Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting

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 ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

You can make a slight connection to a large number of things going back hundreds of years to this. However France's foreign policy operations against Islamic extremists, such as recent interventions in Mali are independent of the USA and France has been a major player in the Islamic world of North Africa for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.125.97 (talk) 01:47, 12 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)

See WP:SOAP, this talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article, not for personal opinions of editors. Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really, because Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism before the USA overthrew the Baathist regime. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes really, and I hope this will come back and bite you in the ass very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.25 (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, NOT really, and I just showed you the evidence to the contrary. You were also warned about using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your agenda against the War on Terror. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

I think you have done a good job in presenting the material there , quite starkly, but avoiding pov presentation. Sayerslle (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the demographic material as WP:OR. The increase in Muslim population of France over the last 50 years is irrelevant. Now, if one wanted to talk about the increasing radicalization over the last few years, go ahead. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive, I saw load of TV materials about radicalisation, French suburbs socio-economic situation, young muslims radicalization. These subjects are clearly raising up within French medias. But I didn't found in-depth newspaper articles on these aspects in the articles I my quick review. As I'am in mid-year exams, I cannot read nor write more, but an outline is there ! Yug (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive Can you prove that the increase in the Muslim population is not relevant? Your reasoning currently is unsound. An increase in population clearly allows for an increase in radicalization as well. Simple cause and effect. Zup326 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to prove it; per WP:BURDEN, you have to prove it. Abductive (reasoning) 17:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The demographic material is well-sourced and passes WP:OR. You have no argument based on WP:BURDEN as the content is sourced and the verifiability is not in question. All of your arguments are highly flawed. Zup326 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive (reasoning) 20:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no OR or SYNTHESIS there. If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you, Abductive, to demonstrate it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is. For example, using sources that predate the the attack to draw conclusions. This is the definition of synthesis. But we may be arguing at cross-purposes: I 100% do want all kinds of information about the radicalization/Islamistization of Muslims in France in the article, if secondary sources connecting this to the attack are provided. The article should not make any connections between the increasing number of Muslims in France and the attack. After all, there were plenty of Muslims in France in the 1960s, but no such attacks. Abductive (reasoning) 21:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What I gather from this statement is that you possibly believe relevance is based on what you personally want or don't want? I have no further comment. Zup326 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• using sources that predate the the attack to draw conclusions: and what conclusions were drawn, pray?
• After all, there were plenty of Muslims in France in the 1960s, but no such attacks: and where does it imply otherwise? You're reading things into the statements that are not there.

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The population increase is lowly relevant IMHO, but qualitative limitation (education, jobless rate, etc) is more relevant. Note: Abductive, you are removing several contents quite hastily, please help around by sourcing rather than doing not encouraged deletions. Yug (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be seen as endorsing a notion that more Muslims led to a terrorist attack. In Germany, for example, the largely Turkish Muslim population has been growing a lot since WWII. But are some Turks running around, shooting and bombing? Not really; of all the Islamist terror attacks in Germany, only one had 2007 bomb plot in Germany Turkish membership, and that one was driven by recent converts Gelowicz and Schneider. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

you forget the Hamburger Morgenpost was firebombed Yesterday after it published some Charlie Hebdo cartoons. So not all Germans say Ich bin Charlie, you know? 06:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs)

But were the perpetrators of the recent attack Turkish? If not, it seems largely irrelevant to the point Abductive was making. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be seen as endorsing a notion that more Muslims led to a terrorist attack.: and where, in the material you removed, can such an interpretation be drawn? The interpretation I got from it is: there has been a large population of Muslims in France for a long time, so it shouldn't be surprising that (a) the shooters were French citizens who (b) spoke perfect French. Exactly the kind of context I would expect from an article like this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

good point - that material all comes from that same opinion piece from cbc and should be removed really (oh, and a 2004 book - so is clearly synth because it cant have been talking about Charlie hebdo attacks) - - the influence of militant Islamic ideas among disaffected elements is different. Sayerslle (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

About the book source, that's definitely not WP:SYNTHESIS. For one thing the book source was used for a single, brief sentence. It does not combine any references together to prove a false point. Secondly, it's a BACKGROUND section for goodness sakes, and hence explains things that were before the shooting. Thus the sources, if reliable, may also be before the shooting. Charlie Hebdo existed before the shooting, the cartoons existed before the shooting, tensions existed before the shooting, laïcité existed before the shooting. Presenting an argument of "it's from 2004 so it's synth" just does not come across as credible. By this logic, then the entire background section would need also need to be blanked. Mostly all of the sources in the background section predate the shooting, are they synth as well then in your opinion? If this was the attack or motive section, then you've got a valid argument that a source from 2004 has nothing to do with the attack itself. In the background section, it's not the case. Whenever policies such as WP:SYNTH are misused as false backing to present an argument then it becomes much harder to debate and take seriously whatever is brought to the table, if there is indeed any other legitimate points. Zup326 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

oh Christ - well your argument sounds to me like a charter to drag in any old stuff you want into a 'background' section and sod whether its related to the attack on Charlie hebdo - its OR to say this 2004 book is 'background' to the attacks -who says so - turkey gobble and zup ? - the 2004 book is only brought to the sodding table by OR , nothing else. I can't stand this dumb wikilawyering - Sayerslle (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle: I didn't add the 2004 source. I added the very in-context CBC source, to which your objective appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. Another guy who wants it quite strongly happens to be PuffinSoc (he brought in the book source in the first place), and he's been restoring a lot of background information around once per day whenever it got nuked. I'm not the one doing reverts nor am I sitting here drooling to delete the information the next time it comes back. The first issue people had with it, was simply being the lead-off paragraph. When we moved it down, only one editor kept on blanking it. When 2 guys keep on re-adding something for days on end, and 1 guy keeps on deleting it and gets blocked for doing so, then the current consensus (albeit it a small one) is inclusion. As per your request I went ahead and added another source myself which is the only contribution I've made to the section. It's not a major disagreement and I appreciate the fact that you've accepted the source. Zup326 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel strongly that there must be decent background to this article, but it must be in context. Given the amount of news and commentary out there, I think it would be reasonable to limit the background to what has appeared in sources about the shooting (which is likely substantial). Something like a Time article, for instance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Sayerslle has made his opinion quite clear that he simply just doesn't want the book. As I type this, PuffinSoc has restored the information about the book yet again. Is there any reason why the book reference in itself so desperately needs to be nuked? I'm perfectly fine with it. If we can say there are 5 million Muslims in France then why not further state that 1.7 million of them are in Paris? It's an extremely brief sentence that aids the reader. It helps the context of the section regardless of the source's age. I'm not losing sleep over it either way and I merely wish to see an end to the edit wars. That being said, take a look at the other sub-sections in Background. One of the sources is from way back in 2008, some from 2012, etc. Zup326 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's really important to understanding the incident there'll be a source that gives such background. The book has nothing to do with the shooting; the CBC and Time articles are about the shooting. Try Google---I don't see anything in the first page that gives the Muslim population of Paris, but I do see an interesting tidbit in multiple sources: France has the largest Muslim population in the EU: The Economist, CBC, The Telegraph, The New York Times. If we stick to what sources about the shooting have to say about the background, then we won't have editors claiming SYNTH or OR. We'll still have Abductive removing the CBC-sourced info, though, obviously. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

