The Almightey Drill (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 373: | Line 373: | ||
People was more numerous in Toulouse. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.185.253.142|81.185.253.142]] ([[User talk:81.185.253.142|talk]]) 10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
People was more numerous in Toulouse. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.185.253.142|81.185.253.142]] ([[User talk:81.185.253.142|talk]]) 10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Arson attack on Hamburger Morgenpost == |
≈== Arson attack on Hamburger Morgenpost == |
||
Charlie Hebdo shooting: Arson attack on German newspaper that published cartoons [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/392ccec2d7644d4da240c1d86f45500e/arsonists-attack-german-paper-published-french-cartoons AP] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/11/germany-newspaper-attack-idUSL6N0UQ04O20150111 reuters] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-11/arson-attack-on-german-newspaper-that-published-charlie-hebdo/6011338 abc.net.au] should be new section. [[User:Aronzak|-- Aronzak]] ([[User talk:Aronzak|talk]]) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
Charlie Hebdo shooting: Arson attack on German newspaper that published cartoons [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/392ccec2d7644d4da240c1d86f45500e/arsonists-attack-german-paper-published-french-cartoons AP] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/11/germany-newspaper-attack-idUSL6N0UQ04O20150111 reuters] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-11/arson-attack-on-german-newspaper-that-published-charlie-hebdo/6011338 abc.net.au] should be new section. [[User:Aronzak|-- Aronzak]] ([[User talk:Aronzak|talk]]) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
Line 379: | Line 379: | ||
::I added this to the media reaction, although as this page moves like a whirlwind I can't confirm if it's still there [[User:The Almightey Drill|'''tAD''']] ([[User talk:The Almightey Drill|talk]]) 11:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
::I added this to the media reaction, although as this page moves like a whirlwind I can't confirm if it's still there [[User:The Almightey Drill|'''tAD''']] ([[User talk:The Almightey Drill|talk]]) 11:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Background section to dig in == |
|||
I made a first push on the background section shich is now such as : |
|||
Background |
|||
1.1 Charlie Hebdo satirical works |
|||
1.2 Demographics and sociology |
|||
1.3 Ideological conflict |
|||
It still need further digging to explain the conflict at play there, between French freedom of speech, laicity, partially failing integration system, and radical Islam which see itself as above everything. And I probably forgot some factors. Please help around, an Encyclopedia is here to EXPLAIN processes so we learn from each. [[User:Yug|Yug]] [[User talk:Yug|<small><font style="color:green;">(talk)</font></small>]] 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:39, 11 January 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merabet's religion
The inclusion of the sentence "Merabet was a Muslim." only seems to serve one purpose, which is showing that Islamists also kill other Muslims. We already know that, and it does seem redundant and even a bit propagandist ("look guys, they killed other Muslims too, so don't be mad at all Muslims" kind of thing). It's doubtful whether it belongs on Wikipedia.
Look at it this way - if the other victims don't have their religion listed, why is it necessary to list his? Yes, it's only for the purposes of influencing the reader. Nice job, whoever did that.89.176.209.84 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- For exactly the reason you proposed: they kill their own kind, what sort of "jihad" is that? It goes to prove that they are not true Islamists, just thugs who kill indiscriminately in the "name" of Islam. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've wondered this too, and WWGB, I think that's precisely why we shouldn't say it. Wikipedia shouldn't be making any points. We can leave that to media commentators. We should just report the secondary sources, not be one. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I second the comment by Dweller. If it is included to "prove that they are not true Islamists", then it is original research which should not be in the Wikipedia article. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
But we aren't making any points, merely stating a fact published in a reliable source. We don't know the religion of the other victims as that was not published. There is nothing sinister in publishing a known fact without commentary as to its significance.WWGB (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)- Except that that information is never mentioned in the article. Per Rich below, the article should then include an analysis of WHY this is significant. And it were your own words that it was mentioned "to prove that they are not true Islamists"..... And with regard to the comment that you are "merely stating a fact", I am wondering why you do not "merely state the fact" that Elsa Cayat was the only female that was killed, which is also relevant, as it has been reported that the attackers separated men and women before the shooting (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/france-charlie-hebdo-attack-scene/). In all honesty, I actually think that it could be relevant to mention and discuss the fact that Merabet was a muslim, but then based on proper sources discussing why that is a notable fact. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason this is so widely reported is that it is a cognitive dissonance, and of course commentators draw (varied) conclusions. We should report both on the fact, and the commentary. Ideally we would like to draw from academic analyses of the commentary, but balanced and robust peer reviewed work is a long way off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC).
- cognitive dissonance? What, do you think the terrorists stopped and asked each cop they saw yesterday and asked what their religious affiliation was before shooting at them? This is absurd. 10% of France's population is immigrant Muslim and if you are a terrorist on rampage and kill any dozen Frenchmen chances are at least one is bound to be submissive to Allah. Including the info just because it is being referenced by any given news source, with no further valid reason, is not encyclopedic. XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Merabet's religion is mentioned by reliable sources and therefore should be reported. If we are going to talk about "Islamic" terrorism, and the fact that the attackers shouted "Allahu Akbar", I don't see why we need to be shy about reporting that at least one of the victims was himself Muslim.VR talk 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC) It is absolutely biased - even malicious - to report on the religion of the attackers, but to somehow hide the religion of the victims. What is the motive for hiding Merabet's religion
- We should not include it just because it is known, or because we think it's an interesting juxtaposition, etc. However, we should include it if the RS's note it. Do we think the fact that he was a muslim matters? It's irrelevant. Do the sources think it's relevant? Yes. Therefore, we reflect what they say. It's not for us to decide whether they are right or wrong. It's well within the bounds of due weight and notability to mention it, as a lot of RSs have. Now, if we wanted to devote a section to him and the fact that he's a muslim, that would violate due weight. But a mention does not, and is in line with the sources.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a fair point. If the religions of the other victims aren't listed, there's no reason to list his. Shabeki (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The reason for mentioning it is that reliable sources consider it relevant/notable. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The Atlantic points out that he "was a French Muslim man who died defending the laws that allow satirists to mock his religion". Many sources actually describe him as "the Muslim policeman".VR talk 07:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- By this absurd standard, Georges Wolinski "was an ethnic Jewish man who died defending the right to satirise and mock religion". The Atlantic is being disingenuous. XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Come up with reliable sources like he did and let others decide on what's absurd and what's not. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Here are four sources actually describing the victim as a Murdered Jewish French Cartoonist Born in Tunisia[1][2][3][4]XavierItzm (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody said he wasn't, my comment was in response to what you described as absurd. MoorNextDoor (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Here are four sources actually describing the victim as a Murdered Jewish French Cartoonist Born in Tunisia[1][2][3][4]XavierItzm (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Come up with reliable sources like he did and let others decide on what's absurd and what's not. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Guardian « The officer .... was killed as he tried to stop the two heavily armed killers from fleeing the offices of the satirical magazine that had poked fun at his religion ». The New York Times « "He himself was a Muslim," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters ». MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- By this absurd standard, Georges Wolinski "was an ethnic Jewish man who died defending the right to satirise and mock religion". The Atlantic is being disingenuous. XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Include. § Shooting says (emphasis added):
- From an "authenticated video":
- After murdering Merabet who was a fellow Muslim, the gunmen were heard briefly discussing his death. "It's all good. He wasn't Algerian," they said. It turned out that Merabet actually was of Algerian descent.
