Talk:Toulouse and Montauban shootings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ashton comment

Shouldn't Ashton's statement comparing this attack to Gaza and Israel's strong reactions be mentioned here?--RM (Be my friend) 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well given that the perpetrator has made a related statement ("He wanted revenge for the Palestinian children and he also wanted to take revenge on the French army because of its foreign interventions," Gueant said.), that's interesting. 195.169.141.54 (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Victims' ages

See this post from World ORT. Detailed information from a good source. Victims' ages and spellings are shown here, and I believe the Israeli embassy confirmed these ages.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=411317958882884&set=a.164331556914860.42812.142565139091502&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.1.76.2 (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone confirm and update the article?

Muslim soldiers

Are North African soldiers a common sight in south France? Or has there been any speculations on him specificly targeting what he might considder traitors to islam?

According to the Wall Street Journal, "The suspect was "less explicit" on his motives for allegedly killing the three soldiers. He said the fact that they were of North African origin didn't feature in his decision. "What he wanted was to target the French army," said Mr. Guéant. The motivations section currently says, "to attack the French army for its involvement in Afghanistan." so it looks like it's right. Superm401 - Talk 06:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

7 civilians

The soldiers were not on duty, so they are considered civilians not only by the geneva convention, but also by wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.11.166 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If there's a dispute about that, we need to go by the sources. We can't interpret the Geneva Convention ourselves, because that would be original research. Superm401 - Talk 06:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

They are considered military personnel until they have completed their tour of duty, even if they are off duty. The same with police officers who, while off-duty, still retain their legal capacity and authority to act in color of law. Only until they retire or are fired do they revert back to civilian status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.0.100 (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember BLP

With a breaking news story like this, there's always temptation to add whatever claim the media comes up with. Unfortunately as history shows, often a lot of the early stuff turns out to be wrong or misleading. In that vein it's wise to be careful to wait a while to see if claims stacks up particularly if the evidence is weak rather then add them as soon as they emerge. The info may be published in an RS but consider the original source for the info, official (on record) claims from the authorities can usually go in quickly, even if they later turn out to be wrong, they may still be significant. But claims of uncertain origin should be treated with more care. To use an example, I removed [1] (was writing a longer edit summary but accidentally hit submit) which seems to be in strong doubt. Not only have most Afghani authorities denied the claim, it's also emerged that he may have been in jail in France at the time [2]. (It's unclear to me who the source of this claim is, it may have been a prison official in Afghanistan but that being the case, it's unclear how he determined the guy allegedly detained was the suspect in the few short hours.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Telegraph source (among others based on Reuters) is pretty conclusively against this, and I read a suggestion that it was just someone with the same name. Per the Telegraph, one of the sources was Ghulam Faruq. Superm401 - Talk 06:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

This event has been described as "terrorism" by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and by French Interior Minister Claude Guéant. Merah claimed to act for al-Qaida and was formed by salafists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Shouldn't we desribed this event as a "terrorist attack targeting French soldiers and Jewish civilians" ?

Proposed move

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings → Midi-Pyrénées shootings

I propose that this article is moved to Midi-Pyrénées shootings, citing the naming conventions for events. We can state what (shootings) and where (Midi-Pyrénées), but we need not state the "when" as there seems to be no similar events that may cause ambiguity. WP:NCE states that "The year ("when") should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident". Any thoughts? matt (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer Midi-Pyrénées attacks, as it appears that this event is not a shooting spree but a terrorist attack (see above). DITWIN GRIM (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Mohammed Merah to here

• Merge Only claim to fame is these shootings. Undeserving of own article. --Shuki (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shuki. There's already a discussion at Talk:Mohammed Merah. FormerIP (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but I see that is the wrong place. I'll move it over. FormerIP (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Propose merger

