory: @Angerdan: --Gateshead001 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gateshead001: If you only advise those editors likely to support you, you may be accused of WP:Canvassing. WWGB (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. I wasn't aware it's an offense. --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: Alerting you to a move discussion below which you have previously expressed an opinion about. I found it already! Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2018

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

Not moved. bd2412 T 02:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2017 Brussels attack → Brussels Central Station bombing – "More accurate, more informative title". Happened inside the station so it's good clarification. No need for year. Also consistent with other similar events with names like Victoria station and Paddington station bombings. Gateshead001 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Concur with move, although I would prefer 2017 Brussels Central Station bombing, as it is both usual and useful to specify date. It was a bombing. Terrorist chap built and set off a bomb in the Central Station. The fact that it was an amateur IED that sort of went pop! fizzle! does not negate the fact that he set it off in the Central Station.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move sources refer to it as an attack or attempted/ failed bombing/foiled attack or somesuch - if we use the term for everything that goes pop! fizzle!, we decoin it. No objection to adding year or 'Central Station'. Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Concur with move to 2017 Brussels Central Station bombing. Informative, descriptive, specific. XavierItzm (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move sources refer to it as an attack or attempted/ failed bombing/foiled attack etc In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I choose to oppose because WP:COMMONNAME. MayMay7 (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title avoids confusion with 2016 Brussels bombings, which also involved an attack on a railway station in Brussels. WWGB (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The 2016 bombing was at a Metro station, whereas this one at the Central Station. I doubt it would create confusion. --Gateshead001 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:June_2017_Brussels_attack/Archive_1"