Talk:Salah Abdeslam

Nationality of Salah

The article lets the people think Salah has the Belgian nationality but he actually has the French nationality and is living in Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.127.161 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

References

supposed homosexuality or bisexuality of Abdeslam

source

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/paris-attack-fugitive-salah-abdeslam-visited-gay-bar-in-belgium/news-story/dc331b083eff7a9f12bf0818b6ab7a81 shows "Paris attacker Salah Abdeslam had a taste for gay sex, drugs and PlayStation." but shows no evidence of any account from anyone, nor supports his actually being involved in acts of public intimacy with males within the so-called gay bars, so the authors here have provided no supporting evidence and the conclusion "has a taste for gay sex" is purely circumstantial. Perhaps he was within the gay bars for some other reason than to engage in homosexual relations, it isn't an absolute necessity for him to need to be homosexual to frequent gay bars. Please see (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial) 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

source

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/salah-abdeslam-who-is-the-gay-isis-fighter-who-fled-the-paris-attacks-in-november-a6939476.html begins with the title Salah Abdeslam: Who is the 'gay' Isis fighter who fled the Paris attacks?

then continues to:

Abdeslam also reportedly liked to frequent gay bars and was reportedly seen in one in central Brussels just weeks before the attacks.

The bartender of the club, Julien, told the Sunday Times: "We had him down as a rent boy, he was always hanging out with that kind of crowd".

but (Caroline Mortimer)the author then herself contends (italics mine):

...a man who was possibly gay himself and ..

(please see - 15th paragraph under the heading So what drove him towards Isis?)

6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

source

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-fugitive-isis-gunman-was-thought-be-rent-boy-who-visited-gay-bars-1529974 certainly strongly implies he might be homosexual:

Abdeslam was very much part of the gay scene in Brussels.

using:

"We had him down as a rent boy, he was always hanging out with that kind of crowd," the bartender who did not want to be named, stated.

as evidence (the source states, "We had him down as..." which indicates they presumed he must be or likely is, but haven't indicated he is absolutely known to be - the source indicates he / she had been discussing the behaviour of Abdeslam with others ("We had him down as..."), and attempted to draw a conclusion, but there was no absolute evidence of his being a "rent-boy" or homosexual, they were of the opinion he must / might be.

"One of the gunmen involved in the deadly Paris shootings was thought to be a rent boy, after he was regularly seen flirting with other men in Brussels' gay bars."

indicates he interacted with other patrons, but did the author of the article conclude this from a source who knew the men Abdeslam was in conversation with were homosexuals themselves...there is no indication in any sources of anyone claiming he was seen to engage in physical acts with other men, which would confirm his sexuality. Additionally (putting aside any doubts as to the reliability of the source, please see: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/brussels-gay-bar-managers-on-abdeslam-we-had-him-down-as-a-rent-boy/#gs.Fct9fnA).

The evidence altogether is inconclusive, and there is no way to claim for sure he was a prostitute in Belgium and certainly no way what-so-ever to show he was engaged as a prostitute in France. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Compromise wording

Are the sources strong enough for us to state or imply Abdeslam was gay? I don't think so. But I think they are strong enough for a statement like the following -- which is verifiable.

"Several newspaper quoted the bartender of an unnamed Brussel's gay bar, interviewed by the Sunday Times, who asserted Abdeslam was a frequent patron of his bar."

I don't think including the speculation he was a prostitute (rent-boy), belongs in the article -- more sources would be required to comply with WP:BLP.

That the Sunday Times won't name the bar erodes bartender Julien's credibility.

Will intelligent readers reach the conclusion that the unnamed bartender's speculation is not well informed? Maybe.

1. Abdeslam might have chosen to go to a gay bar to meet other jihadists, on the premise that any security officials tailing them would not fit in in a gay bar;
2. Abdeslam may have been a straight man, willing to exploit the desire of gay men, in order to get free drinks;
3. Abdeslam's Daesh contact may have been the gay one, who wanted to meet in a gay bar;
4. If the bartender was gay, the speculation that he was a rent-boy may have been wishful thinking.

Of course those points don't belong in article space. I mention them solely to confirm that the allegations need to be handled carefully.

It might seem like a bit of a contradiction that an observant muslim would be a regular patron of any kind of bar -- given the whole abstain from alcohol thing. Some jihadist groups tell fighters it is OK to indulge in nasty western vices -- because they have to do so to blend in. Geo Swan (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant info

Unless the father was involved in the attacks in some way, as well as that 2015 visit to the nightclub, I don't see what relevance that information has to Abdeslam. It's just trivial details. Parsley Man (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The article heading, what does it show? Salah Abdeslam and the Paris attacks? or just Salah Abdeslam?