From Mohammed Merah to 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, per WP:CRIME. FormerIP (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:CRIME applies here because of "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". But we should probably discuss this when the siege has ended. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Classic WP:BLP1E IMO; cover the event not the person. matt (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He's the only known suspect of attacks which took place on three different days - does that qualify as known only for one event? 188.28.112.12 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And the attempted arrest and resulting siege is another event to add to the list. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's another "event" to include in the main article. FormerIP (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge Obviously
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've merged it. -- Y not? 19:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! WP:BOLD --Shuki (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, man, no Yikes. To quote the immortal Walter Sobchak, "Nothing is fucked, dude!" All the stuff is still here, and I didn't delete any revisions. We can always unmerge it later if we agree to do so. I just thought that our default position should be merged for two reasons - because of BLP/BLP1E (which anticipates any protracted tl;dr debate), and because it is easier to work on this thing in one place, rather than dealing with a potential divergence when two articles are updated unevenly. -- Y not? 20:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You just copied and pasted it. The revisions from the old page weren't moved to this page. So how can we unmerge it again? Now the revision history is split and mixed up. And the discussion was still ongoing... Mohammed Atta has his own wikipedia entry and he's only famous for one attack and not three attacks and a lengthy siege. That's it, I'm gettin' outta here. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Y, LOL. I supported the merge but prefer to see more consensus built over a few days. Wiki, how would revisions be merged into an article? I think Atta was a mass-murderer who needed a significant plan to carry out that single event, while this scooter Toulouse loser is quite lame in getting caught so easily. --Shuki (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you want me to move Mohammed into the event article, and undelete the event? That would mix up the revisions. Wikieditoroftoday, keep on discussing. -- Y not? 03:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If you've merged it by copy and paste, you need to add an appropriate template to each page for copyright reasons. There's already one for another article (suitable template used in both articles) but none for the biography article. I could do it myself, but since you did the merge you better know what you did. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge, this person is known for only for being a suspect in a high profile short crime spree. Speciate (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are known only for being the perpetrators of the Beltway sniper attacks, yet there is an article on each of them as well as on the shootings. 188.28.106.201 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there shouldn't be three articles on them. If at some point in the future somebody wants to rename this article after the perpetrator I would not be opposed. It's just that in this case, at this time, the two articles would be identical. Speciate (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The missing data

French "Jewish school massacre."
A "gunman" murders a Rabbi and 3 children outside Jewish school in Toulouse, France. He took aim at victims and chased some into schoolyard. He shot at such close range that the gunfire burned the skin.[3] The killer got off his motor bike to grab an eight-year-old girl and shoot her in the head[4] He picked her up -as she was bleeding- shot her in the head again, to make sure she died. He also filmed his crimes for sick-kicks.[5] There was an assumption that far-right Neo-Nazis were involved. A day later, authorities cleared 3 Nazis whom they interrogated. France began looking for Islamic extremists. It arrested an Arab Muslim suspect, Mohammed Merah, linked to 'al-Qaida' and (Sharia pusher[6]) 'Forsane Alizza.' [7] (Some also suspect Iran's proxy Hezbollah[8], possibly even working in coordination with al-Qaida [9]). It has been suggested [10], he saw an inflammatory tweet by a "Palestinian' propagandist, a UN worker Khulood Badawi, posting a bloodied image of an old accidental dead Arab child, tweeting it around as a supposed "Israel" recent deed.

Toulouse1981 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Toulouse, what we mustn't do is report unconfirmed gossip. I removed the sentence based on the report in Anorak, because it is just that, and we don't use web-gossip as the basis for our articles. Also, the phrase "Sharia promoter Islamic extremists" is not good English and is unnecessarily long. "Islamic extremists" will do. FormerIP (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you alter the words but still explain in "proper English" that Forsane Alizza is about promoting Sharia (as the Latino link suggests)? BTW see the above BBC link that mentions also his supposed link with Forsane. Toulouse1981 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The name of the special Tactical team who killed Merah is called RAID. It's a French Special forces Unit. Here is the linkRecherche Assistance Intervention Dissuasion Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gael62147 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Merah merged here

I see that an exceedingly brief merger discussion has taken place, with a small handful of editors participating and speedily actioned and closed.

