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: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. The proposal is correct that it is important to consider WP:BLPCRIME when creating articles, and to say the event was an "attack" may indeed incorporate a sense of volition. However, "attack" is used in a majority of reliable sources, and in the strictest sense, whether there was volition involved in the event is not the only determining factor in whether or not the accused is guilty of a crime. Per what is required in WP:BLPCRIME, editors here have "seriously consider[ed] not including material... that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured," and have determined that the title is warranted in this case. Dekimasuよ! 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 New York City truck attack → 2017 Manhattan truck crash – as Sayfullo Saipov is still awaiting trial. He has been charged, not convicted. We need convictions to establish that whatever happened actually WAS an attack. WP:BLPCRIME protection must supplant WP:COMMONNAME. We have higher standards than the MSM. My proposed Manhattan truck crash rephrasing is derived from this source which actually has a neutral title:

• "Manhattan truck crash leaves 6 dead, police sources say; person in custody". 31 October 2017. Archived from the original on 1 November 2017.

Changing from "crash" to "attack" should not happen prior to a criminal conviction regardless of whatever the common name, as BLP protections and NPOV must be the leading policy here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "2017 New York City truck crash" - I believe that "New York City" should be somewhere in the title, because it is more recognizable than "Manhattan". --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If reliable sources are happy to refer to the incident as an attack, why should we dissemble? A simple google search shows the predominance of New York City truck attack with 4 to 1 ratio over crash, and that is without the many news events involving crashes that had nothing to do with this particular attack. Trucks crash in Manhattan every day, attacks are rarer. --regentspark (comment) 21:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm sorry, but when almost every source out there describes it as an attack, and the entire prose of the article is geared towards the idea that it is an attack, I see no problem with us following suit. Let the foundation legals comment if they think there's a problem, but to call it a crash at this stage, given the text of the article, would be silly in my view. Also, why the move back Manhattan given the consensus above that sources describe it as NYC? Seems like that should be a separate question rather than lumped in under the radar with this BLP question.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – We don't have the same "innocent until proven guilty" mandate as the criminal justice system has. We just report reliable facts neutrally, and it's a fact per reliable sources that this was an attack. The policy says "editors must seriously consider not including material..."; we have done, and are doing, such serious consideration. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per WP:COMMONSENSE. It was so very obviously an attack, that this is a case where any rules on "innocent until proven guilty" should be ignored. It was never up for debate in any reliable media source._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. You don't drive through people for a mile and emerge waving two guns by mistake, whatever your motivation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this was clearly an attack. Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – it is described as an attack by reliable sources. I would support moving to Manhattan, opposing moving attack to crash per other uses above. What the criminal justice systems decide is different from what Wikipedia reports. We only use reliable sources to describe events, not mimic what the justice system does. CookieMonster755✉ 16:51, 22 February 2018 (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.