Talk:Killing of Nahel Merzouk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

@WikiCleanerMan: "Naël Case" was not the name of the person. "Case" is the noun meaning "affair", "scandal", "criminal event". Naël was an early spelling mistake by the media. He is now called "Nahel M." His full last name not been made public. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I had not seen I could move the page myself. Done. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Banana50iq The contributions you've made to the article consist of removing a reliable source in favor of three tweets and uncited speculation about the victim's character. They include misuse of external links and are not written in an encyclopedic tone. Please discuss any changes you want to make here, before adding reverting them back into the article. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Mercedes

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.

---

Who rented the car which Nahel was driving without a licence? Why wasn't the renter driving? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Our article already notes it was rented by Nahel M. [1] "Nahel M. rented the car through an application that did not require any documents." Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2023 (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.

Merger proposal

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.

The result of this discussion was merged per WP:DOIT- Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Killing of Nael M seems to be the same article, should it be merged into this one? FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  16:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Support and frankly this is a case of WP:DOIT. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 17:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support merging the other article into this one, the correct spelling. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Most sources report "Nael M" instead of Nahel. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 17:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support, Just Do It. Preferably into the Nael M article Presidentofyes12 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2023 (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.

21-year-old death

According to this source https://www.nicematin.com/faits-divers/emeutes-dans-les-banlieues-le-jeune-homme-blesse-durant-une-attaque-est-decede-858266, a 21-year-old man has also died due to the riots. How do I edit this in? Brocen (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Issue resolved, edit made Brocen (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi protect request

people are putting porn on this page so semi protect it Sebbog13 (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

Top section: Change “The official version of events” to “Initial reporting on the incident, informed by police statements,” Trilomonk (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, please mention that he is of Moroccan and Algerian descent. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/world/europe/nahel-france-police-shooting-nanterre.html 2600:100C:A211:73E1:78BC:D15B:EA1D:2C4 (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done: lede now reads "a 17-year-old French youth of Maghrebi (Moroccan and Algerian[2]) descent" Xan747 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Surname

Is there any reliable source for the subject's surname, and therefore the title of the page? My Google News only shows it on Yahoo, which isn't the best for fact checking or non-Anglosphere stories, in my personal opinion. French Wikipedia has the surname in one reference, but that's probably added by an over-eager editor, as the source itself uses just the initial in the title. [2] This is very basic WP:V stuff, how can an article be titled after an assumption? Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• First sentence: [3]. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Background

The current content of Background section is quite woke - along the lines of "police is evil, arabs are discriminated". No mentions of real context - recurrent terrorist attacks by islamists in France, no-go zones, arab ghettos, elevated terror threat levels for years, with military patrols in cities - the context explaining why French police gets nervous in the situation this killing took place. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree; it portrays the authorities as being routinely racist against people of Arab & African descent. There's no mention of the demographics or incidents of crime in France. Post 9/11, it has by far the highest incidence of terrorism of any country in the Western world. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys can read the sources (that themselves discuss background in relation to this event) and, if warranted, suggest improved phrasings. Of course, the immediate mention of islamists and the idea that France having a high incidence of terrorism is necessary context suggests to me that the concern here is not in good faith. Kingsif (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it to folks who read French, as I don't. I don't see why mentioning islamism and terrorism in the context of this event is a bad faith? These attacks happen in France routinely, the last time less than a month ago some dude of Syrian origin butchered some kids (https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230615-france-knife-attack-suspect-transferred-to-psychiatric-hospital). Sure it is completely irrelevant context for an event when French police sees three arab yongsters driving around a Mercedes and trying to escape police. Birdofpreyru (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Nahel Merzouk Background

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.

---

The current subsection on the background of Merzouk is very confusing. It says that he did not have a criminal record, and then immediately after says: “But he was "known to the police, particularly for resisting arrest," and in fact had been charged with resisting the previous weekendand five times since 2021. His judicial file included 15 recorded incidents, including use of false license plates, driving without insurance, and for the sale and consumption of narcotics.”

The information in this paragraph seems to contradict the opening sentence. It says he did not have a criminal record, and then elaborates the details of a lengthy criminal record. Is there a technical definition of “criminal record” being used here? If so, I think that definition should be elaborated, so that the paragraph makes sense. Is it that he was never convicted in these 15 incidents? Or that he was not charged?

In either of these cases, I would think it would be more accurate to say something like “Merzouk has not been charged or convicted in any criminal case, however he does have an extensive record of contact with law enforcement.” The rest of the paragraph would make more sense in that case. Currently it is a non-sequitur. EthanZappa (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the lack of a “criminal record” a technicality based on the fact that he has a minor and has only been arrested and charged as a juvenile? I cannot read the French sources, so I am unable to verify. But the way this is written seems fallacious. Why would the topic sentence for a paragraph about a person’s history of criminal charges state that the person has no criminal record? EthanZappa (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a technical definition of “criminal record” being used here? - a "criminal record" has always referred to convictions. This does not need to be spelled out. Kingsif (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Basically in France the justice is pretty lenient (especially with underage offenders) and tends not to sentence offenders before several offenses have been committed. The term "casier judiciaire" means the official record of people who have been sentenced, and Nahel had none as he was never sentenced. But he did get arrested 15 times for various offenses. 90.119.26.215 (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not specific to France, that's just what a criminal record is everywhere. If you want to continue chatting about Nahel's arrests, social media exists. Kingsif (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You are missing a nuance in EthanZappa's comment and it's not professional behavior to write this question off the way you do and to try to close the discussion. If France never gives underage offenders a criminal record, then it is of course non-informative to state that Nahel does not have a criminal record (as no-one his age does, however bad they may be), and not expanding on the fact that he has been arrested many times may be an unfortunate omission, as the age of criminal responsibility differs widely between different countries: in France this statement may be completely non-informative, while in Canada it would mean he has not been arrested for a serious crime since the age of 14. Without clarifying his arrest record, this article is not internationally accessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.59.107 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2023 (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.

