Talk:Toulouse and Montauban shootings/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Toulouse and Montauban shootings. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

No such a thing as Algerian ethnicity

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

I have noticed that Mohamed Merah's ethnicity is described as Algerian ... needless to say that there is no such a thing, as Algeria is multi-ethnic. I still don't know why his origins are discussed since he and even his father was born in France which makes him much more French than the president of France Nicolas Sarkozy. Ifrenide (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources describe him as a "Frenchman of Algerian descent". So he is Algerian and French.VR _talk 23:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not clear on the proposed text you wish to add, and I'm not sure what reliable sources back up the change. If the NYTimes describes him one way, we'd need a strong reliable sourcing to say the opposite. If you know of sourcing, feel free to present it with a specific wording proposal. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My proposition is to remove the "Ethnicity" from the Infobox.

Nobody is denying the fact that his parents are of Algerian origin, you'll find that the same is true for millions of others including the French Secretary for Youth Jeanette Bougrab and the Secretary of State for Health Nora Berra who no only is of Algerian origin but lived and studied in Algeria but whose "ethnicity" does not seem to matter since she is a politician. I don't see anyone feeling the need to describe "in bold" Nicolas Sarkozy's ethnicity or better still Steve Jobs whose father is Syrian, they are both described as French and American.

For once, we have the chance to express ourselves and do without the media manipulation, we should take full advantage of it and give this space some kind of respectability, otherwise, we should edit the millions of other pages and insist on mentioning the "ethnicity" (whatever that means) on the Infobox of every single famous person, starting with Steve Jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifrenide (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add Arab American as Steve Job's ethnicity. The reason we talk about ethnicity is because it gives us context and it is often useful information.VR _talk 03:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How is adding Steve Job's ethnicity going to change anything to the fact that there is no such a thing as an Algerian ethnicity, let alone a French-Algerian one? Do you at the very least acknowledge this undeniable fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifrenide (talk • contribs) 00:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, do we agree that Merah was of Algerian descent?

Is your point that being of Algerian descent is not the same as being of "Algerian ethnicity", because there is no such thing as Algerian ethnicity? If so, it may be more appropriate to replace Algerian with Arab (assuming he was Arab and not Berber), once such reliable sources are found.VR _talk 18:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, that's why not a single respectable newspaper has mentioned the word ethnicity. Needless to say that you cannot have a go at guessing it, you either know it or you don't and it's not as simple as a toss between Berber and Arab, it's a lot more complicated than that. The bottom line is that, until someone can confirm his ethnicity (for sure), I suggest you remove it from the Infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifrenide (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've marked this edit request as answered, discussion is ongoing , resubmit when you have reached consensus. Pol430 talk to me 21:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Rallies

Please discuss your concerns to the paragraph before making wholesale changes and removing sourced content.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a user's talk page, so I hope you can be more specific both as to who you're talking to and what content you're referring to. Although I did notice you removing content sourced to this source. Can you please explain why?VR _talk 18:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to it and I accidentally removed it. One thing though, Mr. Cohen thoughts that Muslims organizing a demonstration in defense of Mr. Merah being a false rumour, may well refer to an entirely different event than the rallies reported by reliable sources. You also also prefaced this edit with "However...". This is in breach of WP:SYN and you should simply state the facts in neutral tone.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I used the word "however", but you are right. I have now changed this.VR _talk 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please amend according to source.

You wrote that, "rumours of Muslims organizing such rallies were "false". What the source states is, rumours that "Muslims were organizing a demonstration in defense of Mr. Merah" were false.
Source states that small demonstrations honouring Merah have been held on housing estates, including the Toulouse one where he grew up.". You wrote, "Some media have reported that small demonstrations in memory of Merah were held at the housing estate where Merah grew up.
You wrote "Jewish graves have been vandalised in Nice, France". Source states, "Jewish graves have also been vandalised across the country"

Since your reasoning for source attribution was "some of claims for the pro-Merah rally are disputed." and "we have conflicting sources" and you have agreed that "my mistake, these could refer to different events", please remove the source attribution.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

1. By "such rally" I thought it was obvious that the discussion was of rallies honoring Merah. Nevertheless, I'll accept what you say. 2. Small difference, but I'll change it. 3. Daily Mail is the only source that says "across the country", without specifying any details (which is unusual for a news article). Other sources are more specific. Nevertheless, I'll restore across the country with attribution. 4. That the two sources could refer to two different events doesn't mean they are referring to different events. the information appears conflicting, and I think attribution should be maintained. VR _talk 19:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I amended "but" to "and", which is a NPOV. I closely followed language of sources. I reinstated the referenced claim that most protesters were Muslim women.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have attributed the claims. I've also lumped all the sentences about rallies together.

Also, statements about antisemitic graffiti should be moved to 2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Further_attacks, alongside the reports on the vandalism of Jewish graves.VR _talk 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that attribution in the rallies section was removed. Previously I said "That the two sources could refer to two different events doesn't mean they are referring to different events. the information appears conflicting, and I think attribution should be maintained." AnkhMorpork never responded to these concerns. I also note that AnkhMorpork selectively removed attribution from some sentences, but did not remove attribution from other sentences: "The New York Times quoted Pierre Cohen, the mayor of Toulouse stating that rumours of Muslims organizing a demonstration for Merah were "false"." Can AnkhMorpork explain this edit?VR _talk 15:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing source attribution from undisputed information. The example you refer to is an opinion piece and not a news story unlike the numerous news stories regarding the rally.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is categorized in the World News - Europe section of the New York Times. Furthermore, the New York Times is far more reliable source than most of the others used than this. I will restore the attribution.VR _talk 15:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Material keeps getting inserted in the lead that seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. For example, in this edit the following sentence was inserted "The killer filmed the murders and made a video of them set to music and readings from the Koran."

