m →Weapon: Re-reply |
Hardyplants (talk | contribs) →POV reverts by GPinkerton: new section |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty]]. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty]]. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
== POV reverts by GPinkerton == |
|||
A wide range of mainstream news organizations call the cartoon controversial: |
|||
<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/europe/france-secularism-macron-samuel-paty-intl/index.html</ref> <ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/samuel-paty-teacher-beheading/2020/10/21/b94fe7fe-123e-11eb-a258-614acf2b906d_story.html</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54764000</ref> |
|||
"(CNN)France was irrevocably changed by the Paris terror attacks of January 2015. Three days of violence began with a massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had previously published controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. They ended with a siege at a kosher supermarket." |
|||
"And when he introduced the topic of the controversial cartoons in class, he acknowledged that it might be hurtful to Muslim students and offered them a chance to look away." |
|||
"Earlier this month teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded in a Paris suburb after showing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to some of his pupils." |
|||
[[User:Hardyplants|Hardyplants]] ([[User talk:Hardyplants|talk]]) |
Revision as of 04:13, 11 November 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNAOC
I've reverted the introduction of content referenced to UNAOC in the lead section. I'd have created a new subsection of the "Reactions" section (e.g. "By international organisations") and moved the UNAOC-related content there, if the A Call for Mutual Respect statement hadn't been so vague: it doesn't mention Samuel Paty or anything uniquely related to his murder directly – it is a statement of principles, needing OR to tie it to the subject of this page. If it were directly connected to the content of this page, indeed, it would seem that it calls Samuel Paty's actions "inflammatory" – which can hardly have been the intent of that press release. So, if that direct connection is lacking, it does not seem suitable material for this page. Again, a lot has been written in reliable sources about Paty, and his murder, and I'd be happy we arrived at a decent summary of that material, while drawing in vaguely related ramifications when the basic content hasn't been covered yet seems hardly appropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's a big difference between calling the cartoons inflammatory, which can be easily verified in reliable sources, and the way bolder attribution of Paty himself as an Agent provocateur. We should be mindful not to use such fallacies to justify overreaching M:deletionism or WP:CPP. Also, the development of an article is an evolutionary gradual process. Deciding that the current summary is decent just because it aligns with our views is a bit arbitrary, maybe we should rather make use of different contributions to reach at a holistic perspective appropriate with an encyclopedia? Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The lead should be a summary of the content of the article. Opinions vary. The "agent provocateur" expression is not used in the article, not in the lead section, not in the body (so I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this section). "a typical Islamist terrorist attack", which is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is in the lead section. It has a WP:INTEXT attribution to the French president, and is also, of course, mentioned in the body of the article, again with an in-text attribution to Macron. "inflammatory", which also is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is not in the body of the article, and even less with references to reliable sources, and even less with an in-text attribution to who said it, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who would have said it in connection with the two cartoons Paty showed in his classroom, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who is as closely involved and with a similar stature in public life as Macron. Failing all that, this is no lead material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Failing to see the connection just because the phrase isn't found verbatim is laughable tbh. Words translate into each other, don't they? As for lead-worthiness, Inflammatory -- that is, tending to provoke or inflame (the dictionary def), summarizes the potential of the cartoons to evoke tension, which is extensively wittnessed in both Background and Reactions sections. The article body says, e.g.:
For many Muslims, any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemous.
Brahim Chnina, a female student's father, accused Paty of disseminating pornography to students and filed a criminal complaint with the police.
This, along with the "fact" that the very event (as well as other past and future events: Charlie Hebdo shooting and 2020 Nice stabbing) was motivated by the cartoons (as was already stated in the lead) and the repeated attestation of the qualifier in the reliable sources I provided, would be fairly enough ground for inclusion. I've also mentioned another word-for-word use of this very description in a very similar context in the Class B Lynching in the United States, which the reverter simply disregarded due to alleged unreliability of then-cited Vice Media, even though there's no consensus about its reliability as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Please find the caption here. Since I'm adequately informed of WP:BLUDGEON, this would be my last attempt to reach a middle ground via a direct discussion with you in here, unless there are unprecedented arguments or questions. Finally, I'd like to point out the change in the arguments given as excuses for WP:OWNERSHIP of the content, which, to me, is an obvious sign of bias. First it was the fixation on the legal definition of defamation, no matter how much I actively asked for a brainstorming of other appropriate qualifiers. Then, instead of discussing lead vs. body appropriateness, let alone incorporating what might seem as a valuable hint in the body article, reverters preferred to pedantize over the form of the contribution as manifesting in the source provided. When these were properly addressed and the contribution adjusted, I received an edit-warring warning and found out the mentioning of lead-worthiness for the first time. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Sefrioui called the teacher a "thug" in a video (French: voyou), while denouncing the administration of the college.