Split Proposal

I have a proposal. Should the 2023 French Race Riots be split into its own article named 2023 French Race Riots? The template in the Nationwide unrest section has it named as that. Cwater1 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like Nahel Merzouk protests was split off of this article or from an article that was merged to this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V Hi. I saw that earlier ago. Thanks! Cwater1 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Documents"

Merzouk rented the car through an application that did not require any documents.

References

I'm gonna boldly remove this bit for now, because it seems like a Frenchism that doesn't really make sense without more context in English. An application is a document. Are we talking about an "app" like on your phone? The source doesn't offer any clarity. GMG^talk 12:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing confusing about that at all. It's obviously referring to a computer/smartphone application. We tend to shorten the word to "app" in English, but using "application" instead is not incorrect. No reason to assume a grammatical error in the translation. 2603:8001:8700:1739:7C0F:8C3D:2E4D:4A3D (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be sensitive to language differences, and honestly...I'm a little skeptical about the source...cause...it looks kinda crap. It looks a lot like a dolled-up blog. There's lots of empty sections, and a lot of obvious errors in things like grammar and capitalization that make me suspect it's AI generated, or at least AI assisted by someone who doesn't speak English very well. GMG^talk 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem with section Police version challenged by a video

The article cited to corroborate the fact that the video challenged the version of event provided by cops(1) is itself citing an article(2) from 2022 to corroborate its statement, I hope you see the problem here. I tried and I cannot find the original police statement to verify that claim. All other news site points towards Le Parisien to report the fact that the police allegedly lied. This is really weird. Can we find that original statement? If not it seems like this whole section should be rewritten to account for this incongruency.

1. https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/nanterre-un-homme-tue-par-un-tir-de-la-police-apres-un-refus-dobtemperer-27-06-2023-NUHSC3W3X5GYDGWDXCA36APNUU.php

2. https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/refus-dobtemperer-ces-versions-qui-saffrontent-apres-les-tirs-mortels-de-policiers-a-paris-07-06-2022-B5LPKFQF2BAXVINWAI3ILAMBQQ.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some1 looking (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the statistic about cars destroyed be removed from the intro?

I'm new here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the rule of thumb is that each sentence in the introduction should be elaborated upon in the body section, and the statistics in the introduction about cars being destroyed and protesters being arrested in the subsequent protests already exists down in the 'Nationwide Unrest' section. Should the introduction sentence be cut? Trilomonk (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Initial reactions section

I was struck by the initial reactions section, insofar as, in contrast to what the article reports, both Kylian Mbappé (speaking for the French football team) and Nahel's grandmother have called for an end to the riots. Perhaps these elements have not been added because of the name of the section?

I also just finished reading an article in Le Monde (§) about the €1 million raised in 4 days on gofundme for the family of the police officer... not sure what to make of that, but it's rather a lot of money. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Le Monde: Set up by Jean Messiha, a figure of the « fachosphère ». The far right is instrumentalizing the police officer's family.

That fachosphère-call for donations was closed at the French platform Leetchi due to hate speech/ sedition. Than re-opend at the US-platform Gofundme - with many calls on GoFundMe to close it.

David Guiraud wrote: “The assumed message is kill Arabs, and you will become millionaires, and the government watches this horror pass without saying anything when it had closed the yellow vest pot in 2 days who hit a policeman. Repugnant.”

• https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/l-invite-de-8h20-le-grand-entretien/l-invite-de-8h20-le-grand-entretien-du-lundi-03-juillet-2023-809681
• https://www.lesoir.be/523281/article/2023-07-03/mort-de-nahel-comment-lextreme-droite-instrumentalise-une-cagnotte-en-ligne
• https://www.publicsenat.fr/actualites/societe/mort-de-nahel-la-polemique-grandit-autour-de-la-cagnotte-ouverte-pour-le-policier-de-nanterre
• https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/07/03/insulting-appeal-for-french-policeman-who-killed-teen-raises-more-than-900000/
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/3/fund-for-french-police-officer-who-killed-nahel-m-tops-1m

Generosity makes no noise. There is another "call for donations" for the police officer with a civic approach. The Messiha-Eric Zemmour one ist a political provocation.--91.54.12.120 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"You're going to get shot in the head."

As someone who speaks French, this is not what can be heard on the video found in this very article. What is heard is Nahel's voice, less loud because inside the vehicle, saying to the officer "Pas dans la tête!" ("Not in the head!") as he is getting punched in the face. The officer only says "Coupe!" ("cut", aka "turn off the engine") repeatedly and "Depêche toi!" ("quickly"). Nahel then says "Tu m’as foutu un coup dans la tête!" ("You hit me in the head!") to which the policeman answers "Coupe!" and then the conversation ends. 90.119.26.215 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If there is a source that say this, we could add it. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is plainly wrong, we should not add it if a source says it. Indeed, other sources discuss with hesitation who is saying what. Here is my interpretation, unsure of who is who. "Not in the head!" "Cut, cut!" "Hurry up!" "You hit me in the head! "Cut!". Note: not trying to add my version, just thought it would be relevant. The last bit is more difficult to understand. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If my previous response was unclear, then I apologize. My original comment was that we cannot use our interpretation of what is said in the video due to the No original research policy, so we need a source for it.

However, I did not consider WP:TRANSCRIPTION when I made that comment. Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. So it seems that it is fine to attempt to translate what is said in the video. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Good thought. Since the audio quality is poor, it would be nice to get other native French speakers' transcriptions. I could be mistaken. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's Yanny or Laurel. The audio is bad enough that we'll hear whatever transcript we've first read.