'stick to what sources about the shooting have to say about the background' - yes, thats a good guide imo - the problem I have with that CBC article is that though it is about the shooting it looks like a guest columnist kind of thing , and an op-ed - but I wont edit war over itSayerslle (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Which perhaps applies to the "right wing" stuff (whose original removal I did not object to), but not to the rest of it, which is strictly factual and in context. Several of the sources I just linked to above mention some of the same stuff. Conrad Black just wrote in the National Post about the flood of immigrants following the war in Algeria---a million of them in the 1960s. This info is not limited to what the CBC article says---the CBC article happened to be the first source I came across that mentioned these things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough guys. I'm always in favor of increasing the amount of reliable sources. The thing is, I've written most of what I'm going to write already for this article, mostly in the attack, siege, and demonstration sections. They're now relatively in good shape and fairly up-to-date. I would have liked to have written about the Background section a little bit as well but I felt put off from doing so due to the edit wars. I'd be willing to write a paragraph or two once it's clear that the edit wars and the blanking of entire sections is over with. Zup326 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

oh bloody hell, Conrad black , - well now maybe I have to refine what I think is a good guide as something like - 'what sources about the shooting have to say about the background and which aforesaid sources are respected commentators, historians, and journalists on the history and politics of contemporary France and whose views appear in RS -' Sayerslle (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand: are you trashing Black's credentials as a historian? I've now quoted media from both the left and the right in Canada among the sea of other sources (American and British) I've pointed to above. How many sources do I have to provide before you'll graciously allow your minions to include background demographics? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

While sources is needed and welcome, your push for EXTERNAL source at every single corner make our editorial work impossible (is this what you want ?). I will take some example.

• I formerly wrote 2 lines about muslim population arrival into lower income jobs and not complete integration, which were well known and obvious historical summary yet removed because there were no external citation "with this exact statement".
• I currently would like to add "While most Muslims are well integrated to French society", an obvious fact of French society, to neutralize the dramatic-pessimistic and muslim-agressive tone of the background which is quite stigmatising muslim and accordingly, shocking. I will not improve the section, add this obvious common sense, but de facto leave the section tone anti-muslims, because I haven't under hand an article with this EXACT statement. This statement is so obvious to French journalists that they will not even write it, or it will insult the intelligence of French readers who see it daily.
• On the other hand you will protect "An August 2014 ICM survey found that one in six French citizens (16%) sympathises with the Islamist group ISIS - also known as Islamic state." because there is a source while the "sympathises" is so blur that it can mean anything such "do you sympathise with their fight against Assad".

Sources are needed, but when you remove every single non-controversial common sense summary on "it's not sourced directly in link with the shooting", you make our writing work impossible and you do encourage to keep the section in a poor autistic state. Yug (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC) See Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not.

Wiki writing is a work in progress, and positive stones should not be removed from the wall on the argument "stone is not perfect", as it makes the wall-article fragile. For non-controversial points, sources must be requested, but the content should not be removed. Yug (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@curlyturkey - I just have a preference for journalists and historians who are active now as observers and commentators on the contemporary French scene, or political scene in general, like Lyse Doucet say, over what amounts to a superannuated 'rentagob' like Black with a predetermined narrative to sell - would belong better in a 'reaction' section anyhow, - setting the background should be the result of collecting highly informed RS on French politics, culture and society - you seem to favour sensationalist op-ed type material for some reason. Sayerslle (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle: "you seem to favour sensationalist op-ed type material": except that I do no such thing, and every time I call you and Abductive out on your bullmanure statements like this, you pretend you DIDNTHEARTHAT. You can't make accusations like that without backing them up. Instead you're more interested in defending Abductive's right to editwar. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@yug - I agree with what you are saying here , but surely theer must be RS for the degree of integrated -ness etc - there isn't really a way to ignore RS if they are being asked for is there? Sayerslle (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sayerslle I agree with Yug and Curley, you are causing a lot of disruption by being so fussy with the sources. If this was a biography of a single person, then yes the sources will always be in direct relation to that person. This is not. It's an event with a highly extensive background that involves Charlie Hebdo, French Muslims, and conflicting ideologies. It's reasonable to expect and allow that not all sources explaining these topics will be written about in direct response to the shooting. You are not applying WP:Reasonability in regard to the sources of background information. You may have some valid points but citing OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at every turn is clearly not helpful. Why not try to provide an alternative writing source instead and contribute something that you do like? Zup326 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to add stuff I like - I believe the article should be led solely by what RS are saying about the background to the shooting. citing OR 'at every turn' , if, at every turn, OR is being added to that section, is ok imo Sayerslle (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, you cite OR

Please do not present WP:FRINGE and racist allegation as if they were truth. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Fox News should be avoided at all costs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a good faith edit. The opinion piece that I did include was stated in the right context and was prescribed to the analyst, and even then no racist allegations were made. It certainly wasn't even close to OR, but I agree it could have come across as fringe the way it was written. Maybe we need a discussion on the relevance of radicalization? Abductive earlier stated that he wanted stuff that expanded upon the topic. At this point however, I would consider the section as hopelessly unexpandable with no consensus of what we are even trying to do. But the ZUS's, along with the isolation and poverty they entail, are an important part of Muslim radicalization in France. If anyone is interested in it, then the following sources expand upon it. Washington Times, The Economist, IJReviewZup326 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no doubt that it was in good faith, but Fox News has an agenda, and what they report will be chock full of dog whistles and other less subtle bias. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a clear consensus anywhere that establishes the fact that Fox News is not an acceptable source for information? The only thing I could find on the subject was an old conversation in which the consensus was that all news channels have some bias in some way at times, and thus Fox should not be treated any differently than any other news source. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_16#Fox_News._Reliable_Source.3F Zup326 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an official consensus against it, but it's well knwon that Islam is one of their pet targets. If there's anything neutral and factual in a Fox News report that's worth including, it will almost certainly be found in a less overtly bisaed source as well. Or, let's put it another way---do you want to spend your time defending a Fox News source on the Talk Page? No? Then get a different source. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not worried about it much anyway. I'd rather get some feedback as to what we're actually trying to do with the section. Do you disagree with expansion or do you think that the radicalization of Muslims in France is relevant background information? Zup326 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with expansion per se, but it's obviously very sensitive, and I don't think the background should be allowed to overtake the article. The background should provide sufficient context which which to make sense of the article, but no more. I don't think the background should be filled up with the merely interesting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Right I agree. I never had any intention of writing an essay there at all. The relevance of radicalization was raised by multiple editors including Yug and Abductive, so I felt that it was alright to include some brief info about the topic as well as the ZUS. As it stands now there's not a lot else that I'm interested in adding to the article...except for maybe that Michel Houellebecq cover though. Nah just kidding. Zup326 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Montreal Canadiens pay tribute to victims

