Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Vandalism?

Hello, Elsa Cayat was of Jewish religion and there was a direct French reference for it (not the NY-cousin thing) from one of the Newspapers of Record. Yet this was deleted.
Wolinkski was Tunisian-born and ethnic Jew. This was deleted.
However, for the other victims who were Muslim, their country of birth and religion is shown.
Is this something everyone has agreed to? XavierItzm (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is vandalism. We normally don't mention people's ethnicity or religion except where we have reliable sourcing both to show that they identify with that ethnicity/religion and that it is especially relevant to the article content in question. It doesn't look like those criteria are met except in the case of Ahmed Merabet. We don't seem to have sourcing that Mustapha Ourrad even was a Muslim, so I will remove that. Formerip (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that the Jewish religion of these victims should be restored. But this is not vandalism.VR talk 15:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
' Done.Done. XavierItzm (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)'
I've re-removed the reference to Ourrad being Muslim. Someone added two sources to support this. One was the Daily Mail, which certainly doesn't pass RS for this type of material. The other was Le Monde, which would be an acceptable source, but that source doesn't support the information. Formerip (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Formerip You say that the daily mail is not reliable enough to consider him as a Muslim, how about the Guardian ?
This has already been discussed. If for whatever reason, their religion or their ethnicity (these are simple facts) has been reported by RS, then by all means, it should be mentioned, period. MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't remove the fact that he is an Algerian citizen, that is still there.
The new source you have provided is not from the Guardian, it is from Comment Is Free, a collection of blogs on the Guardian website. Also not RS for the statement.
It's not true that ethnicity and religion should always be mentioned. Our articles would be a mess of ethnicities and religions if that were the case. Why, for example, are we only concerned with who is a Jew and who is a Muslim? Maybe one of the victims was half Inuit or a Jain. Why should we not mention this too?
Purely in the case of Ourrad, though, it looks likely to me that he was actually an atheist. This source says he described himself as an "atheist sufi". I'm not sure about the reliability of the source, but it looks better than the others. Formerip (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
My bad, I didn't notice the Guardian's blog. However, the tamurt source is complete rubbish, that website (without even an address) has no credibility whatsoever.
You make a good point about ethnicities and religions. Why are we mentioning the origin of the killer's parents ? Why are we describing the killers as Muslims since none of the RS describe them as such ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Moornextdoor keeps badmouthing the Kabyle media (an oppressed ethnic minority of Algeria) (for example: Tamurt) and deleting any references based on Kabyle media.
However, "Newspaper of Record" Le Monde says the same thing as Tamurt: "Atheist Sufi"
“athée soufi”
http://correcteurs.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/01/09/mustapha-un-dernier-mercredi-chez-charlie/
Oh, and BTW, Ourrad preferred to refer to himself as Kabyle over Algerian.

Skorpion vs. AK-47

The AK-47 mention in the lede keeps on getting deleted: Trackteur asserts that the Skorpion is the AK-47 variant in question. I think this is wrong, and I think both the text, and the image in the cited source support me on this.

The source cited says "The weapons seen in various images of the attackers include a variant of the famous AK47; a Czech-made sub-machine gun called a Scorpion; several Russian-designed Tokarev TT pistols and a grenade or rocket launcher — probably the Yugoslav M80 Zolja."[1] This is not saying that the Skorpion is the AK-47 variant. Look at the picture in the cited source, showing one of the terrorists holding a weapon: and in particular where the magazine is located on the weapon. On the Škorpion vz. 61, it's situated toward the front of the very short-barrelled weapon; on the AK-47, and on the weapon in the image, it's situated toward the rear of the much longer-barrelled weapon. Now take a look at the pistol grip in the image. Again, AK-47-like, not Skorpion-like. The weapon depicted in the photo is clearly not a Skorpion.

@Trackteur: If I'm mistaken about this, please let me know what I've got wrong. -- The Anome (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas, Tracteur keeps on removing mention of the AK-47, in spite of the unanimity of sources that they were carrying AK-47-type rifles, and in spite of the fact that the sentence they are removing it from is directly supported by a cite that says exactly that in plain English (see above). Given this, I really can't see any sensible reason for their edits, which now appear to me to be purely destructive. I have attempted to engage them at their talk page: let's see if that does any good. -- The Anome (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The Scorpion is definitely not an AK-47 variant and the weapon in the picture seems to be a folding-stock AK-47. 91.6.152.198 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Background: Charlie Hebdo satyrical works mock far-right politics, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Israel, politics...