Nevertheless, the family's lawyers say that the old transcript is the correct one, and prosecutors have hired forensic experts to figure out what was said in the video (sources: RTL, state broadcaster, Le Parisien, all reliable). So we could just hold off until they release their conclusions. DFlhb (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

General consensus now seems to be he said turn it off, hands behind your head. The phrase "shoot him" would in fact be "cut it off". Chamaemelum (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that. The general consensus is that the police was caught in lies and without the video: case closed. Fatal shots during police checks in Paris have been increasing in a disturbing manner for years, with 13 people dying in their vehicles in 2022 alone. And the cases are the same: controls, failure to follow police instructions, escape, shots, myths of self-defense, revealing videos. The fact that, according to the first official statement from the police, the car was said to have raced towards the officers was an attempt to "reverse guilt", which the videos shatter with force.--91.54.12.120 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(I mean consensus of French speaking people on interpreting the words that were said, not Wikipedia consensus.) Chamaemelum (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you point me towards that first statement? I tried to find it and I couldn't find it.

see talk section named Problem with section Police version challenged by a video Some1 looking (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested in checking out the French version of this article. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Omission of facts in the "Shooting" section

The current version of the "Shooting" section states as course of events that led to the shooting: "Nahel, who had Algerian heritage, was stopped by two police officers at approximately 8:30 am (CEST) near the François Arago crossing, close to the Nelson Mandela Square, due to traffic violations." This gives the impression that the police officers overreacted with drawn guns to a harmless "traffic violation" like switching lanes without signaling. According to an article of Reuters however, the police officers had tried to perform a first (routine) traffic stop of Nahel Merzouk for the illegal use of a bus lane before the shooting. Instead of complying, Nahel Merzouk sped off and committed not only several additional traffic offences, but also endangered the life of a pedestrian and a cyclist due to his reckless driving. When the police officers were finally able to approach his car - which had stopped because of a traffic jam - they were thus not just approaching someone "due to traffic violations" but someone who had just committed several felonies, had fled from a traffic stop and was still in control of a deadly weapon (his car). The current version of the "Shooting" section ommits all these facts and should be rewritten in a way that mention these facts and thus gives a more balanced description that explains the "guns drawn"-approach of the police officers. MiBerG (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm MiBerG I don't think we should fetishize "felonies" here, which might mean something completely different in a different country anyway, and which are alleged. I mean, I am sure you wouldn't want to assume that whatever the police officers wrote up in their report is automatically true. Nor am I sure why you'd assume that "traffic violations" are automatically harmless--I actually don't know of any traffic violations that are inherently harmless. So I think it's a pretty decent term to use in a summary. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"During the pursuit, several traffic violations were observed, including driving through crosswalks, endangering a pedestrian and a cyclist." Source: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/06/29/hour-by-hour-from-a-deadly-traffic-stop-to-the-march-in-memory-of-nahel-m_6039689_7.html --91.54.1.234 (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

So according to one source, albeit a reliable one (unless Le Monde is quoting someone?), certain things were "observed"--by whom? how accurate were their observations? etc. Indeed, Le Monde calls them traffic violations, for better or for worse, so we should stick to that. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And drug dealing and use should not be deleted without explanation. I restored the deletion! He didn't have any criminal record. But a thick judicial file.--91.54.1.234 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "fetishize felonies". The fact is, as reported by Reuters, that he fled from a traffic stop, endangered the life of other people by his reckless driving and didn't stop voluntarily to cooperate with the police but was stopped by a traffic jam. Considering all this it is factual wrong and misleading to summarize the course of events as "he was stopped due to traffic violations" and thus ommit the other extraordinary facts that made the police officers approach his car with a much higher concern about their and other people safety than it would have been during a routine traffic stop. MiBerG (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I also have to ask how the video contradicts the officers claims about being in fear of their safety. People know you can turn a car, right? Or they could have side swiped the police, right? If you are standing next to a vehicle of a reckless driver, you have every right to fear for your safety if the driver just starts to speed off.

The article should have less loaded language along the lines of "However, video photoage of the incident has lead many to claim that the officers were in no risk of danger." TCGGH (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge killing article and riots article

I think 'Killing of Nahel Merzouk' and 'Nahel Merzouk Protests' should be merged into a single article as they presently overlap so heavily. All of the information on the former could and should be placed on the latter. CoyotesKenning (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@CoyotesKenning: You'll need to propose this as a merge of the two articles. To do that, please see Wikipedia:Merging (although I don't believe most editors will agree that they should be merged, since the protests themselves are quite notable and are covered in much greater detail at Nahel Merzouk protests). Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Where should I post that proposal? CoyotesKenning (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Did not have a criminal record?"

What the heck does this mean? Resisting arrest, driving without insurance, and drug dealing are all crimes where I live. Also according to the family lawyers, so not sure this is reliable enough to just go in the body without attribution. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Gone ahead and changed it. Anyone with objections can say so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Because of his age, he was never convicted. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Already discussed just above. DFlhb (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that I've seen that discussion, I would say it was closed prematurely, as multiple people are being confused by what "criminal record" means here. For example, I worked last summer at a prosecutor's office in the United States; to us, "no criminal record" means the person has never been charged with any crime. The comments indicate I'm not the only person understanding it this way. My edit made the contrast between 'no criminal record' and 'fifteen arrests' less jarring, but probably introduced other problems: the section could now be interpreted to mean 'interested party A says X, but the reality is Y' and to imply that Merzouk's family is being disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst—someone with my understanding of the phrase "criminal record" probably would read it that way—when the reality is that "crimianl record" is not a great translation of what was actually said because the ideas don't necessarily correspond. I'm not really sure how to fix this, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Can you read this?: Critique des médias. It was not pretty, rather a lynching attempt of Nahel's character and reputation. --91.54.12.120 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Not without the help of a machine translation, but it's enough to get the picture. I don't see how it's relevant to my comments, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Well, a machine is not able to translate human language. And never will. Understanding requires human attention and compassion: The law was violated by publishing extracts from police files that are not accessible to the public - in particular from the TAJ (fr:Traitement d'antécédents judiciaires "Register of Previous Judicial Contacts") kept by the police. Basically, only "the police" can be responsible for this. With the help of certain médias/journalists. Nahel was never arrested, he was never charged with any crime, he was never convicted, he had no "criminal record", in French casier judiciaire.