- This establishes that the killers considered the victims' national origin or descent (they weren't distinguishing) significant. Therefore it is relevant and should be included. --Thnidu (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair argument, Thnidu. Agree. My point remains that either we include ethnicity and descent for all, or for none. You have a strong argument for doing it for all. XavierItzm (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Include. § Shooting says (emphasis added):
In the "Shooting" section it states that the killer knew the police officer was a Muslim before he killed him (or it implies it). How did the killer know this? This part of the article is unclear and I don't know what the writer is trying to say. "It's all good"? What's all good? He never met the policeman. Perhaps some explanation as to how the killer knew his victim was a Muslim, or that this remains a mystery, would be helpful, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. (174.131.5.205 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
- on the contrary, it's pretty clear they shot him because they thought he was not Algerian, I.e., they thought he was not Muslim. As the article says, they were wrong. The logical conclusion is that the terrorists were not willing to kill Muslims, and only did so by error. As you say, someone should clean up the text because it is confusingly written right now. (Obligatory, boring and unnecessary clarification for the Political Correctness police: yes I am aware you can be Algerian and not be Muslim. I'm just working with what the terrorists said) XavierItzm (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not the writer who said that. "It's all good" was a direct quote by the killers. It means they were thinking, "Ok no problem, it was fine that we killed him because we believe he was not Algerian/Muslim." It was the logic they applied to it in that moment, right or wrong. Of course they didn't know for sure if he was of Algerian descent or not but it implies they cared enough about his ethnicity to give a second thought after killing him. Why would this confuse you? It's pretty clear to understand the meaning unless English is not your native language. Hope that makes sense to you. I've already stated my opinion in a previous discussion that all of these religious details are relevant of both the victims and shooters. Some would disagree but there is definitely progress being made here. Good work Thnidu, XavierItzm and others. Zup326 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Jewish cartoonist Georges Wolinski among the dead in Paris terrorist attack". Haaretz.com. 9 January 2015. Retrieved 10 January 2015.
- ^ "Jewish cartoonist among victims of Paris terror attack". ynet. Retrieved 10 January 2015.
- ^ "Fearless: Murdered French cartoonists welcomed controversy". Fox News. Retrieved 10 January 2015.
- ^ "Jewish cartoonist Georges Wolinski among 12 dead in Paris shooting". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 10 January 2015.
Hidden hostage
In fact the Kouachi brothers had no hostage. The guy was hidden in a card board box with a cell phone and was tipping the police. He had a long day. Hektor (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the point is that the guy in the box shouldn't be called a hostage (even though the Daily Mail used the word, knowing the Kouachis were unaware of him). A hostage is used to discourage an attack, or for negotiating. See the hostage article and Wiktionary:hostage. So he can't be a hostage if they don't know he's there. Art LaPella (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 10 January 2015
Charlie Hebdo shooting → ? – I think that 2015 Paris attacks or something should be the name of the Article. Yogurto (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree Agreed. And since all four incidents took place within Île-de-France; the sect encompassing Paris, I think that 2015 Paris attacks is most appropriate; rather than 2015 France attacks. Undescribed (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Kinda Disagree. This was the most prominent of the attacks internationally. I feel that there should be an article on the attacks as a whole, but this was a complex situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Split and/or rename. If these are unrelated or are materially different in scope, separate articles may be warranted. In any event, the article has ballooned well beyond the shooting at the weekly. In addition, the international reaction to the rest of the events may be different or less. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is kind of what I was going for. The attacks do need an article, but I believe that this needs one as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree Strongly support renaming it 2015 Paris attacks. There has now been a police officer and four hostages killed in separate incidents to the office shootings. Tomh903 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree *I agree fully. That would be most consistent with other multi-scene attacks, e.g., 2008 Mumbai attacks. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree Guys, the attack on Charlie Hebdo is very particular because it is about terrorists exercising preemptive censure power on freedom of speech through selective intimidation of the media. This has proven to work: already yesterday Jyllands Posten was the only medium in Denmark to not publish any Charlie Hebdo cartoons, as a result of the numerous attacks they have received prior for merely publishing cartoons. The regrettable terrorism against the kosher grocery, yesterday's policewoman, and the printer are, sad to say, routine terrorism. The Charlie Hebdo attack is a special attack on the West's freedom of expression, and deserves its own article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree on renaming - Support unique article for Charlie Hebdo : All the incidents may be related. But the Charlie Hebdo attack is related to a long history of events, plus that the attack on a newspaper is completely another level. I suggest two articles, a general article on all attacks called 2015 Paris attacks with a brief section in that all inclusive article that leads to a separate and extensive article on Charlie Hebdo shooting. Plus that the Charlie Hebdo story will, because of its nature, continue for a long time in the future as well and will need constant updating whereas sadly the other stories will die down rather quickly. werldwayd (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree While I think there's certainly room for a general article covering all of the attacks, as related, I think this one specifically needs to stay its own separate article. As pointed out, it involves morew backstory and has had (and is likely to have) a great deal more coverage. Everything else in ancillary. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree with a rename. "Charlie Hebdo" is already the well-established and publicly known term regarding the attack. The sieges today were carried out by the same individuals and thus do no warrant a new article either. Today's sieges are related and will also be remembered as part of the "Charlie Hebdo saga" so to speak. Having another article called "2015 Paris Attacks" or some such is divisive and confusing for essentially a continuation and conclusion of the same issue. It would be best to simply expand this article to include the January 9th sieges and their aftermaths here. Zup326 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree The article is about more than just the Charlie shooting. 67.86.15.242 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree Yes, the Charlie Hebdo incident is the incident getting the most attention, but that doesn't mean that the other three incidents shouldn't have their place in the title. I could understand if it was just the incidents involving the Montrouge shooting and Dammartin-en-Goële hostage crisis where there was only one hostage and the perpetrators were killed. However,the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis was much more significant. At least sixteen hostages, four hostage deaths and a massive police raid, killing the suspect. The five deaths in that incident should definitely be enough to have it's respectable place in the article title. We don't see these types of incidents in first world countries very often. Also, the combined deaths of the three other incidents account for nearly half of the total fatalities in the incidents. All of these reasons should warrant a title change on the basis of rarity and significance. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree All of the events appear to be related. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose – Imprecise name, and WP:PRECISE is an article title criteria. The events were not all in Paris, firstly. Secondly, the other events were just continuations of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, which was the main event in a small series. The present title is the most concise and precise. It instantly tells the reader what is being referred to. What's more, the proposed title implies that the events took place throughout 2015, which is very misleading. Leave the title alone. The present title is the correct one. Note, for example, that the BBC uses "Charlie Hebdo" to reference the whole series of events, rather than "Paris". RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree per rgloucester. 