- On a side note, I wonder how you managed to know the "intent" of the press release? Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Failing to see the connection just because the phrase isn't found verbatim is laughable tbh. Words translate into each other, don't they? As for lead-worthiness, Inflammatory -- that is, tending to provoke or inflame (the dictionary def), summarizes the potential of the cartoons to evoke tension, which is extensively wittnessed in both Background and Reactions sections. The article body says, e.g.:
- The lead should be a summary of the content of the article. Opinions vary. The "agent provocateur" expression is not used in the article, not in the lead section, not in the body (so I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this section). "a typical Islamist terrorist attack", which is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is in the lead section. It has a WP:INTEXT attribution to the French president, and is also, of course, mentioned in the body of the article, again with an in-text attribution to Macron. "inflammatory", which also is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is not in the body of the article, and even less with references to reliable sources, and even less with an in-text attribution to who said it, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who would have said it in connection with the two cartoons Paty showed in his classroom, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who is as closely involved and with a similar stature in public life as Macron. Failing all that, this is no lead material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
RfC preparation
@Assem Khidhr: taking time to prepare an RfC before launching it is commendable. My user talk page is however not really a suitable place to do that. The talk page of the article about which the RfC is going to be (that is this talk page ...) is likely the most preferable place to do that, so that others can chime in if they feel like. If you want an example of an RfC I prepared, here is one (totally different topic, just mentioning it while in the end, the admin who closed the RfC after completion commended me for the good preparation). As for the content of your proposal: OR is not, afaics, the central difficulty at this point. Above I explained in detail what the remaining difficulties are. I'm not going to repeat that. Either you address those difficulties (which you didn't thus far), or it's likely going to be a lot of lost energy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I'll do my best to give it the first form, but we apparently had different opinions. You might probably address some of these yourself, disinterested as you should be. To the best of my knowledge, lead-worthiness, verifiability, and relevancy are all covered in the current phrase. What you're probably referring to as disregarded is in-text attribution and other aspects related to the notability and connection of the agent to whom the context proposed is ascribed. However, this begs the question of the context being a personal opinion, which I'm arguing isn't the case and which takes us back to the OR discussion again. To make our lives easier, I chose to propose the reverted change verbatim and leave to voters the freedom of assessing whether there'd be difficulties at all. I'll also mention the previous discussions in this talk page as well as the guidelines we quoted. Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Proposed section title
- RfC on contextualizing Charlie Hebdo cartoons
- Proposed RFCCATs
{{rfc|soc|pol}}
- Proposed opening question
- Given what's already incuded in the body and what we can know about the cartoons from a NPOV, would it be appropriate for the lead to give context to the motive of the killing as showing controversial/inflammatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking/disparaging/ridiculing Muhammad instead of the current showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Muhammad?
- Proposed opening comments
-
- See Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1#Nature of the depiction and Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty#UNAOC for the previous relevant discussions.
- See the discription of the cartoons in relevant sources already on the page: 1 2 3 4.
- See WP:EDITORIAL, WP:OR, WP:GRATUITOUS, WP:UNDUE, WP:CPP, WP:INTEXT.
Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Assem Khidhr, do you agree with the last updates to the article about this issue? I haven't looked in detail yet, but on first sight this seems pretty much OK to me. If it can be settled this way, pursuing an RfC may become redundant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: I do think they've gone some way towards addressing opposite views, but the treatment of the cartoons is still gratuitously decorative. For example, how would you explain that the author of the in-text attribution hesitated to go from "some Muslims" to "many muslims", even though it's easily verifiable that at least most Muslims (if not the great majority) affiliate with such view? Yet further, from a NPOV, do you think that it's entailed by elegant diction to describe a caricature showing a notable subject (whose notability isn't sexually derived) in a sexually explicit position annotated by references to content critical of them -- as merely depicting them? This is not to mention how such description of a crime motive feeds on the stereotypical notion that "any depiction is blasphemous" (which is mentioned in the body), thus delivering a false impression that the content of the cartoons carries no weight in the reaction. That is, a depiction glorifying Muhammad would have the same consequences as one disparaging him. Given, also, that viewing the cartoons directly would go against WP:GRATUITOUS and that they're already seldom circulated in notable sources, wouldn't such poor diction be boldly misleading for readers who aren't aware of what the cartoons actually were? When all this is coupled with another similar cartoon in a higher class article being described as inflammatory without attribution, with only the ideological scope differing, then we are clearly facing a matter of prejudice, whether consciously or not. Please read this thoroughly and let me know if we should proceed in the RfC. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well aware that some fine-tuning would be needed: my question was rather about whether you think the direction this has been taking over the last 24H would be more promising than an RfC. An RfC runs, under normal circumstances, at least for about a month. So would normally take vastly more time than some fine-tuning to what has been developing now; on the other hand, if the decision is to have an RfC anyhow, I'm not sure whether I'd bother to fine-tune whatever, pending an RfC decision about the same (i.e., RfC proceedings may de facto freeze whatever is in the article before it starts: changing it while the month-long discussion lasts might be perceived as counterproductive, if not disruptive). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, given the warning you've given me, I desisted from attempting to finetune the content myself, especially since the 3 edits were different in content and rationale and still were considered as "persistent addition of the same". Besides, all the previous reverts did't bother to hop in and apply, or even suggest, what they thought would be more appropriate. It was mere passive deletion. So, it's really your call to make, Francis. I've already said what I thought of the recent edits, both positively and negatively. I'm in no rush to start RfC and I'd certainly prefer to resolve it in-house, so to speak. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Concerning the propose opening question: the showing controversial/inflammatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking/disparaging/ridiculing Muhammad phrasing is that it shouldn't use WP:WIKIVOICE to say the cartoons are inflammatory or controversial, as they are not universally controversial. Instead the showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad which Muslims find blasphemous would be a more appropriate phrasing. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- To say that the cartoons are ridiculing rather than merely depicting is a good start. Quoting WP:WIKIVOICE is a bit fallacious though. The word controversial complies with NPOV since it solely refers to the verifiable "fact" that the cartoons have provoked controversy. It doesn't require the encyclopedia to subscribe to any "opinion" held by any side of the controversy, nor does it carry an inherent value judgment or normative standard. Contrarily, the word blasphemous, for example, has an inescapable prescriptive significance and is thereby incompatible with encyclopedic tone. Finally, dicussions of universality are irrelevant, since even facts aren't nececssarily universal! That is, they don't have to be true in any time and any place and under any circumstances, they just have to be true (in the sense that they're agreed upon by an overwhelming majority) in a particular occurrence. In other words, universal facts are a subset of facts. I don't think the cartoons are universally controversial, but I, along with an overwhelming majority, do think that they are verifiably controversial in the world we live in. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Don't use exlamation marks in violation of WP:CIVIL. The main topic of this article isn't "Muhammad cartoons", the main topic is the Murder of Samuel Paty in France, a secular country and therefore the position of the position of the cartoons in that society should take precedence in the lead section. If the Muslim worldwide community holds other beliefs, they should go in the "reactions" section, not the lead. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The reactions of the Muslim world are clearly notable in this case as they have been widely reported in the media and so do deserve some prominence.VR talk 08:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @1Kwords: Your quotation of policy is arbitrary, I'm afraid. Excalamation marks don't universally denote ridicule and can only be sarcastic according to context. I don't see the part where it's directly mentioned in the policy. Maybe you should instead WP:Focus on content, given that you are not running out of arguments. Now I'm glad you've openly stated how opinionated you think Wikipedia should be. It'll come in handy in case of an RfC. The bad news is, according to NPOV, Wikipedia should adopt an objective stance whether compatible with the political definition of identity in the country in question or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It reports events as-is, neither how a national entity would expect or favor it to be nor how a factional entity would. If the cartoons have sparked controversy, then they are controversial. If laicists, secularists, libertines, antireligionists, say what you will, think the cartoons shouldn't have been controversial and their opinion was relevant and notable, then Wikipedia can report such assertions along with the appropriate attributions. This would be the last time I reiterate basic principles to show this kind of bias for a personally involved contributor. You might, expectedly, prefer to have the last word, but for me to discuss the same issue again would be redundant and pointless. Assem Khidhr (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just for the record, even some French high officials have described the cartoons as controversial. Frances's ex-Foreign minister Laurent Fabius literally described them as pouring oil on the fire, a clear figurative reference to controversy. Ex-president Jacques Chirac also described a previous Charlie Hebdo cartoon as overt provocations. Charlie Hebdo article says, in the lead, The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad. For open-minded non-ideologues, there is abundant evidence of what's more. Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Assem Khidhr, enWP is not WP:RS and your opinions do not count per WP:NOTFORUM! If you have sources saying they are controversial (in France), then please link them! (noted that you are okay with exclamation marks). A Thousand Words (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Don't use exlamation marks in violation of WP:CIVIL. The main topic of this article isn't "Muhammad cartoons", the main topic is the Murder of Samuel Paty in France, a secular country and therefore the position of the position of the cartoons in that society should take precedence in the lead section. If the Muslim worldwide community holds other beliefs, they should go in the "reactions" section, not the lead. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- To say that the cartoons are ridiculing rather than merely depicting is a good start. Quoting WP:WIKIVOICE is a bit fallacious though. The word controversial complies with NPOV since it solely refers to the verifiable "fact" that the cartoons have provoked controversy. It doesn't require the encyclopedia to subscribe to any "opinion" held by any side of the controversy, nor does it carry an inherent value judgment or normative standard. Contrarily, the word blasphemous, for example, has an inescapable prescriptive significance and is thereby incompatible with encyclopedic tone. Finally, dicussions of universality are irrelevant, since even facts aren't nececssarily universal! That is, they don't have to be true in any time and any place and under any circumstances, they just have to be true (in the sense that they're agreed upon by an overwhelming majority) in a particular occurrence. In other words, universal facts are a subset of facts. I don't think the cartoons are universally controversial, but I, along with an overwhelming majority, do think that they are verifiably controversial in the world we live in. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Concerning the propose opening question: the showing controversial/inflammatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking/disparaging/ridiculing Muhammad phrasing is that it shouldn't use WP:WIKIVOICE to say the cartoons are inflammatory or controversial, as they are not universally controversial. Instead the showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad which Muslims find blasphemous would be a more appropriate phrasing. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, given the warning you've given me, I desisted from attempting to finetune the content myself, especially since the 3 edits were different in content and rationale and still were considered as "persistent addition of the same". Besides, all the previous reverts did't bother to hop in and apply, or even suggest, what they thought would be more appropriate. It was mere passive deletion. So, it's really your call to make, Francis. I've already said what I thought of the recent edits, both positively and negatively. I'm in no rush to start RfC and I'd certainly prefer to resolve it in-house, so to speak. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well aware that some fine-tuning would be needed: my question was rather about whether you think the direction this has been taking over the last 24H would be more promising than an RfC. An RfC runs, under normal circumstances, at least for about a month. So would normally take vastly more time than some fine-tuning to what has been developing now; on the other hand, if the decision is to have an RfC anyhow, I'm not sure whether I'd bother to fine-tune whatever, pending an RfC decision about the same (i.e., RfC proceedings may de facto freeze whatever is in the article before it starts: changing it while the month-long discussion lasts might be perceived as counterproductive, if not disruptive). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: I do think they've gone some way towards addressing opposite views, but the treatment of the cartoons is still gratuitously decorative. For example, how would you explain that the author of the in-text attribution hesitated to go from "some Muslims" to "many muslims", even though it's easily verifiable that at least most Muslims (if not the great majority) affiliate with such view? Yet further, from a NPOV, do you think that it's entailed by elegant diction to describe a caricature showing a notable subject (whose notability isn't sexually derived) in a sexually explicit position annotated by references to content critical of them -- as merely depicting them? This is not to mention how such description of a crime motive feeds on the stereotypical notion that "any depiction is blasphemous" (which is mentioned in the body), thus delivering a false impression that the content of the cartoons carries no weight in the reaction. That is, a depiction glorifying Muhammad would have the same consequences as one disparaging him. Given, also, that viewing the cartoons directly would go against WP:GRATUITOUS and that they're already seldom circulated in notable sources, wouldn't such poor diction be boldly misleading for readers who aren't aware of what the cartoons actually were? When all this is coupled with another similar cartoon in a higher class article being described as inflammatory without attribution, with only the ideological scope differing, then we are clearly facing a matter of prejudice, whether consciously or not. Please read this thoroughly and let me know if we should proceed in the RfC. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
UNAOC's "A Call for Mutual Respect" statement
Returning to the OP of this section, I don't see a direct connection between UNAOC's "A Call for Mutual Respect" statement and the topic of this page, that is, the murder of Samuel Paty (thus far it needs WP:OR to tie the two topics). I've found, thus far, no reliable independent secondary source tying the topic of this UNAOC statement to the 16 October 2020 events in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. So it's probably best to stay on topic on this page, until if and when such secondary sources would turn up. Or am I missing something? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aljazeera explicitly links the statement with Paty incident, saying:
Assem Khidhr (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)The statement on Wednesday by Miguel Angel Moratinos – who heads the UN Alliance of Civilizations – follows growing anger in the Muslim world over France’s response to the beheading of a teacher who had shown his pupils the images as part of a class on free speech.
