Talk:Toulouse and Montauban shootings/Archive 3

Sarkozy - antisemitism
I recently added this material, which was improved upon with this edit by Vice regent. This material now has been removed on the grounds of "Source not properly represented." Why is this the case and what improvements would you advise? Best Wishes ' Ankh Best Wishes [[User:AnkhMorpork| Ankh '. Morpork  13:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)]]. Morpork  09:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  13:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  14:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You cherry-picked the source and didn't represent it properly. Have another look. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And are you accusing Vice regent of the same misdemeanors? Please explain how I, and VR, inappropriately used this source, and how you would rather it is presented, so that we can proceed in a constructive manner. You have not voiced the reason for your objections, and I would appreciate your thoughts.
 * Read the full quote by Sarkozy in the source, and remember that this article on Wikipedia isn't only about the school shooting. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think I understand your elliptical complaint, and I shall make clear in the lead that Sarkozy was only referring to the school shooting.
 * You still aren't representing the source accurately. In the quote he states, "We do not know the motivations of this criminal." Let's wait to hear from VR on this as well. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall modify the language to accommodate this concern of yours. Please note that I have been reverted twice and you have also reverted vice regent, and this is the first time you have clearly articulated your problem with the source. You state that the source is misrepresented, yet you do not seek to rectify this but instead opt for wholesale reversions that remove content and source. I find this disruptive and urge you to work in a collaborative manner.
 * Your last edit mis-represented the source and I reverted it. Don't do that again. Discuss on talk what you think should go into the article and see if you have consensus to add it. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the lead should, in some sort of way, mention antisemitism, as it has been widely talked about.
 * (I don't have much time right now, but...) I think that Sarkozy's statement was made before it was known Merah was the killer, so he wasn't talking about Merah (but I could be wrong). So mentioning Sarkozy in the paragraph about Merah is not appropriate. But, like I said, we should be able to find some reliable source connecting the attack to antisemitism.VR talk  14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments contain original research and seek disqualify Sarkozy's statements that you have previously been very keen to inlude in the lead. They were reported in several reliable sources and therefore warrant inclusion. Seeing as you previously amended my edit to a format that you agreed with, and yet you are now entirely opposed to its inclusion, the observation of an admin that "You appear to have been doing your own slow-edit-war, which even looked like tag-teaming at times", still appears applicable, and I hope that you can work in a collaborative manner.
 * Which comment of mine contains original research?
 * I will ignore the rest of what you said, since it is a comment on me rather than a comment on the dispute (see WP:NPA).VR talk  03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank"
This is not how the vast majority of sources report Merah's motivation, nor is it consistent with his exact words, "'The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine." Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  09:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph is a good source. The article is here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are unable to agree on a accurate summation of the sources, it is fair that the reader is privy to all the salient aspects of this point, and I aim to introduce to the lead his precise wording.
 * Let's wait to hear from VR. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that reliable sources say "The Jewish children were killed to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank."
 * What I must emphasize, though, is that repeating the motivation in the lead is highly inappropriate. The lead still suffers from WP:UNDUE concerns and you can't just repeatedly state the same thing.
 * AnkhMorpork, what exactly about the current wording do you dislike? VR talk  14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I dislike the fact that he wished to avenge the actions of "the Jews" and this has been presented as actions commmited by the "IDF". I dislike the fact that he was incited by deaths of Palestinian childrem throughout Palestine and this has been limited to specific regions.
 * Have a look at at how other sources present Merah's motivation with regards to this issue. None of them make mention of the IDF and they all mention Merah's denunciation of the Jews.