The Background sections reads it "publishes articles that mock far-right politics, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Israel, politics, culture...". Since far-right politics are included in politics, should not it be rephrased? (Sort of "...publishes articles that mock politics (especially far-right), Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Israel, culture...") --Javierme (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How about changing "far-right politics" to "the far right"? I don't think CH limits its political targets to the far right, but does put an especial empahasis on them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Coco's daughter

Corinne "Coco" is pissed off at Wikipedia for getting the facts wrong: her Twitter message reads:

Wikipedia dit que de la merde sur le 7 janvier. 1bonne fois pour toutes, j étais pas avec ma fille, j ALLAIS la chercher au moment des faits

It's too bad we have to take the fall for this, and not the shitty reporting that tells us in headlines:

Good finds Curly Turkey! Now, the French media are already putting out long, detailed interviews with the survivors, and some of these inaccuracies get corrected. However, going by your rule that "Sources give by far the greatest weight to the condemnations", then certainly the Wikipedia must keep the version where she had her daughter with her! Because I assure you one or two long form articles on Le Monde are going to be quantitatively less sources than what you cited above.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. XavierItzm (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It ain't "my rule", XavierItzm, and you're going over a cliff here equating a factual error with an ideological disagreement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No ideological disagreement. I am willing to embrace the rule "Sources give by far the greatest weight to the condemnations"; i.e., we go give more weight to RS sources and do not undertake any sort of rational analysis. In this case, clearly more RS say the victim was with the daughter, and therefore, the victim needs be ignored. XavierItzm (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • "No ideological disagreement"? Then no need to rearrange the reactions section. Glad that's settled! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I take it she aint happy! (I get the Merde=shit). Can someone translate that fully into English? --220 of Borg 01:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's talking shit about 7 January." She wasn't with her daughter, she was going to go find her. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep she's 'pissed off'! Thanks Curly Turkey. (how do you 'curl' a turkey?) Indeed many sources said what we reported, she should hassle them! 220 of Borg
I know—after all, Wikipedia didn't put her daughter in the headlines. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyper Cacher victims

From Le nom des victimes de l’HyperCacher dévoilé: Y. Cohen, Y. Hattab, P. Braham, F.M. Saada

  • Yohan Cohen (22)
  • Yoav Hattab (21) son of the rabbi of Tunis
  • Philippe Braham (in his 40s)
  • François-Michel Saada (in his 60s)
Names included in Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation Overkill

I believe some sentences have too many citation footnotes. For example:

  • On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 CET (10:30 UTC), two masked gunmen armed with AK-47 assault rifles, a shotgun, and a RPG launcher stormed Charlie Hebdo's Paris headquarters.[4][5][6][7][19][54]
  • There were also large marches in many other French towns and cities — perhaps three million people throughout France — along with marches and vigils in many other cities worldwide.[28][215][216][217][218]
  • Some English-language media outlets republished the controversial cartoons on their websites in the hours following the shootings. Prominent examples included Bloomberg News,[224] The Huffington Post,[225] The Daily Beast,[226] Gawker,[227] Vox[228] and The Washington Free Beacon.[229]
  • Former Union Minister and Indian National Congress senior leader Mani Shankar Aiyar defended the attacks on Twitter and television[284] as a response to France banning the niqab, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[285][286][287][288][289][290]

I believe some of the citations should be formatted in a single footnote, as the article is currently difficult to read. Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&oldid=511805976#cite_note-4

Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of that was the result of editors deleting the material in question. For example, the first sentence and series of refs. You can see some of the history of that on the talk page (editors seemed happy deleting the sentence if there were only two or three RS refs). But yes, formatting any of those into a single fn would be fine. Also, except for possibly contentious matters, the lede does not needs refs ... to the extent that the refs appear in the body, supporting the same proposition. Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunetly, I have no idea how to go about making list/group references, do you know anyone that knows how? Gamebuster19901 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You just put one cite after the other with a <br\> in between. See WP:CITEBUNDLE Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will see what I can do :) Gamebuster19901 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
----Edit to stop archiving of this section---- Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[Redacted sock comments]

The article is also bloated by an excessive number of references that largely make the same point. Cite bundles just shift the bloating from the article to the ref section. What is really needed is a firm and judicious pruning of the multiple references. There would be hundreds of sources around the world making the same point, but only one or two are needed to satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. Many multiple sources are added by editors keen to make a point that the content is "important". WWGB (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, However editors need to make sure they are keeping at least one reliable source for the statement, and not leaving only yahoo in it's place, as yahoo is very rarely a reliable source. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
In that instance that you mention, AFP was the original source; Yahoo just carries the story.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim demographics