On 27 July, Nahel did not resist an "arrest"! It really troubles me that a person who has read the article could think such a thing. The police officers wanted to carry out a simple traffic stop. They were so poorly educated and trained, so inefficient and incompetent that one of them moved into the car with his upper body and the other leaned on the car. No trained police officer does that!

And then they both uttered death threats and punched an adolescent three times with the butt of the weapon on the head. That's right there is a crime. They did it until Nahel was so panicky, numb, feeble, weakened that he released the brake pedal, causing the car to start off slowly forward, given that the gearbox was automatic. And then - instead of memorising the number of the licence plate and later summon the driver to come to the police headquarter, as in every civilised country in the world - they shoot a kid dead! As if we were at war or in the lawless Wild West... Oh wait, the deadly shooter was at war. Afghanistan. A war that violated international law. Did he learned his "skills" there? Then changed uniforms and did not receive any police-training?

The police officers lied and pleaded self-defense until his lie was exposed. To this they added false statements to their police hierarchy and the investigators, yes, the the executive even opened criminal proceedings against the (already dead!) Nahel for allegedly attempting to kill the officers.... ils sont fous ces romains!

The discourse of an "inexcusable act" used by the state representatives was implausible, because the past months were marked by excesses of police violence (from the yellow vests protests, the "Pension reform" protests to the banned environmental "Les Soulèvements de la Terre protests", state violence was always preferred to dialogue). Clashes between the population, frustrated by the ongoing police violence, were the result. Especially after the police prefect Laurent Nuñez lied. Hope to have cleared your question. --91.54.13.116 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOAP, not directed to article improvement. WWGB (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The victim's lawyers reacted strongly, publishing a press release in which they warned: "The family reserves the right to sue all those who invent, as has already been done today, non-existent entries in the criminal record. Justice of the young man". The press release specified that the victim “has never been condemned by justice”.

The spokesperson for the Ministry of the Interior, Camille Chaize, was questioned about these famous criminal records, subjects of many approximations. And delivered a clear answer: “It is not the subject of the debate, it does not make sense to think like this, regardless of whether or not he was known to the police. What happened, this a tragedy. […] But it's true that some police sources, or we sometimes have some leaks that highlight judicial records, ... which is intrajudicial, which is not the criminal record." [4]

A fachosphere's favorite journalist is now sued for misappropriating information from the adolescent "Register of Previous Judicial Contacts" to criminalise and character assassinate him him. Le Monde--91.54.30.183 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023 (criminal record)

Posted without reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Nahel_Merzouk&diff=1164076667&oldid=1164018423

Please, in the sentence: "On 19 July 2016, Adama Traoré, a 24-year-old black man in France, with a heavy criminal record, died while in custody after being restrained and apprehended by the police." delete ", with a heavy criminal record,".

This is character assassination of Nahel. From the the « fachosphère ». Source: [5] Libération "Sur France Info, ce mercredi 28 juin, l’avocate Me Jennifer Campla a répété que l’adolescent «n’a jamais été condamné, il a un casier judiciaire vierge»" → *translation service* → "he had a virgin criminal record" 91.54.30.183 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am confused how this is character assassination of Nahel? The portion you want corrected is referring to someone else. Your source also has nothing to do with the Adam Traorè. It is a series of Fact Checks on the claims about the technically nonexistent record of Nahel, primarily by a claimed Right-Wing commentator Charlotte d'Ornellas on a claimed Right-Wing Broadcaster. All it does is clarify that Nahel himself did not have a Criminal Record due to having never been prosecuted. A non-disclosed source stated that a judge had given him educational sanctions for traffic infractions and resisting arrest. In France, this is not enough to have an official rap sheet. But it is enough to fairly conclude that he was known to the police. Your source has no mention of Traorè anywhere. Did you use the wrong sentence?

I now have to ask where Nahel's character is assassinated? It does not make any false claims and just states what state and private media have reported, that Nahel does not have an official criminal record but has had run ins with the police and legal system before, at least as far as we know for now. TCGGH (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Nahel had no criminal record. Full stopp.--91.54.31.96 (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This is so intentionally reductive that I don't know how you can be be apart of editing this page while not threatening the integrity of it's neutrality. I didn't even deny that he had no official record. Many other sources confirm this. What they do have is reports on him. He was known to the police for minor infractions and resisting during altercations. That is all that is confirmed, with the possibility that he had been given educational sanctions by a judge. That is not the same as having a rap sheet but it does show that he was known to the police. That is all I am saying. That is exactly what your own source says.

This is all dodging the fact that you claimed that the description of an entirely different individual's record is somehow defaming another. It seems sto be mistranslated and you can critique that, but otherwise your request is unfounded and I recommend you stop trying to force your own research and opinions onto the page. TCGGH (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The victim's lawyers reacted strongly, publishing a press release in which they warned: "The family reserves the right to sue all those who invent, as has already been done today, non-existent entries in the criminal record. Justice of the young man". The press release specified that the victim “has never been condemned by justice”. Source: liberation.fr --91.54.29.149 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I already addressed ad nauseam that you are being dishonest with your own source by being selective with what you present from it, so I'm just going to leave it at that. You don't need to be apart of this page because you are clearly not interested in presenting unbiased, un-doctored information and instead want to present your opinion and analysis. TCGGH (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Nahel, not Naël

Nahel's name is not "also spelled Naël", and the source that is cited contains nothing of the sort. Some medias made that mistake at first, which is not surprising because Naël is a well-known given named pronounced \na.ɛl\ while Nahel is rare, but the more recent articles in serious medias have the correct spelling (many were amended after the fact). Lapin de cuisine (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Removed. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Testimony of Officer in custody (Florian M.) Put wherever you feel is appropriate

Put this wherever you believe it is most suited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCGGH (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This France 24 Article (https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230706-policeman-denies-threatening-nahel-m-before-fatally-shooting-him-sparking-french-riots) Has part of the testimony of the detained officer.