Should this sentence, or a variation of this, be put in? "On 10 January, the Montreal Canadiens honoured the 12 victims who were killed in the attacks with the playing of La Marseillaise before their game against the Pittsburgh Penguins." J4lambert (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, that is not interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 17:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that is interesting.98.221.118.184 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, its not. Abductive (reasoning) 20:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)`

Not useful in the article - a not notable reaction. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

user:WWGB's deletions

This user seems to delete quite quickly on several sections by the thousands of characters including sources added by others. I did my share on chirurgically restoring some of this content, but there is more to do. Please help ! Yug (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (I have mid-year exam tomorrow morning O.o )

Thanks, I'm flattered by your stalking. As I am a very experienced editor with more than 86,000 edits, you will find that all my edits are permissible under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have never been blocked and never will be. WWGB (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yug, don't be discouraged. I just want to say your contributions are helpful. Some of it was questionable and was edited by WWGB accordingly, but the majority of what you generally bring up is good stuff that merely needed better sourcing and better wording. Zup326 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Zup326, I know it needed better sourcing, I disagree that the reaction to have is to remove it. + thanks Zup326, such encouragement is always welcome ! (to me or to this badass WWGB) Yug (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to get away without sourcing

So there's this dirty little comment snuck into the article:

< !-- See external sources in the cited wikipedia articles. Notice that this section summarizing other wikipedia articles, external sources **while helpful are not compulsory**. -- >

No, no, no—a thousand times no—we do not include material without citations, especially material that is obviously politically heated. You don't get out of including references just because you've linked to another Wikipedia article. This is not negotiable. The balls of whoever it is trying to convince people citations are "helpful" but "not compulsory"—they are compulsory! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait... this is a reponse to people removing :

On the other hand, some Muslims claim that the satire of religion, of religious representatives and - above all - of the Muslim prophet is forbidden blasphemy in Islam and can be punished by death.

There is a whole wikipedia article about that: blasphemy in Islam. Are you really asking that we copy-paste external reference from the original article we already link to ?Ok, so you are deleting the section on the basic argument "this is not EXTERNALY sourced enough", right ? Yug (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is the minimum requirement, yes. It would also require demonstrating relation to this incident. Do sources commenting on the shooting also comment on their relation to this information you've added? Remember, no WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be cited in every article that makes the claim. Popcornduff (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny how you 2 are supporting the deletion of meaningful, verifiable contents (after 3 clicks rather than 2) based on the light "there is no external source right under hand". The WP:SYNTHESIS was also commented by Jimbo Wales by "don't be stupid either", stating that obviously true contents should not be deleted based on "there is no external reference". It was before 2010 and before that new users come along and look at wise best practices such WP:SYNTHESIS as "hard stone-writen laws". Concluding from 2 facts is acceptable when the final statement is obviously logical and true. Yug (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Example: saying that part of the issue is socio-economical, that part of the poorer areas are radicalized after individuals from poor areas lead to such even is valid. When source is always welcome, no source is not a argument for keeping stupid. Yug (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're going to make the claim that anything in a politically-charged article is "obviously true"? Get yourself a reliable, in-context source and you're fine—what issue do you have with that? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You perfectly understood i'am talking about logical statements, not about hard to believe associations. What issue ? => 1. your removal is not helping, it is HIDING explicative elements and destroying the needed outline which is the 1st step to then receive the sources you are asking for, and that we all acknowledge are in the cited wikipedia articles and in current French debates. 2. My mid-term exams are today. Yug (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The "1st step to then receive the sources you are asking for" is to get the sources. Get them, then come back. The article's not going anywhere til you get back. Remember, the info must be in-context, and not just what you feel should be added. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey: Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_rigid_rule , Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not summary, Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not explanation. You are removing content which is the summary of cited wikipedia articles (point 2) and thus verifiable. Yug (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're spending an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out just how close of to the SYNTH line you can go, aren't you? Not a good sign. And still no attempt at providing sources, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, if you just want to win the argument against other people go ahead in long edit wars and WP:something naming with hard line reading. You will likely exhaust your opponents and win, good for yourself. In the current emergency of load of readers and few in depth sources, my question is "how do we take off from a superficial list of lowly connected sourced statements into a meaningful and honest encyclopedic article". Yug (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Sourcing is helping, deleting summary of meaningful content doesn't.

Yug, everybody else seems capable of adding sources when they add text. Do you see that notice at the top of this Talk Page? "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy". The requirement for in-context sourcing is not negotiable. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicely worded point... if it was our point of conflict. But :

• Strict sourcing for living people is required to avoid personal attacks, to avoid controversial statements, and to avoid legally risky defamation for editors and for the WMF. We adhere to this guideline.
• As Zup326 (17:53, 13 January 2015), Sayerslle (17:58, 13 January 2015) and myself are pointing out: we are here talking about the background section, including the general background of the attackers and of French society, namely immigration and Islam in France at large, poor suburbs, laicity, right of satire and the historic of these concepts in France. None of these is a living person, as you can agree with us. Each of these have been documented for years, before the attacks. It's the context, the environment, not what these guys are or did. Yug (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My previous statements still stand, your hard line "biographies of living persons" reading make our writing work of a meaningful, fair background section impossible by excluding summary and pre-event in depths sources. Yug (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You will not get away with adding unsourced text, as per well-established policy. You've been warned. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are your reading ? You sound like you just want to be right, accepting sensationalist when sourced, and don't give a shit about the article itself. You are pushing away pre-event sources and fair logical associations done from several sources if there is not a single word-by-word approving source. WP:REASONNABLE, we are 3 editors answering you that sourcing is needed, we agree, but you go too far and it get toxic for the article itself. Yug (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Where am I "accepting sensationalist when sourced"? I sure as fuck haven't added any!

You are pushing away pre-event sources and fair logical associations done from several sources if there is not a single word-by-word approving source.: No, I'm deleting your information that you have explicitly stated you will not provide a source for. Sourcing is not an option. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Source for this statement very questionable

