Assem Khidhr (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
***** I'm not your "bro". I didn't try to mask anything, just forget to connect. Is that a menace ? [[User:Passant67|Passant67]] ([[User talk:Passant67|talk]]) 15:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
***** I'm not your "bro". I didn't try to mask anything, just forget to connect. Is that a menace ? [[User:Passant67|Passant67]] ([[User talk:Passant67|talk]]) 15:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
****** {{re|Passant67}} No it isn't, not when we assume [[WP:GOODFAITH]] at least. It's just that your fervent assertion makes it appear dubious. [[User:Assem Khidhr|Assem Khidhr]] ([[User talk:Assem Khidhr|talk]]) 17:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
****** {{re|Passant67}} No it isn't, not when we assume [[WP:GOODFAITH]] at least. It's just that your fervent assertion makes it appear dubious. [[User:Assem Khidhr|Assem Khidhr]] ([[User talk:Assem Khidhr|talk]]) 17:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
******* "Fervent assertion" ? Of what ? That you don't need to qualify a caricature as defamatory ? The only culprit here is the terrorist, not the teacher or the picture. There is nothing more than that. So please stop.[[User:Passant67|Passant67]] ([[User talk:Passant67|talk]]) 17:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:43, 25 October 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rename / delete / translate
Would be better to translate fr:Attentat_de_Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. Yug (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- What if I do translate the article, as I am French, and change the title to Conflans-Sainte-Honorine beheading? ~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Omir Laa the French word attentat needs a good translation, "behading" is not accurate. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know it isn't, but I don't know if attack works in this case. If I rename it attack can I translate the article from the French Wikipedia? ~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- See below for the reason not to change the title of this article. Translating the French article can be done without changing the title. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know it isn't, but I don't know if attack works in this case. If I rename it attack can I translate the article from the French Wikipedia? ~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Omir Laa the French word attentat needs a good translation, "behading" is not accurate. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The title ignores the political context
Hi Jim Michael, French sources use the term attentat, which means something like "attack" in English but has political connotations (such as the murder of a politician or official). A Thousand Words (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) There is a reason that the President Macron and other ministers have commented on the attack and those reasons are that the attack has a political dimension. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Paty was the sole victim who was specifically targeted, so the title Murder of Samuel Paty is the usual format, regardless of the killer's reason for choosing him. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Murder is not accurate. Do you murder beef? No. Murder is a legal term. Nobody has been convicted. Homicide of Samuel Paty or Killing of Samuel Paty or Beheading of Samuel Paty is more accurate. Please comment on which you prefer. Carunitfiat903 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Murder of [victim's name] is the standard title for such articles. We have many which have been quickly followed by the killer's death. It isn't seriously being disputed that this was a murder.
- Beef isn't from humans, so that's irrelevant. Jim Michael (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a rule; Other Crap Exists. Each article is judged separately. This could have been not guilty due to insanity or manslaughter. This is a more chilling article because the teacher's head was cut off. Therefore, Beheading of Samuel Paty is the most appropriate, in my opinion but "murder" is just an opinion, not supported by the courts or facts. Just like hospice is not considered murder. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was allowed to die while having a heart attack but it was not murder, but a sexual affair. Carunitfiat903 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Murder, and killing both seem like they should be acceptable. I think "beheading of..." is not usually a good idea, but in this case, it's the main fact that the news is focusing on, so it's a common name. Natureium (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- My vote for all these articles is that they be named "The Killing of Jane Doe". The guy does has a point. Especially in the cases where it still isn't technically charged as murder and that term is factually and legally is still incorrect, it might go to be manslaughter, etc. The Killing of is a wide umbrella term that most search users would probably type first too.Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- It standard for us to name articles Murder of x when there was a sole victim. The mainstream media & the French President have clearly said it was murder & there's no doubt that Paty was deliberately killed & that he was personally targeted. It can't seriously be argued that it wasn't murder. Article titles of Killing of x is done when a suspect/defendant is in custody or when the killer has been convicted of a lesser crime in relation to the killing (such as manslaughter), rather than murder. Jim Michael (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that "Killing of [Name]" is preferable to "Murder of [Name]" in the absence of a murder conviction, even when we know that there won't be a trial (I moved this article to "Killing of Samuel Paty", though it was moved back shortly thereafter). There is a RfC about this subject matter: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? TompaDompa (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Killing of ... is actually even worse since it further removes from the title the fact that the death had a political context. What's the point in trying to suppress the political context? Many French sources and the French article uses attentat and the closest English translation is Assassination of .... TompaDompa earlier you championed that this article should take inspiration from its French-language counterpart, yet now you seem to ignore both the title of the frWP article as well as French-language sources? For instance French Yahoo uses assassinat (assassination). Therefore I propose the article be changed to Assassination of ...' A Thousand Words (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- World leaders (JFK,MLK) are assassinated, humble school teachers are not. WWGB (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1Kwords, knock it off with assuming bad faith.