89.242.84.73 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree with a rename the bbc article is an example of a RS designation for the events - this has been 'framed' pretty much already in RS and its too late to change it - if 'je suis 2015 paris attacks' badges appear then re-name - until then I don't think it should be changed. Sayerslle (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- On a side note, what the heck is this "agree/disagree" nonsense? I've never seen it used before on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree "Paris" wasn't the target—Charlie Hebdo was. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hold off. The move may indeed be justified, but it's the same day and the press needs to figure out its terminology. No sense moving it today and moving to something else tomorrow. If I don't strike it sooner this "!vote" expires a week from today. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree All of the events are clearly related. Redirect the current title to the new one (we could add "terrorist" to the title, and could add the month ... if we are feeling hopeful). Similar to our articles 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks, 2014 Yobe State attacks, 2011 Norway attacks, 2014 Kashmir Valley attacks, January 2011 Iraq suicide attacks, Sadr City terrorist attacks, April 2005 Cairo terrorist attacks, and February 2009 Cairo terrorist attacks. If this article becomes too long (it is not there yet), at that point in time a spit can be considered. Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd comment that most if not all of those attacks you've listed were on or in the city/location or against its people with no intended target. There really wasn't much else you could name them. In this case, Charlie Hebdo was the clear target without question and was more than an attack on just Paris or its people. It just so happens that Charlie Hebdo was located in Paris. It likely would have happened no matter the city or country they were in. All of the subsequent incidents as well are a continuation of the Charlie Hebdo attack and are not isolated incidents. The term "Charlie Hebdo" is pretty entrenched into the media currently as well and is the term that most people currently use to identify all of these attacks. Zup326 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree Charlie Hebdo shooting is part of those three (connected) terrorist attacks, however it doesn't represent the whole. Gugganij (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree per RGloucester. If the article is to be renamed, I would support Charlie Hebdo attacks but, per Zup326, all the attacks are related to the initial massacre that was specifically targetted at Charlie Hebdo. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Chalie Hebdo attacks could mean any of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. See the history at Charlie Hebdo — Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree and strongly oppose, however... This article is about the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I do not think that this should be renamed. If you want to make an article containing more in-depth information about all the other attacks, go ahead. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree, ″January 2015 Paris shootings″ is more appropriate IMO. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – Again, "Paris" was not the target of these attacks (and some of the action took place outside Paris), and I'm sure there may be more run-of-the-mill shootings this month in Paris. The essential bit of this incident is that it was an attack on Charlie Hebdo, which is also how it is characterised in RS. The other incidents were directly connected, and merely aftermath. They were not independent shootings. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that the shootings were connected, not independent, shows that Charlie Hebdo wasn't the only target. If "2015 Paris shootings" is too generic, the title could be "2015 Paris attacks". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Charlie Hebdo was the only target, and the media's coverage of events frames it that way. The other shootings would not've happened if not for the events at Charlie Hebdo. They were merely fallout in the wake of a premeditated attack. The proposed title implies a year of "attacks" or "shootings" in Paris. This article is not about all the attacks and shootings in Paris in 2015. RGloucester — ☎ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The gunman at the supermarket said that the shooting that killed the policewoman was part of the plan. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How about January 2015 Paris and suburbs attacks? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a bit wordy. If any of the attacks took place outside of Paris proper, (January) 2015 Île-de-France attacks or (January) 2015 Île-de-France shootings would be better. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How about January 2015 Paris and suburbs attacks? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The gunman at the supermarket said that the shooting that killed the policewoman was part of the plan. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Charlie Hebdo was the only target, and the media's coverage of events frames it that way. The other shootings would not've happened if not for the events at Charlie Hebdo. They were merely fallout in the wake of a premeditated attack. The proposed title implies a year of "attacks" or "shootings" in Paris. This article is not about all the attacks and shootings in Paris in 2015. RGloucester — ☎ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that the shootings were connected, not independent, shows that Charlie Hebdo wasn't the only target. If "2015 Paris shootings" is too generic, the title could be "2015 Paris attacks". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – Again, "Paris" was not the target of these attacks (and some of the action took place outside Paris), and I'm sure there may be more run-of-the-mill shootings this month in Paris. The essential bit of this incident is that it was an attack on Charlie Hebdo, which is also how it is characterised in RS. The other incidents were directly connected, and merely aftermath. They were not independent shootings. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I think we should wait for now. The fact that one more suspect is still out there, plus the fact that this could be the work of a new terrorist cell in France, leaves open the possibility of more attacks, possibly ones even more devastating than the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree There's nothing wrong with titling this article after the first and most notable of the attacks. For instance, we do the same thing with the Boston Marathon bombing article, which discusses the subsequent Cambridge shooting and Watertown firefight and manhunt. If in a few weeks or months it turns out that people really do remember this as "the January 2015 Paris attacks," and not "the Charlie Hebdo shooting and subsequent attacks," we can rename this... But my strong suspicion is that won't be the case, just as the Boston Marathon bombing isn't remembered as "the April 2013 Greater Boston attacks." — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: just an suggestion, can it be 2015_Paris_Terrorist_Attack_(Chalie_Hebdo), my arguments is based on how search engine works. 183.178.222.138 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree Move to 2015 Île-de-France shootings - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I never thought of that one. That would make more sense than the original two I mentioned. Undescribed (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree Move and create an article only about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, see proposal below. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)- Disagree, the article is now (with an Charlie Hebdo shooting infobox and an related events infobox) only about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, with naming the other events. No need for changing the name. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree The attacks go beyond Charlie Hebdo. Xharm (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree for reasons already explained, kudos to editors for taking the time in opposing this nonsense. Such a waste of time. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Please, no rude comments about it being nonsense, waste of time, etc. We all have our own viewpoints and everyone's views should be respected in accordance with Wikipedia's code of conduct on civility Thank you. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let me posit an alternative: Charlie Hebdo shooting and manhunt. My reasoning is that we could congeal the disparate infoboxes so that a reader could get the entirety of the story from a cursory glance of the lede. (cf. Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt) The shooting of the police officer and the siege of the kosher market are all encapsulated and derivative of the initial Charlie Hebdo shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Perpetrators and Article name.