Why are Muslim demographics relevant to this article? If not, why do we have this section: Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Muslims_in_France. It's not as if all Muslims were involved in the attacks.VR talk 18:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some are very eager to make it look that way. // Liftarn (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Liftarn: Nice smear. "Some are very eager" to make it clear why it should not be surprising that a Muslim in France should speak perfect French. Others are very eager to paint those they disagree with as racists in lieu of discussing things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Liftarn seems to disagree with putting in the demographics. What is your opinion Curly Turkey?VR talk 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Vice regent: As I've stated quite a few times on this talk page already, I cannot see how this article can get away without include some basic demographics on the subject (especially since reliable sources are talking about them). I'm the guy who added the first bit of background demographics. I'm also the guy who deleted paragraph after paragraph of uncited, out-of-context verbal diarrhea from the same section. Both sides of the argument have attacked me for it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but what is the subject here? Is it three terrorists attacking a magazine and then later a supermarket? Or is it France's Muslim population rebelling against the country? What does the number of Muslims in France have to do with the terrorist attacks? I can see how demographics were justified in 2005 French riots. But why here?VR talk 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
How on earth can you read those details as "France's Muslim population rebelling against the country"? Talk about a non sequitur. "What does the number of Muslims in France have to do with the terrorist attacks": I've answered this already, but YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Without those details, it is impossible for a layreader (Wikipedia's target audience) to make sense of many of the most important details in the article. Explain why you want to distort the interpretation of this aricle by leaving out these essential details. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"Explain why you want to distort the interpretation of this aricle (sic)" Why would I want to distort the article? Why are you asking me a Loaded question? We certainly won't get to an agreement here if you accuse me of wanting to "distort" things. We can disagree with each other without attacking the other's intentions, no?VR talk 02:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You can disagree, but you also have to back up your disagreement. Drop the accusations that the demographics are a racist attempt to make it look like all Muslims are terrorists. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yet another false accusation you have made against me. When on earth did I ever accuse anyone of "a racist attempt"??VR talk 02:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If accusing someone of adding the information to make it look like all Muslims are terrorists is not an accusation of racism, then that's a finer hair than I'm capable of splitting. Meanwhile, you ignore my every other point. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I certainly don't understand why. Let's see what others think. MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
MoorNextDoor: Don't understand what? Who are you responding to? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Curly Turkey: I don't understand why Muslim demographics should be relevant to the article. I was responding to VR. _____ MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
So I have to explain again? The demographics are important so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French. Nobody wants to address this no matter how many times I bring it up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that's relevant. See my comment below. Zup326 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You're confusing me even more. What does religion have to do with language skills ? Who's going to be surprised by the fact that s French born citizen (regardless of his religion) speaks fluent French ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"The demographics are important so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French." Seriously, Curly Turkey? Why would a lay person be surprised that a Muslim can speak perfect French?VR talk 02:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, you don't know? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't know what ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you trolling? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Time has taken the time to write a couple of articles that deal with the background demographics: 5 Facts That Explain the Charlie Hebdo Attack, Why There’s Tension Between France and Its Muslim Population. Why is Time wasting its time on "irrelevant" information? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Media of all sorts are now writing articles on all sorts of topics. Bloomberg wrote stuff saying these attacks will "fuel" anti-Muslim sentiment. So did Foreign Policy and New York Times. Should we also have a background section on Europe's anti-Muslim sentiment? My point is that what the world's media can and will publish is far beyond the scope of this article. Wikipedia should certainly talk about Muslim demographics in France, at Islam in France. This article can link to Islam in France.VR talk 01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a matter of how it's written---it should be brief, to the point, and readable. Many of the additions have gone into far too much detail. There originally was no more than a paragraph on demographics in the "Background" section, and no separate subsection. Removing all of the demographics, however, is entirely unacceptable, and only distorts lay interpretation of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The Time magazine article you cite also says "The massacre occurred on the publication day of a new novel by controversial writer Michel Houellebecq." Should we mention that in the background too?VR talk 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      • That's been discussed elsewhere. Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I added the bit on Europe along with my previous edit. Is the consensus then that the section does not need expanding? I agree to keep it but what should be further done with it? Zup326 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Some newspapers are talking about French prisons and French Ghettos, should we create sections for those too ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Some editors believe so, yes. They are separate issues and need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis. It begins by discussing---not by saying "I don't get it" and removing it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The way I see it, they are the same issue (relevance of certain topics to this article). Unless we set some standards, anybody can create a section that is reliably sourced, yet completely irrelevant, and asks for it to be discussed for days on end. MoorNextDoor (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
          • What are your opinions on radicalization within the background section as well? Do you believe every subsection is irrelevant or just the demographics? Zup326 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm questioning the relevance of the section "Muslims in France" (including the title), the content is another issue. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) In other words, you are intent on eliminating all demographic information, so it's very important to assert that all demographic information is inseparable so you can eliminate it in one swoop. You've failed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm giving you a chance to explain why you think it's relevant, and in this instance, why is it more relevant than the ghettos and the prisons in France ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Giving me the chance to do what? I've never opposed the inclusion of information on ghettoes and prisons. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim section pruning and neutralization