The merge should be undone immediately. If some editors still think a merge is appropriate, a proper discussion should be held.

Not only do I object to the lack of process here, I also thoroughly object to the outcome. WP:BLP1E is not intended for use for individuals associated in a highly notable manner with significant crimes - and the text of BLP1E says as much. This is why we have individual articles on a host of notable criminals, but redirects for people who have played small roles. This view can be cut and pasted into the merge discussion if it's truly needed. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRIME needs to be considered as well as WP:BLP1E. According to that, Merah might eventually warrant an article, but the presumption is against it and I think it is not a decision that should be made while the story is in the news. FormerIP (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The merger appears reasonable as long as the text about the perpetrator is not too long. If it does become too long, it can easily be spun off again.  Sandstein  12:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article should definitely remain merged until it acquires a level of stability, to avoid a duplication of efforts.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Merah's death is confirmed, BLP and BLP1E no longer apply to him. Jim Michael (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRIME. Pretty much the same standards apply to dead persons/criminals.TMCk (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yamaha

Yamaha picture is unnecessary and adds little to the narrative.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 113.203.168.217 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that the vehicle played a major role in the affair, was referred to quite often in the media, and that the gunman was nicknamed the "Scooter-Killer", I can see how the picture could be helpful and relevant. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC))

It's not like the article is swimming in pictures. The perp loved that bike so much he even told the police where it was while he was under siege. Until some better images come along, let's keep the pic. Speciate (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to lock page?

I've noticed vandalism where police/counter-terrorist team are being described as "nazis"

I and others have worked to repair this, but if this continues, I propose locking the page for 24 hours, perhaps longer DoctorEric (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 24 hours. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Night club and Al-Qaeda

He was at night club three weeks ago and Al-Qaeda muslim agent that doesn't make sense. 113.203.168.217 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The suspects behind the September 11 attacks were reported to have attended night clubs and strip clubs during their year of planning. Additionally, the house where Osama bin Laden was killed was reported to have contained a pornographic video collection as well. Just because Al Qaeda has a religious Islamic cult following, doesn't mean its members are not human enough to still act on temptation. These people are nothing but terrorists with an extremist vision and a philosophically weak cause, not a bunch of steadfast, holy men fighting a religious war. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion especially last line. 113.203.168.217 (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Claude Guéant is an official and reliable source, you're not.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets not make it personally. 113.203.168.217 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not personal. You're not allowed to remove sourced informations. See : WP:RELIABLESOURCES. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is not a valid source by the way. Also lets not add Claude Guéant who is only making claim rather than definite information. Also Claude Guéant is a great "politican" lets not argue over that either.113.203.168.217 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your point of view about Guéant. You need reliable sources. By the way, removing sources is considered as vandalism on Wikipedia. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Guéant is only making claims just to remind you. 113.203.189.181 (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

His profile seems to fit as more like a normal french teenager who goes to night clubs than Al-Qaeda's muslim agent. 113.203.189.181 (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of people injured

We seem to have a difficulty reconciling the number of people injured.

If I read the article correctly, these were one youth, one soldier and six policemen (three on the first day at the flat, three when it was stormed). Or are those the same three policemen? Certainly, the total is not four, as in the infobox at present, but 8 or 5. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The article currently states that Merah jumped out of a window, but he was found dead on the floor. I don't understand that. Can someone clarify this within the article? Thanks. The exact quote is: "Mohammed Merah then jumped out of the window with weapon in hand and continued to shoot. Merah was shot in the head by a police sniper and he was found dead on the floor." If he successfully jumped out of the window (as opposed to merely attempting to jump), then how did he end up on the floor? Would not he land outside of the window, on the ground or pavement or lawn? How did he end up on a floor? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the references, the Guardian live blog has it as "ground", not "floor". The Telegraph live blog has it as "floor", but this is in a quotation that is obviously badly translated and/or afflicted by verbal slip-ups. Both references are live blogs so are probably not the most reliable sources and should ideally be replaced.--greenrd (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will change the word "floor" to "ground", then, in the article. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