The officer told investigators from the IGPN police investigation unit that he had worked eight consecutive days before the shooting last Tuesday.

He described making a first attempt to pull over the powerful yellow Mercedes being driven in a bus lane by Nahel, who did not have a licence.

The teenager refused to comply and accelerated to a speed of 80-100 km/h (40-60 mph), according to the second officer involved in the incident.

When they caught up with the car a second time, Florian M. said he pulled out his weapon.

He said he thought his colleague had “the top of his body inside the car, probably to try to control the driver or to try to press on the stop button”.

When the car moved off again, he said he opened fire because he thought his colleague was in danger.

Video of the incident shows both officers standing by the side window of the car.

Nahel died from a bullet wound to the chest, the police report says.

TCGGH (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@TCGGH: "Florian had only worked for 8 consecutive days up to the point up the shooting." → You are making things up and don't understand the very basics. The France 24 article says: "he had worked eight consecutive days before the shooting last Tuesday." That means he worked without a weekend break! Basically, policeman Florian M. said: It was only 7 o'clock in the morning, but I was already too tired to be able to work normally and perform a simple traffic stop. If this is true, he should have gone to his doctor and taken a medical leave. He should not go out on the streets and shoot children dead.

What is a "senior partner"? And policeman Florian M. is only a "junior"? You are making things up. Again. After Nahel's death the Médias described Florian M. as "very professional". Afghanistan war, several awards during his career as policeman, including two from Police Prefect for his actions in maintaining order during the yellow vests protests in 2020, etc... No, Florian M. is not "junior" anything.

The "stop button" is a pretext for having grabbed into the car. Not "professional". The policemen uttered death threats and punched Nahel with the butt of their weapons on the head until Nahel collapsed. He was so weakened that he released the brake pedal, causing the car to start off slowly forward, given that the gearbox was automatic. Not "professional". Criminal.

Here an academic source: Alain Bauer, professor of criminology: the fact that the police lied about what happened "ruined the case" and "added fuel to the fire"... "technical gestures are bad. If it had been an exercise, the policeman in question would not have had the average [from Arabic عَوَارِيَّة‎ (ʕawāriyya)], he would have been obliged to relearning a certain number of technical gestures. It is linked to the poor quality of information, the poor quality of continuing education, the poor quality of shooting training"... "If he had felt in danger, we could have understood what happened." But there was no immediate danger. Bauer concluded policeman Florian M. shouldn't have been on the hood of the car, and he shouldn't have been in a shooting position like that. The policemen pleaded self-defense until the lie was exposed. --87.170.197.22 (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we please keep discussion focused on what reliable secondary sources have said not editors personal analyses. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I misread what a source on the officer in custody said. I corrected it by just copying and pasting the entire article and deleting what I originally wrote. So now it is nothing more than a pure secondary source. The other comment, however, is it's own animal. TCGGH (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading how long he worked. I thought it read that he had only word for 8 consecutive working days. I'll fix it with edits.

As for the rest of your rant, none of that is confirmed anywhere else except by your single academic source and the friend of the Nahel who was in the back of the car. You're claim that he was so weakened he released the break is pure speculation.

Also, the claim that your source is "Academic" is itself somewhat misleading, as it isn't an academic paper of any kind. It is one expert's professional opinion from years of experience and recent consulting wirh current working policeman. Interesting to be sure, it can and should be used in the wiki article, but the way you use it is dishonest.

First off, the translation is very poor. It had a lot of grammatical errors. It also didn't include any actual explanation of the said "Technical gestures." And what was done wrong specifically and what should have been done. Maybe the whole guest spot had more but your source doesn't include it.

But despite all this, your own source says, quote,

"But if he had felt in danger, we could have understood what happened. Except that "the lie is what ruins everything in this case", estimated the professor of criminology. According to him, the legitimate defense could have worked the moment the vehicle restarts and it's lying on the hood." But it shouldn't have been on the hood and it shouldn't have been in a firing position which is that “, concluded Alain Bauer. (It literally cuts off mid sentence as well. What else did he say? Was there anything else? Why end it here? The translation is kinda bad here, again.)

So, to reiterate, this is only one professional OPINION/analysis of the single situation in a single guest spot. This doesn't confirm or deny anything from a legal prospective by itself. He could probably be used as key testimony on the trial, but they would most likely have better expert sources that are more specialized and currently working in this specific area. We have to wait for the investigation to conclude and for the evidence to be examined under trial before we can claim in the wiki what did and what didn't happen with 100%. There will still probably still be stuff that we have to make clear isn't confirmed 100% either anyway, as is almost always done in cases like this when it comes to article creation. A lot can come out between now and then. Your source is not evidence. It's speculation using a professional OPINION from a legal perspective.

