Talk:Killing of Quentin Deranque

Extreme Bias

This article shows extreme bias and does NOT follow WP:NPOV despite someone saying that its been marked as such. It takes a mid right person and says "far-right" (as is often the case) and takes far left extremists that have been confirmed as such and says "alleged left wing" instead. everyone who supports the bias should be ashamed of their fascist ideology. ~2026-11616-69 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

They are alledged individuals, the thing that is alledged is that they are the ones that committed the crime, it's not alledged that they are left wing. Innocent until proven guilty is very important for wikipedia to prevent the website for getting sued for defamation.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 09:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Labeling a far left extremist as an “alleged left wing attacker” is a clear bias. It’s sad at what wiki has become, yet still ironic you ask for my money every week. ~2026-20494-67 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you even read the comment to which you replied? If so, you clearly didn't understand it. Gawaon (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Extreme Bias

What basically everyone else is saying, and then context section says that 102 far-right violent actions have taken place over 26 years? I’m missing how that is either relevant or unbiased context to the extreme-left, politically motivated beating of a conservative student by a mob of masked lunatics… ~2026-20494-67 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages and we probably should not be calling anyone a mob of masked lunatics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Should the infobox date be the 14 February or 12 February

The current infobox lists the killing of Quentin as the 14 February 2026, is it not better to list the date of the attack in which he sustained the injuries that led to his death on the 12th instead of his day of passing on the 14th? ~2026-21661-78 (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We can't say he was killed 2 days before he died, so 14 seems correct. I've added "(two days earlier)" to the attack type to clarify it didn't happen the same day. Gawaon (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Naming the formally charged

Would it be appropriate to name the nine individuals that have been formally charged and remanded in custody. ~2026-21661-78 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:PERP and WP:BLPCRIME. The latter is very explicit Names or files of individuals identified as persons of interest should not be included in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that at least one is a Public figure due to politics which is not covered by WP:BLPCRIME or WP:PERP and it you read the french page they have deemed that seven of the accused due to the multitude of reliable published sources that name them and most being named in other unrelated news articles are considered as public figures, there is even a whole section on profiling them. ~2026-21661-78 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what fr.wp is irrelevant to en.wp policies regarding the handling of non-public figures accused of a crime... and of how we define public figures. I will strongly oppose any effort to insert the names of innocent people suspected of a crime into this article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean... the French page also calls Deranque a neofascist and a neo-nazi in the lead. So it's pretty clear that FR.WP has different BLP rules from EN.WP. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

And, having read the French page a bit more now, the individuals named would not exceed the WP:LOWPROFILE bar. A parliamentary assistant to an MP is, frankly, a nobody. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Simonm223 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boznaej (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your point regarding the qualification of the victim in the lead section; the current wording there seems appropriate and neutral.

That said, I would like to draw your attention to the « enquête journalistique » subsection on the French Wikipedia page (not the English one). The investigations regarding the masked individuals originate from a police inquiry that had been following the antifa group prior to the lynching. Since it has become clear (through multiple reliable sources) that the masked individuals involved were ultra-left militants, this part of the article should be treated with caution and perhaps re-evaluated for due weight and neutrality.

On the separate issue of the parliamentary assistants of Raphaël Arnault: these individuals are no longer low-profile figures. They have been repeatedly and explicitly named in reliable published sources, and very recently by Raphaël Arnault himself. For context, here is the diff where I expanded the article on Raphaël Arnault to reflect this new notability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapha%C3%ABl_Arnault&oldid=1347724327One of them is still an active parliamentary assistant and remains listed on the official Assemblée nationale website. Given their current notoriety, I believe they now exceed the WP:LOWPROFILE threshold. Would it therefore be acceptable under en.wp BLP policy to name them fully (as they are already public figures in the French media and political context), or would you prefer we use only their initials to remain on the safest side of the English Wikipedia guidelines? I am happy to draft the wording either way so we can discuss the exact phrasing.