This is covered in more detail lower on in the article "Merah filmed all of the killings using a GoPro camera strapped to his body and according to the French prosecutor, he can be heard saying "you killed my brothers, I kill you", and "Allahu Akbar" during the executions. He made a video of them set to music, and it was later received by Al Jazeera." (in 2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Motivation)

Thus, there is no need to have it in the lead. Furthermore, Merah's (or whomever made the video) choice of music when editing the videos is hardly lead-worthy material.VR _talk 10:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I shall remove the music reference from the lead. The information regarding Sarkozy and Al Jazeera has little to do with the motivation of the crime and should be removed. Please note that the lead serves as a concise overview of the article and much of the lead "is covered in more detail lower on in the article".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The readings from the Koran are equally lead-unworthy material. Seriously, why would Merah's choice of music/Koranic verses in a video be important to this article?VR _talk 10:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not concerned as to the choice of verses. However the film featured readings from the Koran and had a "religious" theme. How would you rather convey this in the lead?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't, unless you want a full-blown debate in the lead. As mentioned above, whether Merah's actions were religious, is debated, and must be covered in a balanced manner per WP:NPOV. Other users have supported the proposal of covering both sides of the debate. Inserting material only that promotes the view that his actions were "Islamic", without considering the opposing viewpoints, would violate NPOV. Thus, this is best covered in the Motivation section, as already mentioned.VR _talk 11:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not stating that "Merah's actions were religious" which may be debatable, or promoting a view, I am merely stating agreed upon facts: He made a film. It featured reading from the Koran. On it, he can be heard saying "Allahu Akbar". These facts are indisputable (and I assume you are not contesting them). How would you rather these facts be referred to in the lead?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated: I'd rather these facts be incorporated in the body of the article, not the lead. There area tonne of facts about this article that are not in the lead. Only the most significant facts should be in the lead, not every single detail.

For example, it is a fact that Merah was seen in a nightclub before the attacks. How would you incorporate this fact in the lead? (Answer: you wouldn't, because not all facts must be incorporated in the lead).VR _talk 11:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The film is obviously more significant to the narrative than an eyewitness account of a evening's activities prior to the attacks. Unfortunately, I have to revert your recent edit. You have introduced several unreliable sources and information into the article.

I wish to remove needless source attribution from the article when the issue is reliably reported by several sources and is undisputed. Naturally, I shall discuss this here and await your input.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised at your recent edits, where you remove reliable sourced information.

"film is obviously more significant" Please explain why post-processing of the film to input music and Koranic verses is significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead.VR _talk 12:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are rarely reliable sources, and opinion pieces require specific attribution; not simply, "other reports said...". I have removed reference to the music pursuant to your previous comments so I am uncertain why are now mentioning this. So far, you have attempted to remove any reference to religion from the article, be it the description of "Islamic", the Muslim rallies and the Koran featuring in the film. The killer clearly made a link between the two and this should be reported somehow in the lead. If you are unable to allow this, perhaps the next step is arbitration or a dispute resolution?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please address my concerns: I'm worried about your removal of content sourced to New York Times, Boston Globe, HuffingtonPost etc. Additionally, WP:NEWSBLOG indicates that blogs hosted on news websites are reliable if not stated as a fact (and I did attribute them, although, I didn't mention every author by name).

Please refrain from generalizing my edits. I think third party comments are welcome here, and should help us in resolving this dispute.VR _talk 12:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to recap for me what the nature of the dispute(s) is, I'm willing to share a third perspective that'll hopefully be constructive. In the meantime I'll try to read up on what's transpired myself.—Biosketch (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Long overdue, it seems from the history, but I've semi-protected the article. --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, I've semi-protected this page, too. Very much a last resort, as I hate protecting talk pages. --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Motivation

I think the motivation section should be better organized. Secondly, all important views should be given fairly and in due proportion. Its against NPOV, to give more weight to some points and less to others. Finally, some statements are better suited for different sections, such as his some members of his family being connected to extremist groups.VR _talk 01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm attempting to correct some of these problems, and removing some of the duplicated material.VR _talk 01:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Filming, and Allahu Akbar

There is currently some information about Merah's filming a video and editing it with verses of Qur'an and music. What reliable sources are there that say that this fact indicates Merah's motivation? If there are no reliable sources connecting this fact with motivation, then we shouldn't either, because that would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. The same goes for "Merah said that his only regret was not having been able to execute more killings" and "A video shows Merah gunning down two French soldiers in Montauban who is heard shouting Allahu Akbar".VR _talk 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Avenging Palestinian children

Akyol very specifically cites Merah's statement that he was avenging Palestinian deaths as an example of nationalism. That keeps getting removed from the article.VR _talk 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with re-organising. Just don't remove sourced information from the article.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also moved the content about "Islamic warrior" to siege and death, since no reliable sources connect that to Merah's motivation.VR _talk 16:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead, I have moved his motivation stuff lower than the actual events. I think it is important to first describe Merah's attacks, before talking about Merah and his motivations.VR _talk 02:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm making a few changes to the lead:

1. "French intelligence have suggested Islamic radicalisation during prison, jihadist familial connections and psychiatric troubles as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist." There seems to be no evidence of most of this.
- Bernard Sqaurcini, the head of French intelligence said " You have to go back to his broken childhood and psychiatric troubles. To carry out what he did smacks more of a medical problem and fantasy than a simple jihadist trajectory."
- But I don't see him or other high-level French officials saying that the shootings were caused by Merah's family connections, or radicalization during prison. If I have missed this, please quote the content here. If it is just opinion pieces making such claims, they can't be characterized as "French intelligence".
2. Merah split with his wife just days before the shooting. That is at least as important as Merah describing himself as an "Islamic warrior" and is reported by several media sources. Furthermore, French authorities consider Merah's psychology important to this case.
3. The article talks a bit about Merah's criminal past. It should be mentioned in the lead. This is also undisputed (unlike labels of "Islamist" or "Islamic" which are disputed).VR _talk 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit is unsuitable for a lead. Firstly, there is no consensus that he was a jihadist. So, we can't state that as fact. Second, who made these claims? The authors must be identified. If the authors are non-notable, they must be put in the body, not the lead. The source for psychological issues is none other than the French intelligence agency, whose opinion is extremely significant.VR _talk 18:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice AnonMorpork hasn't responded to me concerns here. Please do so, thanks.

I currently have several concerns.