@Curly, the muslim section is becoming a mess with easy sensationalist opinions polls making a good part of it. It's becoming a trial of immigration in France.
I don't know why you're addressing that to me. I didn't add any of that, and I've never supported having a separate section for this stuff. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Zup, while I agree this section is now taking far too much importance, we cannot delete it all. Pruning is required. Demographic can be reduced sharply by integrating it's scale order within the section "sociology". Opinions polls seems hightly irrelevant to me as we can make opinions polls to says everything. It will be sourced, but it stays highly irrelevant opinions corrupted by the tone of the questions and the poll's customers (right wing papers will turn the wording to push up anti-muslim answers, etc.).
Gentle pruning and neutralization is needed. Yug (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you think we should keep it, can you at least tell us why you think that the "Muslim in France" section is relevant to this article. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
MoorNextDoor: It mainly expose the socio-economic background of the attackers and rejection of French values. I'am myself not in love with the "Muslims in France" tag, as it unfairly stigmatize all the muslims for the actions of few. The socio-economic context of the attackers, and Islam should be cited as the attackers claimed to fight for Islam, but I don't really see to point to name the "muslim in France". Yug (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I created the background section to enlighten a bit this article but it quite got out of control. Annoyingly, I've been dragged by Curly who remove general summary and sources, pushing for a non-reachable perfect word-by-word sources quest, and was unable to work on a balanced coverage of the #background section. NOW, as the section "#Laicity and blasphemy" take care about the ideological background and conflict. I think we should take out the muslim-blaming tone and have a short "#Immigration and poor suburbs in France" section handling the socio-economic issues. I urgently renamed the section as "Immigration in France" for now. Sources are available. Yug (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please Curly: let us some time to work on this. It's an incremental work, we cannot work with hard liner constantly unbuilding our work. Yug (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest to take the content of this, put it here, work on it and improve both the wording and sourcing which are both not properly done. Yug (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'am leaving this article, writing is nor possible / productive. Wrote 8 good lines in ~15h full-time work over 4 days. Yug (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yug, why not give the socio-economic background of the attackers instead of all the Muslims in France? What do Muslims in France have to do with these killings?VR talk 17:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems a pretty good idea. Yug (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That is a fine compromise. Only talk about the attackers. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree This seems like a good compromise. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, why don't we do that instead? The Muslim community are not all terrorists, and people shouldn't read this article and assume that Epicgenius (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The population and population growth of Muslims in France is part of the socioeconomic background of the attackers. The only issue is when such information gets too long. I propose doing what I had in the first place: a single concise paragraph in the overall "Background" section with no subsection header to draw undue attention to itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When I say "what I had in the first place", I don't mean literally what I had written, but the spirit of how I included it—all relevant information should be concise and to the point, and not exceed (say) two paragraphs (one would be better)—just enough information to give readers the context they need to interpret the events without jumping to conclusions (like the idea that suddenly Muslims are invading Europe). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I propose doing what I had in the first place: a single concise paragraph in the overall "Background" section with no subsection header to draw undue attention to itself. That's what I'm saying. A shortened, non-headered paragraph will not put undue weight on that section. Epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius: Unless the disruptive editing is properly dealt with, I honestly don't see the point of doing anything since it will probably be reverted within an hour. Yug understood and I'm beginning to feel that way too. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that it was an IP that removed these tags, disruptively edited, etc. I am starting to think that maybe we need semiprotection again. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid semi protection will not help since it's a user doing it, not an IP. The tag you added was removed within 20 minutes. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
So name the disruptive editor already. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it was removed by 2 users. Here by PuffinSoc and here (twice) by 186.14.226.61. Epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If we are to mention Muslim demographics in the background, we also need to add things like discrimination against Muslims (and immigrants) in France, which is a significant issue. From what I see, sources that talk about Muslim demographics also discuss issues of unemployment, integration and discrimination.VR talk 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
So add it—with in-context citations. There are plenty. I've linked to some on this very talk page.
I'm gonna go into broken-record mode here—I removed Yug's additions not only because they were uncited, but because Yug openly stated he would not cite them. I've never made any attempt otherwise to keep this kind of information out of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Guardian (01/13), Charlie Hebdo attackers: born, raised and radicalised in Paris, Guardian.uk {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  • Here's an idea: instead of giving background on all Muslims in France, why not give background on Al-Qaeda?VR talk 02:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
no Disagree I don't believe we need a section about demographics, this article is about the Charlie hebdo shooting, not about France. However I believe that the above compromise and the one where I put the {{agree}} might satisfy both sides.Gamebuster19901 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Curly Turkey's argument

Curly Turkey: if I understand correctly the main reason you want Muslim demographics in the article is because of this reason: "The demographics are important so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French." Is that it?