Best regards Boznaej (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is an old chestnut in BLPCRIME arguments and it's flat wrong. A person does not lose WP:LOWPROFILE just because they were accused of a crime that becomes a media curcus. They're just people. Innocent people, accused of a serious crime. Wikipedia treats them as such by a matter of policy. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223,

I note that you removed my previous contribution without discussion or an edit summary. It contained no BLP violation; it was a good-faith policy discussion on the application of WP:LOWPROFILE and WP:BLPCRIME. I am reposting a more concise version here (using only the widely published alias and preserving all source references exactly as in the original post) so we can focus on the substance.

I fully agree with you on the presumption of innocence and on the strict application of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP. The individuals remain innocent until a court decides otherwise.However, the precise wording of the high-profile exception in WP:LOWPROFILE is clear: a person exceeds the low-profile threshold if they have “voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities […] and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee.”

In the case of the individual widely known in militant circles under the alias “Jef” or “JEF” (corresponding to his initials), this person was one of the co-founders of the Jeune Garde antifasciste in Lyon in January 2018 (alongside Raphaël Arnault and others).

This individual has been an active member since its creation, described by former associates as one of the group’s “cadres solides”. Well before 2026, this individual acted as a loyal collaborator and security detail for Arnault, trained new recruits (including giving self-defense courses to young militants in Avignon), and participated in the group’s street actions. These pre-2026 activities are documented in reliable sources such as:• 20 Minutes (16 February 2026): https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/4201771-20260216-mort-quentin-lyon-jef-assistant-parlementaire-raphael-arnault-lfi-mis-retrait• Le Parisien (18 February 2026): https://www.leparisien.fr/politique/on-savait-que-ca-arriverait-un-membre-de-la-jeune-garde-se-confie-sur-jef-raphael-arnault-et-son-mouvement-18-02-2026-45ELT36UGFHXHEOKTEPVM6R66A.php

This voluntary, high-visibility participation in publicity for a political cause (antifascist activities of Jeune Garde) already meets the WP:LOWPROFILE criterion — and all of it predates the 2026 events and the current criminal proceedings.Furthermore, as parliamentary assistant to Deputy Raphaël Arnault (whose constituency includes Avignon), this individual actively participated in promotional activities for the 2026 municipal election campaign in Avignon.

Reliable sources confirm this individual was “invested for a year” and took “an active part […] these last months” in the campaign alongside the LFI/PS union list. In particular, on 7 February 2026, a public campaign meeting was held in Montfavet (a key sector of Avignon) where candidates from the union populaire (including the LFI candidate Mathilde Louvain, supported by Arnault) presented their projects to locals under the slogan “redonner sa juste place au village”. This individual, as principal collaborator in Arnault’s team and often acting in a security capacity for such events, was directly involved and present. Around the same period (notably the coverage of the LFI campaign meeting on 6-7 February), far-right media outlet “Frontières” conducted a live broadcast lasting more than two hours outside the venue; this led to a documented verbal confrontation (including an “enfarinage” incident and reports of a menacing attitude from this individual toward the journalists).

These events were widely reported as part of the promotional and attention-seeking activities tied to the municipal campaign. See:• Le Point (18 February 2026): https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/mort-de-quentin-deux-collaborateurs-du-depute-lfi-raphael-arnault-interpelles-JDAZL7UNSBB4XKKIIYBYHINYXY/• Le Dauphiné Libéré (7 February 2026) on the Montfavet campaign meeting: https://www.ledauphine.com/elections/2026/02/07/redonner-sa-juste-place-au-village-les-candidats-face-aux-montfavetains-a-avignon• La Marseillaise (17 February 2026) detailing this individual’s involvement in the early-February Avignon meetings and the confrontation: https://www.lamarseillaise.fr/politique/en-vaucluse-le-depute-insoumis-et-son-assistant-dans-la-tourmente-AJ19671818

This is not notoriety gained solely from the current criminal proceedings (which would indeed be irrelevant under our policies), but prior, voluntary participation in both a political cause (Jeune Garde, since 2018) and an election campaign (Avignon 2026, including the events of 7 February 2026) — exactly as defined in the guideline.I therefore maintain that these individuals now exceed the WP:LOWPROFILE threshold. Naming them (or at minimum using the full names already extensively published in reliable sources and by their employer) is consistent with en.wp BLP rules. I remain fully open to collaborating on neutral, policy-compliant wording for any proposed addition.