So far there are two groups designated as perpetrators in the info-box. How can AQAP and ISIL both be responsible for the same massacre? As far as I know, the massacre committed by Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi concerning Charlie Hebdo had ties to AQAP whilst the Porte de Vincennes siege carried out by Amedy Coulibaly had ties with ISIL. I wish to ask if it would be more prudent to rename the article from the Charlie Hebdo shooting to something more general (such as January 2015 Paris shootings) concerning both shootings, as it may confuse readers. At the moment, the article name is focused on one particular event, whilst focusing on other similar but different ones. StanMan87 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Re: the infobox, I removed that. It wasn't established by the cited sources, which were just reporting a single eye-witness report, "links" between the perpetrators and IS, and a video were AQ does not actually claim responsibility for the attacks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- split
- If there are two groups designated, and because there are several events, we can create the article such as January 2015 Paris attacks or January 2015 Paris shootings with a link to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 11:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: They started doing this on the French Wikipedia, see: fr:Attaques terroristes de janvier 2015 en France with separate articles including fr:Attentat contre Charlie Hebdo, fr:Assaut de Dammartin-en-Goële and fr:Prise d'otages de la porte de Vincennes. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support to move to 2015 Île-de-France shootings - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: The genesis event for all of this was the Charlie Hebdo shooting. That the violence or the perpetrators ensnared other areas does not change the fact that the subsequent events stem from the CH shooting. The Boston Marathon bombings article is an example of an article with the title of the initiating event but encompassing the eventual multiple shootings and firefights, a city on lockdown, and a manhunt. I can't understand the reasoning behind "splitting" an article to such a broad title, since this title can already fully cover the entirety of the events thus far. -- Veggies (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank for your reply User:Veggies, but that is exactly what I mean, to have an article that fully cover the entirety of the events and besides of that a separate article about the Charlie Hebdo shooting/manhunt. The Montrouge shooting and Porte de Vincennes siege are said to be linked, but are not about the Charlie Hebdo shooting. As this article will be moved to January 2015 Paris shootings or so with Porte de Vincennes siege has a separate page, the Charlie Hebdo shooting should also have a separate page. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree and strongly oppose There is no need to split the article. You can create the other articles, but removing the information about the other attacks in this article (which is what a split does) seems like it would harm it rather than help it. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree and strongly oppose as per above. I'm not really sure it's necessary to make 4 or 5 different articles for what is all related to essentially the same main issue. I oppose these splits but that being said, these splits and side articles are likely going to happen anyway though so I won't bother contesting them at all. We've already got a Porte de Vincennes siege article which is probably not even necessary on its own given the yet relatively moderate size of the main article. As far as name change issue, we've already got three discussions about the issue. I'd just like to mention again that using "Paris" in the name for any of these attacks implies that they were merely random attacks on or in "Paris" or against its citizens which the attacks certainly were not. The attackers never planted random bombs to indiscriminately target Paris civilians as seen in other terrorist attacks. It was a clear and deliberate terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. I oppose all of these name changes for this reasoning, unless the name retains "Charlie Hebdo" in it. Zup326 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose with all my being – We don't need any more articles. We've got too many as it is. The "Charlie Hebdo shooting" was the genesis, as Veggies says above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree and strong support: 1. Right now, the infobox at the beginning just mentions the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and waaaaaay down there are separate infoboxes of the police officer and the victims of the Jewish supermarket. Since the infobox is intended to give a quick overview of events it's totally inacceptable to relegate the other victims. 2. The attack on the Jewish supermarket was not a consequence of the Charlie Hebdo shooting but planned in advance. Thus, both the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Porte de Vincennes siege are part of a coordinated terrorist attack in Paris. The current imbalance can be addressed in two ways: Either renaming the current article (with ONE infobox) and with different sections dealing with the three different attacks of this terror operation or creating a new article (January 2015 Paris attacks) with ONE infobox and, if necessary, links to articles of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Porte de Vincennes siege like the French wikipedia did (fr:Attentats de janvier 2015 en France) Gugganij (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support - 2015 Île-de-France shootings or January 2015 Paris shootings - While I think this split discussion is not being done correct, I will support a split as above. This was a complex situation with multiple attacks. At the same time, one of the attacks was the major focus. Thus, there should be an article for the major attack and an article for the attacks in general. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree (January) 2015 Paris shootings or (January) 2015 Île-de-France shootings should be an overview of all of the attacks. Charlie Hebdo shooting should cover the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis should cover the supermarket shooting. If necessary, create an article about the killing of the policewoman. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"Jihadism"/"Antisemitism"
The infobox currently lists "Jihadism" as the motive, with a citation needed tag. This is not a solution. As much as some people are hellbent on scoring political points on the backs of dead people, a very strong assertion like that needs a likewise strong source. Until appropriate sourcing can be provided (and this may not be for weeks or even months), the parameter should be emptied in the infobox. Citing Hollande on "Antisemitism" as a Motive (especially since this article is on the Charlie Hebdo shooting in particular) is likewise unacceptable. --85.197.15.126 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done B E C K Y S A Y L E S 19:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've had to remove it again, after someone but it back again. It's going to take a long time for all this to settle, and, from Wikipedia's perspective, Hollande is not a WP:RS for this kind of value judgement. That doesn't mean we shouldn't report his opinion -- it's highly politically significant and widely reported, and therefore notable -- and it doesn't mean he's wrong, either -- but we shouldn't take it as a judgement of fact without waiting for analysis by reliable sources. My best guess? The choice of the last target probably was antisemitic, but the antisemitism was an afterthought: I think they were mostly trying to create as much terror as they could in aid of their primary goal, and they happened to be nearby and saw attacking a Jewish target as a bonus. I mean, a supermarket? I very much doubt they had even considered where they would target next before they found themselves on the run. But I'm not a WP:RS, so it doesn't matter what I think, either. -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- The gunman specifically said the supermarket was targeted b/c it was Jewish. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone wanting to hear the killer at the kosher supermarket say he "targeted the Kosher grocery store because he was targeting jews." can listen to the killer here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates#block-54b04e67e4b0461a99f13aea You can also read it from Reuters here ("TARGETING JEWS" -their caps, not mine): http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-france-shooting-idUSKBN0KG0Y120150109 so, if Hollande's declarations that this was anti-semitism are not good enough for you, how about the killer himself? XavierItzm (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Amedy Coulibaly doesn't mention the fact that he took jewish hostages on purpose in the BMF TV clip so for complete objectivity and intellectual honesty the Category:Antisemitism in France should be removed for the time being. Unless proven otherwise in the future it seems inopportune to add this categorization. --Kiwi (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- the BFM clip explains that Coulibaly said that he chose a kosher shop because he targeted jews. It's at the end of the clip Hervegirod (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ancestry and religion of victims