The following statement: "Elsa Cayat was the only female slain and was targeted because she was Jewish." merely repeats the theory a cousin of Ms. Cayat opined in an interview. It shouldn't be presented in this article as a flat statement of truth. The attackers obviously had very little background on the people they were killing, since they had to ask for "Charb" by name, unable to recognize him. So how can the notion that this woman was slain simply for being Jewish be substantiated? Everyone else was killed simply for being there, but she was killed for being Jewish? Come on. 104.184.5.46 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has a point here. Unless the killers went around asking the ethnicity of everyone they killed in advance, which I haven't seen any real evidence of, we would have to assume this statement is a piece of opinion from one individual who may not be particularly well informed about the events as they happened and putting some personal spin on it. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing own question above. However, considering Ms. Cayat had, we are told, been receiving death threats, and was the Jewish columnist, I think it makes sense to include that information. Also, the fact that she was the Jewish columnist, under the circumstances, probably is relevant, probably even more relevant than her own Jewish identity. Her status as the columnist may well have drawn much more attention to her Jewish identity than it would otherwise have received, and made it much easier for the killers to identify her directly. I think the relevance tag can reasonably be removed from that material, although I would appreciate more input before doing so myself. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter, we already had this discussion before but it's been archived now. It's clear that the killers spared the lives of two non-Jewish women and killed the only Jewish one. It's not yet possible to write about that much detail because we don't yet have a better source explaining it, although common sense can allow one to agree with everything you said. It's getting quite tiresome to have debates over and over when this type of information is removed. Do people even read the sources anymore? She had received death threats and was called a "dirty Jew," and two other non-Jew women were spared. The killers didn't want to kill women. If she wasn't killed because she was Jewish, they why didn't they spare her life as well? Zup326 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That being the case, I think it would be reasonable to remove the "relevance" tag currently in place regarding that text. Does someone else want to do that, or should I? John Carter (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and remove it. The source for the writing was (irritatingly) removed which I'm in the process of adding back. I reworded it and rearranged as well so as to be less confusing for readers. Zup326 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter not only is this the opinion of one individual (her cousin), but the most important part of it has been omitted for god knows what reason. She clearly stated "I can't be sure, I can only guess". MoorNextDoor (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are presuming cause and effect ... she was the only female killed, and she was the only Jewish female ... ergo she must have been killed because she was Jewish. Let me propose another scenario. She was perhaps somewhat androgynous-looking and was facing halfway away from the killers as they came in the door. So they shot her without realizing she was a female. And given the facts we DO know, that is a much more logical theory than that she was killed because she was Jewish. NO ONE has thus far reported that anyone was questioned as to background, other than the calling out of "Charb", who was clearly targeted. The killers didn't even know where they were going, for pete's sake, so assuming that they had advance knowledge of who was Jewish, or cared, is too much. If you continue to make this argument, I am going to recommend a course in logic. Amity150 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I also want to point out that if I start publishing similar material about Jesus Christ, I will no doubt receive death threats. If I am killed it doesn't necessarily follow that my murderers were the same people who leveled the death threats. It could have been my cuckolded husband... just saying'. So let's please maintain some standards here and not reported inflammatory hate-mongering unsubstantiated stuff.Amity150 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's some direct testimony of the death threats: "You dirty Jew. Stop working for Charlie Hebdo. If you don't, we will kill you." Safe to say it wasn't her husband and it's pretty clear that whoever said it had major beef with Charlie Hebdo. These threats occurred in December and less than a month later she is six feet under. Zup326 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless the sources link this directly to the shooting, this is speculation and must be kept out. Who is "we"? Couldn't be neo-Nazis or anything, could it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point but does it matter that much who made the threats though? I'm just wondering if it's notable simply for the fact that death threats were made, regardless of who said them. Maybe we can write something in some place like, "She had received anonymous death threats a month prior to the attack." Would this be feasible to include while leaving out the Jewish speculation? Zup326 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it matters. The way it's presented it leads the reader to assume she was targeted for being Jewish. That has not been established. The death threats would, of course, be appropriate in her own aritcle, but until sources show that there was a connection between the death threats and the shootings, then this text has to go. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia has no place for speculation. Unless we have a better source than the specualtion of a distraught cousin, the statement must be removed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• The article currently reads "Elsa Cayat was the only female slain." Now, I acknowledge that there is speculation, attributed to her relative, in the more detailed section regarding her individually, from which I removed the relevance tag. The details there, however, are presented with the appropriate attribution to her relative. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, the quotation is out of context—what about here "I can't be sure, I can only guess"? No, the text as it is now put undue weight on the speculation that the two gunman targeted her for being Jewish. Until a better source shows up and is used in context, the text must be removed. I repeat: Wikipedia has no place for speculation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • John Carter: this does not fix the problem. 63 words of speculation is WP:UNDUE. Also, take a look at the notice at the top of this talk page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy". Specualtion doesn't belong in a BLP. Find a source that demonstrates the connection between the death threats and the shooting, or delete the speculation. This is something that's not up for "consensus". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough guys. My bad. I agree we don't have enough RS. Here's another source on Elsa Cayat though with testimony of the death threats. That is not speculation and is direct testimony of an event that occurred. A girl receives clear death threats, is called a dirty Jew, and then ends up being the only woman killed in a massacre less than a month later where other women were deliberately left alive? It's completely unbelievable to say that her death was a mere coincidence of the act, but alas there is no RS that proves it as fact. Zup326 (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence in the sources that those death threats were related to the shooters? Or that they even came from Islamists, or even Muslims? No? Speculation—toss it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Citation Overkill

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

• On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 CET (10:30 UTC), two masked gunmen armed with AK-47 assault rifles, a shotgun, and a RPG launcher stormed Charlie Hebdo's Paris headquarters.[4][5][6][7][19][54]

• There were also large marches in many other French towns and cities — perhaps three million people throughout France — along with marches and vigils in many other cities worldwide.[28][215][216][217][218]

• Some English-language media outlets republished the controversial cartoons on their websites in the hours following the shootings. Prominent examples included Bloomberg News,[224] The Huffington Post,[225] The Daily Beast,[226] Gawker,[227] Vox[228] and The Washington Free Beacon.[229]

• Former Union Minister and Indian National Congress senior leader Mani Shankar Aiyar defended the attacks on Twitter and television[284] as a response to France banning the niqab, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[285][286][287][288][289][290]

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

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

Some of that was the result of editors deleting the material in question. For example, the first sentence and series of refs. You can see some of the history of that on the talk page (editors seemed happy deleting the sentence if there were only two or three RS refs). But yes, formatting any of those into a single fn would be fine. Also, except for possibly contentious matters, the lede does not needs refs ... to the extent that the refs appear in the body, supporting the same proposition. Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunetly, I have no idea how to go about making list/group references, do you know anyone that knows how? Gamebuster19901 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You just put one cite after the other with a <br\> in between. See WP:CITEBUNDLE Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see what I can do :) Gamebuster19901 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Numerals vs spelt-out numbers

The second sentence goes as follows (minus the links).

"They killed 12 people, including the editor Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, 7 other Charlie Hebdo employees, and 2 National Police officers, and wounded 11 others."

The use of numerals is justified by a hidden comment which reads "per [[WP:NUMNOTE]], numerals are fine here, as the series includes both small and larger numbers".

Actually, per WP:NUMNOTES, spelt-out numbers (as follows) would also be fine for the same reason.

"They killed twelve people, including the editor Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, seven other Charlie Hebdo employees, and two National Police officers, and wounded eleven others."

WP:NUMNOTES is a double-edged sword here as it allows either. It's actual purpose is to discourage a mixture like the following.

"They killed 12 people, including the editor Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, seven other Charlie Hebdo employees, and two National Police officers, and wounded 11 others."

So, it's a question as to which is better the style (all words or all numerals). I'd say "They killed twelve people ..." is the better style and I believe MOSNUM agrees.

Immediately above WP:NUMNOTES we have the following.

Generally, in article text:

• Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words
• Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words ...

This would seem to imply that if you have a set of comparable quantities including at least one integer from zero to nine all of which can be spelt out in fewer than three words, they should all be spelt out.

