Talk:Charlie Hebdo/Archive 1

Persistent vandalism
For reasons which may be obvious this article appears to attract more than its fair share of vandals. Thus a game RC patroller will find vandalism on top of other vandalism; it's not enough to roll back to the last version.

I think the most recent version containing good matter is this.

Between the time I reverted the article and pulled history to copy the link above, the page was again vandalized (and reverted). I'm starting to think of this as an emergent issue. John Reid 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I requested protection for it. The last good version is the one as of 21:10, 8 February 2006 -- user:Marc Lacoste 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article lift
I for one would like to see an expert's hand go over this article. Based on my feint background knowledge and puny French, I can't gather too much about this magazine's history, especially in the 60s, how Charlie got to be Charlie mensuel, and then Charlie hebdo, if they're indeed all that closely related. Was Charlie/mensuel a monthly "special", now ceased BD publication, and Hebdo a weekly text issue?. Just a request. M URGH  disc.  02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again! You're right, the explanations are a bit confusing.  I *think* they created Charlie Mensuel as a comics magazine, and then when Hara-Kiri was banned they sort of resurrected it as Charlie-Hebdo to fool the censors.  I am not sufficiently sure of it to edit the article though, will try and find some sources. Thermaland 11:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I much appreciate help from proficient French speakers to understand this context. From what i could glean at Fr:Wp, an entry for Charlie Mensuel on its own was merited, so I started it.  M URGH   disc.  15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And to make matters even more complex, apart from Charlie Hebdo and Charlie Mensuel, they also kept Hara-Kiri as a monthly. And later on (16 and 17 march 1981) they even launched a daily, called "Charlie Matin" that only came out two days.

Erik Van Thienen 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blockage requested
I request a specific blockage of POV, edit-warring user 94.168.210.36. Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User page: --194.166.19.71 (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding Criticism
I agree with the edit-blocking of the article for once, maybe 3 months (unfortunately I cannot do that, because I am not a moderator).

In addition and when the "war" is over I would like if someone could add a topic "Criticism" on the main page and list an overview of the founded criticism of the Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelchiorG (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Image
Can someone who understand Arabic please add the picture to the Arabic wiki. There is a verision on Wikipedia Commons. Clickenglish (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a snowballs chance in hell they would of allowed an image like that over on the Arabic wiki. It's one of the most censored wiki's around, and anyway the image has been deleted because it was a copy vio.--Τασουλα (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tone
I think it is important to add that the tone is before all anti-clerical. Long ago the magazine was already criticized for making no subtile difference whatsoever in its critics, for as long as it was a Pope, a Priest, an Imam or a Prophet. Kahlores (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, the term "left-wing" is not enough to grasp. They have a libertaire tradition, which does not correspond to libertarianism. But with the many departures under Val (2000s), in 2004, 2005, the Siné affair (2007), they lost support and readership from the staunchly anti-american left-wing.


 * Moreover, some critics are linking the decline in readers and the provokations done to muslims.
 * the 2006 republishing of the Danish pictures, half-a-million prints, instead of one hundred thousand


 * same in 2011
 * now for 2012

They are, like most papers, losing money, and they have a way to multiply their audience by going to the front and pretend they're heroes. Other papers can produce a more acute and stirring critique of the Arab world without provoking. I will add here all the sources defending such thesis. Kahlores (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Le Parisien, "En rupture de stock, Charlie Hebdo sera réédité vendredi", 19 September 2012
 * 75 000 copies sold
 * some vendors say Muslims bought them all their copies early in the morning, in order to destroy them all
 * reprint on Friday 21
 * on average, the paper sells 45 000 copies
 * in 2006, they sold on average 100 000 copies, peaked 480 000 by reproducing Jyllands-Posten drawings
 * november 2011 Charia Hebdo was sold 200 000 times
 * Director, Drawer and main Shareholder Charb says L'effet est toujours le même quand on fait des unes sur l'islam radical, the effect is always known ; Parisien journalist then wonders whether this known fact makes the weekly edition more of a commercial coup. Kahlores (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Top Image
I have added the reference to the top image back to the article. I did not see any discussion in the talk page regarding deletion of the image, but I have seen some other vandalism on the page / revert wars. I think this image should stay, unless someone can find a suitable alternative. However, it is my opinion that this is the best image for the article, as it relates to the main reason that most of the people in the world may have heard of the magazine/newspaper in the first place.

--Joetheguy (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the image is being removed from this page by vandals in order to facilitate the deletion of the picture from Wikipedia. Regardless, it should stay. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go as far to say that, considering this and this are thankfully aplenty with images where they are deemed encyclopaedic and informative (Silly Muslims, they didn't realise belly-aching about these images would actually encourage more people to put them up). The images on Jyllands-Posten and this article are both obviously copy-righted, and there inclusion here is on the very fringes of legitimate keeping. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015
Swear words and inappropriate content should be removed.

