Talk:2012 Ozar Hatorah Toulouse shooting

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2012 Ozar Hatorah Toulouse shooting was copied or moved into Toulouse and Montauban shootings with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

page should be renamed and include the soldiers' shootings

This page should be renamed and include the soldiers' shootings--Reader1987 (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree.67.1.58.225 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I moved it to 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shooting before realizing it should be plural. However, there is already a 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, so we have to merge it. Superm401 - Talk 14:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merge. The French authorities have stated that they strongly suspect all these incidents are related, so it makes sense to cover them in the same article. Robofish (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, when I did that move, I didn't realize there was already a 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings. Superm401 - Talk 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of a move ASAP. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There seems to be no question on the forensic evidence so far.

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Normally such discussions would last a week or so, but the participation is very high and consensus is clearly to merge, so I am going to BOLDly close this now rather than drawing it out... The argument for merging (shootings are closely connected/being treated as one event by media) is stronger for than the argument against merging (the latest deaths are more notable). The article can and perhaps should focus on the later events (that is not for me to decide), but the mere fact that the later deaths are perceived as more notable is not a sufficient reason to have two articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disagree Connection of the shootings is not clear at this time. And even with a connection, I do not agree at this time to merge. --Shuki (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - a look at most reliable sources shows that sources think there is a connection. Remember, it only matters what reliable sources think.VR _talk 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CON is actually stronger than RS. --Shuki (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't consensus based on RS, NPOV etc.? You can't claim CON as a reason for opposing the idea that the pages should be merged.VR _talk 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent is correct. Wikipedia:Consensus is not a way to bypass Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, etc. WP:CON says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Superm401 - Talk 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as proposer. Per VR, reliable sources, such as The Guardian and Reuters are portraying them as similar, based partly on Sarkozy (who has probably been briefed). Superm401 - Talk 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
disagree same than Shuki --Olli (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources saying or indicating that there is not a connection. Superm401 - Talk 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Gun in Jewish school attack used in soldier killing, a police source said --Reader1987 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, per above. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that in its current state 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings is a shell of an article. If a merger were undertaken basically the entire article would consist of the school shooting. The article would be unencyclopedically awkward, let alone the fact that the content will not match the article name. The general article about all the shootings should be expanded and turned into a proper article before a merger is considered. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like Brewcrewer is voting disagree. It should be a * bullet with a bold disagree at the start to make that clear. Dovid (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strong police elements indicates a link between the three criminal spree. The predicted evolution of the article will be the motivations and identity of the killer(s), which require a unique article. Moez ^talk 16:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree same gun used in all shootings [1]46.18.96.82 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.As this article is larger of the two there is no reason to the merge.Also its a current event like it was pointed.--Shrike (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The three shootings have been officially linked ([2]). FormerIP (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, per above arguments. Paris1127 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Vice Regent and FormerIP. —WFC— 20:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The police and media are formally linking these shootings. We can always split it out again later if the article becomes too long, but for the time being, these appear to be closely related events, and only one article is needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree This article needs its own space, given that it contains so much detail, and the case is sufficiently "special" compared to the other shootings (ramifications different, even should it prove the same person/group and same motive). At best, a merger is premature. The other article should include a brief section on this event, similar in scope to the two others it includes. In that section, use the {\{Main}} template, i.e., , which is in-line with other WP articles where a subtopic deserves its own article. Also, as I noted earlier,, with fast changing currenty events like this, and multiple edits going on simultaneously, there is a benefit to keeping them separate while events are ongoing, even if they get merged later. Dovid (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - as I said above, only the connection between the shooting events has now been confirmed. The fact that the other article is currently pretty short is all the more reason to merge this content into it. Robofish (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We can quite reasonably assume the incidents are part of the one overall event, and having separate articles just fragments the subject unnecessarily.--A bit iffy (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like strong support for a merge. How do we get one done? AlexTiefling (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An uninvolved editor can consider closing it per Wikipedia:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger IV. Superm401 - Talk 15:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree They are all part of the same string of shootings. 67.1.58.225 (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, or as Haaretz originally wrote: “Even though this is the third such incident in that region in the span of a week (albeit not the most bloody), it is only when Jews are involved — it seems — that a local criminal affair becomes a national talking point.” Ajnem (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That seems to be an argument against merging, not for merging. It points out how, foir good or for bad, this one is different than the others and is being treated differently from the others politically and socially. Dovid (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intended meaning is that they are generally similar, and need to be treated together, but the distinctive characterstics of yesterday's attack (that the victims were Jewish and included children) made a disproportionate difference in bringing the combined case to national and international attention. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per others. EkoGraf (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Same perpetrator. NO SOPA (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree All evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.44.89.143 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Part of the same event--Kimdime (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree No logical reason to separate one incident off from the rest. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreesame event.wikipedia is neutral--Dasfreedomfighters (talk) 8:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree - let's merge these articles ASAP. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - note that consensus is not merely a vote, but a judgment of the quality of arguments presented. Most of the people saying agree here are not giving any reason "ie: "let's merge these articles ASAP" counts for nothing. Based on the media coverage, it is clear that this event is different than the other shootings. The first shootings were against soldiers, while this one was against school children. While the incidents seem to be related based on evidence (but no proof yet as the murderer has not been found), there is a clear difference in gravity. There is nothing wrong with having a "see also" to link the two articles since they are related. I also agree with the point that it would be inappropriate to merge the two articles when the result would be that this incident would dominate the new article since the other one is merely a shell. 99.237.3.66 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

