Talk:Hamraoui case

Duplicates article section about Kheira Hamraoui's assault

@Kingsif: I notice that this article essentially duplicates the Assault incident section in the article about Kheira Hamraoui. When writing about notable crimes there is a naming convention for violent crimes. In this situation the article ought to be named "Assault of Kheira Hamraoui". However, Wikipedia does not normally have a separate article where the victim of a crime is already notable for other reasons. Such crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person, but only if it is appropriate to create a sub-article, after considering article size. I do not see that a separate article is currently needed in this case, but before I suggest a merger, I would like you to explain why you feel a separate article is necessary. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You'll notice that Assault of Kheira Hamraoui is already a redirect, because this case has a common name. It needs a separate article because 1. when fully expanded, this article will be longer than the Kheira Hamraoui article, and 2. the case involves (as explained in the first sentence/lead) issues and information that goes beyond just what happened to Hamraoui, so it would be out of scope at the article on her. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for the explanation. Now that you have expanded the article it is clear that there is a lot more involved than when I first saw that version of this article, upon initial creation. When I first saw it, it had only a single edit and the article then sat for almost an hour without further additions, so my assessment and my comments above were based on its initial version. Perhaps there is a lesson here when assigning a new article to a WikiProject - resist doing so until your are ready for your article to be assessed. Additionally, I am not convinced that calling this article the "Hamraoui case" is the article's most commonly recognizably name found in the sources. Reading the sources this crime is referred to several times as an attack, or an assault, on one occasion as an assault case, a saga, a scandal, as well as an affair (in French). Also, some sources name both Hamraoui and Diallo in connection with this "case", so I am not convinced there is a "common name" as you put it. Even so, having a commonly recognizably [and natural] name are not the only criteria that need to be considered. Article titles also need to be consistent with other articles, as well as being precise and concise. To me, the word "case" is not really precise enough to convey what this article is about. Personally, I think the French word "affair" is better translated as "scandal" in English in this situation, rather than simply as "case". - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Informing users when an article in their area is fresh so they can help with building it if they want is surely more desirable than informing later and discovering problems that could have been avoided? Not that it matters now.

As for the title, in French sources, "Affaire Hamraoui" is easily the most common name - it precedes headlines on related news to this day. Your wikilink to affair is about cheating, which would be a concern if translating the French as "Hamraoui affair" (especially as a part of it is about an affair). "Scandal" would be fine if it was about the public response, but is inappropriate referring to a criminal investigation. Affaire has a variety of interpretations in context, and is likely used in French because several of them apply at once - there is intrigue into PSG's sketchy business, a romantic affair, a scandal, a legal case, and a handy euphemism akin to saying "that thing about Hamraoui". I think using "case" (as in, "event of note") is the apt translation, but if you think no single English word can capture the ranginess of affaire, perhaps the French name as a proper noun should be used. Consistency with other titles as decided by Wikipedia users doesn't trump using the actual name of something - Wikipedia isn't in the business of coining or changing names of things. Kingsif (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)