This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. France C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Holidays C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Terrorism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Our chart appears to add up to 876, as far as I know the 84 total hasn't altered but I couldn't find a single place with nationality figures to verify where the error is. Any ideas?Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check the tables on the French and German sites. That should probably help track down the error. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are a few people with double nationalities, listed with two countries but not noted as such. Gap9551 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found one error, + FrWP says only 5 Italians, not 6 using this source , and this, which I think says 4 + 1 US-resident Italian. Non parlare Italiano!

The article says 6 Italian victims, then it lists 4 Italians and 1 dual citizen US/Italy. Go figure. 51.7.118.91 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FrWP also says no Romanians, but three Swiss (our 2), I speak even less Romanian! Some may be dual nationals as noted. here is the FrWP if anyone can help check. German WP is worse than ours (54 unidentified), which is a good thing really as meine Deutsch ist shchrecklich. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

The number of killed doesn't add up. The official figure is 84, yet the total in the column comes up to 87.--Vihelik (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn dual citizens! Or damn vandals, perhaps! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Dual citizens pertain to the injured. It appears that the killed were all holders of only one citizenship each.--Vihelik (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the very first source, there seem to be three dead Algerians, not five. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

And "at least three" Moroccans. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I subtracted three, and now we're at 83. Something wrong with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Added back two Algerians, fixed citation. Should be at 85 now. Counting the killer? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the 1 UK dead Telegraph, Guardian and UK For Office, makes no mention. The source for 1 is EuroNews of the same date, which claims to have got the info from the UK For Off. I 'Googled' and searched Gdn website and couldn't find any UK dead.

The total figure is wrong again so I put 1 'not confirmed'. FrWP has 4 Moroccans, not 3, but I could find a source for that, even the Fr source is wrong.Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only confirmed statements we have so far were given by Prosecutor François Molins on Thursday. He spoke at great length and there is a 12:40 video of everything he said about the suspects and radicalisation (it is in the VDF citation). He has said that at this stage no links have been established with Islamic terrorist groups. The investigation is ongoing and the 5 suspects have been charged "in relation to a terrorist attack". There is no need to change the categories until some further statements are made by the Prosecutor. It's premature at the moment. We certainly don't say it in the article, which is relatively carefully written, so there is even less reason to say it in the categories. I should add, however, that in his press conference on Thursday the prosecutor consistently referred to the perpetrator as "the terrorist", but not the "Islamic terrorist". Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the group is linked to ISIL or not is irrelevant to the general Islamist motives for the attack: since when are direct links to an organisation required for ideological/religious categorisation? There are numerous terrorists of all kinds that don't have direct links to any organisation. And since you invoke their charge as evidence ("in relation to a terrorist attack"), as far as I'm aware there aren't separate laws for every type of terrorist: a terrorist is a terrorist. User2534 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This happens on literally every article on mass killings, and terrorism has already been added and taken away from this article probably a score or more times. Without qualification, this needs consensus before it's added.

Having said this in no uncertain terms, repeatedly adding this content without consensus, even over the course of several days, does constitute an edit war. So find sources, and get consensus or stop adding it. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: category with ISIL and with Islamic terrorism. I am inclined to agree that categorising as part of ISIL is premature (if the category is strictly limited for direct organisational links to the organisation), but the Islamic terrorism label is by now clearly supported by direct sources (AFP+), statements from government sources and evidence about the perpetrator himself and the investigation into other charged. User2534 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has come up before, but simply saying "AFP" does not constitute "providing sources". TimothyJosephWood 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, only a few sources are referring to 'Islamic terrorism', the AgenceFP was early days. Other sources are being more equivocal. I don't understand the rush to add these categories. Any link to ISIL (except poss. 'copy-cat') seems less likely. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of Molins on Thursday was quite explicit.video At the end of his prepared statement at the press conference he described how six magistrates would proceed with the examination of the suspects to confirm the charges that would be brought against them later that day. In the last seconds of the conference he said that investigators would further examine the possibility of links, as yet unestablished (des liens non établis à ce jour, je précise), with terrorist organisations, notably ISIS (Daech). Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this with the French version and what can be read on French sources, this account seems quite inaccurate and contradicts the geography. The sourcing is bizarre. German sources, the Daily Mail, US sources, but nothing particularly reliable. The incident with the motorcyclist has been described recently in Nice-Matin and my understanding is that it took place near the Hotel Negresco.

