Talk:Killing of Sarah Halimi

Sensationalism and conspiracy theories

The article reads like an activist effort to describe the murder as a hate crime. There also is emphasis on conspiracy theories of government coverup. There is even a list of unrelated other domestic events. Much of the editorializing could be reduced to a few concise and neutral paragraphs about what actually occurred. We can briefly mention popular controversies but should avoid dedicating most of the article to those. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a politically motivated sensationalist tabloid... —PaleoNeonate - 01:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work here. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of it has been cleaned up I think, the Media publications section still needs some work; I'm not sure exactly if this is usual to have in news articles. It's a collection of extra sources with commentary. For each, the commentary will have to be verified and adjusted, it's also possible that some entries are redundant , others may not be reliable sources. If the goal was a news timeline, that could probably be formatted differently and placed elsewhere... I could look at it but probably not today, so any help is appreciated. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 19:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. —PaleoNeonate – 01:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Um, an awful lot of prominent people and a mountain of evidence indicates that it was an antisemitic attack. Be careful when you "clean up" that you do not to whitewash this hate crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources about people making accusations of antisemitism have been preserved and summarized. This of course remains contentious. —PaleoNeonate – 02:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed your changes and the article still appears well balanced. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

It is not clear from this article on what facts the classification of this murder as antisemitic is based. Could we have a section detailing these facts?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Name?

According to this article the victim's name was Lucie Attal, and reference to her as Sarah Halimi (her Hebrew given name which she didn't go by, and her ex-husband's surname) started a few months after her murder.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Mentally unfit to stand trial

It would be interesting to confirm this using another source as well, because the claim seems difficult to believe: unfit to stand trial would usually be for current reasons (and would not necessarily mean aquittal)... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

While the article is older, [1] confirms that he was already considered unfit for trial, not because of cannabis use during the event, but generally ("July 2018, a second court-ordered psychiatric examination declared that the perpetrator was not of sound mind and was unfit to stand trial"), with cannabis only a factor on the level at which he could be held accountable ("If he cannot be held accountable for his actions, Traoré cannot, legally speaking, be said to have had a motive" and this is about if it was antisemitic or not, more than if he was convicted of murder). It seems that the Jerusalem Post article mixed up two things together in one sentence, resulting in the implausible "has been finally declared mentally unfit to stand trial due to marijuana intoxication at the time of the attack"... —PaleoNeonate – 14:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I reworked it a bit. —PaleoNeonate – 14:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"Le BNVCA apprend avec consternation, que le meurtrier antisémite de Madame SARAH HALIMI ne sera pas jugé au motif que, selon des experts son discernement était aboli au moment des faits." Translation: The murderer of Mrs. SARAH HALIMI will not be tried on the grounds that, according to experts, his discernment was abolished at the time of the facts. http://www1.alliancefr.com/actualites/antisemitisme-assassinat-de-sarah-halimi-son-meurtrier-ne-sera-pas-juge-6077332 "Discernment was abolished at the time of the facts" refers to the presence of marijuana in his system at the time he committed the murder. This information belongs in the Description section after the paragraph that says Traoré was transferred to a psychiatric hospital.Moomat (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Although I couldn't find the information I was looking for, a first look suggests this is an advocacy online magazine, which might not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. It would a good idea to open a thread at WP:RSN to assess this source... —PaleoNeonate – 06:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a Google translation. My French is very poor, but I think a better translation would be "his judgement was impaired at the time of the events". More importantly, the article doesn't say anything about marijuana, so you can't use that article as a source for that being the reason.Sjö (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The marijuana angle is now reported in The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-jewish-woman-antisemitic-attack-cannabis-high-sarah-halimi-kobili-traore-paris-a9006631.html 76.70.105.28 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. So yes, this supports that delirium and marijuanna intoxication at the time of the murder could affect the results of the trial (not that he is now considered unfit to stand trial because he smoked and that this will dismiss the case or result in aquittal, of course). It's unclear by this article alone, but the trial is still ongoing? —PaleoNeonate – 20:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It is strange that the "Legal proceedings and complaints" part states : "an examining magistrate ruled that Traoré was likely not criminally responsible because he had smoked cannabis before killing Halimi". A French newspaper is used as source () for the Supreme court ruling: it states that the murder was committed during a "bouffée délirante" (=brief psychotic disorder). I'm no psychiatrist but it seems to be an actual medical term which is completely absent from the wikipedia article. Instead, the consumption of cannabis is cited as the only cause leading to the absence of trial. Cannabis consumption has been cited as a contributing factor towards the psychotic crisis, it's a documented fact but there is some mischaracterisation here, in my opinion. Crok Mitaine (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Crok Mitaine

The sources don't cite cannabis as a contributing factor; they cite it as the sole factor that elicited this "bouffée délirante". I worked in this French psychotic term, but ultimately (at least from my reading of the sources) the court system established a causal chain of cannabis → psychosis → killing. Einsof (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I work in psychiatric hospital and yes, there is illness called 'psychotic episode'. It is a brief period of psychosis, lasting less than a month (often only for few days). It can be caused by drug use or stress. However, I don't know about French law, but in Britain, if someone committed the crime during episode of mental illness, they are still going through trial, but they are sentenced to stay in secure mental hospital not to prison. Court decision sounds weird to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.6.163 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Court decision

I had to revert the new text that read like a sensationalist tabloid. There's an ongoing thread at WP:BLPN where input is welcome, since this talk page lacks participants. —PaleoNeonate – 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)