79.78.80.132 (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Vandalism already removed. Thanks for reporting. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 13:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 7 shooting
Does this page need to be updated every two minutes when another victim dies. Some people seem to be in a competition to be the first to edit the page. Mirrabooka (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Try "seem." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.35.39 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No point of editing wikipedia
there's no point of editing this page, because admins don't want to accept the truth, it's posted everywhere that they were muslims.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudis323 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote
Does that hatnote really need to be there? There's already a section for it, and the article titles are pretty different. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduction wording
"On 7 January 2015, during the weekly editorial board meeting, suspected Islamic terrorists gunned down and murdered 10 journalists and two police officers at the newspaper's Paris office"
 * Should be 8 journalists, one cleaner and one visitor plus two policemen, surely? 49.195.150.191 (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - corrected. Mezigue (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

To moderators: image of former editor
It might be prudent at this moment to remove or replace the image of a former editor, as the article might attract people with criminal intent. --Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Do you mean the image of Muhammad? --Τασουλα (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot predict whether there will be an uproar at the release of a depiction of the Pruphet. It all seems pretty well-organized, by some media (that is: those behind) who push the information up to the headlines.
 * The Jyllands-Posten cartoons were released in September 2005, uproars started in January 2006
 * The excerpt from that third-rate amateur film is almost 2 months old (July), but the demonstrations started on September 11.
 * Kahlores (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Creepy to read this now. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And, it was removed. A betrayal of what Charlie Hebdo stood for. I regret ever having donated to Wikipedia. 2001:983:58DF:1:7DC8:367E:FEB8:6335 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this site going to attract editors with a spine, or is it going to cave? Oh, wait, my question has already been answered.74.134.128.91 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kind of you to volunteer Jimmy Wales and the Wiki people at head office as possible targets. Might I suggest instead that you repost the photo with with your full name, address, and photo added, so you can, by example, lead whoever took down the photo to their backbone? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie (disambiguation)
Should Charlie Weekly (Charlie Hebdo) be listed at Charlie (disambiguation) ? (it's the form used for Je suis Charlie and in many places in the news) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the translation. User:GKFXtalk 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Describing Shooters
I've removed "Islamist" from the description of the shooters in the article summary. Only one newspaper I've seen has ascribed the shooting to Islamists, and it provided no evidence for its claim other than noting that they shouted Islamic phrases. I think it's okay to mention what they said, but at this early point it seems premature, given lack of sourcing, to include the word Islamist in describing the shooters. Thoughts? Aprude51 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Restored Islamist, both The Times (okay Murdock now owns it, but still) and BBC say it was an Islamic attack. Lahaun (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Then you are free to assert as fact that The Times and the BBC have said it was an Islamist attack (they most certainly did not call it an "Islamic" attack). What you are clearly *not* allowed to do by any editorial standards is to assert as fact that it was actually an Islamist attack. --78.35.248.62 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, it is not Wikipedia policy to require mention of the reliable source directly in the text. that is simply is never done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:58DF:1:7DC8:367E:FEB8:6335 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is fair enough, but the sentence where it says the attacks were "in response to some controversial Muhammad cartoons" is unjustified. Nobody knows precisely why they carried the attack out at this stage. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And so the whitewashing begins. The Associated Press reported they were clearly linked to a terrorist group in Yemen and practically every media outlet on the face of the Earth is detailing witness reports indicating the murderers exclaimed, loudly, that they were "avenging Mohammed" and were "members of al Qaeda". Not a SINGLE mention of any of those statements is contained within this "encyclopedic" entry.  Did anyone expect any different from this online "encyclopedia".  But hey, maybe al Qaeda started admitting Jews, so they could be Jewish terrorists. Sure thing.74.134.128.91 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I would also like to add that the NBC News is reporting that one of the terrorists was arrested in 2008 on terrorism charges for funneling money to Iraqi insurgents. But nah, there is no evidence they are "Islamists". Absolutely none at all.74.134.128.91 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are the religious things the killers shouted not in the article? The fact this was a religiously inspired act of violence should be documented.  And Richard Dawkins said "some idiot will claim this had nothing to do with religion"  give it a day or two and watch his prophecy come true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.105.90 (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the word. As stated in the edit summary, this now seems beyond reasonable doubt. User:GKFXtalk 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a joke. Not CLEARLY identifying this as an act of terrorism and identifying the killers as Islamic Terrorists simply proves that the politically correct crowd rules editing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:371D:B340:7458:704A:4134:B79B (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Too little emphasis on past self-censorship
In the light of recent events, where the paper has been somehow labelled a defender of freedom of speech, there could be more detail about their past self-censorship of a supposedly "anti-Semitic" column.