There are several redundancies. These redundancies are a violation of WP:UNDUE weight that Islam is already being given in the lead.
- "Islamic radicalisation during prison..." and "French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison." One of those lines has to go (both lines are back to back!). I prefer the second line because it cites French investigators.
- "French Muslim" and "Merah turned to Salafism". All Salafists, by definition, are Muslims. We don't need to repeat in the same paragraph in the lead that Merah was a Muslim, a Salafist, and "Islamic". This is just too much.
I'm removing " Islamic radicalisation during prison and jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist" as my concerns regarding that sentence weren't addressed. Please identify the exact authors of make these citations, and also provide the exact quotes here (below).VR _talk 16:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources use description French Muslim, so should we. Muslim and Salafism are not synonymous contrary to your contention. Why is it necessary to "identify the exact authors of make these citations, and also provide the exact quotes here"? They are reliable sources so the content is worthy of inclusion.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to provide the exact quotation here on talk, so that we can figure out whether the material says what you think it says. Yet you haven't done that. Until then I can only assume the material is not quoted properly.

We need to know the authors to determine both reliability and notability. We also need authors so we can attribute this. You can't state this as a matter of fact. Right now you state it as a matter of fact that he was a jihadist.

All Salafists are Muslim. I'm not sure what is there to disagree. If he's Salafist, he's automatically Muslim. I don't understand why we have to call him "Muslim", "Salafist", and "Islamic" in the same paragraph. Its redundant, and thus UNDUE.

Finally, Merah referred to himself as a "mujahideen", so please lets stick to what he actually said.VR _talk 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you also explain, why you reverted the order in which I presented the material? It is pretty clear that he became a Salafist in prison first, then split with his wife, and only made the statements about Palestinians and Afghanistan once he began his killings. So why did you mix up the chronological order?VR _talk 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Make the effort to read the sources. They are there for a reason. One is a description of his prison activities, the other is of his personal description at the time of his killing spree. There is very little overlap. However if you are concerned about repetition in the lead, why does it say "history of psychological problems", and "psychiatric troubles" in the lead. I have no objection to the chronological order, it is your frequent unilateral deletions prompted by ridiculous assertions such as ""identify the exact authors of make these citations, and also provide the exact quotes here" that I object to.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read the sources. I don't see them making straight connections. I note that once again you refuse to provide direct quotes from sources. I have asked you several times now, please be more cooperative.

Furthermore, you have ignored my concerns about attribution. I have said again and again that some sources dispute Islam's motivation for these attacks, yet you say as a matter of fact that was a jihadist. So why do you insert that material without attribution?

I agree there is overlap for the psychological stuff. We need to establish principles for editing. You seem to blindly revert every edit I try to make.

I will edit this and insert attribution, meanwhile I'll open an RfC to decide the future fate of this material. Please do not revert the attribution as that would be a violation of NPOV.VR _talk 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see them making straight connections." Really??? Title of article, Terrorist Mohamed Merah found his inner jihadi in prison Sample of content,

"He told the agent he had become a radical by studying the Koran in jail", "It was clear to all who knew him that Merah emerged from jail a different man. For one thing he was sporting a splash of red hair, like a punk rocker. For another, he had developed an obsessive interest in gruesome al-Qa'ida videos depicting beheadings". Google "Terrorist Mohamed Merah found his inner jihadi in prison" and click on the link for The Australian.

See "Toulouse shootings: the making of a French jihadi killer with a double life" which details the "progression from juvenile delinquent to violent jihadist" and how "a small-time thief become a terrifying "lone wolf" terrorist". Content includes:

"it was further revealed that the family had connections to an imprisoned al-Qaeda suspect. Merah's mother had married the father of Sabri Essid, 22, who was arrested in Syria in 2006 at an al-Qaeda safe house for militants en route to Iraq." "In December 2007, Merah was imprisoned for 18 months for the violent theft of an elderly lady's handbag. It was here, according to Francois Molins, chief prosecutor of Paris, that he fell under the spell of radical Islam. Some 80 per cent of French prison inmates are believed to be Muslim."

Or have a look at this BBC article which charts, " Merah's path to murder" and "From crime to Islam". See "He told them his path to radical Islam began in Toulouse five years ago while serving a prison sentence for robbery."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And you don't think "He told the agent he had become a radical by studying the Koran in jail" (and other such statement) is covered by "French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison" (which is a statement I prefer)?

I'm sorry, but where does it say that his family connections made him radical? In fact the source you cite, talks about Merah's family radical family connection in the context of Merah's brother's radicalization, not Merah's. Immediately after mentioning his family connections, the source says "The seeds of Merah's own radicalism, though, seem to have sown ...[in] Izards. His parents divorced when he was around five years old ...leaving the young Merah straying into trouble." The source cites Merah's family's divorce (not their radical connections) as a cause of Merah's radicalization.VR _talk 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be suffering from acute myopia, read the paragraph titled "A family with jihadist connections" which begins "Merah's path to radicalism remains murky but appears to have been influenced by family connections. His mother is married to Sabri Essid, a member of a Toulouse network that tried to recruit fighters to join al Qaeda in Iraq. Essid was convicted in a French court in 2009 after being detained in Syria in 2006 where he was running an al Qaeda safe house." See another source that highlights these connections. You have claimed previously "There seems to be no evidence of most of this" and "I have read the sources. I don't see them making straight connections" regarding content that you later acknowledged as verified so I suggest you are less hasty in making these assertions.AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that.

But can you acknowledge that this source cites Merah's parents' divorce as a cause of his radicalization? Because then both causes should be mentioned.VR _talk 14:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tvukho recently argued that Merah's psychology as a factor in the killings is "fringe". I disagree. His psychology was cited by the head of French intelligence as a cause. That would be like calling the opinions of the CIA "fringe" for an event that happened in the US. I'd also like to remind Tvukho that the President of France has come out to deny that Merah was motivated by Islam. Finally, many mainstream sources have described Merah as "lone-wolf" and without connection to any militant group. Merah's claims that he is connected Al-Qaeda are doubted by French authorities. And I addressed the issue of redundancies in the lead here but no one bothered to respond.VR _talk 13:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent media revelations have established a link between Merah and Islamist groups. Given such a fact, the "psychopath" alternative to an Islamist interpretation of Merah's actions appears to be fringe. I specifically did NOT suggest removing mention of psychology altogether (in a section below). Thus your summary of my comment is inaccurate. What I suggested was to reduce two mentions of psychology to a single one. Tkuvho (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Islamist groups routinely seek recruits among psychologically challenged youngsters. In this sense, Merah's psychology is definitely relevant, but no more so than that of any other Islamist fanatic. Tkuvho (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Given such a fact" Can you quote the fact from a reliable source?