If so, I have a few arguments against that. Firstly, presumably, you're referring to the Muslim French terrorists who did this. Why is them speaking French such an important issue? Readers would likely be more interested in other things like: how did they learn how to use guns? How were they radicalized? In fact, if there's anything the terrorists said that the readers would be interested in knowing, it's the "Allahu Akbar".

Secondly, how does knowing that there are 5 million Muslim in France lead a reader to believe that the French Muslim terrorists spoke perfect French? Someone can speak perfect a language perfectly without 5 million of his coreligionists being present in that country. On the other hand, having 5 million of your coreligionists doesn't guarantee that you'll speak the language of the country perfectly.

Thirdly, we mention the fact that the terrorists were from Gennevilliers, France. Isn't the fact that these guys were born in France a far stronger indicator that they spoke perfect French than the fact that there are 5 million Muslims in France?

I have written the above arguments in an attempt to have a polite dialogue with you. I'm sorry if anything above comes across as offensive.VR talk 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Why is them speaking French such an important issue?: because virtually every newspaper reported the fact that they spoke perfect French. Why would they do this? Why would a couple of Frenchmen speaking perfect French be newsworthy? You know the answer. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I find that surprising. Give me references from major sources like CNN, BBC, France24, please.
BBC, CNN, and over 2000 hits on Google News Search alone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if my first argument doesn't hold, what about the 2nd and 3rd? I made 3 arguments.VR talk 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I see at least one source does it. You're right. It is important. However, I think it can be dealt with differently, please see arguments 2 and 3.VR talk 02:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
As for point 2: You've misread. When our article states She reported that the two armed and hooded men spoke perfect French threatened her if she did not type in the code to open the door to the building., it should not come across as a surprise that Muslims would speak perfect French. Knowing there's a large Muslim population there eliminates the surprise.
As for point 3: no, I can't see why, especially as that comes after it's noted they speak perfect French. It also gives us no clue that Muslims coming from Gennevilliers should not be unusual. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That paper is from the date of the incident (before they were identified). The fact that they spoke perfect French was mentioned because it meant that there was a big chance of them being French born nationals (which was confirmed later). MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"That paper"? I just point you to over 2000 news sources! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
2000 or 2 billion sources, the argument will be the same since they all relate to eyewitness accounts. Besides, all of this is WP:OR. If the fact that they spoke perfect French is so important, mention it, but don't create a whole section that is completely irrelevant to it just because you think that's how it should be explained. MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but are you paying even passive attention? I'm the guy who removed the fucking section! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Point 2: a surprise to whom? The woman who said the quote, or the reader? Also, can we please agree that this is not about Muslims speaking perfect French, but rather the 3 perpetrators of the shootings speaking perfect French? I don't see any sources that record the fact that French Muslims in general can speak perfect French. The sources talk about the attackers speaking perfect French.
Point 3: wait, you can't see how someone born and/or raised in France might speak perfect French? Ask yourself the question, what is a greater indicator of speaking perfect French? The fact that you are born and/or raised in France. Or the fact that there are 5 million of your coreligionists in France. It's obviously the former. Because plenty of newly immigrated Muslims to France do not speak perfect French. Speaking French is an individual thing. Belonging to a religion doesn't teach you a language.
Also, we can always move the fact that the attackers were born in Paris earlier up.VR talk 08:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Point 2: a surprise to a very great many readers, including myself and every person I've spoken to in real life about the incident. The large (2000+) news sources that reported this fact seem to agree.
Point 3: the assumption is that if they are French-born perfect speakers of French, they will be assimilated; a further assumption is that such terrorists would not be assimilated. The fact that they are perfect French speakers, yet appear not assimilated requires background information to give the reader the context with which to grapple with those seemingly contradictory facts. The large number of mainstream news sources (Time, The New York Times, the CBC, plus the very large number of sources not used in the article) bending over backward to provide this context supports the idea that this context needs to be provided. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You're reading way too much into this to the point where it's clouding your better judgement. To equate speaking perfect French after being born in France with being fully assimilated into France is cognitive dissonance. This is like saying Anders Behring Breivik had assimilated well into Norway because he was born there and speaks perfect Norwegian. To continually belabor this displays an agenda on your part. Shabeki (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You just spewed a whole mouthful of gibberish there, didn't you? For one, I never did "equate speaking perfect French after being born in France with being fully assimilated into France". So, what's your agenda? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"Point 3: the assumption is that if they are French-born perfect speakers of French, they will be assimilated; a further assumption is that such terrorists would not be assimilated. The fact that they are perfect French speakers, yet appear not assimilated requires background information to give the reader the context with which to grapple with those seemingly contradictory facts." Are those not your words? Now you're just trolling here. Shabeki (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The troll is the guy who both takes words out of context and who tries to equate "the assumption" with "my assumption". Luckily, you're not fooling anyone, and the text is already back in the article (and not by my hand). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Except that you further clarified and supported the "assumption" by repeating the idea in your own words. Keep talking in circles if you think that will help what passes for your argument. And the fact that you're still hanging on the supposed importance of stating that the attackers spoke perfect French still shows an agenda on your part. Shabeki (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you're still hanging on to your gibberish and deliberately distorting my words still shows trollery on your part. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevance tag

