Talk:Killing of Nahel Merzouk

Should the article follow the sources concerning the word "teenager"?

One user has chosen to replace every usage of the word teenager in the entry with Nahel M.'s last name, despite the numerous articles that do not mention the minor's last name and refer to him prominently as a teenager. NB: there are sixteen occurrences of "teenager" on the page, all in the references (so, in article titles). Is there any justifiable reason for this change from the sources? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:SURNAME, "after the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". Just because a source uses another label like "teenager" or "victim" does not require us to do so, unless we are citing directly from that source. The police union referred to Merzouk as a "thug".[1] Does that mean we should too? WWGB (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, if this page were a biography, the rule about names you've extracted from MOS:BIO would apply. This entry, however, is not a biography, but the description of an event. I noticed with some amusement that the article you cite to buttress your rhetorical question does not mention his last name anywhere and starts as follows: "On Friday, just a few days after a French police officer shot dead a teenager during a traffic stop in a Paris suburb, the UN Human Rights Office urged France to tackle racial discrimination. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because the French media cannot or will not name the victim does not affect what we do. The Wikipedia community has decided to name Merzouk. While you are correct that WP:SURNAME is part of MOS:BIOGRAPHY, its lead goes on to state that "while this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." WWGB (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The guideline applies only to biographical information in other articles. One could argue that it would be contrary to the guideline to write "The teenager dropped out of school." However, what happened after his death cannot be called biographical information. Once again, I'd say "follow the sources". The fact that our entry included zero occurrences of the word "teenager" after your changes strikes me as a problem for NPOV given the preponderance of sources. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BIOGRAPHY says (with my emphasis here) "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people", which I would read as "information about people (whether "biographical" or strictly about their life) or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And I would read where applicable as saying when it pertains to biographical information as stated in the very first line of the guideline and not to when it is sourced to articles that do not give the name or focus on his biography (e.g. this NYT article: §). Otherwise, why would it say "where applicable"? The choice made by reliable sources not to mention his last name suggests that the reaction to the video circulating of a teenager being shot point blank would have likely been the same regardless of whether his last name was Traoré, Benna, Camara, Djaidja, Oussekine or Merzouk. Cf. §. NB: it's true lthat in many articles you see signs saying "Justice for Nahel", which does personalize the matter (but his last name, again, is not mentioned). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would we not refer to Merzouk by his surname (other than in direct quotes)? Presumably there is no dispute about his identity. His name is not a secret - it's in the article title. What Wikipedia policy or guideline says we that we ought not use it, if it is an undisputed neutral fact? What policy or guideline says we must use the terminology of the source (eg "teenager", vs "Merzouk")? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The only question I have is below, and it indeed touches on the points you raise. I reinstated the use of the word teenager to describe what was said by President Macron, because Macron never broke with protocol and used Merzouk's name. I do not know why his name is (as you say) being kept "secret", most likely because he is a minor and is therefore being protected. The fact is that most of the French press has kept his name out of print, and the WP:COMMON NAME which he is referred to by here is, of course, Nahel or Nahel M. Again, we should "follow the sources" with regards to what Macron said, which is part of the policy WP:V. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You still have not answered Mitch's question What policy or guideline says we must use the terminology of the source? WP:V only requires that we can "check that the information comes from a reliable source", which it does. WWGB (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your asking me to repeat myself, but I will: it is wrong and fails WP:V to suggest in wiki-voice that President Macron said Merzouk's name. He did not. As you can read below, he said "We have a teenager who was killed. It's inexplicable, inexcusable." The only reason to avoid a direct quote is that it is not very economical in terms of prose (though if you insist, we'll have to use a direct quote I guess). And now it's your turn to answer a very closely related question: What policy or guideline says we must not ever use the terminology of the (multiple) source(s)? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"The killing of Merzouk—condemned by President Emmanuel Macron..." (wiki-voice) does not suggest that Macron used his name; it neutrally and correctly states that Macron condemned the killing of a specific person, independently of how Macro referred to the Merzouk. One obvious alternative is to simply say "The killing—condemned by President Emmanuel Macron..." because it is obvious from the context which killing we are / he was referring to. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I was criticized above for not answering your question. I notice you did not answer mine (in turquoise above). 16 of the sources use the term "teenager" in their title, and virtually all of them use the term in the body of the article (even the satirical blog does!). Why should this consensual term (for RS and not-so RS) be entirely absent from this entry? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should this consensual term (for RS and not-so RS) be entirely absent from this entry? Because we have MOS:SURNAME that says to refer to people by their surname, not their age-bracket. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It's fun contrasting this page with the fr.wp version. Last I looked (shortly after fixing this entry so it didn't lead to Traitement d'antécedents judiciaires as it did for the past few days when you clicked on "French" in the interlanguage links), the very first words of the entry after the title over there were "un adolescent". It's also worth noting that the lede section of the French version does not end with unsourced Rassemblement national talking points in the same way as the en.wp version does... the newest of the unsourced elements being that the moment of silence in the lower house of Parliament was "controversial". No source in our entry says that. But that's OK... WP:V is dead (too much work to verify). Long live MOS:SURNAME! It seems Le Pen is mightier than this "board". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is different in French, but in English an "adolescent" is not necessarily a teenager (13-19) - "Some definitions [of Adolescence] start as early as 10 and end as late as 25 or 26. The WHO definition ... someone between the ages of 10 and 19." Mitch Ames (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the English sources cited in this entry use the term "teenager"; the majority of the French sources cited in this entry use the term "adolescent". Not sure how your comment is related to article improvement? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact perhaps it would be best to look at the occurrences individually. The only use of "teenager" I restored was immediately before the citations from President Macron who said, "Nous avons un adolescent qui a été tué, c'est inexplicable, inexcusable..." If nobody objects to this case (where it seems to me abundantly obvious we should be respecting the language used by both the journalists and the head of state), there's no point going round and round about it. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: No, there isn't... I reinstated the use of the word teenager to describe what was said by President Macron, because Macron never broke with protocol and used Merzouk's name. I do not know why his name is (as you say) being kept "secret", most likely because he is a minor and is therefore being protected. I became curious, because I can't do it either. I can't. If all the people in the government, not only President Macron and Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne, but all of them, all the people in Senate, all the people in the National Assembly, almost all of the media (not alone in French, but also in Spanish, German, Portuguese, English) all most all the time do not mention the surname of the victim, there is probably a good reason. Something more than "protocol". Ethics for a supreme good? Law? I am anything but a specialist in French law but it is quite possible that this is linked to article 39 bis of the law of July 29, 1881:

• [2]"a. 39 bis : Est puni de 15.000 € d’amende le fait de diffuser, de quelque manière que ce soit, des informations relatives à l’identité ou permettant l’identification … d’un mineur victime d’une infraction." → "of a minor who is the victim of an offence." It is a legal norm of protection of minors. --91.54.11.2 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

In France, perhaps. Wikipedia does not follow French law. WWGB (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope you will agree that the fact that en.wp does not itself follow the law does not prevent it from accurately reflecting what people who do follow the law have actually said for encyclop(a)edic purposes. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

WWGB, I think you understood that this is not about the "French law" (French, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Italian, English publications do not use Nahel's surname). Based on what reasoning does en:WP not name Florian's surname? "French law"? Just curious. --93.211.217.92 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably because it has not been published in a reliable source. If the surname exists in a RS then I will gladly add it to this article. WWGB (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this is not quite true. English-language publications (e.g. NYT) and even a fair number of regional French newspapers have mentioned the victim's surname at least once since early July. On the other hand, international newspapers (even English-language ones) have respected French law concerning naming the person who killed him, despite his full name having been published by a regional newspaper back on 6 July (this paper is cited 97 times on fr.wp and 14 times on en.wp). So far, the Interior Ministry has been unsuccessful in forcing the paper to retract this publication to protect the police officer and his family from public scrutiny. Perhaps one day RS will discuss this apparent double standard, but for the time being, I agree with WWGB that we should not be publishing the police officer's last name. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

WWGB, you somehow restored my faith in en:WP ;-) I thought you wasn't serious, my apologies. SashiRolls, Macron gave a speech calling for “order, order, order” and "return to authority" in support of his increasingly fractious police forces — shortly after four Marseille policemen were charged with beating Hedi Rouabah (22) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhd7eMx4P7E after hitting him with an LBD shot in his head, 4 policemen of the Marseille BAC dragged him into a dark corner, beat him up and left him for dead on the street, a part of his skull had to be removed to save his life. A CCTV camera captured the entire scene. Mainstream media barely mentioned it. Without the overwhelming images, the police would never have been prosecuted, and the shooter would never have been taken into custody. The media, which usually rush to the smallest details and do not hesitate to spread the elements of the file, were careful not to disseminate this information. Killing Mohamed Bendriss (27) « flash-ball », his wife pregnant with their second child. Abdelkarim (22) LBD shot in his head, his eye is no more. Hedi Rouabah, Mohamed Bendriss and Abdelkarim did not even take part in the protests. That is not respecting French law! Darmanin is not respecting French law by fumbling with the freedom of the press:

• Elle, yes read Elle! Because it is not "French law" and not fashionable!
• Contre Attaque: The real anomaly is that the major French daily newspapers and news channels did not do so, to protect the shooter, by self-censorship, by complicity... all-powerful police unions are threatening Oise Hebdo... mainstream media, however, never hesitate to disclose the full name, city and criminal history of victims of police violence. The body of Nahel was still warm when BFM [TV] was already swinging the "casier judiciaire" of the deceased, which moreover turned out to be totally invented. Nahel had no "casier judiciaire"... The same is true for every victim of the police. In these cases, these disclosures do not bother the Ministry of the Interior. Worse, it is the authorities themselves who “leak” this information... only to smear them and insinuate that they had deserved [it]... In a democracy, policemen are armed and paid to act in the name of the law. They are therefore more accountable than ordinary citizens, and their identity must in principle be public... Even in the US, the identity of policemen involved in cases are known and disseminated, for example that of Derek Chauvin... Why, in France, do policemen have the right to be mummed, to wear no number, to have their identity hidden even when they commit crimes? Darmanin also wanted to ban filming of police action under the ″Loi de Sécurité Globale″ in 2021... Ordinary citizens have the right to privacy, but law enforcement must be identifiable to be held accountable. In France, it is the opposite. While the population is watched from every angle, the identity of the agents who wield violence in the name of the state is systematically hidden, we are in another regime." --91.54.0.221 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edits you are suggesting making to this entry. I added the story about Hedi Rouabah to the protests page a week ago (§), though I didn't mention his name. If you think it needs further expansion there don't hesitate... the police strikes and sick-outs have since spread to other cities (Paris, Nice, ...) but no hard data is being communicated. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Here data from a "normal" labor unionist, Anthony Caillé, policier et syndicaliste → CGT DARMANIN, IGPN, SYNDICATS FACTIEUX : CE POLICIER RÉVOLTÉ DÉNONCE, Le Média 29.07.2023. I "suggest" to pay attention to the double standards/racisme and the robotic language/novlangue → RACISME, NOVLANGUE, ÉTAT POLICIER : UN ÉTÉ SOUS MACRON. An investigation was opened against the (already dead) victim, "l'arrestation tardive" − the late arrest of Menesplier. The testimony of the second passenger is still missing, Nahel's "littel brother from the neighborhood". What were they 3 kids doing in the car that early in the morning? Driving to school... to exams. Darmanin's fumbling with the freedom of the press. Thank you for your corrections and patience. PS: If you want to see a responsible politician → FAUSSES PROMESSES ET MANIPULATIONS : LE SCANDALE DES PLANS BANLIEUES, BLAST, Le souffle de l'info 30.07.2023, wait until the word "demagogy" is mentioned. --91.54.26.173 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Still working through these sources you've added here, which I'll have to come back to a second (or even third) time. They definitely provide considerable depth to the surface this entry scratches. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's good if you take your time ;-) --91.54.16.101 (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Should the article follow the sources concerning the words "police officer"?

Folks here are fickle: less than a week ago, the lede of this entry didn't mention the police officer by any name at all, and now it goes farther than the fr.wp entry, where administrators upheld the decision to hide the name as potentially "illegal content" (§). Based on WP:SURNAME, it looks like all the occurrences of "police officer" may soon be replaced? Alternately, we may learn that that guideline about biographies wasn't really the issue concerning the word "teenager" after all... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Re-reading the article, the double standard of repeating the victim's last name, while using "police officer" to refer to his killer does rather jump out at the reader. @WWGB: as you know, I suggested that we should not include the officer's name (until a newspaper of record does), but now that you have added it, do you think you ought to follow the same logic you've used for the victim's last name? (e.g. §) It looks like a little over half a dozen changes would be necessary to conform with your reading of MOS:SURNAME. You may find that in some cases it would be better to rewrite the sentences entirely, though. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Louis de Raguenel a reliable source for the information contained in Nahel's TAJ?

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the TAJ is not public information and the press does not have access to it (source). Louis de Raguenel has published information allegedly from that file, which has been reproduced here. If you read this month's Signpost, you can learn more about one of his alleged employers, Alp Services, which appears to have been a misinformation outlet. Here is the article in Mediapart for those who read French. Otherwise, his name is also mentioned in a l-o-n-g New Yorker article. Not sure we should be publishing privacy-violating information from such a compromised source? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed any words that I wrote in revising the summary of this source, which already existed in the entry when I tried to sort out the problem of the French interlanguage link for this entry redirecting to the French entry on the TAJ. Please do not restore them (if someone wishes to add the "info" back, please use the original language, but be aware you will be credited as the author). I do not wish to have any part in amplifying this privacy violation. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, the source is good. In Wikipedia, we do not judge journalists. We judge media and their editorial track record. Europe 1 is a WP:RS. If you feel that Europe 1 should be blacklisted by Wikipedia, there is a process to do that at WP:RSP; please follow it. The source and its statements should remain.XavierItzm (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• The source is not good. In Wikipedia, we judge journalists. All. The. Time.