The other problem with your framing is that the Criminologist himself said that the poor gesturing would have been forgivable if the officers where in danger. His opinion, influenced partly by talking with working officers, is that the current evidence from photos and videos shows the cops in the shooting were not in danger. You should leave it at that, because that is all it is. TCGGH (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) TCGGH (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@TCGGH: No. Again. You don't understand the very basics. I can assure you, you mis-understand and mis-translate. But it shouldn't have been on the hood" translated correctly: "But he [policeman Florian Menesplier] shouldn't have been on the hood"... because it is an unprofessional "technical gesture". That he was never in danger, that is what Mr. Bauer, up to the President Macron, all are saying. --91.54.30.183 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Where did I mistate what was stated in YOUR source? I used the exact same wording the translation gave and said that this was just an analysis from an outside professional. He was not there nor is he the judge on this case Macron is also not the judge that will be on this case. Whether or not he he has reasonable cause to fear for his and his partner safety has not been legally confirmed or denied. Therefore you cannot put anything otherwise in the wiki article as that violates impartiality. We are not a site that offers opinions. We merely present information, sources, and opinions and claims of those involved to the topic at gand. That is all I was saying.

With that said, you are not even doing good job at presenting Mr. Baeuer's full take. He himself states that the poor gesturing technique would not have mattered if they hadn't misrepresented what happened. Quote, from your own source, and the very same individual in the exact same discussion:

'The policeman would therefore not have had the normal gestures that would have made it possible to avoid this tragedy. "But if he had felt in danger, we could have understood what happened. Except that "the lie is what ruins everything in this case", estimated the professor of criminology. According to him, the legitimate defense could have worked the moment the vehicle restarts and it's lying on the hood." But it shouldn't have been on the hood and it shouldn't have been in a firing position which is that “, concluded Alain Bauer.' TCGGH (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Here [6]: «"Mais il n’aurait pas dû être sur le capot et il n’aurait pas dû être dans une position de tirs qui est celle-là", a conclu Alain Bauer.» → Translation service: «"But he shouldn't have been on the hood and he shouldn't have been in a shooting position like that." concluded Alain Bauer.» Translation service: «il» is "he" not "it".--91.54.31.96 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I never disputed that this was said in the interview. Jus that you left a lot of context out, including how he had said in the sentence immediately after that it would have been understandable for them to fear dange of their own lives but that the lying about some the specifics is what makes their defense weaker. I'm going to leave it at this at this because it is clear you are only interested in pushing out your version of events rather than simply presenting the most accurate information in the most impartial yet encompassing way possibility which is literally the entire point of Wikipedia. Go write a blog or something, as this is not the place for you TCGGH (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure we should have a video of child’s murder in the infobox?

Murder of George Floyd and Killing of Eric Garner both have only a screen shot from both of their respective videos. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Beyond WP:NOTCENSORED, there's also the direct relevance as it helps the reader by showing them exactly what happened (instead of the disputed police statement that they were acting in self defense). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it isn’t censored but it’s also not live leak. I’m more suggesting having a screen cap in the info box and external linking to the full video in the body like in Murder of George Floyd#Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck rather than remove it all together.— FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

A still cannot convey that the police officers were never in any immediate danger as the clip can. For George Floyd, a still can show an officer with his knee on Floyd's neck. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I mainly wanted to make sure that there was a reason for its inclusion. I am generally opposed to media of a graphic nature included in articles without good reason (see:WP:GRATUITOUS) but since there seems to be one I will withdraw my objections. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

One problem with an external link: I just checked Murder of George Floyd#Chauvin kneels on Floyd's neck, and it links to YouTube which won't let me view the video until I "sign in to confirm my age" - which I refuse to do, not because I'm underage, but just on principle. I don't think Wikipedia should be outsourcing its censoring. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

YouTube controlling its viewership is no different to a print reference sitting behind a paywall. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

no different to a print reference sitting behind a paywall — that's true, but the context (in this discussion) was replacing the legally-acceptable on-Wikipedia video with an external link, which would be contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of template:External media#When to use, purely for the purposes of "censoring" it. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

And "that's" not also true. It is not equivalent. Paywal=for money making. Sign in to confirm my age=for protection of minors, ethics. Child protection (in this case for brutality) is a norm we may wish to embrace. Censoring is a political process. The executive (government, police) would certainly have been happier if the video hadn't reached the public. The legislative branch is already acting on the basis of this video. --87.170.197.22 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Technically it's not a murder as there was no prior planning or motive too kill. At best he will be charged with manslaughter as it was a off the cuff decision. I believe you mean killing, which I can understand if you don't want to show, but 1. It doesn't actually show the kid going limp or anything. It's not graphic.

2. It's important to understand the context of what happened without having any spin put on it. It should stay as is. Maybe an extended video would be better if we can get one though. TCGGH (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't wish to argue this point, so I'm just going to clarify by saying that my characterization of the killing as a murder was personal opinion, not statement of fact. I do not wish to see the article moved or to call the killing a murder on the article proper as a conclusive statement of fact, at least right now per WP:BLPCRIME. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough TCGGH (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"French people of an Islamo-Arabic background"

It is problematic to identify an Islamo-Arabic background with the existing "French people", being identified with the term "nation" in its respective article which itself is defined as a social organization of collective identity.

This is a matter presently up for debate, as the article suggests, thus a clearer and less leading term should be adopted. It would be more apt to say something along the lines of "Islamo-Arabic people residing in France." rather than "French people with an Islamo-Arabic background." 114.77.185.182 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Kevins and Mattéos

FWIW, this is an excerpt from the less partisan page on the protests: Appearing before a Senate commission on 5 July, the Interior Minister indicated that it was inaccurate to characterize the rioters as being primarily of one ethnic group, saying "there were plenty of Kevins and Mattéos" involved in the suburban violence. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Title