There is already an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of Merabat's Muslim religion. The other victims' details have been expanded to include their various ancestries (Tunisia, Algeria) and one victim's Jewish religion. Given that this information played no part in their targeting for death (it was their place of work that got them killed), I contend that this inclusion places WP:UNDUE weight on this detail. Yes, it might be cited in a reliable source, but this is not a biography of the victims, and we do not have to include every known fact about their lives. Thought? WWGB (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. Many reliable sources have deemed the religion of Merabet to be significant in showing that this was an attack by a very radical Muslim group, and in no way represents the sentiments of French Muslims. I don't get it: we take pains to emphasize every Islamic thing the attackers said, e.g. Allahu Akbar, yet we want to hide the fact that at least one of the victims was Muslim? Isn't that very biased?VR talk 06:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Include all or include none. If numerous RS have brought up the ancestry and religion of a number of victims, either include that of all for whom there is RS, or include none. Otherwise it is bias. XavierItzm (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Who's stopping you from including the others ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with reflecting the backgrounds of the victims, if reported by RSs. In that, I agree with VR. In much of the rest of what VR said, I disagree strongly. Of course the background of the perpetrator may have much more to do with his killing of the victim(s) than the background of the victim(s) has. The killers indicated that their killings were spurred by their beliefs, and that they were motivated by those in their circles (in at least one case); motive is of interest. They don't necessarily focus on the fact that a cartoonist is of Tunisian ancestry, and don't I expect in a firefight know the religion of the police officer. Of course -- are you kidding? -- the shouting of an Islamist battle cry is more relevant, if we are comparing, than the fact that a police officer happened to be Muslim (that's not why the event took place), or that a cartoonist happened to be of Tunisian ancestry.... as those don't bear of the motive for the event.
- I also find odd the claim (though I completely agree with premise that VR is asserting), that the by-chance fact that one officer who was killed in a firefight was Muslim "shows" that this "in no way represents the sentiments of French Muslims." The conclusion is, I strongly believe, true -- but it most certainly is not "shown" by that random fact that may well not have been known by the killers. Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, probably his killers didn't know, but never mind, if he was a French Muslim, doing the job he was doing, that is after all a piece of the evidence about French Muslim sentiments. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- This does not make sense. This was a shooting situation between policemen and terrorists. Do you think that either party stopped and considered the potential religion of the guy shooting at them? This is no evidence of sentiments of anyone. XavierItzm (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, probably his killers didn't know, but never mind, if he was a French Muslim, doing the job he was doing, that is after all a piece of the evidence about French Muslim sentiments. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also find odd the claim (though I completely agree with premise that VR is asserting), that the by-chance fact that one officer who was killed in a firefight was Muslim "shows" that this "in no way represents the sentiments of French Muslims." The conclusion is, I strongly believe, true -- but it most certainly is not "shown" by that random fact that may well not have been known by the killers. Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I guess it's not super relevant, but how exactly does the Algerian background of the perpetrators factor into their motivations? I can understand that the killers' being Muslim is prerequisite for them to be radical Muslims, but not how their ancestry matters. Radical Muslims terrorist come in different ancestries, including Caucasian in case the radical Muslim is a convert.VR talk 07:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a longer discussion than we probably want to have here, but in short background of Islamists is often of interest in the RSs, which almost always report on it. For example ... there has been much RS interest in converts to Islam who are Islamist, especially Causcasian ones. There was much interest that many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. There are Muslim countries which one very rarely sees as the ancestry of Islamists (and others where it is the opposite). It's actually quite a fascinating subject. Which is why, perhaps, it is virtually always reflected by RSs (which is a good guide for editors, who wish to check their own editing to makes sure it is driven by RSs, and not personal views). Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- And this is interesting, vis-a-vis the Algerian background. We now learn that Algerian intelligence warned France about an impending attack, the day prior.[1] --Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. We're not including every fact about their lives, we're merely stating their origin which, just like the origin of the suspects, has been reported by RS for a reason that neither of us has to understand or agree with. MoorNextDoor (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: were the Jewish and Muslim victims targeted for their faiths or ethnicities, or were those details incidental? Specifying their faith or ethnicity can imply that they were relevent to their being targeted—perhaps fine in an editorial or somesuch trying to make sense of the details, but not so in an encyclopaedia article. Unless RSes explicitly say these details were relevent to the victims' being targeted, then they should be left out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be looking at the event from the aggressors' point of view. An encyclopedia has to try to account for all relevant points of view. Do we say that their backgrounds didn't matter to Wolinski, Merabet, the people in the supermarket ... and all the others who died too? Their backgrounds did matter to them, and helped to shape why they were doing what they were doing. So their backgrounds matter to us and our readers also. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How is that "looking at the event from the aggressors' point of view"? What evidence is there that these people were targeted for being Muslim or Jewish? What about the Catholics & atheists? No—specifying only the Muslim and Jewish victims as such is feeding into the idea that their ethnic backgrounds are what got them killed—and the sources do not say that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The gunman at the Jewish supermarket said that it was targeted b/c it was Jewish. Personally, I think that if reliable sources talk about a victim's background, it should be mentioned. At the very least, the background of the Muslim cop & the victims at the Jewish supermarket should be mentioned. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Jewish supermarket was targeted because it was Jewish—has anyone tried to remove that from the article? Sources have not said that any of the people in the Charlie Hebdo offices were target for their ethnicities (or that the shooters were even aware of their ethnicities)—ditto the Muslim cop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sources have not said that the perpetrators committed the act because of their ethnicity either, yet, that did not stop anyone from reporting it. The bottom line is that RS deemed it important to report the ethnicity of the victims and so should we. MoorNextDoor (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- News sources perform a different job than an ecnyclopaedia does. We do not include details from sources indiscriminately. Some of these news sources are playing up the "irony" angle, for example, by mentioning the Muslim backgrounds of some of the victims. That's how they snag readers and populate the comments sections. That is something we do not do in an encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The same could be said about the sources that mention the Algerian background of the suspects (after all, not all of them do). That being said, I find it amazing that the mention of the origins of the victims could warrant such a debate, yet nobody seems to mind that the suspects are described as Franco-Algerian on the basis of a single source (the independent), while every other source (including the independent) describes them as French nationals of Algerian descent, which is a neutral et clearer description that leaves no room for interpretation. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a separate issue, the merits and demerits of which warrant its own discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The same could be said about the sources that mention the Algerian background of the suspects (after all, not all of them do). That being said, I find it amazing that the mention of the origins of the victims could warrant such a debate, yet nobody seems to mind that the suspects are described as Franco-Algerian on the basis of a single source (the independent), while every other source (including the independent) describes them as French nationals of Algerian descent, which is a neutral et clearer description that leaves no room for interpretation. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- News sources perform a different job than an ecnyclopaedia does. We do not include details from sources indiscriminately. Some of these news sources are playing up the "irony" angle, for example, by mentioning the Muslim backgrounds of some of the victims. That's how they snag readers and populate the comments sections. That is something we do not do in an encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sources have not said that the perpetrators committed the act because of their ethnicity either, yet, that did not stop anyone from reporting it. The bottom line is that RS deemed it important to report the ethnicity of the victims and so should we. MoorNextDoor (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Jewish supermarket was targeted because it was Jewish—has anyone tried to remove that from the article? Sources have not said that any of the people in the Charlie Hebdo offices were target for their ethnicities (or that the shooters were even aware of their ethnicities)—ditto the Muslim cop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The gunman at the Jewish supermarket said that it was targeted b/c it was Jewish. Personally, I think that if reliable sources talk about a victim's background, it should be mentioned. At the very least, the background of the Muslim cop & the victims at the Jewish supermarket should be mentioned. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How is that "looking at the event from the aggressors' point of view"? What evidence is there that these people were targeted for being Muslim or Jewish? What about the Catholics & atheists? No—specifying only the Muslim and Jewish victims as such is feeding into the idea that their ethnic backgrounds are what got them killed—and the sources do not say that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The religious backgrounds of victims is clearly relevant and well-discussed in the media. It lets us know that the killers in the Charlie Hebdo shooting were willing to kill anybody inside that building regardless of who they were or what their faith was. They never spared the Algerian or Muslim victims. They wanted to wipe out Charlie Hebdo at any cost, even murdering people of their own religion to do so. In the Porte de Vincennes siege, it is widely believed that the location was chosen because it was Jewish. Even the French president called it an act of anti-Semitism. It's simply not possible to justify these facts as being irrelevant. Political correctness must not cloud or censor these relevant details. Zup326 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Where does political correctness enter into it? The supermarket was targeted explicitly for being Jewish. None of the sources claim Wolinski was targeted for his ethnicity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Had all 12 victims been Jewish by nothing more than mere coincidence, then certainly it would have been reported as a "main motive" in the reliable source despite not being so. The fact that the killers were willing to kill even Muslims makes their religion important, or at least the mention of the victims who were Muslims only. The "include all or none of the religions" is a weasel term for political correctness. All the best. Zup326 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that the killers were willing to kill even Muslims makes their religion important: an interesting tidbit that deserves to be described and contextualized in prose. This list is the wrong context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Had all 12 victims been Jewish by nothing more than mere coincidence, then certainly it would have been reported as a "main motive" in the reliable source despite not being so. The fact that the killers were willing to kill even Muslims makes their religion important, or at least the mention of the victims who were Muslims only. The "include all or none of the religions" is a weasel term for political correctness. All the best. Zup326 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Where does political correctness enter into it? The supermarket was targeted explicitly for being Jewish. None of the sources claim Wolinski was targeted for his ethnicity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be looking at the event from the aggressors' point of view. An encyclopedia has to try to account for all relevant points of view. Do we say that their backgrounds didn't matter to Wolinski, Merabet, the people in the supermarket ... and all the others who died too? Their backgrounds did matter to them, and helped to shape why they were doing what they were doing. So their backgrounds matter to us and our readers also. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It must be noted that the only woman sought out for murder at Charlie Hebdo was Jewish. This is noteworthy because it has been reported that other women at the magazine who came face to face with the killers were told by the killers themselves that they were not being killed because they were women. At the same time, the killers then proceeded to order these women to convert to Islam, and abide by hijab. Meanwhile, the only woman killed, Elsa Cayat, seems to have been killed despite being a woman because she was Jewish. Al-Andalus (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)'
- "seems to have" or "was reported to have": if the former, it stays out; if the latter, it likely should go in. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:51, 10 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Elsa Cayat
The only female to be killed was Jewish. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? And it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/09/erin-intv-bramly-cousin-paris-terror-victim.cnn 79.181.122.208 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- What do sources say about it? Do they merely mention it? We don't include things in the article simply because they "seem" something—speculation, original research, and synthesis on our parts are strictly off limits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It has been reported that other women at the magazine who came face to face with the killers were told by the killers themselves that they were not being killed because they were women. At the same time, the killers then proceeded to order these women to convert to Islam, and abide by hijab. Meanwhile, the only woman killed, Elsa Cayat, seems to have been killed despite being a woman because she was Jewish. At least one source, CNN, has reported "She was definitely killed because she was Jewish". Al-Andalus (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- What you say is what was told to Coco. She was coerced into leading them to the level where the Charlie team was meeting. There were only two women: Coco and Elsa Cayat. Coco first tried to mislead them but then to third floor but finally they went to second floor. And then she had to type the code... After that as said previously they shot at anyone present. But I guess that Coco did not enter and just escaped via the stairs. Hektor (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Hektor, I appreciate many of your sources and insights that you provide. I'd like to pose this question though: if there were only two women, then what exactly was Sigolène Vinson's role in the building? This source[1] not yet used in the article that I found quotes her direct testimony, and that she and another male survivor named Laurent Leger had already