I saw this revert. Aren't we still debating this issue? If so, isn't the tag justified?VR talk 02:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, we are still debating it, and if it were added by anyone but MoorNextDoor, I'd've left it, but said editor obviously only did it to be WP:POINT-y. If you'd like to re-add it, please do. I'll accept it from anyone who isn't being deliberately contentious. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If you take a closer look at the revert, you'll see that I was the one whom you reverted - your edit summary says so. Anyway, I guess I'll restore the tag.VR talk 14:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologize. I mistook who was who---too many reverts in too short a time. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Injured vs wounded

As a journalist many years ago, it was drilled into us that one is "wounded" when there in wilful intent and "injured" when there is not. In this article most instaces of "injured" should be "wounded". I am not changing any because there seems to be a gradual slide from the one to the other, just like with "past/ last", "that/ which" "be killed/ die". However, if others feel the same, I will do it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

colours do not match

Hi. The colours here on the map do not match does on the legend. Thanks, regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! -- Orduin ⋠T⋡ 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Orduin. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim reactions

The section on Muslim reactions is divided into two, with some condemning and other supporting. The condemnations are coming from mainstream Muslims, where as the support are coming from lone individuals, often with no association to a major Muslim organization. Therefore, the section on support should not be given undue weight. Because it is certainly possibly to flood the article with Muslim condemnations of the attack, all sourced to reliable and notable sources.

Instead, I suggest we give broad summaries of the condemnations and support.VR talk 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Where comments are made (on either side) by notable persons or organizations (e.g., those with wikipedia articles), I see no reason to hide the reactions from wikipedia's readers. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying comments should be quoted in full? Wouldn't it suffice to say simply say "ISIS praised the attack", as opposed to quoting ISIS' exact words?
And if we started doing that, pretty soon we'd need to fork off an article like "Muslim reactions condemning Charlie Hebdo shooting", since there are literally, at least, 50 different notable Muslim individuals and organizations that have condemned the attack in lengthy statements.VR talk 06:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Summarizing or shortening what they say, or lumping it together, would be fine with me -- editorial discretion (where the extra words add nothing, certainly it would be better). If it is Churchillian, then I would quote more. I'm focused on deleted that x took position y, if x has a wikipedia article, and RSs have reported it. I would be open to deleting views of people or organizations that don't have wp articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Muslim official condemnations are many, almost unanimous. V has a good point, policy-wise. Some sense of proportionality per WP:Undue is needed. The article is already suffering from bloat, and one can barrel-scrap to get fringe support evidence, but is it important?.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm deleting this reaction: "Shots of joy in the Palestinian camp of Ain al-Hilweh, in southern Lebanon, were heard Wednesday..." This is a simply anonymous reaction from non-notable individuals. While the camp of Ain al-Hilweh itself is notable, its hard to believe that the "shots of joy" are representative of the camp. Let me know if anyone disagrees.VR talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
wait, are you saying you are in a Better position to assess what the major Lebanse newspaper publishes (and cites a major TV Network as corroboration, to boot) than the local reporter who wrote the report? Are RS to be considered Less Reliable than Wikipedia editors from this point forward? Please advise, XavierItzm (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
ABC News reports that "Somayeh Nikooei", a random American Muslim, wants to express solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and the victims. Should we report that too? Per Epeefleche's comment, I think we should only report on reactions by notable individuals and organizations.VR talk 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with VR as to Somayeh Nikooei. Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • isn't it ridiculous that the boring and repetitive condemnations of the terrorist attack by heads of state got spun aside into their own little article, and now we are looking at that list being repeated under this section, only for Islam countries only? XavierItzm (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting point. How do you propose this be handled? Please note that the majority of the world's Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries, so the official reaction of those countries is actually indicative of a lot of Muslims.VR talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
      • since by far the majority of countries you allude to are not free and open democracies as we know it in the West, the assertion that anything those governments say is indicative of the population is open to challenge, don't you think? My humble suggestion is that government statements stay on the government subpage that has been created for that purpose and we keep this page clean of government tropes, propaganda, deflection, or positioning tactics. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This was reverted. Why?VR talk 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
because he did not condemn the attacks straightforwardly - he used sectarian language - takfiris etc - he is happy with shia terror - and assad regime terror , he is part of it - and he simultaneously continued to attack Charlie hebdo by saying the takfiris are worse than even the leftist cartoonists - so to just leave up 'he condemned the atatcks' - is too Hezbollah friendly imo and misrepresents the speech- which was sectarian and religious fascist imo - against sunnis and against the leftists of Charlie hebdo. - the extended quote, which is still not much, is necessary imo. Sayerslle (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
disagree. Who is Wikipedia to judge "the language" of Hezbollah and adjudicate the sectarian disputes of the followers of Allah? If the RS provides a quote from Hizbollah, then it should be included verbatim, and to do otherwise reflects bias (note Hizbollah is not a government so it is OK to include in this section). XavierItzm (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
i'm not arguing to judge the bloody language i'm saying report the choice of words used by this man in his condemnation of terror scrupulously. ffs. a few extra words to represent what was said accurately, the exact words, and i'm accused of seeking to adjudicate sectarian disputes. load of bloody rubbish. include verbatim - yes, that is what I want - what was wanted was obliteration of the exact words precisely with the effect of making it biased. 'Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet." reuters - reuters highlights the language used - if you say 'oh its not for wp to reflect sectarian language, thats not our business' , i'd say - stick to RS - don't seek to erase exact language in RS for any 'PC' concerns - 'ooh its not for the likes of us to get involved ...' Sayerslle (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you.  ;-) XavierItzm (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability

  • For fear that my point may get lost above, I want to start a new bullet. For reactions, I propose that we only include reactions of those people or organizations that are notable (which would probably mean that they have a wikipedia article). We should not include the reactions of non-notable individuals, even if they are reported in reliable sources, because that will really bloat the article and violate WP:UNDUE. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands of articles, where the journalist interviews John Smith on the street and asks him his opinion on the matter. We can't simply include all of those reactions.VR talk 15:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For example, professor Aurangzeb Alhafi doesn't seem notable at all, so I'm removing his reaction.VR talk 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Condemnation higher than support

The vast majority of Muslims, both in France and worldwide, have condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks. But, Andiar.rohnds insists on putting the reactions supporting the attacks before those condemning them. Why?VR talk 15:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I've gotten no response in the last 10 hours, I'm moving the condemnations back higher than the support.VR talk 01:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh hello there! Wikipedia is not your personal agenda device! The reason why I keep placing "support" above "condemnation" is because the "support" is directly tied to the event, as these types of views reflect the methodology which have reportedly led to the event, which therefor is more relevant! Also, no logical reasoning was provided against this action in the second, archived "Muslim response" topic in talk. There is an entire separate article dedicated to responses now, it may be more appropriate if you made your edits there, thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a little bit of history behind the evolution of "muslim response". Originally, only the condemnation was listed directly under the topic of "Muslim response" with no other information provided, realistically this doesn't look right, nor it is non-biased. Then someone took the liberty of adding those who supported the murder of french cartoonists, and now that information is correctly listed at the top where it belongs. Thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The "support" is not at all directly tied to the event. There's no evidence that the supporters, like Anjem Choudary, were linked to the killers. And I have provided logical reasoning. The condemnation in the Muslim community is far stronger than the support. Most Muslim organizations and countries have condemned the attacks, not supported them. Also note that the family of one of the victims, a Muslim, has condemned the attack. Therefore the condemnation belongs higher.VR talk 03:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
More important: sources give more weight to the condemnation than to the support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you are merely reiterating a defeated logic. The type of people who support the attacks are indeed much more relevant in this case, because they often share the same methodology which is directly tied to the actual cause of this event. Those listed condemning the attack are far less related. Realistically the entire "reactions" section of this article is grossly redundant and should have never gone this far, so don't expect something that shouldn't even be here, to be perfect the way you wish it to be. Also, the editing tactics of you and perhaps some like minded individuals are really coming out of the woodwork here. Please know that many are aware of what you are doing, there are no secrets here. The message you sent me regarding the 3RR rule seems desperate. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Policy shopping. This article has seen more than it's fair share of bias, please regard my edits as a consequence to this. Wikipedia is not a mainstream, often biased media source, as you and other like minded individuals treat it as such. You seem to be working within a popular, accustomed framework which you are confusing to be acceptable here. You, or some other individual also claims "The condemnation in the Muslim community is far stronger than the support." Instead of asking you to prove this, I'm just going to be realistic with you. First of all, you don't know the exact numbers, nor are you considering that many muslims who would support this act of cowardice are often traditional and don't use or have access to technology/methods of voicing their opinion, but realistically down in the streets of these actual communities, many more seem to be in support of the killings. Again, this is not a secret, but this is my personal observation and nothing I'm trying to present as fact, such as you are. Please stop reverting my edits, thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The type of people who support the attacks are indeed much more relevant in this case, because they often share the same methodology which is directly tied to the actual cause of this event: Non sequitur. Sources give by far the greatest weight to the condemnations, and we are required to follow that. Find a blog or other venue for your soapboxing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Your assumption that sources cannot be biased, nor cherrypicked, are indeed quite humorous to me. Please continue treating Wikipedia as a CNN affiliate. I'm sorry but your argument has no weight in logic, and is simply unrealistic. Please stop undoing my edits, thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Andiar.rohnds, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to provide content. If the reliable sources say something, we have to follow it.VR talk 17:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia also relies on common sense, and you're failing to comprehend what's written. What is cherrypicking? --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This honestly getting ridiculous. Not only is Andiar.rohnds continuing to revert, despite opposition from multiple users. But Andiar.rohnds reverts are actually reckless. Consider this revert. Andiar.rohnds only partially moves the "Supporting the attack" subsection above, resulting in some reactions that supported the attacks actually being categorized under "Condemning the attack". For example, in the revert it can be seen that the sentence "Yahoo Canada reported a rally in support of the shootings in southern Afghanistan," appears under "Condemning the attack". That's plain absurd. If you are going to revert other users, could you at least double check what you are reverting?VR talk 05:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