- That's implicit, not explicit. Saying something followed something else does not unambiguously mean anything. Napoleon followed the Visigoth Sack of Rome. What of it? GPinkerton (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
French public debate on laïcité and English sources
I see many sections on a debate in France about caricatures and laïcité. I also see many foreign sources. I think it would be better stop using those media, as they are not representative. There is no debate in France about laïcité, nor the use of caricatures. Some minorities, islamist extremists, racialists and their political supports, use those events to highlight an islamophobia which is not official nor "systemic", as the "laïcité" principle is to authorize every religion as long as law is observe. There is of course racists and intolerants, as everywhere, but racists are from every ethnicity and religion. Individual actions, including from muslims against other individuals can't be qualified as global islamophobia. Foreign medias are biased on those questions, as recent articles on CNN or NY Times reports "debates" that are not real. They confuse ethnicity, skin color, religion and social problems, and thus create an illusion of permanent violence against muslims. Passant67 (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Try reading Islamophobia in France which makes it appear as though Muslims are persecuted in France. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I know, this article is from an English point of view (and islamist PoV), and illustrate what I say : confusing ethnicity, skin color, religion and social problems. US social model is not applicable to France, but English-based sources are always trying to do so. I live here, and I frequently hear racial slurs...about many "communities" again every "communities". Some Arabs and Turks hate each other, that's probably what I hear the most. Arabs hate "Africans". Would you qualify that as Islamophobia ? You can't if they are all muslims, but they hate each other, so what it is ? Racism or xenophobia, perhaps, but not islamophobia. All that is a complex, social and cultural problem, and extremists (far-left, far-right, islamists and racialists) love to play on those things to aggravate tensions or create them when they do not exist. Passant67 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)176.180.176.92 (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:NONENG, sources in English are preferred if they are of equal quality, but if they are worse than French sources, then French sources should take precedence. It is also obvious that article (and the other one, Hijabophobia) are created and maintained US university students who don't even read French. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- As for this article, it would be strongly surprising if the issues of integration and islamism were not subject to high-level public debates, I wonder if you could point us towards good sources in French? I read French a lot better than I write or use search engines in French. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently versed on those subjects to be of many help (and my English is limited). Of course there is debate in integration, but it is more cultural than religious (at least originally), as practice of Islam is protected as any other religion. Problem is : there is resent towards delinquency, which is unfortunately for a good part due to young from "ethnic minorities" (I don't like those terms) and who, unfortunately, happened to be muslims. You can argue that delinquency is linked to poverty, and you have a vast problem which has nothing to do with religion but associated with attempts by islamists to apply religious laws in France (gender separation in public spaces, prohibited food) and visible hate from some muslims (seeing women singing and dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers fell is not something enjoyable), it establishes an impression of religious tensions in France and debate on laïcité. On Islamism, I'm not sure you can qualify it as "debate" : actual discussions focus on how to prevent Islamists from teaching and preaching, not if it must be. "Debate" is more on the adoption of an American-like censorship and refusal to consider that communitarianism can be a problem. And when I'm reading some English articles on this event, I find it a little scary that they always see it from a communitarian perspective, where communitarianism is precisely fought by French State. Passant67 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- This article present the point of view of one French muslim association, saying that there is no persecution in France : https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/2891475-20201022-attentat-conflans-cfcm-propose-preche-imams-france. But you will always find others groups that will say the opposite. Passant67 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Discussions on how to prevent Islamists from teaching and preaching? Tell me more about freedom of expression LOL. I don't know whether your English is severley limited so as to miscommunicate a good faith point this much (i.e. WP:NOCLUE) or you are just trolling. Anyway, living in France can only qualify you to collect some anecdotal evidence, not to disqualify reliable sources over which there has been consensus in the community. Also, it's straight-out reductionism to describe non-French sources as English and/or American. In fact, foreign reactions on only this page are enough to show that notable segments of multiple nations are thinking the same about the situation in France and about the social and religious impacts of laicity. For example, you can find evidence of this in Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey, and in many places in the Arab region. Should we get rid of the good old eurocentrism, these voices would matter as well. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I know, this article is from an English point of view (and islamist PoV), and illustrate what I say : confusing ethnicity, skin color, religion and social problems. US social model is not applicable to France, but English-based sources are always trying to do so. I live here, and I frequently hear racial slurs...about many "communities" again every "communities". Some Arabs and Turks hate each other, that's probably what I hear the most. Arabs hate "Africans". Would you qualify that as Islamophobia ? You can't if they are all muslims, but they hate each other, so what it is ? Racism or xenophobia, perhaps, but not islamophobia. All that is a complex, social and cultural problem, and extremists (far-left, far-right, islamists and racialists) love to play on those things to aggravate tensions or create them when they do not exist. Passant67 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)176.180.176.92 (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
From this link it is obvious that Wikipedia articles related to Islamism are being targeted by a US university and consequently many of the articles read like essays, not encyclopedia articles. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Weapon
The lead section says, both in the text and the infobox, the perpetrator used a cleaver. However, there is a slight ambiguity in the expression
- "killed and beheaded Paty with a cleaver"
– a cleaver might be used for both parts of the act, but probably it was used for the second one only...
