Talk:Killing of Nahel Merzouk

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): [1]: 8 July, [2]: 13 July, [3]: 14 July, [4]: 15 July

It has been restored without consensus 4 times in a shorter period by one person with no policy-based reasons offered: [5]: 9 July, [6]: 13 July, [7]: 14 July 23:46, [8]: 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: [9].

Parenthetically, their 14 July [10] 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)

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): [11][12][13][14]. 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)

Should the article follow the sources concerning the word "teenager"?

One user has chosen to replace every usage of the word teenager in the entry with Nahel M.'s last name, despite the numerous articles that do not mention the minor's last name and refer to him prominently as a teenager. NB: there are sixteen occurrences of "teenager" on the page, all in the references (so, in article titles). Is there any justifiable reason for this change from the sources? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:SURNAME, "after the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". Just because a source uses another label like "teenager" or "victim" does not require us to do so, unless we are citing directly from that source. The police union referred to Merzouk as a "thug".[15] Does that mean we should too? WWGB (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, if this page were a biography, the rule about names you've extracted from MOS:BIO would apply. This entry, however, is not a biography, but the description of an event. I noticed with some amusement that the article you cite to buttress your rhetorical question does not mention his last name anywhere and starts as follows: "On Friday, just a few days after a French police officer shot dead a teenager during a traffic stop in a Paris suburb, the UN Human Rights Office urged France to tackle racial discrimination. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because the French media cannot or will not name the victim does not affect what we do. The Wikipedia community has decided to name Merzouk. While you are correct that WP:SURNAME is part of MOS:BIOGRAPHY, its lead goes on to state that "while this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." WWGB (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The guideline applies only to biographical information in other articles. One could argue that it would be contrary to the guideline to write "The teenager dropped out of school." However, what happened after his death cannot be called biographical information. Once again, I'd say "follow the sources". The fact that our entry included zero occurrences of the word "teenager" after your changes strikes me as a problem for NPOV given the preponderance of sources. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BIOGRAPHY says (with my emphasis here) "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people", which I would read as "information about people (whether "biographical" or strictly about their life) or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And I would read where applicable as saying when it pertains to biographical information as stated in the very first line of the guideline and not to when it is sourced to articles that do not give the name or focus on his biography (e.g. this NYT article: §). Otherwise, why would it say "where applicable"? The choice made by reliable sources not to mention his last name suggests that the reaction to the video circulating of a teenager being shot point blank would have likely been the same regardless of whether his last name was Traoré, Benna, Camara, Djaidja, Oussekine or Merzouk. Cf. §. NB: it's true lthat in many articles you see signs saying "Justice for Nahel", which does personalize the matter (but his last name, again, is not mentioned). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would we not refer to Merzouk by his surname (other than in direct quotes)? Presumably there is no dispute about his identity. His name is not a secret - it's in the article title. What Wikipedia policy or guideline says we that we ought not use it, if it is an undisputed neutral fact? What policy or guideline says we must use the terminology of the source (eg "teenager", vs "Merzouk")? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The only question I have is below, and it indeed touches on the points you raise. I reinstated the use of the word teenager to describe what was said by President Macron, because Macron never broke with protocol and used Merzouk's name. I do not know why his name is (as you say) being kept "secret", most likely because he is a minor and is therefore being protected. The fact is that most of the French press has kept his name out of print, and the WP:COMMON NAME which he is referred to by here is, of course, Nahel or Nahel M. Again, we should "follow the sources" with regards to what Macron said, which is part of the policy WP:V. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You still have not answered Mitch's question What policy or guideline says we must use the terminology of the source? WP:V only requires that we can "check that the information comes from a reliable source", which it does. WWGB (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your asking me to repeat myself, but I will: it is wrong and fails WP:V to suggest in wiki-voice that President Macron said Merzouk's name. He did not. As you can read below, he said "We have a teenager who was killed. It's inexplicable, inexcusable." The only reason to avoid a direct quote is that it is not very economical in terms of prose (though if you insist, we'll have to use a direct quote I guess). And now it's your turn to answer a very closely related question: What policy or guideline says we must not ever use the terminology of the (multiple) source(s)? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"The killing of Merzouk—condemned by President Emmanuel Macron..." (wiki-voice) does not suggest that Macron used his name; it neutrally and correctly states that Macron condemned the killing of a specific person, independently of how Macro referred to the Merzouk. One obvious alternative is to simply say "The killing—condemned by President Emmanuel Macron..." because it is obvious from the context which killing we are / he was referring to. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I was criticized above for not answering your question. I notice you did not answer mine (in turquoise above). 16 of the sources use the term "teenager" in their title, and virtually all of them use the term in the body of the article (even the satirical blog does!). Why should this consensual term (for RS and not-so RS) be entirely absent from this entry? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should this consensual term (for RS and not-so RS) be entirely absent from this entry? Because we have MOS:SURNAME that says to refer to people by their surname, not their age-bracket. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It's fun contrasting this page with the fr.wp version. Last I looked (shortly after fixing this entry so it didn't lead to Traitement d'antécedents judiciaires as it did for the past few days when you clicked on "French" in the interlanguage links), the very first words of the entry after the title over there were "un adolescent". It's also worth noting that the lede section of the French version does not end with unsourced Rassemblement national talking points in the same way as the en.wp version does... the newest of the unsourced elements being that the moment of silence in the lower house of Parliament was "controversial". No source in our entry says that. But that's OK... WP:V is dead (too much work to verify). Long live MOS:SURNAME! It seems Le Pen is mightier than this "board". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is different in French, but in English an "adolescent" is not necessarily a teenager (13-19) - "Some definitions [of Adolescence] start as early as 10 and end as late as 25 or 26. The WHO definition ... someone between the ages of 10 and 19." Mitch Ames (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the English sources cited in this entry use the term "teenager"; the majority of the French sources cited in this entry use the term "adolescent". Not sure how your comment is related to article improvement? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact perhaps it would be best to look at the occurrences individually. The only use of "teenager" I restored was immediately before the citations from President Macron who said, "Nous avons un adolescent qui a été tué, c'est inexplicable, inexcusable..." If nobody objects to this case (where it seems to me abundantly obvious we should be respecting the language used by both the journalists and the head of state), there's no point going round and round about it. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:40, 22 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)

Is Louis de Raguenel a reliable source for the information contained in Nahel's TAJ?

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the TAJ is not public information and the press does not have access to it (source). Louis de Raguenel has published information allegedly from that file, which has been reproduced here. If you read this month's Signpost, you can learn more about one of his alleged employers, Alp Services, which appears to have been a misinformation outlet. Here is the article in Mediapart for those who read French. Otherwise, his name is also mentioned in a l-o-n-g New Yorker article. Not sure we should be publishing privacy-violating information from such a compromised source? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed any words that I wrote in revising the summary of this source, which already existed in the entry when I tried to sort out the problem of the French interlanguage link for this entry redirecting to the French entry on the TAJ. Please do not restore them (if someone wishes to add the "info" back, please use the original language). I do not wish to have any part in amplifying this privacy violation. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)