Unless the father was involved in the attacks in some way < is your evaluation of the nature of an article such that the individual is only of interest to the public due to his having been involved in "the attacks". Having established he is of interest because he is involved, the scope of possible interest in him as an individual extends beyond the factors which are those to which he is directly connected to the events before during and after the attacks. To state the removal of the information is necessary because "trivial", is this justification for it's removal? Of the millions of article on wikipedia there are a number which are enetirely trivial altogether, you suggest trivia is not importent here? By the definition of wikipedia as an encyclopedia, the content must by definition be encyclopediac, it is this extension of content to the encyclopediac which makes the encyclopedia interesting. Nobody really needs to know about Salah Abdeslam. The police now have him, they have and had all the information they needed to know, it is only for the interest of the general public that the article exists at all. Your opinion is it is trivial, did you take into account the 200,000 + views of the article and account for whether everyone looking at the article agreed wit your judgement that trivial information is of no value to the article. The guy is caught, and in any case, wikipedia is for people to read not to catch criminals, so the triviality of any piece of information is irrelevant in any case. Some people are interested in trivia, no? The article is about him as an individual, his father and his social life is him, how are these things irrelevant?6cb49af5c4 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Though the article is definitely not called "Salah Abdeslam and the Paris attacks", yes, the nature of the article revolves around public interest in Abdeslam due to his suspected involvement in the attacks. People would therefore be looking him up in regards to that info. I really don't see any reason why people would want to look up Abdeslam with the expectation of knowing every single detail about his personal life, all the way down to his father's job/country of origin and his leisurely nightclub visits. There may be some, but given that most people really don't like terrorists, this kind of thing falls into a minority view, and therefore, WP:UNDUE.

"Of the millions of article on wikipedia there are a number which are enetirely trivial altogether, you suggest trivia is not importent here?" Can you give some examples of these trivial articles? Because if they are, then they should be nominated for deletion, because Wikipedia DOES NOT have room for triviality, and many people would agree. I have seen articles, some of them years old, that wind up being deleted because they are indeed trivial. I have even see pieces of info on notable articles that do get undone because they are judged to be trivial. I am aware of one incident on the 2015 Thalys train attack here. Parsley Man (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Guilt/conviction

Has Abdeslam already been convicted? If not, why does the opening paragraphs use such non-NPOV language and why is he categorised as a "Moroccan criminal"? AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. Not sure about the first, but the second might've deleted by someone but then undone by me on accident. Parsley Man (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Gay Bars

I see the discussion above with sources, but I'm questioning why we're including this information as part of the article. I understand that it's covered by RS, but it seems tangential at best and meant by the sources to be disparaging at worst. Is this only being reported by sourced (and thus included in the article) because it confuses us as to why a person who frequented gay bars would choose to join daesh/ISIL? If so, that doesn't seem like sufficient reason to keep it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's your perception that it's not notable. Whole articles have been written in the quality press about the matter. It is our duty to include a sentence or two, especially given we usually do for sexuality in BLP's anyway. It's clearly a remarkable connection in any context. AusLondonder (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I find the notability of that info a little sketchy, but considering that piece has been written in a WP:DUE manner, I think it could slide. Parsley Man (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, I think that's where I stand on it. I think I find the press coverage dubious more than anything. But DUE does apply and the way it's worded now isn't bad. Just wanted to voice my concern and hear other opinions on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good to know we're at an understanding with this. :) Parsley Man (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Allegedly

Abdeslam was allegedly involved in assisting the attackers by hiring cars, flats, and hotel rooms and he allegedly drove the Bataclan theater attackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2340:400:D8A5:82AD:7FF6:7183 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right afaik. Is there a part of the article that needs correcting? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

16.4.2016

The reasons i thought to delete the content:

Uses Daily Express which is not a reliable source

The sources in the passage contradict each other, therefore there is no fact being reported; the information is unverifiable.

This source http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/paris-attacks-suspect-salah-abdeslam-had-german-nuclear-files shows the information was "confidential", as wikipedia shouldn't follow the choice of another internet source in deciding to publish information possibly not in the public domain, because RND released the document to the public domain, does't mean the information was in the public domain initially.

"The RND newspapers cited sources within the parliamentary control committee, whose meetings are confidential, as saying that Hans-Georg Maaßen, the head of the domestic intelligence agency (BfV), told the nine-person committee at the end of March that Abdeslam had the documents."

For your interest i provide this information - Wikileaks publishes on the grounds: "We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions." 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)