The following examples from WP:NUMNOTES appear to conform to this interpretation.

  •  five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.

  •  86 men and 103 women, not eighty-six men and 103 women

So, let's spell them all out. Jimp 05:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The existing format is perfectly fine. This is clear from the link to the MOS that you supply, but the language of which you failed to quote. Which states the exception to the general rule. Namely that: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures". The current format is "all in figures", and therefore perfectly in compliance with our MOS. No reason to change it. We are applying the exception here, not the general rule, so your back-tracking to the general rule, and importing it into the exception (which the exception does not do ... it says nothing about "well, if the number is x use this format, and if y use that format") ... is to mis-read the MOS.

At the Project, we do at times have formats in place that are fine to use, and someone comes along and says "here is another one that I personally like better that is also fine to use." We don't, in those circumstances, edit war back in forth - we stick with the one in place. An example is dates ... when we have 7 July 2010 in place, and someone wants to change it to 7-7-10. Or vice versa. We stick with the existing format. And we certainly don't edit war back and forth to try to impose a second format that is no more approved than the first format. Gives editors time to attend to other matters. Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is a level of hairsplitting that should be left until the flurry of edits has died down. There are enough edit conflicts as it is, and this issue is purely cosmetic. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I agree that it is cosmetic and I agree that MOSNUM allows either (I believe I acknowledged this). I'm not interested is starting an edit war (especially over such a small thing), that's why I brought it here for further consideration. I will admit that NUMNOTES does overrule the advice in WP:NUMERAL (to an extent at least). However, I don't agree that there is no reason to change it ... well, maybe not at present. Stylistically the spelt-out version seems better to me, sure, that's an appeal to I LIKE IT, but if consensus is to agree, so be it. No, I didn't quote (be it a kind of failure or not) the exception but I think I acknowledged it and did link to it. No, I also agree that it would be totally unproductive to be toing and froing over two equally acceptable styles. I only question whether these are really equally acceptable. Am I misreading MOSNUM or just interpreting it? Am I importing the general rule into the exception unjustly? Whatever. You know, though, if you follow the general rule (as specified by WP:NUMERAL), you don't need the exception (in this case), so, I might be forgiven for reading the MOSNUM the way I did. Anyhow, what I'm suggesting isn't what is said but I still reckon it's what is meant. Ultimately this could be a question to be dealt with at WT:MOSNUM so that we can have more definite rules (not too definite though). Jimp 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The other two

• Comment - I'm not going to start a new section about this, but who are the other two people that were killed. According to this passage, it's only ten: They killed 12 people, including the editor Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, 7 other Charlie Hebdo employees, and 2 National Police officers. Charb is 1, then + 7 employees = 8, then + 2 police = 10. So who are the other two people excluded? List of 12 at NYT. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance worker Frédéric Boisseau who worked for Sodexo and happened to be sitting in the lobby by terrible misfortune, and Michel Renaud who was an invited guest at the meeting but was not a Charlie Hebdo employee. Zup326 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However the sentence is still misleading as it says 12 people were killed, but the data listed there to support that statement doesn't back that number (12) up. I guess the question I should have asked is why these two people are excluded. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Next edition

The next edition of Charlie Hebdo will be full length (16 pages), and not 8 as previously planned. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.251.154.154 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim reactions

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

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

Where comments are made (on either side) by notable persons or organizations (e.g., those with wikipedia articles), I see no reason to hide the reactions from wikipedia's readers. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying comments should be quoted in full? Wouldn't it suffice to say simply say "ISIS praised the attack", as opposed to quoting ISIS' exact words?

And if we started doing that, pretty soon we'd need to fork off an article like "Muslim reactions condemning Charlie Hebdo shooting", since there are literally, at least, 50 different notable Muslim individuals and organizations that have condemned the attack in lengthy statements.VR _talk 06:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing or shortening what they say, or lumping it together, would be fine with me -- editorial discretion (where the extra words add nothing, certainly it would be better). If it is Churchillian, then I would quote more. I'm focused on deleted that x took position y, if x has a wikipedia article, and RSs have reported it. I would be open to deleting views of people or organizations that don't have wp articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim official condemnations are many, almost unanimous. V has a good point, policy-wise. Some sense of proportionality per WP:Undue is needed. The article is already suffering from bloat, and one can barrel-scrap to get fringe support evidence, but is it important?.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm deleting this reaction: "Shots of joy in the Palestinian camp of Ain al-Hilweh, in southern Lebanon, were heard Wednesday..." This is a simply anonymous reaction from non-notable individuals. While the camp of Ain al-Hilweh itself is notable, its hard to believe that the "shots of joy" are representative of the camp. Let me know if anyone disagrees.VR _talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

wait, are you saying you are in a Better position to assess what the major Lebanse newspaper publishes (and cites a major TV Network as corroboration, to boot) than the local reporter who wrote the report? Are RS to be considered Less Reliable than Wikipedia editors from this point forward? Please advise, XavierItzm (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

ABC News reports that "Somayeh Nikooei", a random American Muslim, wants to express solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and the victims. Should we report that too? Per Epeefleche's comment, I think we should only report on reactions by notable individuals and organizations.VR _talk 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with VR as to Somayeh Nikooei. Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• isn't it ridiculous that the boring and repetitive condemnations of the terrorist attack by heads of state got spun aside into their own little article, and now we are looking at that list being repeated under this section, only for Islam countries only? XavierItzm (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting point. How do you propose this be handled? Please note that the majority of the world's Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries, so the official reaction of those countries is actually indicative of a lot of Muslims.VR _talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • since by far the majority of countries you allude to are not free and open democracies as we know it in the West, the assertion that anything those governments say is indicative of the population is open to challenge, don't you think? My humble suggestion is that government statements stay on the government subpage that has been created for that purpose and we keep this page clean of government tropes, propaganda, deflection, or positioning tactics. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• This was reverted. Why?VR _talk 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

because he did not condemn the attacks straightforwardly - he used sectarian language - takfiris etc - he is happy with shia terror - and assad regime terror , he is part of it - and he simultaneously continued to attack Charlie hebdo by saying the takfiris are worse than even the leftist cartoonists - so to just leave up 'he condemned the atatcks' - is too Hezbollah friendly imo and misrepresents the speech- which was sectarian and religious fascist imo - against sunnis and against the leftists of Charlie hebdo. - the extended quote, which is still not much, is necessary imo. Sayerslle (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

disagree. Who is Wikipedia to judge "the language" of Hezbollah and adjudicate the sectarian disputes of the followers of Allah? If the RS provides a quote from Hizbollah, then it should be included verbatim, and to do otherwise reflects bias (note Hizbollah is not a government so it is OK to include in this section). XavierItzm (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

i'm not arguing to judge the bloody language i'm saying report the choice of words used by this man in his condemnation of terror scrupulously. ffs. a few extra words to represent what was said accurately, the exact words, and i'm accused of seeking to adjudicate sectarian disputes. load of bloody rubbish. include verbatim - yes, that is what I want - what was wanted was obliteration of the exact words precisely with the effect of making it biased. 'Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet." reuters - reuters highlights the language used - if you say 'oh its not for wp to reflect sectarian language, thats not our business' , i'd say - stick to RS - don't seek to erase exact language in RS for any 'PC' concerns - 'ooh its not for the likes of us to get involved ...' Sayerslle (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you.  ;-) XavierItzm (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability

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

Condemnation higher than support

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

Since I've gotten no response in the last 10 hours, I'm moving the condemnations back higher than the support.VR _talk 01:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh hello there! Wikipedia is not your personal agenda device! The reason why I keep placing "support" above "condemnation" is because the "support" is directly tied to the event, as these types of views reflect the methodology which have reportedly led to the event, which therefor is more relevant! Also, no logical reasoning was provided against this action in the second, archived "Muslim response" topic in talk. There is an entire separate article dedicated to responses now, it may be more appropriate if you made your edits there, thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a little bit of history behind the evolution of "muslim response". Originally, only the condemnation was listed directly under the topic of "Muslim response" with no other information provided, realistically this doesn't look right, nor it is non-biased. Then someone took the liberty of adding those who supported the murder of french cartoonists, and now that information is correctly listed at the top where it belongs. Thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The "support" is not at all directly tied to the event. There's no evidence that the supporters, like Anjem Choudary, were linked to the killers. And I have provided logical reasoning. The condemnation in the Muslim community is far stronger than the support. Most Muslim organizations and countries have condemned the attacks, not supported them. Also note that the family of one of the victims, a Muslim, has condemned the attack. Therefore the condemnation belongs higher.VR _talk 03:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

More important: sources give more weight to the condemnation than to the support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are merely reiterating a defeated logic. The type of people who support the attacks are indeed much more relevant in this case, because they often share the same methodology which is directly tied to the actual cause of this event. Those listed condemning the attack are far less related. Realistically the entire "reactions" section of this article is grossly redundant and should have never gone this far, so don't expect something that shouldn't even be here, to be perfect the way you wish it to be. Also, the editing tactics of you and perhaps some like minded individuals are really coming out of the woodwork here. Please know that many are aware of what you are doing, there are no secrets here. The message you sent me regarding the 3RR rule seems desperate. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Policy shopping. This article has seen more than it's fair share of bias, please regard my edits as a consequence to this. Wikipedia is not a mainstream, often biased media source, as you and other like minded individuals treat it as such. You seem to be working within a popular, accustomed framework which you are confusing to be acceptable here. You, or some other individual also claims "The condemnation in the Muslim community is far stronger than the support." Instead of asking you to prove this, I'm just going to be realistic with you. First of all, you don't know the exact numbers, nor are you considering that many muslims who would support this act of cowardice are often traditional and don't use or have access to technology/methods of voicing their opinion, but realistically down in the streets of these actual communities, many more seem to be in support of the killings. Again, this is not a secret, but this is my personal observation and nothing I'm trying to present as fact, such as you are. Please stop reverting my edits, thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The type of people who support the attacks are indeed much more relevant in this case, because they often share the same methodology which is directly tied to the actual cause of this event: Non sequitur. Sources give by far the greatest weight to the condemnations, and we are required to follow that. Find a blog or other venue for your soapboxing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assumption that sources cannot be biased, nor cherrypicked, are indeed quite humorous to me. Please continue treating Wikipedia as a CNN affiliate. I'm sorry but your argument has no weight in logic, and is simply unrealistic. Please stop undoing my edits, thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Andiar.rohnds, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to provide content. If the reliable sources say something, we have to follow it.VR _talk 17:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia also relies on common sense, and you're failing to comprehend what's written. What is cherrypicking? --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourced content removed

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

Another very detailed description of the shooting by Sigolène Vinson

« C’est Charlie, venez vite, ils sont tous morts » It appears that Saïd Kouachi did not want to kill women but that Cherif Kouachi killed Elsa Cayat before he got this specific instruction from his brother. There was a dog too which survived 195.169.141.54 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Shooting leads to more internet censorship

"EU response to free speech killings? More internet censorship" (source) "After Charlie: more internet censorship?" (source) Why the article doesn't mention anything about this? 85.241.122.28 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia response to free speech? Quickly deleting comments on US policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.15.142 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim demographics

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

Some are very eager to make it look that way. // Liftarn (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Liftarn: Nice smear. "Some are very eager" to make it clear why it should not be surprising that a Muslim in France should speak perfect French. Others are very eager to paint those they disagree with as racists in lieu of discussing things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Liftarn seems to disagree with putting in the demographics. What is your opinion Curly Turkey?VR _talk 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Vice regent: As I've stated quite a few times on this talk page already, I cannot see how this article can get away without include some basic demographics on the subject (especially since reliable sources are talking about them). I'm the guy who added the first bit of background demographics. I'm also the guy who deleted paragraph after paragraph of uncited, out-of-context verbal diarrhea from the same section. Both sides of the argument have attacked me for it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but what is the subject here? Is it three terrorists attacking a magazine and then later a supermarket? Or is it France's Muslim population rebelling against the country? What does the number of Muslims in France have to do with the terrorist attacks? I can see how demographics were justified in 2005 French riots. But why here?VR _talk 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How on earth can you read those details as "France's Muslim population rebelling against the country"? Talk about a non sequitur. "What does the number of Muslims in France have to do with the terrorist attacks": I've answered this already, but YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Without those details, it is impossible for a layreader (Wikipedia's target audience) to make sense of many of the most important details in the article. Explain why you want to distort the interpretation of this aricle by leaving out these essential details. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Explain why you want to distort the interpretation of this aricle (sic)" Why would I want to distort the article? Why are you asking me a Loaded question? We certainly won't get to an agreement here if you accuse me of wanting to "distort" things. We can disagree with each other without attacking the other's intentions, no?VR _talk 02:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You can disagree, but you also have to back up your disagreement. Drop the accusations that the demographics are a racist attempt to make it look like all Muslims are terrorists. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet another false accusation you have made against me. When on earth did I ever accuse anyone of "a racist attempt"??VR _talk 02:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If accusing someone of adding the information to make it look like all Muslims are terrorists is not an accusation of racism, then that's a finer hair than I'm capable of splitting. Meanwhile, you ignore my every other point. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't understand why. Let's see what others think. MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

MoorNextDoor: Don't understand what? Who are you responding to? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey: I don't understand why Muslim demographics should be relevant to the article. I was responding to VR. _____ MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