12345678 Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The piece in The Telegraph is not a news report but rather an opinion piece by one George Grant. Given that Grant is clearly trying to "help" Merah express himself "better", it is odd that a wiki editor would describe this as a "good source".  Tkuvho (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article name, again
I am unconvinced that the name "2012 Midi Pyrenees Shootings" is the best we can do. It evidently does not adhere to WP:COMMONNAME, and is likely to confuse readers. A search on google for this very name yields only Wikipedia and Wikipedia clones. The article should employ the title that gives the most accessibility while making reasonable amends for accuracy. I do not think the 'reasonable amends' here extends to incorporating the whole region of Midi-Pyrenees into the name simply because the attacks were not geographically limited in Toulouse. Even if some of the attacks happened outside of Toulouse, if the shootings are commonly known by another name, that name should be employed. I somehow doubt that English-language media will call this incident the "2012 Midi Pyrenees Shootings" looking back ten years from now.I move that this page be moved to "2012 Toulouse Attacks" or "2012 Tolouse shootings". Previous discussion at Talk:Toulouse and Montauban shootings/Archive 2. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All the attacks didn't happen in Toulouse. I found "2012 Toulouse and Montauban attacks" to be a better alternative.VR talk  03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Either one would be better than "midi-pyrenees" which is a meaningless term to an English speaking audience, as I already mentioned above. Since it is clearly the Toulouse attack that propelled this event into international prominence, I have a slight preference for "2012 Toulouse attacks", but either would be acceptable.  Midi-Pyrenees have to go.  Tkuvho (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  14:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a survey of the multilingual sister sites, and it seems "Toulouse and Montouban attacks" is the most widely used (as at French WP) but that "Toulouse attacks/shootings" is not far behind. If we end up choosing to incorporate both Toulouse and Montouban, then perhaps we can just omit the year "2012" from the article name, as it would be unambiguous which shootings we are referring to. So my vote is for Toulouse and Montouban shootings or 2012 Toulouse shootings or 2012 Toulouse attacks. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this proposed name change per WP:COMMONNAME. All other names can be used as redirect links.
 * Note that Montauban really isn't a household word for an English speaker. So much so that one of the contributors in this section misspelled it.  I think 2012 Toulouse shootings is the best in the end. Tkuvho (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2012 Toulouse shootings is fine with me. I cannot move the article. Could someone with administrator's privileges do this? Even a few more minutes with awkward name would be a shame. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see three editors supporting the name change to 2012 Toulouse attacks: User:Colipon, User:AnkhMorpork, and myself. User:Vice regent appears to prefer retaining Montauban in the title.  Tkuvho (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am honestly quite indifferent. I would actually say my top preference is "Toulouse and Montauban shootings", and that "shootings" is better than "attacks", but anything to get away from the current name would be nice. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on User:Vice regent's comment above, he also supports Toulouse and Montauban shootings. I will go ahead and make the change the WP:IAR way.  Tkuvho (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edits that resulted in a copy and paste, because that is not the way page moves are done. Please see Help:How to move a page and Requested moves -84user (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does everything have to be so damn bureaucratic? Can't we just get an admin to come here and perform this move? Colipon+ (Talk) 17:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Two versions
There are currently two versions of this page at two separate titles - both are full articles and talk pages. They need to be reconciled. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The other version, Toulouse and Montauban shootings was an incorrect copy and paste of this article, so I reverted the redirect, see above. I am now making the copy page a redirect of this one, 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings. Please re-apply whatever changes made on the copied article to this one. Because this article is protected against non-sysop page moves, if editors wish to rename the article please use the procedure described at Requested moves. -84user (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings → Toulouse and Montauban shootings – per WP:COMMONNAME and editors consensus. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Support. Speciate (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to 2012 Toulouse and Montauban shootings. COMMONNAME is not relevant here as there can be no common 'name' in English for this one off event.  To omit the year would be a crass example of recentism - it would imply there have never before been shootings in Toulouse.  It might even be better to name the article 'March 2012 ...' .  Sussexonian (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This point was addressed in an earlier discussion. There were surely shootings in Toulouse before, but probably not shootings in both Toulouse and Montauban as part of the same event.  At any rate, there are 5 users supporting the proposed name "Toulouse and Montauban shootings", and your proposed change is minor.  Tkuvho (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sussexonian, can you explain what you mean by, "COMMONNAME is not relevant here as there can be no common 'name' in English for this one off event." I don't understand what you mean.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  09:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, even "Toulouse shootings" by itself is probably not all that problematic - even if there were previous Toulouse shootings I can't see any of them having the same degree of notability. This is not recentism. These are the most notable "shootings" to have occurred in Toulouse. That said I still support "Toulouse and Montauban shootings" as a good compromise. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Toulouse murders
I am not sure why some editors insist on writing that the children in Toulouse were "killed" rather than "murdered". My edit was reversed. The term "killed" is generally used in reference to soldiers killed in action. When children are shot at point blank range the other term would seem to be more accurate. Tkuvho (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the shootings were a cold-blooded murder. But that may not be most neutral. I've asked the question here.VR talk  02:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I likewise agree that it was a murder, in my personal opinion, but I think as an encyclopedia we need some discretion. Can we call 9/11 "murder" of 4,000 civilians? Also an argument can be made that murder implied that he chose his victims specifically - whereas it would appear he simply chose the profile of the victims and then shot people accordingly, without necessarily knowing the identities of those killed. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Coliphon
This edit by Coliphon is contentious, but at least its neutral. I'm fine with keeping the discussion on Islam in the article proper so long as user don't selectively re-insert some of the material back.VR talk  01:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mind you, a big part of my edit was to simply pare down what has emerged as a 'controversy magnet' lede. One does not need to introduce every contentious claim from every source and talk about it in such pedantic detail when the reader of the article is likely just looking for a straightforward description of the events themselves. <P>I would also add that I was very clear in supporting the inclusion of this type of content in the article body, should anyone feel the need to restore it. But in the lede, brevity is key. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. As you said, this material is supported by multiple reliable sources. But, as I have been saying for months on this talk page, just because something is supported by reliable sources doesn't mean it belongs in the lede.VR talk  13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Undue
Currently, the lede repeats, like every other sentence that Merah was a Muslim/Islamist.