Would the article title of "Fatal Parisian Police Shooting of Nael M." be more accurate? Jaiquiero (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You should give a reason instead of just saying "no", otherwise, how can we through a discussion arrive at a meaningful consensus? IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That'd be far too long. Killing/Shooting of [name] is the usual format. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The riots are larger than the killing now. This should has been merged into the riot article, not vice versa. Sgnpkd (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the riots are more notable than the shooting, as well as more costly. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The political motivation behind this is blatantly obvious. The police officer has not been sentenced yet, there is no justification for bypassing the legal system, jumping to conclusions, and calling it a "killing" based on armchair and laymen interpreters, i.e. the average Wikipedia contributor. IndyCar1020 (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that one of our administrators has now locked down the ability to rename the article. This is quite shameful. All that talk about no original research, apparently it goes right out the window the moment someone becomes emotional, including the administrators. It is not up to us to decide if it was justified or not. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It was clearly a killing, so the title is correct & much more specific than death. We're not describing it as murder, manslaughter, lawful killing etc. because they'll likely be a trial. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Stating that "it was clearly a killing" is not just original research but also heavily biased. It should be neural and devoid of OR, "shooting" is therefore more accurate and appropriate. IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not OR or biased. It's known that he was shot dead, which is a killing. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing matters a lot. Are you saying it doesn't?

If you phrase it as a "shooting" it sounds more legitimate than "a killing". IndyCar1020 (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

See the flowchart at WP:DEATHS. The title of this article is based on that. Hddty (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Killing has more negative implications than shooting does imo, but it's not that big of a deal. Although I would prefer if it was changed to shooting. TCGGH (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It has more negative implications because killing someone is a more severe action than only wounding them sure. But that's not our concern, if anything it's the opposite. We only use shooting when the person shot did not die as a result of the shooting. That isn't the case here and there's no chance even the lawyers for the officer are going to deny he killed Nahel Merzouk. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Decedent versus victim

Moved from User talk:Someone who's wrong on the internet § Decedent versus victim

@Someone who's wrong on the internet: I admit I'm puzzled over your recent change. One can be a victim of mistaken identity, an avalanche, an administrative error, circumstances, etc... none of these things imply that a crime has been committed. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If a burglar gets shot and killed by a homeowner, is the burglar the "victim"? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

if a tree is struck by lightning and falls on a wolf who just brought down a deer... and nobody is in the forest filming the deer as it limps away... is the wolf a victim? what about the deer? and the poor old tree? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

noun for lead sentence

Can we come to some agreement as to what noun to use as the primary descriptor in the lead sentence? So far (mostly from memory, so I could be wrong) we've had man, boy, youth, teenager, 17-year-old, French, but it keeps changing. I propose that we should use youth. It is a common term, less misleading than boy (implies younger) or man (implies an adult), and avoids the duplication inherent in 17-year-old teenager. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, "a French 17-year-old" resolves the question without having to choose a redundant noun that keeps getting changed. Just stick to the facts. It's true that there are sources in the body of the entry that talk about him as an "ado" (for which teenager is the best translation). It's also true he's a minor or a youth, but saying that already apparently leads some to see a slight orientation, hence the constant changes. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

To forestall any arguments, here are some sources that say 17-year-old is valid as a noun (not exclusively as an adjective): [7][8][9][10]. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Just saying a French 17-year-old seems fine to me. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

undue weight

These three articles all are either from or about news outlets that have a tendency to focus on "integration" as a religious issue rather than an economic one. (Atlantico, Mediapart Marianne, CNEWS)

I've removed them from the lead, along with an undue bit about French people of "Arabo-Islamic" origin. Please discuss whether references are needed in the lead, and where these articles should go in the body. (Why are there no references related to the first element (law enforcement) or the first element in relation to the second (violence) in the set of three originally listed? It's certainly not for a lack of available sources... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The language was immediately edit-warred back in despite requests to follow WP:BRD. I'll let others discuss here... nb: I'm not saying the information is wrong, just that there is no mention of police practices, and two mentions of "immigration" and "integration", whereas the teenager killed was a French citizen. I recommend marking up the Telerama article properly and reading it, as it is clearly objecting to CNEWS... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"These three articles all are either from or about news outlets that have a tendency to focus on "integration" as a religious issue rather than an economic one. (Atlantico, Mediapart, CNEWS)"

Nobody is saying that they are right or wrong. The fact that they are debating these issues after the shooting and the rioting IS the information.

BTW, Mediapart being lumped together with CNEWS seems quite absurd. They have diametrically opposing editorials. I guess you meant Marianne? Which is a magazine of reference Varoon2542 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right about my mistake. I've corrected Mediapart to Marianne above. I had intended to add that we don't only cite Mediapart, Libération, and Le Monde Diplomatique in the lede (more prone to talk about police violence and social inequalities), so we also shouldn't be only citing Marianne, Atlantico and articles about CNEWS (all more prone to talk about immigration (or Islamic integration as you put it)) in the lede. In fact there should be no citations in the lede that are not in the body. Especially not blogs, like Samuel Gontier's "Ma vie au poste". If it is cited anywhere it should be attributed, following this sort of model:

Writing in Télérama, Samuel Gontier takes the peas out of CNEWS's expert musketeer's reach.

FWIW: here is some NYT reporting that says part of the problem is that "racism and discrimination" are not permitted to be part of the public debate. cachez ce hijab que je ne saurais voir It also says that discrimination is directed at visible minorities not just Arabs. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Further analysis

The first article in Télérama is a satirical blog, and has no place in this entry (though it is funny). It does not use the term Arabo-Islamic, though it does mention "barbarians" in the title. The Marianne article is reporting about the party Les Republicains and their attempts to gain Le Pen / Zemmour voters. It does not use the term Arabo-Islamic either. The third article is an interview of two people giving their opinions. It is the polemicist Céline Pina's opinion which is being pushed here, though even she does not use the term Arabo-Islamic. Since all three articles fail verification for the term, I think we can safely say consensus is not likely to emerge for inclusion, no? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, just before their fourth revert in two hours, the (Indian) person defending this anti-Muslim material added a fourth source here (an op-ed by Ivan Rioufol in Causeur), a very polemical magazine financed by a former member of the secretariat of the neo-fascist Ordre Nouveau.