Cordially,Boznaej (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I removed a post that contained WP:LOWPROFILE names that should not be on Wikipedia. Please immediately redacted those names. Your interpretation of WP:LOWPROFILE is deeply flawed and pushing this issue by naming these people at article talk is deeply inappropriate in context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I came here from the BLP Noticeboard and I agree with Simon's WP:BLPCRIME and WP:LOWPROFILE policy concerns in keeping the names out until there is a criminal conviction. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Neo-fascism and the French article

There has been a content dispute regarding whether to describe Deranque as a neo-fascist. Arguments have been made this would be a BLP violation. It is not because Deranque is not a living person nor has he been for some time now. The french WP page says the following Quentin Deranque est un étudiant en mathématiques âgé de 23 ans, militant identitaire nationaliste,,,, du groupuscule néofasciste Allobroges Bourgoin basé en Isère and it's cited to this source and that article says Selon la presse, Quentin a milité dans les rangs de l’Action française et « faisait également partie du groupuscule néofasciste Allobroges Bourgoin, basé en Isère ».

In short the French article calls him a militant identitarian nationalist who was a member of a neofascist group. I would suggest we should probably follow suit, with appropriate citation, in our article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This is quite baffling.

The "dispute" has been about (not) describing a victim of a recent murder not as a neo-fascist, but as a neo-nazi, in Wikivoice, in the very first sentence of the article, without sourcing or supporting text in the article body.

(BLP applies to recently deceased people. Very first footnote. You know this.)

The "dispute" arose when said descriptor was vandalised in, citing the French article (no basis in policy); which was promptly removed, citing the myriad articles of policy it flagrantly tramples; was once more reverted (by an admin, no less) without explanation. Then finally, someone who is not reverted on sight, stepped in.

As pointed out, existing sourcing is laughably weak for that. French far-left activist sites can call fascist all they like, it will not satisfy EXCEPTIONAL or BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. (Or so I hope. My expectations sink ever deeper.)

Regarding your second paragraph... That is already in the body, almost verbatim (second sentence)? ~2026-33170-75 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

He died in February. BLP no longer applies. And I am saying that, based on the current state of the Fr.WP article and of the sources we cite web should describe him in the way I suggested notwithstanding the prior state of the dispute. I read French, read the article and read the sources. Neo-fascist is supported by the sources better than neo-nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

And don't call good-faith edits you disagree with vandalism, especially not when citing BLP with regard to a person who died nearly half a year ago. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes it does. Quite textbook actually:

"Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 1 June 1911) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime."

Neo-fascist, as a descriptor, is not supported by high-quality, reliable sources, either.

(Which somehow never seems to stop enwiki when it comes to slandering right-leaning BLPs.) ~2026-33255-55 (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:SNEAKY. ~2026-33255-55 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's supported ultimately by La Presse and widely repeated within French media. Please actually read the sources before expounding on their unreliability. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

And there is nothing that implicates Deranque's family in accurately following sources about his political beliefs which were directly material to his death. Because people with non-extreme politics don't get into brawls with La Jeune Garde. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't get lynched by them, you mean.

NOTFORUM aside: seriously, does victim blaming of this level not contravene ANY policy here?

By all means, ONUS is on you; go ahead, provide your sourcing. Not like I'll be able to stop you with a community this slanted. ~2026-33255-55 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Final word here: if "The family and friends of the murdered man who we knowingly falsely label a Nazi cannot possibly experience any harrassment as a consequence" is a position you truly hold, regardless of the political climate of the past decade, regardless of the very murder whose talk page we're on... I do not think there is anything else to say here. Cheers. ~2026-33255-55 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Simon, much of what you've written here is inaccurate to varying degrees (as the TA has already pointed out).