 * "Mohammed Merah, a 23-year-old French Muslim,"
 * 'Merah as a "member of the Islamist and radical movement"'
 * "Merah turned to Salafism in prison and his radicalization increased"
 * "Merah [became] a radical jihadist"
 * "Merah said he was a mujaheed (sic)"

We don't need to repeat similar versions of the same thing 5 times! The bottom two paragraphs of the lede need to be re-written to avoid these redundancies. Otherwise it seems to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.VR talk  01:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the lede can do with some more neutralizing, though in those references above, they seem very well-cited to reliable sources. Perhaps repeating it so many times is a bit on the side of undue and stylistically messy. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH on Forsanne Alizza?
The section making the link between Merah and Forsanne Alizza says,

This looks like WP:SYNTH that connects Merah with Forsanne Alizza simply because both like going abroad and meeting with terrorists. While the first two sentences should be moved to a different section, the last last sentence is not relevant as this article is not about Forsanne Alizza.VR talk  13:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is no article on Forsanne Alizza, obviously some background is required concerning this organisation, as indeed the sources feel it necessary to do.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  17:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a rather unconvincing justification for what appears to synthesis. If Forsanne Alizza is a notable topic, then we can have an article on it. Otherwise, info on Forsanne Alizza that is not connected to this topic shouldn't be in the article.VR talk  01:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't re-insert original research into the article. If you don't think the information is a violation of WP:SYNTH, please say why over here.VR talk  11:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, "A French government document presented Merah as a "member of the Islamist and radical movement" Forsane Alizza" (in the lede) is incredibly non-neutral, given that many reliable sources explicitly dispute the connection of Forsane Alizza arrests to Merah.VR talk  01:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi VR. Regarding the material in the lede, do you have any reliable sources saying that he wasn't a member of Forsane Alizza. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The original source for the Forsane Alizza must be provided, and it should be corroborated by a mainstream source of some kind, such as say, le Figaro or the New York Times. Even then, it is questionable whether or not it should be in the lede. I feel that in general the connection to Islam is overstated. Also, per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, it should be clear that the burden of proof lies on the editor who makes this claim - there is no negative burden to prove he wasn't something. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarkozy said that the arrests of the Forsane Alizza members were not related to Merah. Other sources say similar things. If there was someone that Merah was connected to in Forsane Alizza, the French authorities would have arrested him and wouldn't be denying a connection.VR talk  03:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * User Somedifferentstuff asked above "Hi VR. Regarding the material in the lede, do you have any reliable sources saying that he wasn't a member of Forsane Alizza"? You are right to ask this question.  I don't think VR has such sources.  Moreover, a government report says he was a member of FA.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily for a 'claim' like this the burden should be positive... you should be proving something is, not that something isn't. While there are certainly RS that discuss his suspected connections to FA, we need definitive answers. Otherwise the lede should provide caveats that his connections to FA and FA's links to the shootings in and of itself are disputed. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But this page isn't merely about the shootings. It also contains a profile on Merah himself.  I see no justification for deleting the material on the government document affirming Merah's connection to FA.  User VR has repeatedly removed this material.  Tkuvho (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR on Forsanne Alizza
Adding the the arrests under "Alleged Forsanne Alizza link", as AnkhMorpork did recently is a violation of WP:OR. That is because no reliable source alleges that those arrested were were linked to the shootings. In fact, multiple reliable sources deny that the arrests were related to the shootings.