International reactions

Maybe the flags look pretty but is there anything in this section worthy of note? It just seems like endless repetitions of the inevitable "blahdy blah foreign minister condemned the attacks". I say the entire list should go. We could maybe retain the part about the Israeli PM criticising the EU Minister for comparing the situation to Gaza, and anything else controversial, but for the rest a summary along the lines of "numerous governments condemned the attacks" should suffice.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I had wondered about the notability here as well. Official statements never reflect actual thoughts anyway. And really, please no exception for the predictable rant from Netanyahu. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I would keep most of them. However, the statements of the Jewish communities should be removed from this list as they are not international responses, and should be condensed to a couple of sentences.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's always difficult to know how much to put into an article in the immediate aftermath of a newsworthy story like this. Articles that develop out of current events certainly undergo a lot of edits early, and evolve over time as perspective develops. Having said that, step back and consider, in the bigger scheme of things, how important these comments are. Netanyahu has every right to be angered, but including his comments makes it hard to justify excluding others, and invites discussion of the responses and counter-responses. When deciding what to include, ask yourself this question: If you were a reader 5 years out coming across this article, how much would reading the comments add to your knowledge of the event?

How about a succinct statement like, "In the immediate aftermath of the killings, many national and international leaders issued statements expressing outrage and sadness," or something to that effect? DoctorEric (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The flags are pretty, er, standard in 'reactions' sections. Only official state reactions are notable, especially the absurd comparison by the EU Ashton of the terrorist shooting a 7yr old girl at point blank range and Israeli soldiers in Gaza. --Shuki (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually think we should trim this right back to reactions within France, and perhaps make add something like "predictably, statements of shock and solidarity were made by governments around the world". Does we really need to take up so much room with someone in Brazil saying the attacks were "inadmissible", someone in Canada calling them "murderous", someone in the UK saying they were "senseless" and someone in Venezuela calling them "tragic". It's like Ban Ki-Moon was going round with adjectives written on some screwed up bits of paper in a black hat. FormerIP (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Expressions of shock and solidarity around the world" would indeed be superfluous if they were unanimous. My understanding is that this is not the case here, as a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the successful attack. Tkuvho (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I removed them, but User:AnkhMorpork reverted my edit offering no edit summary, and neither do they offer any reasoning above as to why this section should remain. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur that similar sentiments should be condensed and expressed in a single sentence. However, Catherine Ashton's response and the the imbroglio that it instigated should be reported separately; it is disparate in nature to the other responses and is an additional dimension to the international reaction.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but why didn't you restore "Catherine Ashton's response" and leave the new single sentence and new reference I added to support that, instead of just reverting back to where we started? Can I go ahead and do that myself without you starting an edit war?--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. I added a "Political reaction" section to put Ashton's response etc.. If anyone wants to remove or expand this I won't mind, as long as it doesn't become a long list of near-identical and non-notable quotations again.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The international reaction section should be kept, but restricted to government reactions. This event has obvious international ramifications. Typically such pages have a "reaction" section. I don't see why this page should be an exception. Tkuvho (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong information

Please change this statement: "Mohammed Merah then jumped out of the window with weapon in hand and continued to shoot. Merah was shot in the head by a police sniper and he was found dead on the floor." On the video where is possible to see Merah's last momments, it is clear that he didn't have a gun. This can't denied. --190.172.212.202 (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Any information that is provided without a supporting reliable source, such as your above comment, can and should be denied from appearing in wikipedia articles. Please see WP:RS and WP:V. 212.10.88.149 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

All these videos are fakes, see [11] (in French). Skull33 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

When he was killed he was holding a gun that was found to have two bullets left. Tkuvho (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Visit to Israel

Sources in the Israeli government confirm that Merah visited the West Bank (possibly other areas of Israel) for several days in 2010. CNN writes on his training. Should this be included in the Merah section?