So I have to explain again? The demographics are important so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French. Nobody wants to address this no matter how many times I bring it up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that's relevant. See my comment below. Zup326 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing me even more. What does religion have to do with language skills ? Who's going to be surprised by the fact that s French born citizen (regardless of his religion) speaks fluent French ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"The demographics are important so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French." Seriously, Curly Turkey? Why would a lay person be surprised that a Muslim can speak perfect French?VR _talk 02:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you don't know? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't know what ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you trolling? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Time has taken the time to write a couple of articles that deal with the background demographics: 5 Facts That Explain the Charlie Hebdo Attack, Why There’s Tension Between France and Its Muslim Population. Why is Time wasting its time on "irrelevant" information? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Media of all sorts are now writing articles on all sorts of topics. Bloomberg wrote stuff saying these attacks will "fuel" anti-Muslim sentiment. So did Foreign Policy and New York Times. Should we also have a background section on Europe's anti-Muslim sentiment? My point is that what the world's media can and will publish is far beyond the scope of this article. Wikipedia should certainly talk about Muslim demographics in France, at Islam in France. This article can link to Islam in France.VR _talk 01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a matter of how it's written---it should be brief, to the point, and readable. Many of the additions have gone into far too much detail. There originally was no more than a paragraph on demographics in the "Background" section, and no separate subsection. Removing all of the demographics, however, is entirely unacceptable, and only distorts lay interpretation of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Time magazine article you cite also says "The massacre occurred on the publication day of a new novel by controversial writer Michel Houellebecq." Should we mention that in the background too?VR _talk 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That's been discussed elsewhere. Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I added the bit on Europe along with my previous edit. Is the consensus then that the section does not need expanding? I agree to keep it but what should be further done with it? Zup326 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some newspapers are talking about French prisons and French Ghettos, should we create sections for those too ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Some editors believe so, yes. They are separate issues and need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis. It begins by discussing---not by saying "I don't get it" and removing it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The way I see it, they are the same issue (relevance of certain topics to this article). Unless we set some standards, anybody can create a section that is reliably sourced, yet completely irrelevant, and asks for it to be discussed for days on end. MoorNextDoor (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
        • What are your opinions on radicalization within the background section as well? Do you believe every subsection is irrelevant or just the demographics? Zup326 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm questioning the relevance of the section "Muslims in France" (including the title), the content is another issue. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) In other words, you are intent on eliminating all demographic information, so it's very important to assert that all demographic information is inseparable so you can eliminate it in one swoop. You've failed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm giving you a chance to explain why you think it's relevant, and in this instance, why is it more relevant than the ghettos and the prisons in France ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Giving me the chance to do what? I've never opposed the inclusion of information on ghettoes and prisons. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim section pruning and neutralization

@Curly, the muslim section is becoming a mess with easy sensationalist opinions polls making a good part of it. It's becoming a trial of immigration in France.

I don't know why you're addressing that to me. I didn't add any of that, and I've never supported having a separate section for this stuff. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zup, while I agree this section is now taking far too much importance, we cannot delete it all. Pruning is required. Demographic can be reduced sharply by integrating it's scale order within the section "sociology". Opinions polls seems hightly irrelevant to me as we can make opinions polls to says everything. It will be sourced, but it stays highly irrelevant opinions corrupted by the tone of the questions and the poll's customers (right wing papers will turn the wording to push up anti-muslim answers, etc.).

Gentle pruning and neutralization is needed. Yug (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you think we should keep it, can you at least tell us why you think that the "Muslim in France" section is relevant to this article. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

MoorNextDoor: It mainly expose the socio-economic background of the attackers and rejection of French values. I'am myself not in love with the "Muslims in France" tag, as it unfairly stigmatize all the muslims for the actions of few. The socio-economic context of the attackers, and Islam should be cited as the attackers claimed to fight for Islam, but I don't really see to point to name the "muslim in France". Yug (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I created the background section to enlighten a bit this article but it quite got out of control. Annoyingly, I've been dragged by Curly who remove general summary and sources, pushing for a non-reachable perfect word-by-word sources quest, and was unable to work on a balanced coverage of the #background section. NOW, as the section "#Laicity and blasphemy" take care about the ideological background and conflict. I think we should take out the muslim-blaming tone and have a short "#Immigration and poor suburbs in France" section handling the socio-economic issues. I urgently renamed the section as "Immigration in France" for now. Sources are available. Yug (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please Curly: let us some time to work on this. It's an incremental work, we cannot work with hard liner constantly unbuilding our work. Yug (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to take the content of this, put it here, work on it and improve both the wording and sourcing which are both not properly done. Yug (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'am leaving this article, writing is nor possible / productive. Wrote 8 good lines in ~15h full-time work over 4 days. Yug (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yug, why not give the socio-economic background of the attackers instead of all the Muslims in France? What do Muslims in France have to do with these killings?VR _talk 17:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems a pretty good idea. Yug (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a fine compromise. Only talk about the attackers. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, why don't we do that instead? The Muslim community are not all terrorists, and people shouldn't read this article and assume that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The population and population growth of Muslims in France is part of the socioeconomic background of the attackers. The only issue is when such information gets too long. I propose doing what I had in the first place: a single concise paragraph in the overall "Background" section with no subsection header to draw undue attention to itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I say "what I had in the first place", I don't mean literally what I had written, but the spirit of how I included it—all relevant information should be concise and to the point, and not exceed (say) two paragraphs (one would be better)—just enough information to give readers the context they need to interpret the events without jumping to conclusions (like the idea that suddenly Muslims are invading Europe). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose doing what I had in the first place: a single concise paragraph in the overall "Background" section with no subsection header to draw undue attention to itself. That's what I'm saying. A shortened, non-headered paragraph will not put undue weight on that section. Epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Epicgenius: Unless the disruptive editing is properly dealt with, I honestly don't see the point of doing anything since it will probably be reverted within an hour. Yug understood and I'm beginning to feel that way too. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that it was an IP that removed these tags, disruptively edited, etc. I am starting to think that maybe we need semiprotection again. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid semi protection will not help since it's a user doing it, not an IP. The tag you added was removed within 20 minutes. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So name the disruptive editor already. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it was removed by 2 users. Here by PuffinSoc and here (twice) by 186.14.226.61. Epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are to mention Muslim demographics in the background, we also need to add things like discrimination against Muslims (and immigrants) in France, which is a significant issue. From what I see, sources that talk about Muslim demographics also discuss issues of unemployment, integration and discrimination.VR _talk 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So add it—with in-context citations. There are plenty. I've linked to some on this very talk page.

I'm gonna go into broken-record mode here—I removed Yug's additions not only because they were uncited, but because Yug openly stated he would not cite them. I've never made any attempt otherwise to keep this kind of information out of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Guardian (01/13), Charlie Hebdo attackers: born, raised and radicalised in Paris, Guardian.uk {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

• Here's an idea: instead of giving background on all Muslims in France, why not give background on Al-Qaeda?VR _talk 02:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey's argument

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

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

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

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

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

• Why is them speaking French such an important issue?: because virtually every newspaper reported the fact that they spoke perfect French. Why would they do this? Why would a couple of Frenchmen speaking perfect French be newsworthy? You know the answer. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I find that surprising. Give me references from major sources like CNN, BBC, France24, please.

BBC, CNN, and over 2000 hits on Google News Search alone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if my first argument doesn't hold, what about the 2nd and 3rd? I made 3 arguments.VR _talk 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see at least one source does it. You're right. It is important. However, I think it can be dealt with differently, please see arguments 2 and 3.VR _talk 02:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As for point 2: You've misread. When our article states She reported that the two armed and hooded men spoke perfect French threatened her if she did not type in the code to open the door to the building., it should not come across as a surprise that Muslims would speak perfect French. Knowing there's a large Muslim population there eliminates the surprise.