While one may not agree with Andiar.rohnds|talk entirely, the criteria of "Sources give by far the greatest weight to the condemnations" advocated by his challengers will simply result in the Wikipedia crystallizing the conventional, possibly propagandised, narrative of the time of the events. Sorry to make an 'ad Hitlerium' argument, but Winston Churchill was writing in the 20s and 30 against the rise of National Socialism and was largely ostracised and ignored by the mainstream, while the media, the "correct-thinking people", and the political class, epitomized by Chamberlain, were apologizing for, and appeassing, the National Socialists.
"Sources give by far the greatest weight to the condemnations" would have resulted in a 1938 Wiki where Kristallnacht would have been "an isolated event by a small minority of radicals in what is all, after all, a very large country with tens of millions of people, the vast, vast, majority of whom did not even participate". XavierItzm (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • So you support the idea of Wikipedia taking a POV counter to that of the sources? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
XavierItzm, you're right that there have been periods in history where the mainstream have been wrong. Also, unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a hero nor a Winston Churchill, especially since original research is forbidden. We are here to parrot what other reliable sources have published even if you disagree with those sources.VR talk 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
VR, you imply many things. Sources are not always correct, even in abundance, especially when their source (source of the source) is known and proven to be biased at times. If sources are the blood of Wikipedia, realistic common sense would be the heart. Please read and understand the policy. Thanks --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to accuse anyone of having an agenda. Saying that "the type of people who support the attacks are indeed much more relevant" displays a strong bias on your part. Stop vandalizing this page. You are doing nothing constructive at this point. Shabeki (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
" Sources are not always correct". That's simply against wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Your assertion "many more [Muslims] seem to be in support of the killings [than against the killings]" is not "realistic common sense", it is your own original research. Wikipedia is not the place for that.VR talk 07:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This is beyond stupid. There actually is a logical technicality which should actually place the supporters at the top. You cannot disprove this. And I already told you that I'm not going off the well known fact that Islam is indeed a criminal organisation more than a religion. I assure you, this information is fact. But yes, at the current moment this would constitute as original research which is why I explicitly stated that I'm not using this information. But yet you insist on pinning me as biased for it? Very asinine. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourced content removed

Condemnations by the Palestinian authority and others were removed here. Why?VR talk 03:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologists for Terrorism and the right to Free Speech

Despite the millions having marched in support of unlimited free speech, the 54 persons that supported the attack on Charlie Hebdo were arrested and called "apologists for terrorism". While most people will totally reject the outrages - should they not defend the right of others to express such (objectionable) views? Or are there are certain limits on freedom-of-speech after all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.155.253 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So.... What do you propose? What is your point? Or, are you just making an unrelated comment arguing about politics and free speech? -- Orduin ⋠T⋡ 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
«Or are there are certain limits on freedom-of-speech after all?» Yes they are in the written law of each country, although some countries might have informal laws. This is written in the Freedom_of_speech article: «Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform.». Apologists for Terrorism is probably in the range of hate speech, incitement. For France see Freedom_of_speech_by_country#France. Might be you can add the wiki link in this article if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.233.63 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting/Archive_5&oldid=1088453179"