And how can the opinion of French intelligence be "fringe"? Have any notable officials in France criticized the intelligence agencies for this exact opinion?

On the topic of reducing two mentions to a single: can you please respond to this? I wouldn't mind reducing two mentions to one, if multiple mentions of Salafist radicalization in prison were also reduced to one.VR _talk 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact I was referring to was Merah's connection to the "Forsane Alizza" Islamist group which seems to have been widely reported in French media. Do you contest this? Tkuvho (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, can agree that being connected to Forsane Alizza and being psychologically ill are not mutually exclusive?

Perhaps you can enlighten me, but this is what I see right now: a French TV station has claimed Merah was tied to this group, and French authorities have arrested some members on this suspicion (but have not yet charged anyone). The group, which is not know to be very shy, denies any connection to Merah. A French prosecutor says the recent arrests were a result of investigations started in October 2011, and unrelated to the shootings ("Let me tell you firstly that there is no link between this affair and the Merah affair"). So I wouldn't mind a balanced statement in regards to this situation.

Also, I would appreciate if you could respond to me about reducing multiple mentions of psychology and Salafist radicalization in prison to one each.VR _talk 15:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Third party comment

I would really like third parties to be involved in this discussion. Specifically the current issues are:

1. How many times should we mention Merah's religious background in the lead? Is it or is it not UNDUE to mention that Merah was a Muslim, Salafist and Islamic in the same paragraph?
2. Is it redundant to say "Islamic radicalisation during prison...French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison." Can we remove one of those phrases, or merge them?
3. Can the lead state that Merah was a "radical jihadist" as a fact and without attribution, even though many sources oppose that Merah was motivated by Islam?
4. Should the section on Merah be organized chronologically? If not, how else should it be organized?
5. I think it is important to mention that Merah filmed the killings. Is it UNDUE/too much info for the lead to mention that Merah later edited videos, and inserted within those videos "music and readings from the Koran"?
6. Is it redundant to say that Merah had "a history of psychological problems" and that "French intelligence have suggested Merah's psychiatric troubles as a factor in the shootings."

Thanks for discussing.VR _talk 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentences in question are:

"Police identified the perpetrator as Mohammed Merah, a 23-year-old French Muslim, who was previously a petty criminal with a history of psychological problems."

"French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison."

"Some sources argue that Merah's attacks were not motivated by Islam. Islamic radicalisation during prison and jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist."

"Merah filmed the killings and made a video of them set to music and readings from the Koran."

Please note that the lead is keen to emphasise all other possible causes without attribution.

"...who was previously a petty criminal with a history of psychological problems."

"Some sources argue that Merah's attacks were not motivated by Islam"

"French intelligence have suggested Merah's psychiatric troubles as a factor in the shootings."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand what I mean by attribution. Saying "some sources argue" is a form of attribution. Saying "French intelligence have suggested" is also a form of attribution. Attribution is not necessary when facts are not disputed: that Merah was a criminal, and that he had had psychiatric issues. If you find sources disputing these issues, I will gladly attribute them. Thanks,VR _talk 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting compromise below. Please comment or support/oppose it.VR _talk 23:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromise1

Police identified the perpetrator as Mohammed Merah, a 23-year-old Frenchman of Algerian origin. Merah was raised by a single mother and engaged in petty crime during his youth. During his time in prison, Merah tried to commit suicide and later turned to radical Salafism. Merah had reportedly split from his wife days before the shootings, and French intelligence have argued that Merah's history of psychiatric troubles were a factor in the attacks. Merah filmed his victims while killing them. He stated that the shootings were in response to deaths of Palestinian children and the French Army's involvement in Afghanistan. Describing himself as a "mujahideen", Merah claimed ties to Al-Qaeda, but French authorities have doubted this claim. After a 30-hour siege, on 22 March 2012, Merah was shot and killed in a gunfight with the special operations tactical unit of the French police, RAID. Although President Sarkozy and others have ruled out Islam as Merah's motivation, many media sources have called Merah an "Islamic terrorist".

Let me know if some of the statements are believed to be inaccurate. I'll give the sources.VR _talk 23:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This "compromise" suppresses the following facts amongst many others:

Merah was widely described as a 23-year-old French Muslim of Algerian origin
Islamic radicalisation during prison and
Jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a jihadist (not just history of psychiatric troubles)
Merah filmed the killings and made a video of them set to music and readings from the Koran

So no I don't support this latest effort to play down any association between Merah and Islam, which is widely documented. Out of sheer curiosity, in which way do you feel you have compromised?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The compromise does say "During his time in prison...later turned to radical Salafism."
Can you cite the source that says his jihadist family connections made him a jihadist? Please quote the exact quote, as I can't find any source explicitly saying so.

A lead will undoubtedly not mention many, many facts. Just because something is fact, doesn't mean it should be in the lead.

Its a compromise because I have included statement that he was an Islamic terrorist, that he called himself a mujahideen, both things I had previously opposed.VR _talk 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

mid-pyrenees unknown; move to toulouse

Most readers don't recognize "mis-pyrenees". The attacks are firmly associated with toulouse and the other town. I suggest moving this to march 2012 Toulouse attacks. Tkuvho (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article name

This article was recently moved from 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings to March 2012 attacks in Toulouse and Montauban without discussion. I have undone the move and move-protected the article to bring discussion here. Firstly, there is no clear consensus for a move. I initiated a discussion last month about a proposed move, with input from only one other editor. I took this to show no consensus to move. Secondly, the 'new' article title goes against MOS:NAME, with no reason given to justify why. Articles on events in Wikipedia use the format WHEN/WHERE/WHAT – we currently have a "when" of 2012, a "where" of Midi-Pyrénées and a "what" of shootings. The new title introduced further information to the "when" (I previously argued whether we needed a "when" at all, seeing as we're not disambiguating from any other Midi-Pyrénées shootings) and used the word "in", which I've never seen used in a Wikipedia article name of this type. I'd like to reopen discussion on what editors think would be the ~~best~~ most appropriate article title. I (again) propose Midi-Pyrénées shootings or Midi-Pyrénées attacks, as there is no need to disambiguate using dates/years, and "Midi-Pyrénées" is a briefer and more encompassing term for "Toulouse and Montauban". FWIW, reading the headlines from a quick Google News search for "Toulouse", articles use the term "shootings" about 50% more often than the term "attacks", so should we use the common name? matt (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The name "Midi-Pyrénées" is virtually meaningless to English speakers. I suggest we shorten the title to 2012 Toulouse attacks, consistent with Mattgirling's stated reason for reverting the name change. Tkuvho (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree Moving it to '2012 Toulouse attacks' only suggests that they happened in Toulouse, neglecting what happened in Montauban. I find nothing wrong with using Midi-Pyrénées to cover both cities. I also find years/dates in titles helpful. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the date (year) is in the current title, as well. How about 2012 Toulouse and Montauban attacks? Tkuvho (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Motivation2