"Defense sources: Toulouse terrorist visited Israel in 2010" (Jerusalem Post)
"Israel confirms visit by Mohammed Merah" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
"How did Mohammed Merah become a jihadist?" (CNN)

Herb143 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

al-aksa of maghreb

There were reports that the group al-aksa of maghreb took responsibility for the attack. Does anyone have a source for this? Tkuvho (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Celebration of the massacre

This section is about an event far too small (20 to 30 anonymous individuals) with nearly no media coverage compared to other aspects of the massacre. Considering that we have not kept other parts of the text (like all the international reactions) with far more coverage and that we don't have any section about the many rallies and events in support of the victims, I don't see any reason to keep this section. Eleventh1 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While we expect an outpouring of support and solidarity for the victims and community, some sincere, some just for political publicity, and is 'matter of fact', the existence of support for the murderer stands out, no, screams out for attention. If it is fringe, then we should not give it WP:UNDUE beyond its mention, but removing it is mere whitewashing. --Shuki (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason why the international reactions were removed was because they heavily duplicated each other. This rally has not yet been mentioned in the article and is certainly relevant. The paragraph discusses the condonation of the murders and obviously will not detail "rallies and events in support of the victims".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Eleventh1, I checked it out and this event has not been covered by French medias except Paris Match, which is a gossip magazine. Skull33 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer to both Shuki and AnkhMorpok, I disagree with the idea that the support on the side of the murderer would be, regardless of the size of this support, automatically far more notable than on the side of the victims (is there a rule or a policy about that?). When I said that "we don't have any section about the many rallies and events in support of the victims", I meant in the article as a whole, not in this particular section, of course. And if we include the minute of silence in French schools, many demonstrations in the streets of French big cities and the religious services dedicated to this event (and I don't think we should add that to the article), we obtain a support for the victims shown by hundred of thousands of people and with huge press coverage (to compare with this fringe demonstration ; a section for it is WP:UNDUE). I don't think we should mention it, the same way we don't mention each reaction to this kind of crime in general. Eleventh1 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The story was reported by Reuters in Le Point and was reported in Italian press. This reaction is unique and extraordinary so merits inclusion, obviously along with the wide-spread condemnation which has already been included.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Moreover it seem the Reuters has distrusted this.--Shrike (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, these two additional sources don't really modify the situation. That is still minor and limited media coverage (of the same kind than those you already provided) and you didn't answer about the obvious WP:UNDUE. Eleventh1 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has already mentioned the wide-spread international condemnation of the attack as well as that of the Muslim Council. Feel free to include more condemnation if you so desire. The issue of undue relates to beliefs such as the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. What characterises these cases is that the majority view disputes these suggestions and thus when presenting information or reporting a story, the minority view on that topic should not be given undue weight. Here, there is no contradictory material and no majority or minority view. It is simply a story relating to a few people. I suggest you look at other examples across Wikipedia.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true that Baruch Goldstein has a section about his supporters but the sources are far more reliable and show a more significant media coverage for bigger events that in the case of the 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings. That is also true that WP:UNDUE is primarily designed to distinguish minority views from the majority view but the same principle applies here : proportionality between the lenght of text and the importance of the content. But if you think that we are in front of something similar than for Baruch Goldstein, maybe can you find sources of similar quality... Eleventh1 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided are already of requisite quality as defined by WP:RS. You appear to be conflating the need for reliable sourcing with that of undue weight. As it stands the material is reliably sourced. As explained above, it is not necessary to provide a plethora of sources to negate undue weight concerns when there are no opposing views. There are no reports that this event did not happen; that it was not widely reported or that it concerns a select few, does not make it undue. Wikipedia is full of recondite articles that relate to obscure subjects, yet they are not undue because they are not in dispute.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What is reliably sourced is the fact that a demonstration happened (among thousands of other demonstrations that happen every day), not its importance, especially in relation with the shootings. We should not include everything that is published in the news in WP. So, can you find a source showing the importance of this event that would justify to include it in this article? And if not, is there any reason why we should keep an information that doesn't improve the encyclopedia? Eleventh1 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not within the jurisdiction of editors to decide on relative importance of material and what constitutes an encyclopaedic improvement. To do so would be in breach of WP:NOR. Since the material is pertinent to the shooting and is reliably sourced, it merits inclusion. ( On a personal note, the desire of certain editors to expurgate the article and remove any material that they deem to be unfavourable is far more damning then the material itself. The consensus is that this was the work of extremists and the main French Muslim body condemns these attacks. The disinclination of editors to make this apparent and mask this extreme sect seems to belie this notion.)
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Users do get to decide when undue weight is being given to material.VR _talk 23:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree with the inclusion of this fringe material (mainstream sources don't seem to cover it). But if this material remains, then all of the condemnations of the massacre should be added to the article as well.VR _talk 23:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources being added talk about various rallies in memory of the victims of the shootings. It is important that these much larger rallies be mentioned, and not just the pro-Merah rally. Please mind WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I take it that people are satisfied that the event had "nearly no media coverage" and that "this event has not been covered by French medias except Paris Match" is simply not the case
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, 15 hours is not enough to reach a consensus (because of real life) and the lack of media coverage (when the shootings, the manhunt ant other demonstrations had an enormous coverage) still says a lot about the relevance of this information. Concerning your answer to Vice Regent below, comment on content, not on the contributor and, please, follow WP:NPA, thank you. Eleventh1 (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you contending that because the shooting had comparatively wider coverage, this information is irrelevant? To allay your concerns about lack of media coverage, enjoy reading:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/toulouse-gunmans-brother-quizzed-paris-091957446.html