In fact there is no evidence at all that the shootings, which is the topic of this page, were "linked" to Forsane Alizza. Merah may have a link with the group in 2006, but that doesn't mean there is a link between the group and the shootings.VR talk  12:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that Mohammed Merah redirects to this page. It is not up to us to decide whether his membership in FA is relevant to the murders.  On the other hand, this page is clearly about Mohammed Merah himself, as well.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not up to decide this. It is up to reliable sources to decide this. And I don't think there are any reliable sources that say that his membership in FA is relevant to the murders. Correct me if I'm wrong.VR talk  02:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral compromise for the lede
I think the lede needs to be edited holistically: that means that if one POV is added/removed, it should be balanced with the alternate POV. The best way of doing that is probably proposing a lead on the talk page, discussing it, and then putting it up on the main page.

Since the contention revolved around the last two paragraphs, I'm proposing a neutral and concise version.

"The perpetrator was identified as Mohammed Merah, a 23-year-old French Muslim, who was previously a petty criminal. According to French investigators, Merah turned to Salafism in prison and made two trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some commentators cite Merah's familial connections to Al-Qaeda and his parents' divorce as a source of his radicalization. The French intelligence cited Merah's history of psychological troubles as a factor in the shootings."

"Merah attacked French Army personnel reportedly because of its involvement in the war in Afghanistan and he attacked the Jewish school to avenge Palestinian children, stating "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine." Merah claimed ties to the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda, though French authorities have denied this. The shootings have frequently been described as "lone-wolf" terrorism."

Some justifications:
 * removed "Merah had also reportedly split from his wife days before the shootings", as suggested by Colipon
 * removed "Some government reports allege Merah had connections to the radical Islamist group Forsane Alizza, though this has been disputed" as this is disputed in the above section
 * removed Merah's dubious claim that he was a "mujaheed" (sic), but added that Al-Qaeda is an Islamist terrorist group. I think that's a reasonable compromise.
 * added "The shootings have frequently been described as "lone-wolf" terrorism", because the lede should say that these shootings were an act of terrorism and have been described as "lone-wolf" VR talk