"However, President Sarkozy's intelligence adviser has argued that Merah did not plan on targeting the Jewish school, but only did so after he arrived too late to kill a soldier nearby"

Is not written in a NPOV manner. The use of "However" has already been discussed on the Talk page, and user seems incapable of expressing the facts in a neutral tone.
Violates wp:syn, this does not concern the previous content and certainly does not dispute it. That Merah's original intention was not to attack Jews does not contradict that he subsequently deliberately did so.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The source clearly [ http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/its-wrong-to-make-victim-of-child-killer-20120328-1vyqq.html claims] "He [Merah] wanted to kill Jews. His killings were premeditated." French authorities say "it wasn't the [Jewish] school that he [Merah] wanted to attack".VR _talk 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself as you have failed to satisfactorily address the single point you were replying to. French authorities say "it wasn't the [Jewish] school that he [Merah] wanted to attack" applies to his initial plans for the day. "He [Merah] wanted to kill Jews. His killings were premeditated." does not dispute this and documents what actually occured. Note: Merah himself expressed a desire to kill Jews, and I shall add this to the paragraph if necessary, contrary to your distorted misplaced claim that "it wasn't the [Jewish] school that he [Merah] wanted to attack". AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but your point would be even stronger without the adjectives "distorted misplaced". Given that Merah picked up the girl by her hair while he was changing the cartridge in the gun before shooting her to death it is difficult to argue that Merah did not want to kill Jews. Tkuvho (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the word however, but the content is clearly relevant. The source also says "That account appears to contradict Mr. Merah's claim to negotiators that he went on his rampage to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children". So Merah's desire to avenge deaths of Palestinians is, according to reliable sources, contradicted by French authorities. "it wasn't the [Jewish] school that he [Merah] wanted to attack" is a direct quote, I asusre you it has not been "distorted" like you say.

Tkuvho: I'm not saying that Merah didn't willfully kill Jews. I'm saying that French authorities don't believe that to be his original intention and that that is relevant.VR _talk 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as we are im agreement that the content relates to "his original intention", I shall amend the text accordinglyAnkhMorpork (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You inserted the word "originally". The source doesn't use that word, and it may be more accurate to quote the source directly. However, if this compromise pleases you then I will accept it, in the hopes that further compromises can lead to the speedy end of these disputes.VR _talk 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I have some objections. I think its UNDUE that Sheean, with no notability (unlike Dan Bilefsky) or expertise (unlike Tariq Ramadan) gets an entire paragraph. Furthermore the author appears to be minority and even fringe. He seems to denounce "progressives". His term "What a load of reprehensible drivel" seems to be a play on words of a common profane saying. He makes negative remarks about Muslims in general (not Islamists, but Muslims), implying they are a threat to France. I agree that he should be mentioned. But he needs to be given the same amount of space as other authors (namely a sentence or two).VR _talk 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify your "minority/fringe" comment? Are you arguing that no experts hold an Islamist motivation rather than a psychopathic one? Tkuvho (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Mainstream sources have attributed Merah's motivations to Islamism, psychology, and social conditions of immigrants. But the above source is among the very few that see alternative explanations as "progressive" (unfortunately this term was inserted in the article) propaganda and characterize them as "a load of reprehensible drivel". While the truth is that many of the sources cited, e.g. Ed West, Sarkozy, are pretty conservative in their outlook. It also grinds an ideological axe by portraying Muslims as a threat. Better sources should be found for what I agree is view that should be included.VR _talk 17:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit inserts content that is less about Merah's motivation and more about which media sources are right and which media sources are wrong. Please keep the material in the section relevant. The only content that should stay is something like "Joel Braunold sees Merah motivated by antisemitism and racism". That Braunold 'is disturbed at the "inabilities of some [media] to even mention anti-Semitism as a cause"' is irrelevant to this section.VR _talk 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is arguably less relevant, but I am not sure it is "irrelevant" as you say. After all, media bias is definitely a part of the story here. Whether you think Merah was motivated by Islam or Islamism, obviously there are some in the media who are uncomfortable with either idea. Tkuvho (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you would rather that this criticism is documented in a separate paragraph called something like "Criticism of Islamic aplogists", you may do so and I have plenty of material to expand such a paragraph. It is related to the interpretation of Merah's motivation and is probably best placed with the rest of the author's opinion.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho, I don't see any sources that cite media bias as Merah's motivation to did what he did. Media bias may be part of the reactions by French society, or by international media, but it doesn't explain Merah's motivation in anyway. Media bias [is http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/loner-loser-killer.html alleged] by Professor Olivier Roy too, but that doesn't mean I've put it in that section.

As I've said above, Tkuvho and AnkhMorpork, if an author holds grudges against "progressives" the motivation section of "Mohammed Merah" is not the place to talk about it. At best, it belongs in the "Reactions" section of this article, and at worst, it doesn't belong at all.VR _talk 15:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankh precisely suggested above that this material be moved to a different section. Do you support this? Tkuvho (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankh suggested its move to a section called "Criticism of Islamic aplogists [sic]". I don't support such a naming. But moving such polemics under the reaction section, if done in a balanced manner, would be an acceptable compromise.VR _talk 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please change childrens' ages

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

The names and ages of the victims: Rabbi Jonathan Sandler (30), Gabriel Sandler (age 4), Arieh Sandler (age 5), Miriam Monsonego (age 7).