earlier you championed that this article should take inspiration from its French-language counterpart
I assume you're referring to this edit where I added the {{Expand French}} template, but that was in response to your edit summary saying "while it is true that "the French-language article is linked to the left", the significant information is that the French- and German-language versions have a lot more information." (which was in turn a response to this edit of mine), and you then went on to call that disruptive tagbombing. If you are to keep assuming that all my edits are made in bad faith, I suggest you take your grievances to WP:ANI. I would of course prefer if you simply stopped and assumed good faith instead. TompaDompa (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)- The victim was nowhere near prominent enough for this murder to meet the definition of assassination. Murder is more precise & accurate than killing. A title such as Conflans-Sainte-Honorine attack makes it sound like the location is the most relevant aspect of it, but there was only one victim here who was specifically, individually targeted - the location is significantly less relevant. Also, attack is usually used in titles in which there are multiple (often random) victims, such as Attack on Pearl Harbor, September 11 attacks & November 2015 Paris attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1Kwords, knock it off with assuming bad faith.
- World leaders (JFK,MLK) are assassinated, humble school teachers are not. WWGB (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Killing of ... is actually even worse since it further removes from the title the fact that the death had a political context. What's the point in trying to suppress the political context? Many French sources and the French article uses attentat and the closest English translation is Assassination of .... TompaDompa earlier you championed that this article should take inspiration from its French-language counterpart, yet now you seem to ignore both the title of the frWP article as well as French-language sources? For instance French Yahoo uses assassinat (assassination). Therefore I propose the article be changed to Assassination of ...' A Thousand Words (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that "Killing of [Name]" is preferable to "Murder of [Name]" in the absence of a murder conviction, even when we know that there won't be a trial (I moved this article to "Killing of Samuel Paty", though it was moved back shortly thereafter). There is a RfC about this subject matter: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? TompaDompa (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- It standard for us to name articles Murder of x when there was a sole victim. The mainstream media & the French President have clearly said it was murder & there's no doubt that Paty was deliberately killed & that he was personally targeted. It can't seriously be argued that it wasn't murder. Article titles of Killing of x is done when a suspect/defendant is in custody or when the killer has been convicted of a lesser crime in relation to the killing (such as manslaughter), rather than murder. Jim Michael (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- My vote for all these articles is that they be named "The Killing of Jane Doe". The guy does has a point. Especially in the cases where it still isn't technically charged as murder and that term is factually and legally is still incorrect, it might go to be manslaughter, etc. The Killing of is a wide umbrella term that most search users would probably type first too.Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Murder is not accurate. Do you murder beef? No. Murder is a legal term. Nobody has been convicted. Homicide of Samuel Paty or Killing of Samuel Paty or Beheading of Samuel Paty is more accurate. Please comment on which you prefer. Carunitfiat903 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
TompaDompa, the only addition you made was a tag whereas many other editors have managed to make many contributions using both English and French sources. Of course I would prefer that you helped with building this article using WP:RS sources. A Thousand Words (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of this. Your preferences about how I spend my time on Wikipedia in general and this article in particular are no reason to assume bad faith. As you correctly pointed out, a large number of other editors have expanded the article, so I don't see how or why it is a big problem that I haven't (also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY). Again, if you think I am behaving WP:DISRUPTIVELY, you can make your case to that effect over at WP:ANI. TompaDompa (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Have we considered the possibility that "murder" is already the COMMONNAME? It appears to return more results (156 results) on Google News than "killing" (102 results). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, scratch that last thought. It appears when you discount one non-RS, you get "murder" (31 results) and "killing" (87 results). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reviewed about ~15 original reporting articles (AP News, Reuters, CNN, NPR, Euro News, WSJ, VOA, etc.., instead of reprints) and the sources often (with few exceptions) avoid calling it a "murder". Even those who mention Paty being "murdered", refer to the event as the "killing of Samuel Paty". France24 is an exception and more often calls it a "murder", some times assassination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Assassination is clearly wrong, no Eng sources refer to it thus and no reader would look for it thus. In English, that word is only used for political figures killed because of their politics/high political position - JFK, MLK, Franz-Josef, Ian Gow, but not Jo Cox. I concur that 'killing' is preferable to 'murder' since the second has a specific legal definition which has not been met. Although gruesome, I would have no objection to using the manner of death, as we do with other forms of killing.Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- We only have a few articles that are titled Beheading of x. We have many times more which are titled Murder of x; many of those - like this one - were not followed by a murder conviction due to the killer's death. Jim Michael (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I understand that. However, all that is immaterial unless you can show that "murder" is the COMMONNAME for this death. Articles about killings that were not followed by a murder conviction are called "murder" because that is the COMMONNAME for the event in RS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- We only have a few articles that are titled Beheading of x. We have many times more which are titled Murder of x; many of those - like this one - were not followed by a murder conviction due to the killer's death. Jim Michael (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Assassination is clearly wrong, no Eng sources refer to it thus and no reader would look for it thus. In English, that word is only used for political figures killed because of their politics/high political position - JFK, MLK, Franz-Josef, Ian Gow, but not Jo Cox. I concur that 'killing' is preferable to 'murder' since the second has a specific legal definition which has not been met. Although gruesome, I would have no objection to using the manner of death, as we do with other forms of killing.Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I also oppose "beheading" since that is a rarely used title (currently only 4 articles use it). That also needs proof of COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: please don't move this page without *explicit* consensus (not determined by you for that matter: your page move has now been reverted twice). I agree with the reasoning above to keep this at "Murder ..." for the time being, and really, it is much too early to determine a "common name" based on reliable sources (which, also, would rather lead to something with "terrorism"/"terrorist" or "beheading"/"decapitation" for what I've seen thus far). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- That seems a bit overly bureaucratic to me, but sure – I'll start a WP:RM. TompaDompa (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Perpetrator is Russian
Maybe Chechen anyway, his nationality is russian. Or not ? Why not mentioned ? --2001:A61:BBC:101:111A:DFD6:7010:B495 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, the following is correct: citizinship - Russian, nationality - Chechen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2AC7:4A00:3410:5958:900F:F75E (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
petition for delete
IP user is not here to build an encylopedia
|
---|
this entire article should be deleted it is Islamophobic and Xenophobic. It's not mentioned anywhere that the professor provoked the Muslim in question. Free speech is not freedom from consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete? What utter nonsense. 99.229.116.186 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
|
Reaction removed
@WWGB: You recently removed some reactions of celebrities and politician in your this edit. Can I know the reason please? -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess it was because he considers them to be of insufficient relevance/importance to be included. Where should the line be drawn in regard to who should be included in the Reactions section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Michael (talk • contribs)
Nationality
I removed from the box the assumption that the perpetrator was a French citizen. The sources say he was given refugee status and ten-year right to residency this year. Countries don't usually make their citizens apply to remain every ten years. There needs to be citation for any possible Russian citizenship, as there is the possibility of resigning it, or the family never having it in the first place if they left in 2002 when the separatist conflict was still ongoing. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Depiction of the cartoon showed
Can we find a picture of the cartoon showed? What was shown was significant as it seems to be at the center of the murder.VR talk 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- See here. WWGB (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Right, would the naked image be considered too offensive to include on wikipedia? VR talk 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so that's not really the question we should be asking ourselves. The questions we should be asking relate to MOS:PERTINENCE and copyright. TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Right, would the naked image be considered too offensive to include on wikipedia? VR talk 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Edit Request