http://www.parismatch.com/Actu-Match/Societe/Actu/Un-rassemblement-en-l-honneur-de-Mohamed-Merah-

http://jn1.tv/breaking-news/muslim-women-s-attempt-to-leave-flowers-by-merah-flat.html

http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201203242016-cro-ren1074-french_police_stop_march_in_memory_of_toulouse_killer

http://www.lepoint.fr/fil-info-reuters/des-jeunes-honorent-la-memoire-de-mohamed-merah-a-toulouse-24-03-2012-1444724_240.php (Reuters)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/inside-the-mind-of-mohamed-merah-7584956.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154110#.T3Gh0mEgdZd

http://www.bangkokpost.com/lite/news/285928/french-police-question-gunman-proud-brother

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/french-police-question-gunmans-proud-brother/comments/asc/id/2200485

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/french-police-grill-gunmans-proud-brother/506958

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you found 10 links. For comparison, a quick search about the shootings on google news gave me 96,300 results... and among your 10 links, some are simple copy and paste of AFP news (4 times the same thing) and others are completely unreliable for this precise information as they don't say what we can read in the article. And once again, I ask you to not violate WP:NPA when you answer to Vice regent. Eleventh1 (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad source

This source was added, but it seems to be inaccurate. According to the sources, 'The President spoke immediately after Mohamed Merah's death of the importance of "national unity" and urged French people to "stigmatise" Islam.'