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2012/Victims_Toulouse_attack_buried_Israel_19-Mar-2012.htm

David.f.dana (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC) (I made the original comment)

Not done: The names and ages are already in the article. There seems to be some disagreement, even within your source, as to the exact ages of the children. (The text says 4, 5 and 7; the picture says 3, 6 and 8) There also seems to be some variety to the spelling of Rabbi Sandler's older son's name. We have Aryeh in the article, and I saw both Arye and Arieh in the sources. If you'd like to find an unambiguous, better source for these two details, please open a new edit request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

More UNDUE

This edit gives too much credence to pro-Merah views in France. These views are fringe views. I don't live in France, but I can assure everyone that "French society" condemns Merah and his actions.

The edit inserts material that quotes "a middle-aged woman" and "one young man", both unnamed. Yet, curiously the reactions of Francois Hollande, and prominent Frenchmen are missing. The minute of silence observed across France is also missing. These one-sided edits that give too much weight to a fringe (and terrorist) POV must stop.VR _talk 03:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Reuters news story has been widely reported and source attribution is unnecessary.

[1][2][3]
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, the story is widely copied, not widely reported.

Attribution is necessary, because the content isn't a fact, its an opinion. Unless the community as billboards saying "he was one of our own, no matter what he did", this is Vinocur's interpretation of what's going on in the neighbourhood.VR _talk 13:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, I will obviously have to attribute Akyol and Ramadan where their their opinions are cited in the article.

Once again, you continue to misunderstand the meaning of attribution. Akyol and Ramadan's views are already attributed (" others have echoed this view"). But if you want to mention them by name, go ahead, but be sure that you mention *every* author that holds this view, because currently "others" carries a range of authors.VR _talk 14:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, you have not responded to my concern that you are violating WP:UNDUE by adding the most fringe opinions to the article, while ignoring mainstream opinions. Also, the content about a potential future demonstration to support is most certainly not a "reaction" to the Toulouse shootings.VR _talk 13:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment, the information that recently surfaced in the media on Merah's connection to the Islamist group tend to make the psychopath interpretation increasingly irrelevant. I don't think one can present the islamist interpretation and the psychopath interpretation as equally valid interpretations. Even if the latter can be sourced, it is a fringe interpretation. Tkuvho (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The new information should be added to the lede. Also, I propose to reduce the two mentions of psychology/psychiatry in the lede to a single mention. Tkuvho (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho: can you please post lead related concerns at Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Lead. I want to discuss reactions in "French society" in this section. This way we don't confuse the discussions and it is easier to move towards dispute resolution.VR _talk 13:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Vice regent, you made this edit. Can you quote the text from the source that support it.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is from the source you added: "I don't condone what he did, but I can only talk about the Mohamed I knew..."VR _talk 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I raised the concern that a rally in support of AbdelKader is not a reaction to the Toulouse shootings. Since, you haven't responded, I'll assume you have no objections to this view.VR _talk 14:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

An immediate response is not necessary and such as assumption is disruptive editing. I certainly object to its removal as it involves the response of the neighbourhood to the shootings. Your excerpt is inadequate to support what it stated in the article and I suggest you modify it in accordance with the article. You are presenting the views if a single person as those of the community.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My comments on this talk page constitute "disruptive editing"?

"I certainly object to its removal as it involves the response of the neighbourhood to the shootings." But it doesn't. It is the response of people to the arrest of an individual. The rally, which hasn't even happened, is not for for or against the shootings or for or against Mohammed Merah.

Can you show me how I'm presenting the views of a single person as that of an entire community?

I actually prefer that views of all non-notable persons be removed. But the removal should be done in an NPOV manner, not a one-sided manner. Can we agree to this?VR _talk 14:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think User:AnkhMorpork was referring to your edits at this talk page when he mentioned "disruptive editing". It seems to me he was referring to the immediate deletion of the material he added to the article, without being given a chance to give a thoughtful reply. Tkuvho (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Except I didn't immediately delete the content in question (and still have not deleted it).VR _talk 15:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I did not follow all the intermediate steps and misunderstood the discussion above. Tkuvho (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said this at all, I said, "An immediate response is not necessary and such as (sic) assumption is disruptive editing" in response to you stating "since, you haven't responded, I'll assume you have no objections to this view." I have no idea how you reached the conclusion of "my comments on this talk page constitute "disruptive editing"?"
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The reactions do not have to be specifically directed at Mohammed Merah but at the 2012 shooting in general. His brother has been charged as an accomplice to the the Midi-Pyrénées shootings and the way the community have responded to this is certainly relevant.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The article reads "Some were supportive of Merah's family and expressed sympathy for Merah, but said they didn't condone his actions." The source states, ""I don't condone what he did, but I can only talk about the Mohamed I knew, who was a kid like all those over there," said Patricia". This should be reflected in the article. If you wish to include individual responses, I note that "All of this is a setup to get people to vote for Sarkozy," said Hamed," and "I'm going to tell you one thing: he was a kid from this neighborhood and we support his family no matter what people say on TV," said one middle-aged mother of Algerian origin, are yet to be included.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But the reactions are not towards the shooting. The source says "But in Les Izards, where a movement is under way to mount a demonstration in support of the imprisoned Abdelkader Merah". I'm moving this to the aftermath section.

How can you confuse the word "some" with "the community"?

I do not wish to include individual responses. Let's remove all of them that come from non-notable individuals who don't represent anyone more than their own selves.VR _talk 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. After Mustafa Akmal, Tariq Ramadan and Ed West's views are removed, I shall certainly be willing to oblige this request. The source placed it in conjunction with the community reaction and I see no reason to displace it from its natural residence. The section details reactions, and the way they responded to the arrest of a man charged as an accomplice to the shooting matches this criteria.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you say "Mustafa Akmal [sic], Tariq Ramadan and Ed West"? Why don't you include Joel Braunold and Paul Sheean in that list? Can you explain that?

Except there's no proof, nor is any source saying without reasonable doubt, that AbdelKader was involved in the shootings. His trial hasn't even begun. Again, I think this belongs in the 2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Possible_accomplice section.VR _talk 00:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall definitely remove these personages should you do likewise. I only introduced them into the article in response to you flooding it with a particular POV. Why does proof affect whether this is a reaction to the shooting? Innocent, guilty, either way this was a reaction in French society to the shooting and its effects. These include remembering the victims, Jewish fear on the streets, a teacher calling the perpetrator a victim, and also people challenging the arrest of an accomplice. The source describes "the reaction to his rampage" and sees fit to include it, I see no reason to change this.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking this discussion to the section above.