Can someone replace the phrase "invited Muslim students to leave the classroom" in Section 1.2 of the article (Events leading up to the murder) with "allowed Muslim students to leave the classroom"? Invited does not make sense here as it implies that the victim was not involved in the class though he himself taught the class. 45.251.33.115 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 04:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Guardian says he "invited" Muslim students to leave the class if they wished, whereas BBC article says he "advised" them to do so. The parent of a student said Paty "asked Muslim students in the class to raise their hands and then directed them to leave the classroom", but Paty contested this.VR talk 04:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not done I do not share the OP's concern that the word "invited" creates confusion. A teacher in a classroom can invite a student to leave that room. It shows that the teacher initiated the departure, whereas "allowed" could mean that the teacher merely responded to a student request. In fact, it is the same term used in the accompanying reference [1]. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2020
2A01:CB19:302:8A00:547A:8119:C35:290 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The scandal does not stop on Mohamet's genes, it is more powerful on the representation of the emblem of Islam, its star, and Muslims in a shit coming out of Mohamed's ass.
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 22 October 2020
Murder of Samuel Paty → Killing of Samuel Paty – Per discussion above. To the extent that there is a WP:COMMONNAME, it is "killing" rather than "murder" (see comments by Coffeeandcrumbs). "Murder" is a legal term with a specific definition, and nobody has been convicted of murder (nor is anybody likely to be, for obvious reasons). There is a related centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? TompaDompa (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Per comments above. While "murder of ..." is sometimes used in RS, most often by AFP and France24, "killing of ..." is the most commonname in RS. The reports by Reuter and AP are the most often reprinted in RS. Both tend to use "killing" to describe the event. As do original reports by BBC, CNN, NPR, Euro News, WSJ and VOA. On occasion, they use "murder", "terrorism" etc., but most consistently use "killing". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. This was clearly a murder & in most cases we use murder in the titles of articles about cases such as this in which the killer can't be tried due to his death. Some mainstream media sources have described it as a murder. The fact that it's also been described as a killing doesn't mean that it's not being regarded as murder; it's common for murders to be described as killings. Jim Michael (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the word killed is also applied to car accidents or casualties in wartime. Murder is indeed a legal term, but not strictly a legal term either. Therefore there is no real problem with the current title and the suggested move is actually worse than the current title. The terrorist was "killed" by police officers acting in the line of duty. Those police had no intention of killing anyone when they got out of bed. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- If this is a "simple killing", why are antiterror agency chiefs commenting on this attack? Objectively it can't be argued this is "just another killing". A Thousand Words (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose factually this was a murder and reliable sources are reporting it as such. If anything a title like Conflans-Sainte-Honorine terror attack would be a better alternative. The objective of this attack was to instill terror against those inclined to excercise their freedom of speech to caricature Muhammad. 81.249.219.165 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:NCE,
avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
It's also a bit odd to name the targeted killing of a single individual after the place where it happened. TompaDompa (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:NCE,
- Yes, perhaps "terror" is unnecessary with the 9/11 article being a classic example of its non-usage. On the French version of this article this event is referred to as the Conflans-Sainte-Honorine attack. 81.249.219.165 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- In some languages, this article is named after the victim; in others it's named after the location. It's usual for us to use the form Murder of [victim's name] when there's only one victim who was specifically targeted. Jim Michael (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps "terror" is unnecessary with the 9/11 article being a classic example of its non-usage. On the French version of this article this event is referred to as the Conflans-Sainte-Honorine attack. 