"A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off." Mr Val's decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusing reference in paragraph 4 of Early years
QUOTE: As a result, the journal was once more banned, this time by the Minister of the Interior.

But I find no reference above the quote to the first time that Hara-Kiri was banned. Thanks in advance to anyone who can amend or clarify this sentence. 139.149.31.232 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oof, that was my poor edit over two years ago. Corrected. Mezigue (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015
When recounting the 2015 attack, the spelling of the Prophet Muhammad is wrong, and instead of calling the terrorists "Islamists" which is just the belief that Islam should guide people's way of life, it would be preferential to call the terrorists "Islam extremists" or "Muslim extremists".

Pimpdaddyfresh (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Also, please mention specific changes in an X to Y format.

Note: Different spellings are used in the sources cited in the article.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, where it's a reference to the Islamic prophet in Wikipedia's own voice the spelling should be consistent i.e. Muhammad, per the Wikipedia article and most current rdferences to the name in this article; this is just editorial consistency. There were 2 instances of this where it was spelt Mo. and I've changed those. There was one instance of a name of another person being written as Mohammad and I've left that per the linked to Wikipedia article on that person. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is relevant to mention that the attack was made by Islamists, then it is also relevant to note that one of the policemen killed was also Muslim

Allahu Akbar
The article says "During the attack, the gunmen were heard to shout Allahu akbar, "the Prophet is avenged"". "Allahu akbar" does not mean "The prophet is avenged" but is usually translated as "God is great".
 * Correct. Addressed. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect and reverted. "The prophet is avenged" was a separate second statement shouted by the attackers (see the sources) and is not a translation of allahu akbar at all. Change reverted. DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Magazine or newspaper
The infobox describes it as a magazine and it's called a magazine in the rest of the article. The opening semtence calls it a newspaper. However, in English language usage it's a "magazine" not a "newspaper" (even though it looks like a newspaper) because it doesn't carry "news". Here are some of the many sources for it being, in English, a "magazine":, and. So I've reverted this and added a source. DeCausa (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Just because it's printed on cheap paper doesn't make it a newspaper. Jarmihi (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, User:Mezigue has reverted with the edit summary that it's a newspaper "whatever the sources call it", which is a curious take on WP:V, but leaving in the citation I added for it being a "magazine"! DeCausa (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are good sources (generally) for facts but not so much for terminology so I thought I'd be bold and use common sense instead, as I'm familiar with the topic. However looking into it, I'm suprised to realise there isn't really a formal technical difference between a magazine and a newspaper.   Charlie Hebdo, regardless of the quality of the paper (it's actually pretty good) consists of folded sheets of paper, not even stapled, in, I think, the Berliner (format). Wouldn't that make it a paper rather than a magazine?  In terms of content, there aren't any news indeed, it's a mixture of cartoons, columns and reports. Mezigue (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what a "newspaper" means. It's got nothing to do with the type of paper used. you seem to have a misunderstanding of what it means. That's why we should only follow the sources rather than our own personal views which may be wrong. DeCausa (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Martinique
One of the dead cops at Charlie Hebdo was from Martinique.15:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is about the magazine, not the shooting. Details on the dead police is better there &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to Clarissa Jean-Philippe. She was murdered in a separate attack the next day, which is why she is not mentioned here. Mezigue (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

OK.20:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.92.175 (talk)

Dieudonné
Why doesn't the article mention Dieudonné M'bala M'bala? 85.241.122.28 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In what context? Did he work for them? Did he dispute with them? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

He made a joke about the Kosha market deaths.90.244.92.175 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case, this is the wrong article, as it was a separate attacker who did that attack. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Revisions article sections
I feel that major revisions to the article's sections are needed in order to improve the quality of the article. Below are a list of proposed changes to make to the sections:


 * Create new section titled Controversy
 * Move Muhammad cartoons and aftermath under Controversy
 * Move Mosque of Paris v Val (2007) under Muhammad cartoons and aftermath
 * Move Siné sacking (2008) under Controversy
 * Create new section titled Response and aftermath under Muhammad cartoons and aftermath
 * Move 2011 attack and 2015 attack under Response and aftermath

Please share your comments regarding the proposed changes by the end of this week. Unless there are any major challenges, I will plan to being implementing the proposed changes next week. Thank you. Djrun (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go somewhat in the opposite direction. "Controversies" sections are usually to be avoided. (Eg WP:CRITS: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies") Muhammad cartoons are such a notable issue I'd keep it in its own section, but include the 2007 case. Otherwise, the first three sections should be a chronological narrative split only between the original magazine and the 1990s relaunch. Also the Hara kiri paragraphs should be rduced as it has its own article. DeCausa (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