 * You are attaching undue weight on his parents divorce (you added "his parents' divorce as a source of his radicalization"), and are omitting any reference to Forsane Alizza as well as his filming of the murder. This fails WP:V, let alone WP:NPOV<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  08:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? How dis this fail WP:V? Do explain.
 * The divorce of his parents is cited as the source of his radicalization. It seems to have been given as much weight as his family's Al-Qaeda connections in the media.
 * The Forsanne Alizza allegation is directly disputed, seeemingly by Sarkozy himself. Please take that up in the section above. I feel that there is agreement that the Forsanne Alizza connection is highly disputed and that multiple reliable sources call Merah a lone-wolf.VR talk  03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit: Merah's lawyer directly cited his separation from his wife as significant to the shootings, so I do think it is lede worthy. But in the interest of compromise, I'll let this go.VR talk  03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am all in favor of compromise, but deleting mention of Forsane Alizza from the lede is akin to vandalism. Tkuvho (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you go (re-)read WP:VANDALISM. I'm not removing the information from the article, only from the lede. The information continues to be covered later on in the article. If you continue to stand by your allegation, then we will have to take this to Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism.
 * As stated above, the Forsanne Alizza connection to Merah is disputed, including by Sarkozy himself. Furthermore multiple reliable sources call Merah a lone wolf. Please respond to both of these facts.VR talk  02:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I appreciate the efforts at hashing out a compromise over this rather complex matter. Re: wife. I don't regard this as un-noteworthy, I just thought it was totally out of context. He split from his wife, so what. He killed a bunch of people because he split from his wife? If there is indeed a connection, one that his highlighted and corroborated by RS, then I would say it is lead-worthy. But then it should be phrased as "Merah split from his wife in the days leading up to the shootings, which may have been a contributing factor to his behavior." Regardless, since I am of the view that the lede should be concise, I still do not think too much detail is necessary. So far I gather: 1) Connection to Forsane Alizza (disputed) 2) connection to Al-Qaeda (somewhat disputed), 3) family problems (wife + parents), and 4) personal political beliefs. We can probably sum that all up with a couple of sentences. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: Lone-wolf. I think this is certainly relevant. I do believe the Islamic elements are overplayed, not the least because of the social climate in France at the moment, and it tends to ignore Merah as an individual. Besides, we are only making a passing mention of the 'lone-wolf' nature of the crime, not being deterministic. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:Forsane Alizza. Upon reviewing the lone section that now discusses this supposed connection, it is looking increasingly tenuous, bordering on pure speculation. Perhaps it is better to purge it altogether from the article, or at least shave it down to about a sentence. I was initially indifferent to this being in the lede, but now I am leaning towards 'no'. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to this comment by Tkuvho. French authorities have denied any connection between Merah and any of Forsanne Alizza members arrested. Who else could Merah have had a connection to and why was that person not arrested? Furthermore, there are multiple reliable sources that the shootings were "lone wolf" terror and conducted without assistance from any external group. It is clear that majority of the reliable sources do not find any connection between Merah and Forsanne Alizza (or any other group for that matter).VR talk  13:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He committed an attack. He also belonged to an organisation of which members were later arrested. They had no part in his attack. Why are these three facts contradictory? Yes he was a lone wolf but he was also a member of Forsane Alliza.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  15:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you seem to be saying that his membership in Forsane Alizza had nothing to do with his attack. Because if it did, the Forsanne Alizza members involved would have been arrested or some sources would have blamed the organization for it. So, in that case, such an insignificant fact doesn't belong in the lead. Simply because it has nothing to do with the shootings.VR talk  00:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop misrepresenting me. I said other members had no part in his attack, not that his membership in this group had nothing to do with it. I am sure that his association with other extremists and the hate-filled ideology that this group espoused certainly did influence this attack. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  21:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "I am sure that his association with other extremists and the hate-filled ideology that this group espoused certainly did influence this attack." DO you have a reliable source to back that up? If you don't than there is no evidence that Merah's membership in FA was in anyway connected to the attack.VR talk  02:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that Merah's separation from his wife is more relevant to the murders than Merah's membership in an Islamist organization that encourages jihad and, mind you, never condemned the murders? Tkuvho (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merah's separation from his wife was connected by his lawyer to the shootings. Yet, not a single reliable source connects Forsane Alizza (or Merah's conenction with it) to the shootings. The document used is 6 years old and it is completely unkown whether Merah was a member of Forsane Alizza past 2012.
 * That Forsane Alizza did not condemn the murders is of no consequence (although I haven't seen a reliable source that says that). Plenty of organizations around the world (and even in France) din't condemn the murders.
 * Since you connect Merah's separation to Forsane Alizza, would you be able to compromise on keeping both these facts out of the lede?VR talk  04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What Merah's lawyer said is not necessarily relevant here. I don't think anybody took his word for it.  The link between Forsane Alizza and Merah was reported in the press.  It would have been natural for FA to react.  I can see that the reaction of the Society for the Protection of Endagered Species to the Merah murders may be irrelevant.  However, FA reaction, or rather absence of it, is relevant.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are his lawyer's comments, that are widely quoted in the press, not relevant?
 * BTW, you got a reliable source saying FA didn't condemn the attacks? If you do, such an information should be added to the body.VR talk  02:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User VR claimed above that "Since you connect Merah's separation to Forsane Alizza", apparently referring to me. On the contrary, it is user VR who connected the two issues.  Do you have a reliable source saying that Merah stopped being member of FA after 2006, as you seem to suggest above?  If so, such information should be included.  Tkuvho (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also wondering what organisation Merah may have joined after conjecturally discontinuing his membership in FA. Perhaps the chess club of Toulouse?  Tkuvho (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said he discontinued his membership. Simply that there is no evidence of his membership past 2006, which is 6 years before the shootings. If you feel he was a member of FA after 2006, the burden of evidence is on you.
 * Once again, I have shown that his wife's separation was widely covered in the press. On the other hand, the FA allegation doesn't seem to be covered by that many sources.
 * But in the interest of compromise and not having this dispute linger on forever, I'm willing to say "let's keep both these statements out of the lead, but covered later on in the article". Would you agree to that?VR talk  03:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is reasonable to expect proof that Merah was still member of FA in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012. Even if we have sources that he was member of FA in jan 2012, you would challenge me to prove that he was still member in march.  This is silly.  The government document clearly indicates a link to an islamist group.  If he became a pacifist later, the burden of proof is on you to show this.  Tkuvho (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't think it is reasonable to expect proof that..." You must back everything you assert with reliable sources. Everything. Take a look at Verifiability, esp. where it says "verifiability not truth". BTW, this argument is going in circles. I ask you for reliable sources supporting your assertions, and you ask me to disprove your assertion. But the burden of evidence is on the user who adds something, not the one who removes something.VR talk  05:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