heard gunfire and thought it was a joke at first like someone lighting up firecrackers. So, there was gunfire and then a pause at some point before Charb had been killed. They said the shooters then burst in to the main office where the larger group was and called out Charb's name. They were deliberately looking for him as you mentioned, and then started shooting on the group. This level of detail is not yet included in the article. It's a useful piece of information related to the attack. In addition, a second source already cited in article provides direct testimony from Corinne Rey: "They wanted to go inside, go upstairs. I punched in the code. They fired on Wolinski, Cabu … it last five minutes … I hid under a desk … they spoke flawless French … said they were with al-Qaeda.” This signifies that Wolinski and Cabu were the first to die (which was the initial gunshots that Vinson and Leger heard), and then a pause in firing before the gunman entered another room where Charb, Leger, Vinson and many others were. As Coco was ordered to open the initial door and then witnessed the murder of both Wolinski and Cabu, and then hid under a desk, then clearly she entered the office space as well and was present during all of the gunfire. This can only mean that her life was deliberately spared by the gunmen. Currently it's known that 1 Jewish woman was deliberately killed and 2 non-Jewish women were deliberately spared. Zup326 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
USAs attack on Iraq ?
It looks as we can trace this back to USA (again) and their attack on Iraq i 2003 and Abu Ghraib torture in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.25 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- France's foreign policy is very much independent of the US, unlike say, England. The relationship between Algerian Islamic extremism groups and France long pre-dates 9/11 and the United State's War on Terror. Rob984 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- My point is that many muslims where radicalized after the controversial US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the things that happened there in the years after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.25 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Anjem Chaudry's support for the attacks
Anjem Chaudry's support for the attacks does not deserve a place in this article. He does not command any significant following that gives his opinion any weight.—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, for such an insignificant Muslim person (as you say), he sure does have quite an extensive Wikipedia biographical entry. Maybe he is not as insignificant as you yourself think he is? XavierItzm (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is cognitive dissonance to suggest that because someone has a lengthy wikipedia page, he has a significant follow. Shabeki (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- the gentleman is important enough to have an extensive Wikipedia entry. If he and anyone he represents wish to support the terrorists, should Wikipedia editors be in the business of suppressing their positions, if such positions are reported by a RS? XavierItzm (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- His views were written in an editorial in USA Today, America's only national newspaper. Gotta admit that is some relevance, even despite his lack of qualifications in Islamic theology. At the same time, one can say that ISIS/Al Shabab have no qualifications in Islamic theology, but are blatantly notable in reaction to this attack. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Turkish reaction
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan harshly condemned on Wednesday the deadly assault on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in central Paris. In a written statement, Erdogan said "We strongly condemn the heinous terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo Magazine in Paris today that has killed 12 and injured 20 people." The president extended his condolences to the "friend and ally" country France and said he expected the perpetrators to be brought to justice as soon as possible. Erdogan stressed that "terrorism has no religion or nationality and no excuse can be given for it." "It is of crucial importance that we have a common stance against terrorist attacks such as the one in Paris today. We have to take a firm stance against hate speech, intolerance to differences and attempts to present religious and cultural differences as ground for enmity," he added. In his statement, the Turkish president maintained that Turkey will continue its fight "against all forms of terrorism with determination." "We express our heart-felt condolences for the innocent people killed today and wish a quick recovery for the injured. We also wish patience and steadfastness for the relatives of the deceased and the injured and for the people of France," Erdogan said. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also condemned on Wednesday the deadly attack saying "Nothing can justify this kind of terror act." "Turkey has always taken this position against terror and violent acts, no matter what its justification," Davutoglu said.
source: http://www.worldbulletin.net/turkey/152466/turkish-president-decries-fatal-attack-on-paris-magazine
I believe that the reaction of the Turkish president is much more important than the reaction of the foreign minister. Could we change this? 94.219.58.111 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Verbatim from François Molins
This verbatim from François Molins in Libération provides a good source about what happened: De l'attaque contre «Charlie» aux assauts de vendredi, le récit du procureur de Paris Hektor (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For instance it says "A 11h45 le GIGN entreprenait des négociations avec les deux auteurs et laissait des messages sur leurs téléphones portables. Messages auxquels les frères n’ont jamais répondu." which means that the brothers never answered to the police which contradicts what is in the article, which says that officials established contact with the suspects, and negotiated the safe evacuation of a school 500 m from the siege. Hektor (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done It's a great source. I'm not skilled enough in French to pull the best facts from there unfortunately. I've updated the article with what you've brought up. Zup326 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
AQAP
French Wikipedia cites this source regarding the perpetrators' affiliation to AQAP. This was in the context of undistributed demands by the perpetrators made to BFM-TV. Here's a rough translation of the start of the third paragraph: "Cherif Kouachi claimed to be, to the channel, of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a branch of the organization in Yemen. 'I was sent, me, Cherif Kouachi, by Al-Qaeda in Yemen. I went here, and it was sheikh Anouar Al-Awlaki who financed me.'" I think it's worth readding to the article (it was removed in this diff [2]), so seeking consensus to add it back in. --RAN1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Mustapha Ourad
There is now an article about Mustapha Ourad on the French version of wikipedia. Hektor (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
alternative translation of 'Je suis'
'Je suis Charlie' is ambiguous:it might mean 'I follow Charlie'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.31.248 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Other variants include "Nous sommes Charlie" and "Nous sommes tous Charlie", which cannot translate as "We follow Charlie". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The title
Why is the article named "Charlie Hebdo shooting"? It should be named "Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack". 124.72.94.134 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Reactions again
I have no particular view on what, if any, reactions should be included. But I do believe the reactions should be put in the right section as long as we are going to include them, particularly when the section implies something about the reaction. For this reason I moved 2 reactions here [3]. As stated in the edit summary, there are two issues here. Firstly, neither of the parts we quote is criticism of Charlie Hebdo, but instead criticism of French law and government policy and other things which arent't due to Charlie Hebdo. Secondly, one of these reactions is quoted as a Muslim reaction so belongs in the Muslim reactions section. However as it is neither explicit criticm of or support of the attack, I've made a new sub section. Also, we now include both support and criticism of the attack in the "Others" reactions without seperate subsections, I don't see a problem with this but I'm fine if people want to make new subsections. Nil Einne (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hayat Boumeddiene photo?