This was not a reaction to the shooting. And the source does not call the rally a "reaction to the rampage". Please quote the source properly. The source says:

the reaction to his rampage has been one of anxious defiance of outsiders trying to peer into what seems like a closed world, cut off from elegant downtown Toulouse by its poverty, by crime and, locals say, by racial discrimination. "I'm going to tell you one thing: he was a kid from this neighborhood and we support his family no matter what people say on TV," said one middle-aged mother of Algerian origin who said she had known Merah when he was a child in Les Izards. Typical of others in the area of low-rise blocks and tidy squares a 15-minute metro ride north of the city centre, she did not want to be named when speaking up for the man who was, briefly, public enemy No. 1: "He was one of ours," she said. "And we will never be sure of what really happened."

Thus the source is saying "he [Merah] was one of ours" was a "reaction to the rampage". The source does not include that plans of a rally as part of the "reaction to the rampage". That seems to be WP:OR.VR _talk 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Criteria_for_inclusion as a reference to my comment "I'm taking this discussion to the section above".VR _talk 04:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You really must stop misconstruing what I am saying. I clearly said above, "The source placed it in conjunction with the community reaction and I see no reason to displace it from its natural residence." Further to that I added that the source which describes "the reaction to his rampage" sees fit to include this and I saw no reason for a move. You have previously unjustifiably claimed that I called your Talk page comments disruptive because of another misinterpretation. I await your explanation why the degree of proof determines whether this constitutes a reaction or not, as the two seem wholly disconnected.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In your last post, you said "The source describes "the reaction to his rampage" and sees fit to include it". Can you explain exactly what you mean by that? Are you saying that anything in an article with the phrase "the reaction to his rampage" is fit to be be included in the "Reactions" section of this article?

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Can you clarify? I agree that the rally is wholly disconnected from the reaction to the rampage.VR _talk 10:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There are also multiple sources quoting Les Izards residents saying they don't condone Merah's actions. "No one can excuse what he did". Of course, she says, she condemns all murders. "I don't condone what he did". Interestingly they all identify Merah as a friend or family.VR _talk 11:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How to spell Mohammed?

Even major newspapers are disagreeing on whether it's spelled with one or two letter M's. Merah did have an expired French passport, so there is an official French (romanized) spelling for his name. Can anyone find a source??

David.f.dana (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrests and Forsane Aliza

I don't see the point of having separate sections for the arrests and Forsane Aliza, given that all/almost all of the arrests were of the Forsane group members. Currently, the information on the arrests is arbitrarily divided in the two sections. I proposed they be merged.VR _talk 02:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the section called Forsane Alizza link should be called "Alleged Forsane Alizza link", because the link is asserted but not yet proven. "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes".VR _talk 16:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Merah's wrongdoing is not undetermined.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Merah's wrongdoing is indeed not undetermined. But the Forsane Alizza link is undetermined, and the arrested members have yet to be proven in the court of law. The lawyer for the arrested contests the link. I also note that all of the arrested members are alive (unless otherwise shown), and thus this relates to WP:BLP, so be careful.VR _talk 19:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the French authorities have not at all charged those (17? 19?) arrested with being an accomplice to the shootings. 13 of them face charges of "criminal association linked to a terrorist network", but not the shootings. Some of them have even been released without any charges.

Alleged links between FA and Merah have so far been made only from a French media source (as far as I know, if you disagree, please provide the evidence below).VR _talk 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Les Izards

AnkhMorpork inserted into the reaction section the fact that many in Les Izards are "Muslim Arabs". I'm not sure if that is a necessary for the article. But for now I'm not removing it. Instead, I note that the source also notes that the unemployment rate for youth there is quite high, as high as 30%. In fact the source puts quite an emphasis on the high unemployment rate as an explanation to what is going on there. If we note the ethnicity of the area, we should also note other important demographic factors.VR _talk 11:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

AnkhMorpork said (above): "I shall definitely remove these personages should you do likewise. I only introduced them into the article in response to you flooding it with a particular POV." This was in reference to various op-eds and articles giving their two cents on the shootings and whether to include them or not. If the criteria is too flexible, you could potentially flood the article with needless information.

One criteria is from WP:NEWSORG, "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." What do others think?VR _talk 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

After about 3 days of calm on the article, I was assuming the current version of the article was beginning to reflect consensus.

AnkhMorpork added some contentious content to the lead. Note: if I have no objections to any addition in the body. But adding stuff to the lead compromises the neutrality of the article. One thing that the user seems to not understand is this: just because content is sourced reliably, doesn't mean it necessarily belongs in the lead. (sorry for the bold, but this is an ongoing concern) Seriously. You could in theory copy and paste the entire article to the lead, and all of the content would be "reliably sourced".

I'm removing AnkhMorpork's additions to the lead for two reasons.

1. "Merah told an editor at France 24 that his acts were to uphold the honour of Islam". This is misleading. The actual quote is "An editor for France 24 describes Merah to CNN: He was extremely well spoken, very polite, seemed to know exactly what message he wanted to get across in the sense that for him, that these acts were not only necessary, but that they were to uphold the honour of Islam."

The words used are "wanted to get the message across". If this should be quoted, it should be quoted fully.

2. "A clinical psychologist had found Merah to be "anxious" but not "psychologically disturbed"." That report dates from 2009. Squarcini's statement is from 2012. You can't juxtapose those two statements side by side. That statement was also mentioned after a suicide attempt and talks about introversion, but somehow that was not mentioned. Also, I'm not sure whether we should provide exact details of Merah's psychology in the lede.

Thus, I'm going to remove these two statements from the lead. I note that there's numerous stuff I can add to the lead too. For example, sources point to his parent's divorce as a source of his radicalization. They call him a lone-wolf and an "abandoned child". They note he was unemployed. I could add all of that. But I won't for now. I note the lead is now becoming more about Merah and less about the shootings. The third paragraph is the largest paragraph. We spend more time talking about Merah's small statements, than we spend talking about those who were killed by Merah.VR _talk 02:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I note AnkhMorpork partially re-introduced the material without responding on talk. The material added is what a single editor claims he heard from Merah, and it is not the most widely cited motivation (which was that Merah wanted to avenge French army's involvement in Afghanistan, and deaths of Palestinians). The source doesn't say "Merah told an editor at France 24 that his acts were to uphold the honour of Islam" but this was that single editor's interpretation of what Merah said.

