Talk:Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

Notability
Is this subject notable enough to have his own article? I feel like it is not relevant outside the 2016 Nice attack and should be redirected to that instead. GSMR (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My view is that considering the high death toll of the Nice attack and its corresponding significance, this justifies having a page solely for the attacker. I think this is the general rule that has been followed. For example, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Khalid El Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui and Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem all have their own individual Wikipedia pages despite being only involved in a single attack (Brussels)

Amedy Coulibaly also has his own page even though he was notable for his involvement in a singular event.

These are clear precedents for an individual page. The proposed deletion should be removed/rejected Dave8899 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge — this article is only a paragraph long and would better fit under a "Perpetrator(s)" section in the main article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

article clearly fulfills CRM#2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC) it will get longer and more detailed in due course the proposal for deletion tag was already removed by another editor as i explained above, there is plenty of precedence for a separate article Dave8899 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a bit premature to assume that we're going to find out so much about this guy that it's going to overwhelm the 2016 Nice attacks article. This is not a serial killer, it's one guy who is known to have done one thing (WP:BIO).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * End this merging discussion immediately, we have a AfD discussion going on at the same time. We can not have both ongoing at the same time.BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge discussion tag removed. So I suggestion someone closes this discussion so the AfD can run its course.BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016
The alleged killer was described as drug-taking wife beater who never went to Mosque by one of his relatives.....“Bouhlel was not religious - he did not go to the mosque, he did not pray, he did not observe Ramadan. “He drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs. This is all forbidden under Islam http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/who-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-what-8425647

Clayjiclay (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing and absurdity
" According to a cousin of Bouhlel's wife, Bouhlel was not a religious person and did not attend a mosque.[8] Bouhlel's cousin said that he "wasn't a Muslim", and his neighbor said he drank alcohol and never attended mosque."

Funny how these claims that the terrorists aren't Muslims are always made after the attacks, followed by no true Scotsman rationales supporting the non-Muslim claims. Funny also how the perp comes from Tunisia, a country where 99% of the population is Muslim. What are the odds that out of the 11 million Muslims in Tunisia, a man named Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who committed a terrorist attack in Nice while shouting "Allahu Akbar", is not a Muslim, according to his cousin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Funny how people keep insisting because his name sounds foreign and was born abroad he must be a Muslim. His name and birthplace say nothing about what he believes in or stands for. Now if he was a guy who prayed all day and knew the Quran by heart and then went and did this, maybe you’d have a point. Sure, the nutters who blow up people don’t represent or in any way help Muslims, but as you say it’s hard to argue that they aren’t Muslims because of the No true Scotsman fallacy. This is an entirely different case though. We have no evidence whatsoever that this man identified as a Muslim, and his behaviour (not going to mosque, drinking and eating pork, etc.) directly contradicts any notion that he would be. At some point, this stops being about No true Scotsman and is just about people wanting to label him as a Muslim because it’s convenient. 2.227.51.21 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought that the cousin meant "He's no true Muslim" or "He's no real Muslim" because his conduct is at odds with his stated religion. That was my interpretation.  I thought that the cousin was saying: "Yeah, he's a Muslim, but he sure doesn't act like one!"    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct, hence the no true Scotsman fallacy. Overseas, the non-US media is reporting that Bouhlel received upwards of $150,000 in Tunisia, which was reportedly his payment by ISIS for committing this act.  Before engaging in terrorism, he distributed the dirty money to his family.  However, there isn't a word about this in the US press, and the NYT failed to even mention it in their cover story today.  Again, we see a deliberate, systematic whitewashing by US foreign policy interests, many of whom are helping to write these articles. They have gone so far over the edge trying to deny radical Islam is responsible, that they have now begun blaming his divorce for the attacks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron d'Holbach II (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Section title
Just a small comment, do you think the title “Death” is the most appropriate one for the section about the massacre? I mean yeah sure, he did die there, but that hardly seems like the most significant aspect of it. 2.227.51.21 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was the most significant part, as far as his life went. It'd be a weird header in the event article. Plenty of biographies end in remarkable circumstances. What's fine for Osama bin Laden or Moondog Spot is fine for Bouhlel, I think. Link the main article underneath, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Interwiki link to German Wikipedia
While this article has a correct interwiki link to its analogous entry in the Arabic Wikipedia as well as another proper link to the entry in the Farsi Wikipedia, the third [as of this writing] interwiki link to the German Wikipedia is incorrect. The German link is only a redirect, as is another redirect which is not interwiki-linked, this one in the French Wikipedia. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: In addition to subject's biographical entries in Arabic Wikipedia and Farsi Wikipedia, two additional interwiki links show an article in the Chinese Wikipedia and a fairly extensive one in the Spanish Wikipedia. There is also an interwiki link to the French Wikipedia, but that link is as incorrectly indicated as the one in the German Wikipedia. Unlike the extensive Spanish entry, both the German and French articles were redirected to the main article about the Nice attacks (without any discussion). Our lengthy AfD discussion and vote is [as of this writing] still ongoing. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Responsibility
Article: "no group has claimed responsibility for the attack"