81.249.219.165 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The person accused of carrying out this killing is already dead, and the police aren't looking at anyone else for directly attacking Paty. There's no way anyone will be convicted of murder now, just accessory at best, so why should we keep the title constrained because there's no one to try for murder? Especially when this was carried out with such clear, depraved intent that legalities don't make much of a difference? Love of Corey (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - There is a large category of Category:Unsolved murders which for all we know could have been manslaughter, suicide or even just missing people cases. For my understanding the usual "Killing of" titles are to protect the WP:BLP of suspects, who may end up convicted of a lesser charge like manslaughter, and to satisfy sub judice laws in countries like the UK. There are no such concerns here as already expressed Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The arguments for and against this move are both fairly weak, but in the absence of a good reason to carry it out (that outweighs all the arguments against it), we probably shouldn't bother. Glades12 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Nature of the depiction
@Passant67 and Francis Schonken: Whether we resort to the sources provided or to plausible expectations about the incident, a mere depiction is unlikely to be a criminal motive. While I'm not keen on the word defamatory, due to its legal sense, although it isn't the only attested meaning in use -- this is what I thought would accurately paraphrase lampooning, which even the reference thought was appropriate. Rather than solely ascribing the description of the depiction to the perpetrator, I encourage anyone, especially those who rushed to revert the qualifier, to suggest better descriptions of the depictions to reflect an objective and verifiable outlook thereof. Referring to WP:EDITORIAL is specious in a way, since it's concerned with adverbs imparting a subjective tone, not those that are at the core of the meaning to be conveyed. Finally, I personally hope that editors engaging in this discussion will manage to eliminate the bias arising from their account (and/or impression) of my own cultural background. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- "... unlikely to be ..." according to a Wikipedia editor's appreciation is WP:OR 1.0, so can't be done according to that core content policy. The perpetrator can't tell us about his motives, and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to deduce them from whatever they know about the incident. There has already been written quite a lot about this in reliable sources, merely summarizing all that in this article would make it much larger than it is now: adding personal deductions to that would still be a no-no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: Original in WP:OR pertains to the content to be included in the encyclopedia. The process of writing an article, however, necessarily includes an editor's appraisal of what matters in the sources. Apparently, this would be inherently original, nay favorably so! Simply put, a caricature is per se a type of misrepresentation, or at least some type of depiction. Insisting on describing it as a typical depiction and disregarding the relation of its nature to the course of the event, even if evident in the sources, is difficult to fathom tbh. Anywho, I think I thereby made my point and it'd be up to the community to decide what works best for the article. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- What is selected for the Wikipedia article and what isn't is subject to consensus among Wikipedia editors. Thus far you're not making a good case to win other editors over with your OR, of which you now offer more of the same, e.g. "a caricature is per se a type of misrepresentation" – afaik that is not necessarily the case: afaik a caricature can as well take the form of an apt representation. Also qualifying every misrepresentation as necessarily "defamatory" is not the product of unavoidable logic: I'm sure some misrepresentations would quite rightly be experienced as flattering, e.g. when some defects are photoshopped out of a picture. So, no, your continued OR is thus far, afaics, not convincing anyone, and even less building some sort of consensus to include such questionable material in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: The way your reply fails to address both clauses of the simple coordinating conjunction by which I defined a caricature and its fixation on the redundant legal discussion of defamation both obscure the bold questions of this discussion: Is there a suitable qualifer for the cartoonish depictions whose use would better illustrate their role as a motive, especially since the inclusion of both drawings would go against WP:GRATUITOUS? If yes, what are they? Such cherrypicking of my contention, I'm afraid, can well be taken as WP:CPP, particularly when coupled with more or less gloating over the lack of support for my opposing stance, assuming other editors have already read the discussion. Forget about defamation and focus on lampooning in the RZ source, nice and easy. If you think the inclusion of a qualifier would be WP:UNDUE, please explain this in light of the arguments given in favor of the antithesis: It'd be a substitute for showing both caricatures, it's significant because it describes the main trigger of the whole disaster, and it can be straightforwardly paraphrased from the reference provided. I hope I made myself clear. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- What is selected for the Wikipedia article and what isn't is subject to consensus among Wikipedia editors. Thus far you're not making a good case to win other editors over with your OR, of which you now offer more of the same, e.g. "a caricature is per se a type of misrepresentation" – afaik that is not necessarily the case: afaik a caricature can as well take the form of an apt representation. Also qualifying every misrepresentation as necessarily "defamatory" is not the product of unavoidable logic: I'm sure some misrepresentations would quite rightly be experienced as flattering, e.g. when some defects are photoshopped out of a picture. So, no, your continued OR is thus far, afaics, not convincing anyone, and even less building some sort of consensus to include such questionable material in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: Original in WP:OR pertains to the content to be included in the encyclopedia. The process of writing an article, however, necessarily includes an editor's appraisal of what matters in the sources. Apparently, this would be inherently original, nay favorably so! Simply put, a caricature is per se a type of misrepresentation, or at least some type of depiction. Insisting on describing it as a typical depiction and disregarding the relation of its nature to the course of the event, even if evident in the sources, is difficult to fathom tbh. Anywho, I think I thereby made my point and it'd be up to the community to decide what works best for the article. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't need to suppose the picture is defamatory. It is not because the terrorist find it defamatory that is was. Of course he attacked this teacher because some islamists denounced him on the internet (that is largely documented in French medias), but it won't make the teacher responsible of defamation, nor the caricatures. Those can be vexing, yes, and I personally find some, especially this one, stupid. But if they haven't been declared defamatory per the justice system, they're not. They can just be considered stupid, awful, useless, what you like. Declaring those defamatory contribute to the idea that the caricature and the teacher are (at least partially) responsible, and not the terrorist.Passant67 (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, defamatory was my own attempt to render lampooning, the description given to the drawings in RZ source. I don't believe it to be the absolute best. Still, I initiated this section to point out the inconsistence of retracting from qualifying the depiction at all merely to avoid it being understood as a legal defamation. After all, our fears of the backlash from implicitly ascribing some sort of responsibility or guilt to the victim by accurately specifying the nature of the drawings shouldn't urge us to distort the narrative by oversimplification. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand what is your goal here. The terrorist killed a teacher because some caricature was shown. There is no ambiguity, no distortion and no oversimplification. There is no fear, there is no responsibility from this teacher nor anyone, besides the terrorist and those who encouraged him to kill. The nature of the shown picture is to be a caricature. That's all.Passant67 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Passant67 and 176.180.176.92: Watch your IP sock, bro. Edits history is archived here on Wikipedia. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not your "bro". I didn't try to mask anything, just forget to connect. Is that a menace ? Passant67 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Passant67: No it isn't, not when we assume WP:GOODFAITH at least. It's just that your fervent assertion makes it appear dubious. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not your "bro". I didn't try to mask anything, just forget to connect. Is that a menace ? Passant67 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Passant67 and 176.180.176.92: Watch your IP sock, bro. Edits history is archived here on Wikipedia. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand what is your goal here. The terrorist killed a teacher because some caricature was shown. There is no ambiguity, no distortion and no oversimplification. There is no fear, there is no responsibility from this teacher nor anyone, besides the terrorist and those who encouraged him to kill. The nature of the shown picture is to be a caricature. That's all.Passant67 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, defamatory was my own attempt to render lampooning, the description given to the drawings in RZ source. I don't believe it to be the absolute best. Still, I initiated this section to point out the inconsistence of retracting from qualifying the depiction at all merely to avoid it being understood as a legal defamation. After all, our fears of the backlash from implicitly ascribing some sort of responsibility or guilt to the victim by accurately specifying the nature of the drawings shouldn't urge us to distort the narrative by oversimplification. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)