Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:43, 15 July 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Nahel Merzouk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contents of the Nahel Merzouk riots page were merged into Killing of Nahel Merzouk on 30 June 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

A news item involving Killing of Nahel Merzouk was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 July 2023.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France: Paris B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force. Law Enforcement B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Affaire Naël from fr.wikipedia.

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"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  01:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Gone ahead and changed it. Anyone with objections can say so. —Compassionate727  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  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  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."

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages 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)

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 , 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 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 : «"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 Misplaced Pages. Go write a blog or something, as this is not the place for you TCGGH (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Posted without reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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: 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)

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

1. Gontier, Samuel (6 July 2023). "Immigration, barbares et guerre civile : après la mort de Nahel, les chaînes info peaufinent leurs analyses" . Telerama (in French).
2. "Emeutes : Pourquoi la droite n'a-t-elle pas le droit de dire que les émeutiers sont des Français qui ne se sentent pas comme les autres ?". 8 July 2023.
3. Pecnard, Jules (7 July 2023). "Ordre, délinquance, immigration… LR se raccroche aux émeutes pour survivre" (in French). Archived from the original on 8 July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023.

-- 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

1. Cite error: The named reference Gontier was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Porter, Catherine (2 July 2023). "A Fatal Shooting and a Hijab Ban: Two Faces of France's Racial Divisions". New York Times. In 2017, an investigation by France's civil liberties ombudsman, the Défenseur des Droits, found that "young men perceived to be Black or Arab" were 20 times as likely to be subjected to police identity checks compared with the rest of the population.

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)

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): : 8 July, : 13 July, : 14 July, : 15 July

It has been restored without consensus 4 times in a shorter period by the same period by one person with no policy-based reasons offered: : 9 July, : 13 July, : 14 July 23:46, : 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: .

Parenthetically, their 14 July 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. -- SashiRolls 02:43, 15 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): . Mitch Ames (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• B-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class France articles
• Low-importance France articles
• Paris task force articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• B-Class Law enforcement articles
• Low-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• Pages translated from French Misplaced Pages