consistently misleading comments by user VR
The comment "If this is mentioned then we will also have to mention the French police and Sarkozy denial of any connection between the group and Merah. otherwise this isn't neutral" by user VR is misleading. The French police and Sarkozy did not deny a connection between Merah and Forsane Alizza. What they denied is a connection between the shootings and subsequent arrests of members of Forsane Alizza. This confusion has been going on for several days already and it is time to clarify the issues involved. Tkuvho (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this distinction. That the subsequent arrests were not because of Merh's activities does not contradict that Merah was a member of this group as was reported by sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  10:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond in the sections above. There are already two sections above discussing the same thing. Please respond in this section where Tvukho, AnkhMorpork, Colipon and I are discussing the matter. VR talk  13:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject of this subsection is the problem of your deliberately misleading edits, as distinct from the ongoing work on the article. Even after I pointed out their misleading nature, you persisted in reverting the page to the following: "Some government reports allege Merah had connections to the radical Islamist group Forsane Alizza, though this has been disputed".  This is inaccurate.  I am not aware of any sources disputing the existence of Merah's connection to FA.  Certainly none are reported in the article.  What is being denied is the connection between the shootings and subsequent arrests of FA members.  You continue deliberately to obfuscate this distinction.  Tkuvho (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some government reports allege Merah had connections to the radical Islamist group Forsane Alizza, though this has been disputed" was re-inserted by you, not me. Talk about misleading statements.VR talk  00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed that. My main contention is that Merah's link to FA should be mentioned in the lede, regardless of coverage of the subsequent arrests and Sarkozy's statement about them.  Your connection between these items is artificial.  Contrary to your claim, Sarkozy did not deny a connection between Merah and FA.  He only denied that the arrests were connected to the shootings. Tkuvho (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As you said above, this subsection is only for dealing with "misleading" edits, "as distinct from the ongoing work on the article." So discussion on what belongs in the lead should happen in the section above.
 * I do wonder if you will retract your statement in which you falsely accuse me of inserting "Some government reports allege Merah had connections to the radical Islamist group Forsane Alizza, though this has been disputed".VR talk  04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I object to is your edit here where you introduced the obfuscating claim that Merah's membership in FA "has been put into doubt", based on a conflation of the government report and later statements by Sarkozy. This is the insertion that I find inappropriate.  You can certainly apologize for it.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In this edit summary, Tkuvho says "let's discuss this point by point on talk". That is misleading. Because I have been discussing this on talk since 25 May in the section above. Yet I note that Tkuvho has made not a single response to my concerns about WP:SYNTH on Forsane Alizza. It's also interesting that I have separated my comments into two different sections "WP:SYNTH on Forsanne Alizza?" and "WP:OR on Forsanne Alizza", which would seem to satisfy Tkuvho's demand of discussing "point by point".VR talk  04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why mentioning the government report on Merah and FA is "synthesis". I also don't see why it is OR.   Tkuvho (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then discuss this in the section above. You did comment in the section, but neither of your two comments was regarding the material I removed from the section Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings. To date you have not provided a refutation to my assertion that the content I delete here is a violation of WP:SY TH. Of course, if you no longer dispute my assertion, then I guess there's no need to discuss this.VR talk  02:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Algerian citizenship
Merah's algerian citizenship should be mentioned here. At the time of the murders his only valid passport was an Algerian one. Tkuvho (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Is there a reliable source for this?VR talk  03:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * About a dozen of them at the French wiki. Tkuvho (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikis are not reliable sources.VR talk  05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

misrepresentation of Oliver Roy's op-ed piece by user VR
User VR added a claim to the effect that Merah was a "lone wolf", citing an op-ed piece by one Oliver Roy. The words "lone wolf terrorism" were highlighted (with a link) by VR, suggesting that he is quoting Roy. In reality, there is not a word about wolves in Roy's piece. Being a "loner" does not typically make one a lone wolf killer. This therefore represents an additional misrepresentation by user VR. Tkuvho (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

