Talk:Ilan Halimi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Did You Know An entry from Ilan Halimi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 March 2006.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] French Judicial Philosophy

Article says presumption of innocence applies, but under French law, it is instead presumption of guilt.ThuranX 18:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


see : "But the Paris public prosecutor, Jean-Claude Marin, told Parisian Jewish radio on Thursday that "no element of the current investigation could link this murder to an anti-Semitic declaration or action." The umbrella group of French Jewish secular organizations, CRIF, issued a statement Friday calling on the Jewish community "to keep calm, cautious and wait for developments in the investigation." see [1]. Moez 14:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've imported some of this into the article. Sandstein 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] modification 1 from main article : islam in the intro

[2]. The link between Islam and this sordid affair is only superficial. It is being used by some politician and activists in France for a political agenda, as the presidential elections are close in France. de Villier for instance is communicating using the "Islam menace to Europe" credo, which has a certain impact on some xenophobic people. He is basically conveting suffrage from the Front national voters. Neither the french prime minister, Sarkozy, nor le ministre des sceaux (justice) nor the prosecutor directly in touch with the file have implied Islam. Indeed, the only direct link to Islam is the testimony of the uncle to a newspaper who said he heard Koran recitation over the phone when negotiating the ransom. Ilan's parent have not made this testimony, nor did the police. the link with Islam is therefore tenuous and should not be presented in the introduction. The sentence "already marked by intense public controversy about the role of Muslim immigrants in its society" is just giving a background the way it is written now and is clearly a POV. Moez 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

I totally agree. I changed it yesterday and removed "Muslim" from that last setence but it was changed back.TonyStarks 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modification 2 : variation of the amount of the ransom as a link to Islam

[3]. Now this idea is really farfetched! The simplest explanation is that Ilan's family was not able to pay the exhorbitant lump money, more than half a million dollar. They simply are of modest origin. The antisemitism comes here : the gang said that, according to them, all the jews are wealthy and therefore they had money. This stupid stereotype led them to kidnap a jew, thinking he was rich. Moreover, the police was assisting them during the contact with the kidnapper, and their goal was to catch the kidnapper. All this does not make this allegation serious. Moez 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source for the last edit

[4] : most on the info removed can be found here, for exemple : [5]. The family lawer noted the cynicism of Fofana.
I can't find the article(s) where I read the rest. I'll search my browser history tonignt.
Edit (couldn't wait): for the computer guy "moko" beeing the mastermind as well as Zigo beeing the torturer : [6]

You really should read this : [7]. Unbelievable! Moez talk 12:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the good conditions of detention in the Ivory Coast jail

Please see this article, where we learn that Fofana is eating a plate of fish in the compagny of his girlfriend, both wearing expensive sport uniform and visibly very decontracted. (in French) link

[edit] Uh...

How can one of the criminals deny having committed the crime and "show no remorse?" Wouldn't he have to admit to the crime before not showing remorse became a factor at all? I've never robbed a bank, and I show no remorse over it. --MattShepherd 21:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fofana admits being involved in the kidnapping, not the murder. Moez talk 22:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible religious motivation for the crime per the article

Since there is distinct and discrete discussion and evidence that the crime may have been religiously (Islam) motivated, Category:Islam and antisemitism is appropriate regardless if the act was performed by laypeople. -- Avi 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone claims to use Islam as a motive, does not mean the crime has to do with Islam itself. Islam is a religion, defined by scholarly interpretations of its scriptures and other texts. The faith applies to 1.2 billion people worldwide and not just a small gang in France. Characterizing the murder as relating to "Islam" is grossly unfair.Bless sins 18:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't tell me that just because the family thought they heard the Quran on a phone call, means that the Islamic faith is involved. Given the fact that a recitation of the Quran is easily obtainable from the internet, any Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew can play a reciation of the Quran while making threats. THe same goes for "Islamic fundamentalist" literature. ALso, might I remind you that the category you are inserting is "Islam and anti-Semitism", not "Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Semitism".Bless sins 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the article; the idea that the motive was religious has gained support even from the Prime Minister of France himself. Since this reason is as supported as any other, the category is properly applied. You may not like it, but it does not change the facts. -- Avi 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Avi. We don't need to determine whether Islam as such was involved with the crime itself. Rather, what counts is that the crime was widely perceived by the public to have been (partly) motivated by religiously motivated antisemitism, and had implications for the Muslim/Jewish relationship as a whole. Thus the category is accurate, even if the public impression should turn out be false. If so, this should be explained in the article, with reference to reliable sources. Sandstein 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that specifically say that antisemitism encouraged by Islam was a motive?Bless sins 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Who or what is "Islam" that you are asking if it was encouraged by this entity? If Islam means the religion as whole, then yes. If you are asking for a particular Sura or Hadith that says "Tortue and Kill Ilan Halimi" then you can answer your own question. -- Avi 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I am asking of serious evidence. The recitation of Quran over a phone call is not serious evidence of Islam being involved (because the Quran can be downloaded very easily off the internet). Please provide me with sources that suggest both a) the motivation behind the crime was antisemitism, and b) that antisemitism is from Islam (eg. the Quran).Bless sins 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Also note, that just because the crime was committed by a Muslim, doesn't make it "Islamic" in any manner.Bless sins 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources

Please see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. It says:

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"."

Now "Reliable sources" leads to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. The preceding links declares "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution."

Thus extremist sources are NOT to be used.Bless sins 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Faith Freedom International is clearly an organisation with a POV, but they seem to be reproducing content from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency here, which is presumably more of a reliable source. Still, what does this news report contribute to the article? If it does contribute something, shouldn't it be cited as an inline source? Better yet, how about we just rewrite the whole article and bring it up to date, instead of arguing about one link? The article is still based on media reporting just after the fact. By now, the killers should have been sentenced etc., and there should be many more reliable sources on what happened. Sandstein 06:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem at all linking to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Atleast they don't describe us Muslims as "evil".Bless sins 06:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither does Faith Freedom International. You've just scored an own goal. Beit Or 13:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
People, this is not a football match, and we are not counting goals. We are trying to decide whether this JTA report contributes anything of substance to the article. If it does, presumably a link to some other site carrying it can be found. Sandstein 14:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Beit or, check this out. Good faith leads me to believe that the users are trying to list the interview because it carries substance (and not because they want to direct readers to a Muslim-hating site). I haven't seen anyone actually opposing the interview itself. So yes, we should list the interview if we can find a more civilized website.Bless sins 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
While a more direct site is undoubtedly preferable, are you claiming that the interview is fraudulent, and that is why you want it removed? Are you claiming that it is factually inaccurate, and that is why you want it removed? -- Avi 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that extremist sites can't be trusted to give factual information.Bless sins 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moot point

I have cited the interview directly to the JTA source, so it should be acceptable to everyone. -- Avi 00:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That was much appreciated.Bless sins 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

Wikipedia: Non-free content states that the following is unacceptable:

"A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos."

Hence I think the AFP-photo of Ilan Halimi should be removed. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suladna (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Why is the identification of kidnappers by their religion so important to be included in the lead? It appears that the kidnappers were not all of the same religion, thus the religion factor seems a bit non-notable. It's acceptable to mention the religion in the body.Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)