This edit is inappropriate, because Merah being a "radical jihadist" is not an undisputed fact. Many sources have doubted whether he was motivated by religion, and this one explicitly rejects the use of the term.VR _talk 12:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarkozy's statement is not a general overview of the Midi-Pyrénées shootings and I would like it removed from the lead. If you wish to include it, some sort of counter-balancing statement suggesting religious motivation is necessary.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all you just ignored all my concerns above without even responding to them. Please respond to my concerns, or otherwise agree that you have no objections to them.

Sarkozy is the president of France. His statements regarding Merah's motivation are very relevant. Are you proposing removing all statements of Merah's motivation from the lead? Because only that would be neutral. Otherwise, we must keep Sarkozy's statements.

"some sort of counter-balancing statement suggesting religious motivation is necessary" We already have that! See for yourself: "Merah's motivation was to attack the French Army for its involvement in the war in Afghanistan and to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank." "French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison and his radicalization increased after two journeys he made to Afghanistan and Pakistan." "Some sources have also cited Merah's familial connections to Al Qaeda as factors in his becoming, what they call, a radical jihadist." "Merah filmed the killings and created a video of them set to music and readings from the Koran." "Merah said he was a Mujahideen and claimed ties to the terrorist group al-Qaeda."VR _talk 12:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

With regards to 1. I agree that "if this should be quoted, it should be quoted fully". 2.- "I'm going to remove these two statements from the lead."- support.

Re-organizing the lede and removing redundancies

I'm re-organizing the lede chronologically: 1. Merah's history, 2. Merah's filming, 3. what Merah said during the siege, 4. Sarkozy's statement about Merah's motivation. I'm also removing the redundancies about psychological problems and radicalization in prison.

I think this is a pretty uncontroversial step and something we can all agree with.VR _talk 02:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

France 24

This material:

An hour before police surrounded his apartment, Merah called the French television show France 24 and an editor reported that Merah told him that these acts were not only necessary but that they were to uphold the honour of Islam.^[1]

needs to be merged with this material:

According to Ebba Kalondo, the editor at France 24 who spoke with him, "He said he was in connection with al Qaeda, that what he had done was only the beginning. He said he was against the law on the veil and fought against the French participation in operations NATO in Afghanistan."^[2]

and then placed in the "Siege and death" section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

They state different aspects of the motive, namely, that "Merah told him that these acts were not only necessary but that they were to uphold the honour of Islam". I have no problem with a merge if content is not eliminated.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

References

^ "World News: French terrorist suspect Merah: Who was he?". EuroNews. NEWSY. http://www.newsy.com/videos/french-terrorist-suspect-merah-who-was-he/. Retrieved April 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); External link in |date= (help)
^ Cite error: The named reference eitb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Content Deletion

This edit by somedifferentstuff removes several pieces of sourced material and is still unexplained.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Error

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

source and 38 number 5 is the same. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is fully protected now. Please use the {{edit protected}} template and express the change you want made clearly, in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I say it more clearly. Does anyone want to merge the source number 38 and five as it is the same. it was the you meant? --89.249.2.53 (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Done They are indeed the same, so merged. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2012

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

a) Redundancy

Subsection 2.1, i.e. Earlier life in the Mohammed Merah section, contains a redundancy in the seventh sentence of the third paragraph:

Merah had a history of psychological problems, and French intelligence officials have suggested he had a had a double life or even a split personality [...]

Please remove one of the had a "blocks".

b) Contradictory information

There is contradictory information about the age of one of the victims at the Ozar Hatorah school:

Subsubsection 1.3.2, i.e. Shootings in the 19 March: Ozar Hatorah school in Tolouse subsection of the Attacks section, contains the following information in the seventh sentence of the first paragraph:

The killer chased a 7-year-old girl into the courtyard, caught her by her hair and raised a gun to shoot her.

In the following subsubsection, i.e. 1.3.3. (Victims), the first sentence states:

Four people died: [...] and the head teacher's daughter, eight-year-old Miriam Monsonego[...]

The sources seem to contradict themselves, as stated by the BBC, although a majority (including the BBC source itself) give an age of eight.

This should be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, please consistently give the age as either 7 or 8.

Sorry for the "section/subsection/subsubsection" terminology, should anyone be unfamiliar with it - I'm a TeX user, and old habits die hard.

FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Seeing how, erm, speedily the admins monitoring the protection requests category seem to work, I guess I'll just wait for the protection to expire then. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies. The article is not currently protected. Danger ^{High voltage!} 04:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Motivation listing in infobox

User:AnkhMorpork recently added that the motivation was anti-semitism. This intentionally misleads the reader because 3 of the people killed by Merah weren't Jewish. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. How would you rather the information is presented.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Killing "sellouts" is typical of racially, religiously and ethnically motivated terrorists. What do the sources say? Speciate (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that describe this attack as racially motivated. 1 2 3 4 5
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Killing "sellouts" may be racially motivated, but it isn't antisemitism. Furthermore, Merah didn't intend to target the Jewish school, rather he was looking for a soldier to kill. At least one source disputes antisemitism as a motive.

Listing antisemitism as a motive is ok, as long as there's an indication that it is disputed, and that it was one of the many factors.VR _talk 20:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

[1] "World News: French terrorist suspect Merah: Who was he?". EuroNews. NEWSY. http://www.newsy.com/videos/french-terrorist-suspect-merah-who-was-he/. Retrieved April 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); External link in |date= (help)

[eitb-2] Cite error: The named reference eitb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

No such a thing as Algerian ethnicity

Rallies

WP:UNDUE

Protection

Motivation

Lead

Third party comment

Compromise1

Tags

mid-pyrenees unknown; move to toulouse

Article name

Motivation2

Please change childrens' ages

More UNDUE

How to spell Mohammed?

Arrests and Forsane Aliza

Les Izards

Criteria for inclusion

Recent changes to the lead

Re-organizing the lede and removing redundancies

France 24

Content Deletion

Error

Edit request on 18 April 2012

Motivation listing in infobox