The distance between the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée is not 2 km as claimed. It is 500m. The whole account seems to be quite wrong.

The account on the French page seems accurate.

Did the casualties start at the Lenval Hospital when the lorry turned onto the Promenade des Anglais as claimed in the article? Apart from the Newsweek, it is unsourced. It isn't mentioned in the BBC source.

I am going to check this section comparing it with the French article, where editors know the geography a little better than the editors who wrote this section. What I might do is translate the French section into English with their sources, so that it can be compared with what is written here. Individual victims as well as local heros have been discussed in detail in Nice-Matin, which in these matters is highly reliable for obvious reasons. Agence France-Presse is also reliable and has given descriptions of the victims and their circumstances, whenever these are known.

Below I have produced a translation with references (in French) of the paragraph on the attack in the French article. There are innumerable errors in the English article; in particular there is complete confusion about the topography of the Promenade des Anglais and details of what happened. Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 July 2016 in Nice at approximately 22:30, just after the end of the Bastille Day firework display, which took place from 22:00 to 22:20 and was attended by around 30,000 people, a white 19 ton heavy goods vehicle (a rented Renault Midlum^[1]) emerged from the Magnan quarter of Nice coming out onto the traffic-free section of the Promenade des Anglais at Lenval Hospital.^[2] Travelling at close to 90 km per hour, it hit several bystanders.^[3] 400 metres further on, at the level of the intersection with the boulevard Gambetta, it accelerated and mounted onto the pavement to force its way through the police barrier—a police car, a crowd control barrier and lane separators^[4]—at the start of the zone customarily pedestrianised for Bastille Day.^[5] Having broken through the barrier, the lorry drove in zigzag fashion hitting members of the crowd assembled on the pavement and three traffic lanes on the seafront side of the Promenade.^[6] The driver tried to stay as much as possible on the pavement—returning to the traffic lanes only when blocked by a bus shelter or pavilion—to cause the maximum number of deaths.^[7] The progress of the lorry was slowed down in front of the Hotel Negresco: a motorcyclist abandoned his scooter and clung onto the running board of the lorry in an unsuccessful attempt to get into the driver's cabin.^[8]. The driver fired several shots from his 7.65mm firearm at police who returned his fire with their 9mm Sig-Sauer guns,^[3] gave chase to the vehicle and tried to disable it.^[9] The lorry travelled a further 300m until, with its tires flattened and windscreen riddled with bulletholes, it drew to a halt at 22:50 next to the Palais de la Méditerranée, where two police marksmen shot down the driver.^[10] The carnage took place over a distance of 1.7km, between numbers 11 and 147 of the Promenade des Anglais, resulting in the deaths of dozens of people and creating high levels of panic in the crowds.^[11] Some were injured as a result of jumping onto the pebbled beach several metres below the promenade.^[12]