There was a photo of Hayat Boumeddiene that really ought to be reinstated, as she is an accused accomplice of a terrorist and a fugitive on the run from the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.77.4 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Repeated removal of background demographics
There have been several attempts now to remove from the "Background" section demographic and historical information about Muslims in France. Here's the latest. Here's another that calls it "racist". The paragraph has undergone numerous changes, but this is the core:
- Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. By the time of the shooting, the Muslim population of France had surpassed 5 million.
This is then followed by a sentence describing ethnic tensions that has been changed a number of times, depending on whether particular editors want to ascribe ethnic tensions to the right-wing or not (which is supported by the source). The current source is from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Can we get some comment on this? I seriously can't see an article like this not giving such demographic details. We should make a decision about this here to point to so we can put an end to the editwarring. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Facts are facts. If we have RS that these are fact, then they should be included to give some background. I am guessing that the issue is that it is being taken as an assumption of not being relevant to the background of the attacks themselves. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do not think it is racist to mention that the French government has allowed mass immigration of Muslims to France and that now 1 in 10 people who walk the streets in that country are Muslims. This is obviously not the case in, say, Switzerland, or even in French-speaking Switzerland. Are facts racist? (Corollary: if you shoot 10 Frenchmen at random, you have a 10% chance of killing a Muslim). But I have no strong ideas on whether the 10% Muslim population fact needs to be included, except that if the PC police does not want it, then that would be a very strong indicator the data should be included.
Differently, I do think it is far fetched to bring the National Front into this. The massacre is the most recent outcome of a clash between, on the one hand, the Left (Charlie Hebdo: anti-religion, anti-capitalist, anti-corporations, critical of the currently constituted government of France) and, on the other hand, Islam. The National Front has no dog on this fight, and certainly did not cause Charlie Hebdo and Islam to be at each other's throat for the past few years.
Or does anyone think that the protests against the 2006 re-publication by Charlie Hebdo of the Jyllands Posten cartoons, or that the 2007 Islamic lawsuit against Charlie Hebdo, or the 2011 firebombing of Charlie Hebdo have anything to do or were in any way motivated or influenced by the National Front, or that such acts would not have taken place if the National Front did not exist? XavierItzm (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)- Here's the thing—I'm the one who added the National Front stuff (along with the rest of the stuff), but when issues with it came up in another discussion, I had no problem with its removal (again, this was after someone removed the entire paragraph to remove that one statement). So then it sat for a while with no mention or right (or left) politics until another editor deleted the entire paragraph because they felt it didn't reflect the article cited, which does go on about the National Front. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep it for sure. I'd like to say good work to Curly Turkey and others who kept bringing it back. I was thinking of raising this same question as well but you beat me to it. The information in question has been removed by about 3 to 5 editors or so that I've seen lately. I would propose that these editors stop removing the information immediately, as it is clearly relevant and provides notable background information. It could use another source or two, be expanded upon, and maybe be the last or 2nd last paragraph in the section, but blanking the info is not acceptable. Zup326 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just did some checking and noticed that another main problem editors have with it, is the fact that it's the lead off paragraph. I've moved it to the bottom under a "Demographics" section. It may help to stop some of the edit wars, especially with editors who don't read the talk page here. Zup326 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, thanks, but whatever that Zarka, Taussig & Fleury 2004 is you've cited, you've forgotten to add it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not my edit or addition. All I did was move what was there. A quick search reveals that it's a French book about Islam in France by the name of Yves Charles Zarka, Sylvie Taussig, Cynthia Fleury (éds.), L’Islam en France. I can't read French but I'd say it's more than likely a valid book source. Zup326 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm ... I wonder who added that, then. There's a preview of the book at amazon.fr, but it cuts out a page 26 (the citation's for page 27). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not my edit or addition. All I did was move what was there. A quick search reveals that it's a French book about Islam in France by the name of Yves Charles Zarka, Sylvie Taussig, Cynthia Fleury (éds.), L’Islam en France. I can't read French but I'd say it's more than likely a valid book source. Zup326 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, thanks, but whatever that Zarka, Taussig & Fleury 2004 is you've cited, you've forgotten to add it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just did some checking and noticed that another main problem editors have with it, is the fact that it's the lead off paragraph. I've moved it to the bottom under a "Demographics" section. It may help to stop some of the edit wars, especially with editors who don't read the talk page here. Zup326 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Would a 3RR rule on editing articles limit the number of removals of information? Because the event has become a rather hot political issue. -Mardus (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
9 January is not 9 January!
It is written: «Around 700,000 people walked in protest on 9 January, with major marches being held in Toulouse (attended by 100,000),»
This is inaccurate: Toulouse was on saturday 10 january, french time. People was more numerous in Toulouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.142 (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
≈== Arson attack on Hamburger Morgenpost ==
Charlie Hebdo shooting: Arson attack on German newspaper that published cartoons AP reuters abc.net.au should be new section. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe. There's very little info to go on right now, however. The perpetrators may have been arrested. -- Veggies (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Background section to dig in
I made a first push on the background section shich is now such as :
Background 1.1 Charlie Hebdo satirical works 1.2 Demographics and sociology 1.3 Ideological conflict
It still need further digging to explain the conflict at play there, between French freedom of speech, laicity, partially failing integration system, and radical Islam which see itself as above everything. And I probably forgot some factors. Please help around, an Encyclopedia is here to EXPLAIN processes so we learn from each. Yug (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)