no lone wolf Tkuvho (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article calls him a "lone terrorist". Can you explain the difference between "lone terrorism" and "lone-wolf terrorism". Here's a source that calls him "lone wolf terrorist".
 * The source you quoted speculates the shootings bore the imprint of Al-Qaeda. As French authorities have said, Al-Qaeda was not involved in the attacks. The same source also says that Sarkozy described the attack as isolated.VR talk  03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are still misconstruing the Roy's op-ed piece. Roy used the expression "lone terrorist" in a phrase which is a summary of the position he seeks to criticize.  He is not explicit at all about what Roy himself thinks.  At any rate, this is an op-ed piece, and therefore does not even represent the position of the newspaper where it is published.  The opinion of a single individual, namely Roy, can hardly make it into the lede.  Furthermore, the WSJ piece explicitly states that he was not a lone wolf. Tkuvho (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Roy clearly says "Muslim lone terrorists like Merah".
 * Here's another source that calls him "lone wolf terrorist". Am I supposedly misconstruing this one too?
 * The WSJ piece is either wrong or outdated because it associates Merah with Al-Qaeda, which we know is not true.VR talk  15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Blog source
Currently this source is used to argue that "Islamic youths" have been committing antisemitic crimes. While I don't deny the crimes, and I feel it is notable to mention the antisemitism, I take issue with the term "Islamic youths". As the source clearly says, the term is sourced back to blogs, which are not particularly reliable source. Furthermore "Islamic youths" comes across an unnecessarily POV term that serves to stigmatize France's Muslim minority. It simply generalizes criminals with Muslims, without an qualifiers ("Islamic extremists", "radical Muslims" etc).VR talk  03:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would replace this by "Islamist youths" if you are sensitive to utilizing the term "islamic" in a negative context. Tkuvho (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfair stigmatization of an entire ethnic/religious group isn't the only concern here. Blogs aren't reliable sources. The source doesn't use the word "Islamist".VR talk  15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Isolated" used by Sarkozy
The source for this quote from Sarkozy clearly states in the headline that Sarkozy was referring to an alleged absence of links between Merah and Al-Qaeda. I would be in favor of removing this from the lede as later information linked Merah to another Islamist group, namely FA. Contrary to what has been alleged above, Sarkozy never denied a connection between Merah and FA. Tkuvho (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Later information"? You mean the information from 2006, or 6 years before the shootings?VR talk  05:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed in the lede
Tkuvho removed content from the lede, saying that it came from an op-ed.

But so does the statement "Some sources have also cited Merah's familial connections to Al Qaeda..." Its cited to an opinion/analysis written by Paul Lister.

If Tkuvho wants to remove all opinion pieces from the lede, I'm alright with that, so long as it is done fairly.VR talk  05:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist
If we call someone a terrorist, we must use attribution.VR talk  05:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Awkward section
Tkuvho keeps creating a section entitled "Forsane Alizza link" and includes within that section Merah's link to FA as well as Merah's suicide, his psychiatric conditon, his attempts to join the army, his assault on his neighbour, him driving without license and his separation from his wife. If such a section includes all this information, then it can't be titled "Forsane Alizza link".

If Tkuvho wants a section on every event in his life, that's oversectioning.VR talk  15:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, This section was already in the article before Tkhuvo re-created it after you removed it.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  16:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This section was composed mostly of original research, which has since then been removed.
 * You moving the section to the end is inaccurate as the link dates back to 2006. Please keep things in chronological order, otherwise this article will be a mess.VR talk  16:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Merah's relationship to DRCI
Is this mentioned anywhere? Media reports indicate that Merah may have been an informat to French secret services and that he traveled to Afghanistan and Israel in 2010 with the knowledge of the French services foreign branch. See Was Islamist gunman Mohamed Merah an informant for French spies? for eg. His father is also suing the police for murder, see Toulouse killer Merah's father to sue over son's death and French police doubt existence of Toulouse gunman videos.  T i a m u t talk 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

200-300 Merahs in France
Not sure where to include this - France says there is 200-300 Merahs in France and they can't monitor all of them.

http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/mohamed-merah-france-services-secrets-pas-moyens-tous-surveiller-alain-chouet-445783.html

--<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Toulouse and Montauban shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120725203932/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_SCHOOL_SHOOTINGS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-19-06-40-07 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_SCHOOL_SHOOTINGS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-19-06-40-07

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Actual quote from The New York Times removed without a sound rationale
The following material published by the New York Times in 2017 about something said in 2012 by trial witness was deleted because (quote) it was considered "newsy" by another editor: Merah's mother was reported to have said “My son brought France to its knees.”  How a quote printed by The Newspaper of Record five years after it was said by a witness is to be considered "newsy" escapes one's imagination and points more towards WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.XavierItzm (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)