In 2022 ′Europe 1′ was bought by Vincent Bolloré (military and mass media industry). "Bolloré and the mass media" is a big topic in France at the moment because he buys up well-known media and then changes their "editorial track record". From popular, conservative to right-wing and today to the far right! Boiling frog syndrom. Bolloré is big time corruption in Togo and other West-African countries, with child exploitation and billions in looting. Bolloré "made" proto-fascist Éric Zemmour presidential candidate by giving him an hour and a half of airtime daily in his television news channel.

Louis de Raguenel, was a controversial journalist (controversé), but since he worked for United Arab Emirates in that "Smear Campaign" we can't just treat him as a normal journalist any more. I'm not saying we should simply delete it, but it would be better if we described the smear campaign against Nahel in the ultra right-wing media CNews and Europe 1. Some media comments were insulting, defamatory and odious. The fact that Nahel is dead was not enough, his memory too must be tainted. Nahel's family had to take legal action against some of it. Thank you @SashiRolls: for the Signpost link and for taking care of this matter.

The reputable source Liberation CheckNews: Mort de Nahel à Nanterre : polémique autour du casier judiciaire de l’adolescent tué par la police → These leaks were used by the right or extreme right to soften the impact of the tragedy, if not to justify it. Beyond the process of denying the young deceased the status of victim, it is also the accuracy of the information that has been the subject of controversy in Nahel's case. On CNews, far-right journalist Charlotte d'Ornellas asserted that the victim had "a record as long as your arm" and that he was "very well known to the police". On social networking sites, several accounts also referred to a "lengthy record", citing the following: "Refusal to obey orders, multiple repeat offender well known to the police, driving without a license at 17, drug dealer, possession of several firearms, hold-ups". In the evening, the victim's lawyers reacted strongly, publishing a press release in which they warned: "The family reserves the right to take legal action against anyone who invents, as has already been done today, non-existent entries in the young man's criminal record". The statement added that the victim "has never been convicted by the courts". ... Speaking on France Info on Wednesday June 28, lawyer Jennifer Campla reiterated that the teenager "has never been convicted, he has a clean ″casier judiciaire″", while adding that he is "known to the police, which is not the same thing, since in the ″traitement d’antécédent judiciaire″, he has not been tried for anything. I think that in this type of neighborhood, it's quite rare for a young person never to have been checked or never to have been placed in police custody." — "... on France Inter, the spokesperson for the Ministry of the Interior Camille Chaize reacted to a question from Léa Salamé who asked her for details on the young man's criminal record, replying that "it has no sense to think like this. It doesn't matter if he was known to the police or not. This drama is not acceptable. It's true that sometimes we have police sources, or we have certain leaks that highlight a criminal record, or sometimes entries in the daybook (inscriptions dans la main courante!!!), which is infrajudicial, which is not of the criminal record."

We know in France: Les fichiers de police toujours truffés d'erreurs ≈ The Police files are always riddled with errors. --91.54.14.119 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice rant, anonymous. You seem to be arguing that Merzouk had no criminal record. Funnily enough, the article never says Merzouk had a criminal record! Congratulations: your POV is already included in the article. A bientôt, XavierItzm (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Itzm. I notice that you changed "leaked" to "reported", with the edit summary proper English. Please note that divulging information from the TAJ to the press is correctly described as "leaking", not "reporting" (a civil servant caught doing it would be subject to administrative sanctions). The Libération article cited above uses the verb "leaked" (fuiter) twice, once in the author's voice, and once when citing the Interior Ministry spokeswoman describing how the press got the information (she is, of course, a "gold standard" source concerning police matters). I will restore "leaked" for the sake of proper balance. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Embarassingly biased introduction

The introduction does not mention in any way what potential actions by Nahel Merzouk that led to the reaction -- the shooting -- by the police officer. But judging from the actual events described further down in the article, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the police not only had the right to but actually should have tried to stop the car Nahel was breaking the traffic rules with, was driving without a driver's license looking very young, and later also dangerously tried to drive off with a police officer hanging in the window of the car. Not having any form of indication of this in the introduction is very flawed, because these are important elements building up to the police's reaction, and they would tell the reader that there are subtle nuances in this case. I frankly do not understand why these elements are not mentioned, because they clearly are both true and important. You're destroying the reputation of Wikipedia through coloring the articles according to your bias rather than aiming for objectivity. 193.69.194.28 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)