On the French entry for M. Rioufol, it is a fun coincidence that there's another article by the same Samuel Gontier mentioned above (this one in a reporting section, not on his blog).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

References

I had no intention of adding anything till others had started weighing in but....the (Indian) person? Really?

I guess you left no ambiguity on your xenophobia and racism. What does my ethnity have to do with my edits?

Do you also presume that any japanese editor on a china related article is malicious by nature?

I'm an indo-mauritian, BTW and guess what? Naturalised french. Deal with it

What's the point in calling me the (Indian) person? Is it supposed to be an ethnic slur? A way to demean me and discredit and denigrate my edits? Are others meant to understand that I have less legitimacy than you to edit this article because I'm not white, not born french and I guess, intellectually deficient by virtue of my race?

It's quite rich being lectured by someone who is clearly an unashamed... islamogauchiste? Varoon2542 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Jusdafax, User:Jusdafax, User:Starship.paint, User:Buffs, Objective3000

I'm truly sorry to bother you all. I really didn't want to drag anyone in this but I want to know if the language he used to describe me is appropriate. the (Indian) person is extremely demeaning. How is my ethnicity related to the quality of my work?

Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: - please strike the (Indian) person. I see it as irrelevant and inappropriate. starship.paint (exalt) 02:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Let's be clear, there is nothing "racist" or "xenophobic" about mentioning someone's stated nationality. This article, written by an Indian fact-checker, may be worth reading.(§) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well whatever, please don't do it again unless you want to be site banned. 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not my nationality. I never stated it. Why even lie? I only mentioned once that I was an indo-mauritian. My nationality at birth is Mauritian. You're quite uncultured if you got that mixed up. In any case, calling me the(indian) person was completely unnecessary. That was (oh irony) racial profiling. You did it with malicious intentions. I have a user name just like you do. Identifying me with my indianness was a racist attempt at discreding me for the reasons stated above.

The link you have sent is pointless. Irrespective of what it says, there is no denial that french media and politicians have spent two weeks commenting on the integration of arabo-muslims in France. The satirical article by Samuel Gontier, criticised it, but actually lists all the instances when such an issue was a matter of debate, proving my point. Again, for the nth time, it's not agreeing with or disagreeing with the nature of the debate. The fact that the debate took place on those lines is the information.

I notice, yet again, that noone else is backing you on this. It's pointless waiting for "consensus" when no one apart from you is bothered by these edits.

Considering how you are so keen on using american sources that are obsessed with race based discrimination, it is quite obvious since the beginning that you're here to defend a cause. I have no time to lose with a social justice warrior especially one that can go down as low as to stigmatise me on the basis of my ethnicity

I've made my point, I rest my case. I won't be replying back here unless anyone else wishes to debate on the issue pertaining to the litigious edits Varoon2542 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The longstanding version does not include the anti-Muslim material you wish to include. If you simply wanted to add "immigration", there would be no problem, but the "arabo-Islamic" slur is unacceptable, as it is unsupported by any reliable sources (including by the far-right op-eds you yourself added to the lede (originally as bare links)). Cf. WP:ONUS, WP:V, WP:DUE. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Page history

This material has been reverted 4 times since 8 July by 2 different people with policy-based reasons: WP:MOS (not in body), WP:V (term not in sources), WP:UNDUE (references are all op-eds or reporting on campaign strategy), WP:ONUS (Burden for getting consensus is on the person seeking to include): [11]: 8 July, [12]: 13 July, [13]: 14 July, [14]: 15 July

It has been restored without consensus 4 times in a shorter period by one person with no policy-based reasons offered: [15]: 9 July, [16]: 13 July, [17]: 14 July 23:46, [18]: 15 July 01:38 (also removing other modifications).

"Better source needed" tags, detailing the problem with each source, were removed by the same person on 15 July: [19].

Parenthetically, their 14 July [20] reversion of an IP who removed the story of the bar that shut down during the riots brings this person to 4RR for the period running from 23:46, 14 July to 01:38, 15 July.

It would be helpful if others could weigh in on what policy suggests concerning these op-eds and satirical blogs in the lede given that this page is linked from the mainpage. For my part, I've taken the page off my watchlist. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So after questioning the antisemitic nature of the sentence "We are going to make a Shoah", now you're also questioning the homophobic nature of "We burn fags"? De pire en pire Varoon2542 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am entirely uninvolved in the deletion of that reference to the bar being closed down. I have also not deleted the reference to Marianne talking about what one person (most likely a teenager) spray-painted on a wall. When the ToI article formerly cited called the information unverified, I removed it, as there is a lot of false information circulating. It seemed better to wait for a more solid source. To your credit you provided that source. I am unimpressed with the polemical style of the write-up in both cases (giving maximal voice to the teenagers saying stupid stuff), but I have not sought to change it. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

First, you have absolutely no proof of them being teenagers

Second, what does it change? Are antisemitism and homophobia less condemnable when practiced by teenagers?

Third, in case the information flew over your heard, the rioters were aged 17 on average. What should we do? Not mention the whole riots because most of the participants were minors?

Be coherent Varoon2542 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. The issue with antisemitism, as I recall, was categorizing the protests as anti-semitic on the basis of one graffiti. As it happens, I am the one who added two articles about the LGBT bar to the protests article. So... let's focus on the issue at hand, and stop with the BS, shall we? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are all the articles in Le Monde which contain the word "arabo-islamique" in the last month. Zero articles related to the Nahel Merzouk protests. Same for Le Figaro... As I mentioned above, none of your op-eds/blogs or the story about the Republicans campaign strategy use it either... why should we?-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Policy discussion at BLP mentioning this article

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of four fitting these criteria which either did not name the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources, or not until after consensus to name was obtained by discussion. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate. Xan747 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)