As for point 3: no, I can't see why, especially as that comes after it's noted they speak perfect French. It also gives us no clue that Muslims coming from Gennevilliers should not be unusual. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That paper is from the date of the incident (before they were identified). The fact that they spoke perfect French was mentioned because it meant that there was a big chance of them being French born nationals (which was confirmed later). MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"That paper"? I just point you to over 2000 news sources! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevance tag

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

Islam and blasphemy

The article states "On the other hand, some Muslims claim that the satire of religion, of religious representatives and—above all—of the Muslim prophet is forbidden blasphemy in Islam and can be punished by death."

Actually Muslim positions on satire and depictions of Muhammad are complicated. There's first of all disagreement whether Muhammad can be depicted. Some say yes, some say no. Among those who say no, there is disagreement whether depictions constitute blasphemy and whether blasphemy is punishable by death. Is this article really the place to go into Islamic theology? And if we are going into Islam's position on blasphemy, why not also discuss Islam's prohibition on terrorism, as agreed by almost all of the world's Muslims (except a few radical ones)?VR _talk 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

VR, I'am the writer of the lines you are citing, and all your points are relevants. Feel free to improve the section ! That's welcome. Note that some users are hard liner and may remove such [common sense and important!] statements if not externally sourced. Yug (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Of course, it should not be dealt with in-depth in this article. You might want something succinct like: "There is disagreement in Islam regarding the depiction of Muhammad; extreme interpretations hold that the depiction and satire of him are blasphemy and punishable by death." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure. But then we must also mention that pretty much all mainstream Muslims condemn terrorism and vigilantism. Even countries which have laws against blasphemy (e.g. Pakistan) are opposed to terrorism. Of course, disagreement comes from Muslims linked to or sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but that's hardly a surprise.VR _talk 01:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So what's your proposed (and cited) wording? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In depth article on authors radicalisation

• The Guardian (01/13), Charlie Hebdo attackers: born, raised and radicalised in Paris, Guardian.uk {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) Yug (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I added it to the section on said and cherif kouachi. Sayerslle (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sayerslle. I used it to source some sentences in the background section, which expressely link the socio-economics of (muslim) immigrants to the attackers. This as some wikipedians insistedly required to accept a source, and despite is weaken greatly our ability to work meaningfully on this article's background section. Yug (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Infobox mass murderer for?

I have seen in this article some Infobox for terrorist.

Those box looks like a «kill them all» video game score/record. Is really the goal of wikipedia to give a good picture of them or to induce a competition?

Additionally, they are not djihadist but terrorist.

This Infobox name is names «mass murderer». — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.142 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Move?

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 Such a move is long overdue. It is clear that the Charlie Hebdo shooting was just one part of a larger terrorist attack (the other one being the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis). That currently 2015 Paris attacks is a redirect to this page and the victims of Porte de Vincennes are not even mentioned in the infobox but buried somewhere deep down is pretty outrageous too. User:Gugganij (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: May I also add that nearly half of the total deaths involved in the incidents were from the other events, and are not even mentioned in the infobox at the top of the page.There is only a brief paragraph about the attacks in the intro and you have to scroll halfway down the page before you get any details about the other attacks. Certainly is inexcusable. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is more of an argument for splitting. There will have to be an article on the Charlie Hedbo attack. This is that article. Instead, create the article 2015 Paris attacks or whatever and have it be the container for all these attacks. Abductive (reasoning) 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: But wouldn't that just be copying a lot of the same information from the Charlie Hebdo page to a new one? As it is right now with the individual pages on Charlie Hebdo and Porte de Vincennes and no main page it's rather confusing because the separation seems to infer that the events were not related. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No... the article would be split, not copied. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree This article should not be renamed. This article is about the charlie hebdo shooting. The other ones are included near the bottom because they are not entirely about charlie hebdo, but are related. Second, Not all of the attacks were in paris, so that name is too inaccurate. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME "Paris attacks" appears to be used more in the media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Claims regarding Military Training

Sky News, in this report, makes some pretty strong claims regarding military training evident from the videos of the gunmen. I've added a paragraph at the appropriate section but I would greatly appreciate if an editor more familiar with military/infantry tactics and maneuvers expanded/improved the section. Myopia123 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A bit about Merabet

I added a bit about Merabet, but it was removed. I disagree. This is what I had added: According to Ahmed's brother, Malek Merabet, the police officer "was very proud of the name Ahmed Merabet and was proud to represent the police and of defending the values of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity."

In response to the shootings, we created several articles on the victims. Also, we have a statement from Charb's partner "I always knew he was going to die like Theo van Gogh," which is something said in hindsight. So why can't we have a statement from Merabet's brother about his service in the police?VR _talk 13:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As the reverting editor, I am sure that every deceased was proud of their name and their job. I see no significance in such a statement, no matter who made the comment. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with talking about victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting? Surely the victims are just as relevant to this article as the perpetrators.VR _talk 17:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not create an article on Ahmed Merabet? Surely by now he will have enough secondary sources? And I'll bet they name a street or school after him in the near future. Abductive (reasoning) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well let's start with a bit here. If we have enough, we can make a secondary article. I personally don't think we have enough information on him by secondary sources to justify a separate article.VR _talk 02:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Survivors' issue of Charlie Hebdo

I have made a Charlie Hebdo after attack issue article; so please help expand and improve. The title may also need tweaking. Iselilja (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustapha Ourrad (fr)

The article claims, Mustapha was Muslim is there any source ? I've read in some french article that he claimed to be an atheist with a Sufi background. a muslim background is not enough to be called a muslim (especially when the person claimed to be atheist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.78.254.31 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Soap-boxing-V- fair comment

In the interests of free speech, I ask whether the soon-to-be-deleted section was 'soap-boxing' - or fair comment on the possible impact of US policy? Whatever it was, the US State Department did not wasted any time getting it take down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.15.142 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldnt a merge happen?

Hello, shouldn't both the hostage crisis and the shooting be merged as an article on the January 2015 terror in France? or Paris or something? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simen113 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Either that or create a page called "2015 Paris attacks" to summarize all of the events. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Coco's daughter

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

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

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

• "Gunmen threatened cartoonist and young daughter to force entry into Charlie Hebdo offices"
• "Charlie Hebdo Cartoonist Corrine Rey Says She Let Terrorists inside and Hid under her Desk with Toddler Daughter".
• "Charlie Hebdo cartoonist reveals terrorists threatened to murder her toddler unless she let them in - and how she cowered with child under desk as massacre took place"
• "Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting: 'I let gunmen into building to save my child and I'"
• "Paris Shooting: Terrorists Threaten To Shoot Toddler During Attack"
• along with dozens that tell us the same story without putting it in the headlines. Of course, Wikipedia put the media up to it, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to tighten the "Muslims in France" background thing

Okay, so I've added this. I'm hoping with a bit more tweaking we can drop the "Laïcité and blasphemy" subsection entirely. Discuss, please. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)