This gets half-confirmed by the equally ambiguous part of the Murder and beheading section:
- "Using a knife (...), Anzorov killed Paty and beheaded him in a street"
– a knife might be used for the first part only or for both (but the latter is far less probable).
Taking both sentences together, I guess this means "killed with a knife, beheaded with a cleaver" – but do I really have to guess...?
Please, somebody make these sentences unambiguous
...and add a knife to the infobox, BTW. --CiaPan (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
PS.
Was an 'airgun' mentioned in sources an air rifle or rather an air pistol? I guess the latter, because rifle-type weapon would be too conspicuous before a planned murder in the street – but an encyclopedia article should rather inform, not make you guess... --CiaPan (talk)
- WP:SOFIXIT – I mean, it's not Wikipedia's fault that some reliable sources speak about a cleaver, and others about a knife. Some even give dimensions of the knife... which are rather the dimensions of a cleaver. I mean also, your guesswork should, of course be rejected: go look it up in the sources, and make the article conform to those sources. That's all that is needed, not some sort of original research what "might" have happened according to your personal guesswork. Same for the airgun. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: So Fix It? You may be pretty sure I'd love to. Alas my limited knowledge of English language and limited time I can use for studying sources do not let me reach the boldness level necessary for this fix. That's why I ask others to do it. --CiaPan (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Still, you can propose it on this talk page, like you did above. Only, next time you propose something, you're just losing your own time (and the time of fellow-editors) if you think this is a page where to post original guesswork: look it up in reliable sources, and whatever you find let us know, here on this talk page, or directly updating the article, whatever suits you best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: So Fix It? You may be pretty sure I'd love to. Alas my limited knowledge of English language and limited time I can use for studying sources do not let me reach the boldness level necessary for this fix. That's why I ask others to do it. --CiaPan (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
New sources
As yet unused sources:
- News 18, 7 November 2020: Three Teens Charged in French Teacher's Beheading (and similar reports in other languages) – for Murder of Samuel Paty#Aftermath I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- De Tijd, 21 October 2020: Vlaamse rectoren: 'Onze vrije meningsuiting is een kostbaar voorrecht' (in Dutch) – possibly for a new entry ("Belgium") in the Murder of Samuel Paty#Other EU countries section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reuters, 6 November 2020: Pays-Bas: Un enseignant contraint de se cacher après un débat sur Samuel Paty (in French) – something for "Netherlands" in Murder of Samuel Paty#Other EU countries afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Het Parool, 5 November 2020: Docent Rotterdam duikt onder na tumult over cartoon – about the same, in Dutch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Just some ideas. I'll likely be introducing content based on these press reports in the article. Feel free to list other as yet unused sources, or post other suggestions or comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Great work, it is awesome that you take the time to post sources in other languages than English. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
New draft article
There is a new draft article here that may interest people: Draft:Jean-François Ricard
--2604:2000:E010:1100:6D33:D64C:D645:5E79 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at NPOVN
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
POV reverts by GPinkerton
A wide range of mainstream news organizations call the cartoon controversial:
"(CNN)France was irrevocably changed by the Paris terror attacks of January 2015. Three days of violence began with a massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had previously published controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. They ended with a siege at a kosher supermarket."
"And when he introduced the topic of the controversial cartoons in class, he acknowledged that it might be hurtful to Muslim students and offered them a chance to look away."
"Earlier this month teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded in a Paris suburb after showing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to some of his pupils."