News:


 * Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Attack in Nice
 * Nice truck attack: Islamic State claims responsibility

Update article please

(70.53.99.193 (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC))
 * That's just whatever Amaq is supposed to be citing someone anonymous to say ISIS appreciates the help. Not responsibility, as it's commonly understood. More like self-alleged inspiration, like that time I said someone should make a movie about ants, and then somebody I'd never met released Antz (and A Bug's Life). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the phrase from the article and added ISIS's claims. ISIS probably isn't a reliable source, but I think it's important to know how they view the incident. FallingGravity (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How whoever publishes Amaq views it, anyway. I don't exactly trust ISIS, but at least al-Bayan and Dabiq make an effort to seem professional and reputable. This one seems like crap even by social media standards. Doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel
Apparently sources like BBC are now hyphenating his name. If so, the page needs moving.220  of  Borg 07:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I now see that this page was at that name, and Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel redirects here already. 220  of  Borg 08:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have asked an administrator to help sort this out. I do not think the page moves can be done in a clean way without using administrative tools. The hyphenated surname Lahouaiej-Bouhlel is currently used in the main article. I heard it yesterday in BBC News bulletins live from Nice. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've moved the page as requested. I also took out some garbage sources which failed WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sexual relationship
Umm...am I the only one who thinks it's just a tad WP:POV to point out a single report that he may have been in a sexual relationship with a 73 year old man? Seems pretty clearly there to imply "hey guys look! this guy was a sexual deviant!" It comes off an awful lot like an LGBT slam as well as a slam on older people, and older LGBT people in particular. If there is general consensus in favor then it can be readded, but since this 73 year old is assumedly a living person, then WP:BLP comes into play, and so I've moved the passage here for discussion. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Relevant biographical information, including info about his sex life, should be in the article - it's usual to include such reliably sourced info. The 73 y o isn't named, so there's no BLP vio. It's important to mention him because he's described as the subject's main lover. Are you saying that mentioning this reliably sourced info at all is a 'slam' - or are you saying it should be included, but worded differently? Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I do see that the 73 year old isn't named even in the source. What about something along these lines. I think it makes it a bit more clear that the issue is not the relationship per se, but that this was a person with a chaotic personal life. It also attributes the media characterization a bit more clearly. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the way you've worded it. His personal life is relevant. Prior to me adding it to the article, there was no indication of his bisexual lifestyle. Jim Michael (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There still no indication that he identified as bisexual. The whole thing is a careful wording issue, like saying "described by French media as his principle lover" rather than "has a sexual relationship with". The latter contains an assumption of fact that's not really in the source when you put it under a magnifying glass. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true that we don't know how he self-identified - it's likely he was closeted, as are a high proportion of homosexual and bisexual people from Muslim backgrounds. Jim Michael (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have messaged Mathsci, and now pinging to invite to join discussion. I'm not entirely sure about my original argument (same as theirs) regarding BLP. More discussion is probably good. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If the above text gets approved in principle, please correct the spelling of “principal” before adding it to the article.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ spelling corrected. Jim Michael (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But...they were pals. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They were much more than just pals! Jim Michael (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI, I posted about possible BLP violation regarding the associated person on WP:BLPN, just to cover all our bases. No response as of yet. Timothy Joseph Wood 18:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Re:including a 73 year old male characterized by French media as his 'principal lover'. Firstly I don't see the need to refer to the 73 year old at all. Secondly it isn't actually 'French media' describing him thus, it's Sky saying that unnamed French source(s) have made the characterisation which weakens the sourcing. Personally I would remove since this borders on being an identifiable living person and at present not relevant. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What do the French sources actually describe the 73 y o as? Jim Michael (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy
How do we know for sure this was the attacker? Can we trust mainstream media sources? Eck (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible that the police switched this guy's body for someone else's. However, we here at Wikipedia value verifiability, not truth. So yes, we can trust mainstream media sources until other reliable sources dispute these claims. FallingGravity 00:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2016/07/18/mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-terroriste-nice-attaque-terrorisme_n_110522
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812123852/http://loractu.fr/france/13704-attentat-de-nice-le-terroriste-presume-mohamed-lahouaiej-etait-connu-de-la-police.html to http://loractu.fr/france/13704-attentat-de-nice-le-terroriste-presume-mohamed-lahouaiej-etait-connu-de-la-police.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nicematin.com/faits-divers/video-on-a-entendu-plusieurs-fois-allahu-akbar-les-temoins-racontent-apres-lattentat-de-nice-65015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
Is there not a higher quality picture of him that's in the public domain? The only picture of him throughout the whole article is the one in the infobox, so I think it'd be better to use an image that isn't so obscured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)