References

1. ^ "Attentat : le camion n'avait pas le droit de circuler dans Nice en raison d'un arrêté préfectoral et municipal". franceinfo.fr. 19 July 2016.
2. ^ "Comment le camion a-t-il pu circuler sur la promenade des Anglais pourtant fermée à la circulation ?". francetvinfo.fr. 15 July 2016.
3. ^ ^{a b} Grégoire Biseau , Sylvain Mouillard, Willy Le Devin and Ismaël Halissat (20 July 2016). "Sécurité à Nice. 370 mètres de questions". liberation.fr.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. ^ Pierre Alonso (17 July 2016). "La sécurité autour du feu d'artifice de Nice était-elle suffisante ?". liberation.fr.
5. ^ "EN DIRECT Attentat de Nice : le camion a forcé le passage". challenges.fr/. 16 July 2016.
6. ^ "Ce que l'on sait de l'attentat commis à Nice". lemonde.fr. 15 July 2016..
7. ^ Alain Auffray, Arnaud Vaulerin, Pierre Alonso, Stéphanie Harounyan, Laure Bretton, Mathilde Frénois et Amélie Quentel (15 July 2016). "Nice, la nuit de l'apocalypse". liberation.fr.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
8. ^ Mélanie Faure (16 July 2016). "Nice : le motard qui a poursuivi le poids lourd a-t-il également essayé de le désarmer ?". lci.tf1.fr.
9. ^ "Attentat de Nice : ce que l'on sait du chauffeur du camion". tempsreel.nouvelobs.com. 15 July 2016.
10. ^ "EN DIRECT - Attentat de Nice : le bilan grimpe à 84 morts". Le Figaro. Retrieved 2016-07-15.
11. ^ "Attaque à Nice : au moins 77 morts, un suspect abattu". Retrieved 2016-07-15.
12. ^ "A Nice des scènes d'horreur sur la promenade des Anglais". leprogres.fr. 16 July 2016.

Errors in the English version of the attack section

The truck moved around in the Magnan quarter of Nice prior to the attacks, which was obviously carefully timed. The police barriers were not mentioned. I don't think there is any need to mention names, e.g. that of the motorcyclist, or make specific reference to the first fatality. There is no mention of the pedestrianised zone. There is no mention of zigzag motion. There is total confusion about what happened within the pedestrianised zone. There is a bizarre repetition. The events concerning the motorcyclist took place at the Hotel Negreasco. The first gunfire happened there. The article confuses those events with the ending at the Palais de la Méditerranée. That involved police marksmen, not the motorcyclist. There is no need to mention Molins, since the French newspapers give an accurate account of what happened. His remarks refer to the final chase between the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée and just confirm the press accounts. I intend to correct these errors, trying to incorporate the correct order of events as recorded in the French article. I am somewhat shocked by how badly written the English section is. I will try to find out how those errors occurred. If people used BBC News I cannot believe these errors would have crept in. They had good maps early on and have never had a dismissive attitude to the various landmarks on the route of the killer. Mathsci (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of maps.[1] Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started trying to improve it and remove the repetition and correct the order of events but was quickly reverted. There's a thread above #Motorcyclist in attack section. Frankly its probably best to just translate the French version and reuse the French citations, if that's permissible. Most the citations here are just early news reports, Daily Mail, more reputable British tabloids, and the BBC. Rob984 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree. I would be in favour of a slightly modified version of my translation of the French section, with attribution to the French article when it's added. They have a long way of saying intersection which can be shortened and the precise description of the police barrier is there because of the recent scandal. I think that it's possible to get France24 and BBC News sources in English to cover this with some of Le Monde content and possibly Nice-Matin. I cannot actually see the point of the time line since it goes against the chronology of the article. Since there are plenty of things it doesn't mention (reconaissance on 12-13 July), I would almost be tempted to remove it. It doesn't help the article, because the real narrative is more complicated, even about the attack. Mathsci (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The box created for the timeline of the attack has been discussed before. However, it it has been placed in the "attack" section which simply gives an account of the 25 minutes from the start of the attack to the killing of the perpetrator. It also mentions what was found in the truck (but not the mobile phone of course).

The current form of the timeline box has been concocted randomly by wikipedians to contain all the information they can glean from what they have read in the media. It is unhelpful because it could just as easily contain

• 13 July, gun passed by Ramzi A. to the perpetrator,
• 12-13 July, Perpetrator reconnoitres on the Boulevard des Anglais, sometimes with an alleged accomplice
• 14 July, immediately before the attack perpetrator sends two audio messages too deplorable for the Prosecutor to describe

In other words an indiscriminate scrapbook of cherry picked statements from the official press conferences of the Prosectuor. It is not a summary of the attack.