• There has been a content dispute regarding whether to describe Deranque as a neo-fascist. The previous dispute was about the word "neo-Nazi", not "neo-fascist" . These aren't synonyms.
• He died in February. BLP no longer applies. This is wrong according to WP:BDP: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." The subject died four months ago; we are not even at the lower suggested limit of six months.
• the French article calls him a militant identitarian nationalist who was a member of a neofascist group. I would suggest we should probably follow suit The article already essentially says this. Quoting directly from the current article: "He was a mathematics student and far-right identitarian activist, belonging to the neo-fascist group Allobroges Bourgoin, based in Isère, and a former member of Action Française". Your recent edit was not to add this information, as your comment might suggest, but to change the subject’s short description from "far-right activist" to "neo-fascist activist".

And also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source; that page even specifically calls out non-English Wikipedias. In this earlier comment you seem to understand this, so why are you now citing the French article as the model to follow?

• It's supported ultimately by La Presse You are misreading what this article says : "Selon la presse, Quentin a milité dans les rangs de l’Action française et « faisait également partie du groupuscule néofasciste Allobroges Bourgoin, basé en Isère »." In French, "la presse" (the press, in general) is not the same as La Presse, the Canadian newspaper. This is a basic error. Later in the article, this statement is ultimately cited to Libération: "Et selon Libération, Quentin « faisait également partie du groupuscule néofasciste Allobroges Bourgoin, basé en Isère. »"
• Neo-fascist is supported by the sources better than neo-nazi. Per my reading, "far-right" as a short descriptor is supported much better than either "neo-fascist" or "neo-Nazi". The below sources all use "far-right" to introduce the subject:
  • Le Monde: French authorities have arrested nine suspects over the killing last week of a far-right activist
  • NBC News: Eleven people, including an aide to a far-left lawmaker, were arrested in France overnight and early Wednesday on suspicion of involvement in the killing of a far-right activist.
  • Wall Street Journal: Thousands of demonstrators chanted and sang as they moved through the streets of this conservative city on Saturday to the spot where a 23-year-old far-right activist was fatally beaten in recent clashes with the far left.
  • Associated Press: French police investigating the beating of a far-right militant who died of brain injuries have arrested 11 people
  • Sky News: Some 3,000 people joined a march in France on Saturday after the killing of a far-right activist
  • CBS News: the killing of a far-right activist beaten to death on the sidelines of a protest
  • The Times of Israel: French authorities arrested two more suspects on Wednesday over the fatal beating of a far-right activist last week
  • The Independent: Eleven individuals, including an aide to a French far-left lawmaker, have been arrested in France on suspicion of involvement in the killing of a far-right activist
  • Politico French President Emmanuel Macron said the country’s political extremes must “put their houses in order” after the killing of a far-right activist
  • CNN: The death of a far-right activist in France after a street brawl earlier this month
  • The Guardian: Eleven suspects, including a parliamentary aide to France’s hard-left party, have been arrested in connection with the killing last week of a far-right activist
  • France 24: 23-year-old far-right activist and student Quentin Deranque
  • Reuters: Quentin Deranque, ​a 23-year-old far-right activist
  • Al Jazeera: Police in France have arrested nine suspects, including an aide to a far-left lawmaker, over the killing of a far-right activist

This Le Monde article is particularly useful; it describes the subject as "far-right" throughout and discusses how he was part of multiple far-right ideologies, including revolutionary nationalism, neo-fascism, and royalism: All the different radical far-right factions featured in Deranque's personal journey, right up to his tragic end. Selecting just one of these factions seems undue.

I think it is perfectly fine to describe the subject as a member of a neo-fascist group in the article body (perhaps with attribution, depending on the strength of the sourcing); but if we are going to describe the subject as an "X activist" in the first sentence, then "far-right" is much better than "neo-fascist" or "neo-Nazi". Unless someone can produce strong sourcing for "neo-fascist" as the subject's primary descriptor (stronger than the sources above), I will revert back to "far-right activist". Astaire (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)