Sarkozy urging his people to hate Islam, seems like a WP:EXCEPTIONAL view. For one, it contradicts this source. And if such a thing happened, it would be more widely reported. It may be a mistake on the part of the source. Either way, the source appears unreliable and I'm removing it.VR _talk 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If the source corrects itself later, we should re-instate it.VR _talk 00:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki article does not report this claim and the source is not being used to substantiate those claims. The Independent is a respectable media source and is necessary to support other claims. No exceptional claims are being made in the Wiki article and WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not applicable. Please restore
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true. However, I'm not sure whether to trust sources that publish wrongful (or at least exceptional) information about a living person. What is the general policy for such sources? Would an article that contains erroneous (and/or potentially libellous information) be used as a reliable source for other claims?VR _talk 00:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. I am not sure whether to trust editors that publish wrongful (or at least not applicable) Wiki policies about reliable sources. What is the general policy for such editors? Would an article that contains a typo (in this case the omission of "not") be invalidated and repudiated in its entirety? Your manipulation of Wiki policy in the context of strong disagreement regarding the content is highly unethical.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise you to assume good faith and keep this discussion about the sources and not about myself. In any case, I'm not asking you to "trust" me on anything. The source's wrongful/mistaken information about Sarkozy (a living person) is there for everyone to see.VR _talk 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise you not to accuse others of bad faith and keep this discussion about the sources and not about myself. In any case, I'm not obliged to "assume" anything. Your systematic removal of sourced material and sources themselves (highly respected) is there for everyone to see. This unilateral removal of a source should be perceived in light of your editorial patterns. I note on your user page that you are a Muslim. You are currently trying to remove evidence of extreme Muslim behaviour. While the two may be entirely unconnected, please be aware of WP:COI, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

burka

The page currently states that "Most of the protesters were reported as young women wearing the burka which is illegal in France". I find this surprising. My understanding was that France has a law against wearing the veil in schools. Is it accurate to assert that it is illegal for a woman to wear it at a demonstration? Tkuvho (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. Tkuvho (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See French ban on face covering. Although, I think that such a discussion is irrelevant to this article.VR _talk 11:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Description of shooter

Let's discuss whether "Islamic terrorist" is the appropriate description to use. Here are 4 sources that don't use it.

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Absence of usage proves nothing at all. Please provide sources that disputes this description.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All four of these sources dispute that description by describing him differently. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

They are not mutually exclusive. An apple can be described as both round and green without contradicting one's self. The description was well-sourced and you have not proven anything to the contrary
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about mutual exclusivity. There are differing descriptions of the shooter which need to be looked at in general in order to determine weight. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I note that you are now making a new argument that implicitly acknowledges what I was previously asserting. Please explain how making a single mention of "Islamic terrorist" is giving several sources that support this description undue weight.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I obviously need to repeat myself. "There are differing descriptions of the shooter which need to be looked at in general in order to determine weight." A single mention towards the front of the lead carries a lot of weight. Whether this is appropriate or not is yet to be determined. I'll check back in later. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please state your preferred location for this claim seeing as you are dissatisfied with its current location. You have deleted this claim entirely
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is a good place to put contesting claims on whether religious ideology was a factor in the shootings.

Some sources identify Islam as Merah's motivation. Other sources dispute such claims. We should have a balanced discussion.VR _talk 02:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all deletion of the sourced material entirely is problematic to say the least I think we can say that he described by some as "islam terorrist" while other contest this claim.--Shrike (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not necessary for us as editors to decide whether the killer was an Islamic terrorist or not, and WP may be unable to say either in its own voice. Our obligation is to report (with reliable sourcing, of course), that many of the sources (such as...) label him as one, while others (such as...) do not, and/or label him as something else. This needs to be done carefully so that due weight is observed. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The question is not : is the murderer an islamic terrorist or not, it is only to know how we explain and describe it in the article. I think that the mention of claimed ties with al-Qaeda in the intro is clear enough. We don't need to mention islamic terrorism in the first sentence the way AnkhMorpork wants (something that is not done even in an article like September 11 attacks). Eleventh1 (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was mentioned in the second "On that Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists from the Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger jets."--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead already describes him as a French Muslim. Further calling him "Islamic" may very well violate WP:UNDUE. As I said above, whether religion was a motivation should be given a balanced discussion in the section on motivation.VR _talk 17:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"The question is not : is the murderer an islamic terrorist or not, it is only to know how we explain and describe it in the article." I agree with this seeing as several sources describe Merah as just that. However, stating that he alleged unproven links with al-Qaeda insufficiently portrays this as an act of Islamic terrorism, which is actually one of the tags of this article. I struggle to see how an informative single reference can be construed as undue; can you explain why this might be the case and your alternative proposal.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to stop the deterioration of this article.