The description of the attack was hopelessly wrong before I inserted a translation of the French section. Those details were ignored when User:Erlbaeko reinserted the timeline with the extraneous information from the investigation. Any timeline should restrict itself to the actual attack which lasted 25 minutes. It inaccurately described what happened in those 25 minutes, so I have removed it. I am still checking facts connected with the attack, but will leave the "in use" tag there while I carefully check for references. I see little or no reason to believe that CNN or the WSJ are the places to look. The use of sources like that might partially explain the confused and self-contradictory account we had before. This requires careful and thoughtful editing, not edit warring. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a small timeline is appropriate. It is also common to have a timeline in attack articles. See e.g. November_2015_Paris_attacks#Attacks or 2016_Brussels_bombings#Bombings. However, I am sure we can improve it. Just don't remove it all after a two hour "discussion". Erlbaeko (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and btw... No, it does not "mentions what was found in the truck". Nor has it been concocted randomly. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is unhelpful to the reader.

The attack only concerns the period from 22:30 to 22:55 when the driver was shot and killed. The translation of quartier latin is latin quarter in Paris. Why are Latin Quarter, Quartier Latin blue links? So we translate quartier as "quarter". Not neighborhood. Just as we say that 62 route de Turin is in the old abbatoir quarter of Nice.[2] It's where the perpetrator lived.

During the 25 minutes of the attack no precise times are known for (a) the moment of turning onto the Promenade (b) the moment the municipal police reported the truck at the CUM (c) the moment the truck broke through the police barrier at Boulevard Gambetta (d) the incident with the motorcyclist in front of the Negresco when shots were fired by the perpetrator and then the police (e) the truck drew to a halt (f) the perpetrator was shot down. The precise times are not important and these events are not appropriate to summarise in a box as if they were a collection of cigarette cards. Contrary to what you say, when describing incidents like this we have to be careful and certain things cannot be included. The example I'm to trying to sort out is with the axle of the truck. It was not just flattened tires that caused the truck to grind to a halt. In French we can read "les sapeurs-pompiers ont du dégager des membres de l'essieu du camion". I won't even translate it. No doubt it is true and eye witnesses make references to the axle. No French newspapers mention this detail which could only cause added distress like the videos.

So to reiterate, what you have written is a piece of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR not found in any newspaper or news site. It tells the reader nothing about the attack which is hardly described. It chucks around little bits of evidence. I am quite glad the Prosecutor did not quote the two deplorable audio messages of the perpetrator sent just before the attack. Otherwise they'd be straight in your "uncensored" timeline. The police investigation has almost nothing to do with describing the nature of the attack. Mathsci (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you not edit the "attack" section until the "in use" sign has been removed. It could take a few hours to research the material about the axle. This is delicate material and nothing you want to insert refers even remotely to any possible content in that section. Please respect the sign. At the moment I'm trying to figure out whether any reputable news source had a reasonable way of describing the damage done to the truck that caused it to stop. Perhaps none did. I do not want to say that emergency services had to remove limbs caught up in the front axle. Can you please try to understand that and allow me the time to find out how this is treated in allowable references, if at all. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not SYNT or OR. It is all sourced content. We do f. ex. have two sources that says the driver was shot dead by police app. at 23.00. From Reuters: "Approximately 2300: The driver is shot dead by police". From National Post: "The truck came to a stop at 11 p.m., approximately 15 minutes and two kilometers after [the] rampage had begun. Do you have a source that says "The truck [...] ground to a halt at 22:50”? I can't find it. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would point out that the 22.45 source says 'around 22.45' and is Calcutta Telegraph, the 11.00 source says 'approximately'. It's a bit difficult to build a firm case around 'approx.' figures. Also, I realise it's synth, but to take 15 minutes to cover 2 Km would mean an average speed of 8KpH, 5 MpH. Reduce the time to 10 mins doesn't change much, 7.5 MpH. Perhaps the only thing likely to render precise times is security video evidence which may surface at any inquest or trial. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the info is defective and WP:SYNTH. The SMS message was described completely on 21 July when Molins said Ramzi A., the 21 year old French-Tunisian , was charged and placed in custody. The message was described in full in the Le Monde citation in the main article from 22 July, "Je voulais te dire que le pistolet que tu m’as ramené hier, c’était très bien, alors on ramène 5 de chez ton copain. C’est pour Chokri et ses amis." That's Choukri C., another person arrested. So why use outdated sources as if nothing's happened since 17 July? That is just dishonest. The timings are also wrong. Before the current detailed info was available, the press was clutching at all sorts of little titbits released by the investigators. But that has changed now. On 21 July, plenty of other messages were described prior to the attack some later than 20:27. And there were the audio messages. Erlbaeko has spoken of censorship. But by adhering to this outdated 17 July timeline, synthesised from the Reuters timeline below, he is trying to censor all subsequent events which have been quite dramatic and quite changed matters. Also we say quarter not neighbourhood for districts of cities in France as I've said. The sentence about the bike is totally absurd. (The bike was found in the truck but so what?) On 17 July very little was known. Ramzi A. gave L-Bouhlel the gun on 13 July. Where is that in this so-called timeline? Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Reuters timeline from 17 July