saying that the Agree statements are not giving any reason is a blatant lie (not saying that any of this reasons are good enough to justify the merge). I don't see the difference of gravity (is it morally more wrong to kill a dog or a cute little puppy? to me, both are as wrong as neither the school children nor the unarmed soldiers had any chance to escape the gunman). I also don't agree with the assumption that this article is so much more detailed than the other one. Layout here is very misleading, information appears sometimes twice or sometimes is redundant with the info on the other article.46.18.96.82 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French police officially announced all the attacks where carried out with the same gun and that they were connected and done by one man on a moped. They are searching for this guy as we speak. Why have three seperate articles then? I mean, if we have a seperate article for the attack on the school we should have a seperate article for the killing of those soldiers too. Why not merge it into one large, complete article? I see no valid reason(s) why not to and if you don't merge them, I don't see the article making it to the In The News section anyway (which would give it more attention and would probably improve it further). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 46.18.96.82, there is a significant difference between an attack on a school, an attack on children and an attack on soldiers. Perhaps the soldier article should be merged into the school article? and Ajnem, the deprecatory whining is quite pathetic. Other school shootings around the world receive significant coverage. Are you saying that this attack on a Jewish school is merely a local criminal affair? --Shuki (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, the investigations are still ongoing.

according to the article some victims are more special than others, that is not neutral.--Dasfreedomfighters (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, can we find someone to close this discussion and perform the merge, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

quality supercedes format

I understand the wish for some sort of systematic format, but the quality of the article has subsequently been reduced and includes needless redundancies as well as awkward 'see above' and 'see below'. Please be careful. --Shuki (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and make it better! Some of that was me, and I disagree about the change in quality. The quality of the article has been improved, overall, not decreased. WHen I started working on this article, it had almost no structure, the lede was rambling, there were minimal sources, and there was incorrect information (even given the fast breaking nature of the article). Minor redundancies and cross-references from section to section are common in articles, especially when different sections examine different aspects of a topic. Some of them will be appropriate; others are typically sourced from multiple editors and frequent edits, but need some editing. Dovid (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete

I copied over most the non-redundant text, but I did leave a few sentences out here and there. I also didn't copy the victim's names as I personally do not feel that adds anything. Anyone who feels the "missing" text should be merged may do so by accessing the article's history, but please be sure to properly document any copying that you do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge incomplete?

There are currently three articles:

All three are different and all three appear with the title 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, the latter two with a "redirected from" notice.

Weird Miguel (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is how merges normally work. The other titles redirect to the target. Superm401 - Talk 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]