A contributor systematically adds false informations, unreliable sources and other useless elements to the article. 1/ Jewish graves have not been vandalised across the country. It is a deliberately false information that was added. 2/ as proven in this article of the NY Times, demonstrations in favor of Merah by muslims are false rumors, there was only one tiny gathering 3/ Graffitis mentioned in only one source are not notable. So, I will ask nicely to either user:AnkhMorpork or user:Shrike to revert this edit or I'll do it myself. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are additional sources [16],[17].[18].--Shrike (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your sources are useless : source 1: the town of Nice is not "across the country" and there is no proof that it is directly related to the shootings as I have already said in the description of one my contributions. Source 2 : To add an op-ed (so, not a reliable source) using a blog as source to justify the mention of graffitis in the article, really? Source 3 : doesn't say what was added in the article. Eleventh1 (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Eleventh, I actually agree with you on the points of content that you raise, but you are wrong to characterize Ankmorpork's edit as vandalism. Even if an edit causes "deterioration" of an article, it is not vandalism if it is made in good faith by the editor. What we have here is a content dispute and it needs to be resolved as such. Ankmorpork, not everything that has been published in a reliable source can be added to an article on any particular topic. RS is a requirement for inclusion, but does not guarantee inclusion. All SIGNIFICANT aspects and viewpoints published in RS should be included per the coverage they have received in RS. If coverage is not significant in the context of the overall coverage of the topic in RS the viewpoint/aspect does not merit inclusion. From WP:UNDUE: " An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Dlv999 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I should not have used the term vandalism in an edit summary. It was inappropriate. Eleventh1 (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you rather this information be included in an undue manner?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Shrike added a source that doesn't say at all what he is trying to prove here. And combining that with an erroneous accusation of edit warring, I think that a disputed banner is the only solution. Eleventh1 (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Eleventh's point number 1. The sources I've seen discuss attacks in Nice, but do not say "across France". It is distorting the facts to replace Nice with "across France". I mostly agree with Eleventh's point number 2. This source explicitly contests claims that Muslims have organized any rallies in support of Merah. Given conflicting claims, I think sources need to be attributed. I also think the section should be re-written to separate the uncontested claims (that pro-Merah rallies occurred) from contested claims (regarding Muslim involvement).VR _talk 18:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Grand Rabbi"

In English, don't we call this a "Chief Rabbi"? --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The person in question, Gilles Bernheim, is referred to as a Chief Rabbi on his page.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

Can somebody add something like this in the Aftermath section, following the latest news, please ? If edition needed, don't hesitate, you can do it to get the add in a correct shape.
Algerian government said that it was unfavourable to his burring in Algeria, but his family indicated they wish him to be burried in this country <ref="http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/26/203390.html"></ref><ref="http://www.leparisien.hxwin.info/faits-divers/mohamed-merah-sera-enterre-en-algerie-selon-son-pere-26-03-2012-1924791.php"></ref>. Merah's father also intends to lodge a complaint against French police special forces (the RAID unit) because of they killed his son. That intention is appreciated in no way by French authorities, for example French Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain Juppé said on this point : "if I was the father of such a monster, I would shut my mouth in the shame" <ref="http://vancouverdesi.com/news/france-says-gunmans-father-should-shut-mouth-over-lawsuit/"></ref>. 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected, so I've disabled the ESp template. Feel free to make any proper additions to the article normally. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

some will add these pictures to the article?[19][20][21] --89.249.2.53 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected, so I've disabled the ESp template. Feel free to make any proper additions to the article normally. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)