This timeline box was copied by user:Erlbaeko from a projected timeline written by Reuters.[3] It's pout of date. All the infromaion has been superseded by the detailed information provided the Prosecutor in his detailed announcements on 18 July and 21 July, when 5 suspects were charged and placed in custody. Erlbaeko is using one single source which he has synthesised with others, even more out of date. This is highly disruptive editing. Here is the Reuters timeline:

It goes on as editors can verify themselves until 17 July with the arrest of the Albanian couple. At least Reuters was trying to be up to date on 17 July. This is a news article frozen in time and rather useless considering subsequent developments and more information from Molins (18 & 21 July). All information originates in him, no matter whether Erlbaeko accepts that or not. Erlbaeko's editing is truly appalling. The text can even be removed as a blatant copyvio. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cut the crap. If you are able to find better sources, then fix it. If not, then get consensus before you remove sourced material. And talking about OR. The map you uploaded is OR. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters seems to be unreliable. They updated the timeline recently only adding that 5 arrested people were due to be charged on 21 July, but have not worked out that's it already happened in the night of 21-22 July. There is a timeline for November 2015 Paris attacks. It describes each of the many attacks and is obviously justified. It does not describe SMS messages, selfies, bike storage arrangements, etc. It gives details of each attack. Charlie Hebdo shooting has no time line.

What would be useful instead of your timeline is a clickable map which describes what happened and where on the route. Although the precise timings are not known, it's useful to annotate what happened where, which is known. Libération has maps like that. That is because one of the main issues now is why this could have happened when France is in a state of high security, Why were the national police not properly deployed ... Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an annotated map to describe the course of evens during the attack. The timeline did not give details relative to the attack section and the news sources were out of date and superseded. Newspaper sources are subject to being superseded so sources can be invalidated. The sources used for the timeline were selective. A teenager could have used the material presented by Prosecutor Molins to synthesize a reconstruction of events between 11 July and 14 July, including two reconnaissance trips on the Nice waterfront. That woud be inappropriate for a wikipedia timeline box, Why fabricate a timeline that has never been published by cobbling together statements, leaked by the investigors, from out-of-date newspaper reports? Reuters have still not mentioned that the suspects have been charged and detained in custody to be examined by six magistrates in Paris. Anyway no timeline for Charlie Hebdo shooting and the timeline for November 2015 Paris attacks catalogued the precise times of attacks in different parts of Paris. A map seemed better here and we can wait to see what other editors think. Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say the timeline is perfect, and if you are able to provide sourced content, you are most welcome to update it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Just don't repeatedly remove sourced content without consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm boldly opening this RfC regarding the two threads above. I think at this point tensions have run sufficiently high that a simple third opinion will be insufficient to establish a solid consensus to which either side will acquiesce.

The timeline being discussed can be seen above. It should be noted that the timeline has been on the article for a sufficient amount of time for it to become the status quo, and the question at hand as such, is whether the timeline should be removed, and not whether it should be included. Per WP:NOCON, a lack of consensus for removal should normally result in the timeline remaining in the article. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]