At the end of this article it is written : "Luz, one of the survivors of the attack, did not participate to the Republican marches." It's completely wrong. check the video at 1:00 http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/marche-republicaine-le-fou-rire-de-luz-face-a-hollande-12-01-2015-1895934_23.php It's the man laughing because a pigeon shat on president Hollande shoulder.
 * ✅ Blaue Max (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Charb not editor-in-chief
I can writte, but Charb was the publication director, not the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief is Gérard Biard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.34.40.65 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep.90.244.82.37 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad cartoons and aftermath
Add to the Muhammad cartoons and aftermath section- Niger riots over it. .90.244.82.37 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hate speech laws in France: The elephant in the room
I added a "See also" Wikilink to Hate speech laws in France and it was deleted twice by User:The Almightey Drill for the following reasons, "A failed lawsuit - shall we add "Murder" to the see also on OJ Simpson?" and, "Tedentious and undue "see also" - the article only mentions one minor lawsuit on these laws in the 45-year history." Note that the Hate speech law article mentions a lawsuit against Charlie Hebdo "for insulting a group of people because of their religion" in 2006. Also note that many news sources have mentioned this elephant in the room. (Google search: "Charlie Hebdo" + Holocaust). Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Then it deserves a place in another article. Is it Charlie Hebdo's fault that Holocaust denial is illegal in France? The lawsuit has little weight, it was rejected. I could start a lawsuit against absolutely anyone if I so wished. Also, this above user has previously served long blocks for 9/11 soapboxing and pushing links to her website, full of Biblical conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial and medical quackery including that LSD is a gift from God. I presume that how she put the Holocaust laws in the "see also" with no given reason is just an expression of her irritation with such laws, which has nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User agreed for terms of unblocking not to edit on subjects of 9/11 and Holocaust, and is clearly using this article as a back door to write on her fringe view on the Holocaust &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If, as asserted at ANI, "User:Raquel Baranow was unblocked in 2012 on condition to avoid editing on subjects such as 9/11 and the Holocaust", then this editor should not be making changes or leaving comments on a topic where "(Google search: "Charlie Hebdo" + Holocaust)” is relevant.
 * That having been said, WP:SEEALSO neither forbids nor demands such an entry. Rather, it states that such an entry is "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number".
 * As Charlie Hebdo is mentioned in Hate speech laws in France, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to include such a entry. Let’s see what the consensus is. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So is Bob Dylan. The point is that the magazine has been around for 45 years and was once taken to court in a case which was dropped, just as Bob Dylan has been doing music for a similar time and his case was dropped. As I've said, ANYONE can bring a lawsuit, I could theoretically bring one against Obama, and if it were rejected, would it deserve to be in his "see also"? If the lawsuit had found the magazine guilty, and had given a notable punishment (I'm thinking jail or closure) then it's fair to include the link. Right now, it's grossly undue and sticks out like a shag on a rock when there are so few "see also". Don't forget that this whole episode comes from bad intentions that another user wanted to use it as a WP:POINT or WP:SOAPBOX against France's laws regarding Holocaust denial. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Link added to appropriate section within context. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ownership
Who owns Charlie Hebdo? I have looked for actual ownership, like an LLC or larger newspaper or individual, but no where is ownership linked, only talk of history and people who started the paper. I think it is a vital piece of information that is surprisingly absent. HafizHanif (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the most recent stock breakdown I could find. Two of the people mentioned are now dead of course. Mezigue (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mezigue (talk)!!!  HafizHanif (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Convictions of Charlie Hebdo newspaper are quite clear, well-sourced and should not be removed!
Above all it is a secular and atheist newspaper," said Charbonnier, who signs his own sketches and goes by the name of "Charb" (REUTERS Sep 19, 2012 1, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/film-protests-charlie-idUSL5E8KJE6320120919). True to its position on the far left of French politics, Charlie Hebdo's past is full of splits and ideological betrayals (BBC, 8 January 2015 -http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15551998) tai The tradition combines left-wing radicalism with a provocative scurrility that often borders on the obscene. (BBC, 7 January 2015  -http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883). Stéphane Charbonnier described himself as "a staunch republican and militant atheist" (THE GUARDIAN 13 January 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/stephane-charbonnier). Let's not fall into the trappings false off political correctness! RudiLefkowitz (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What a bizarre post! None of that is controversial and, as far as I can see, no one is challenging it. Who do you think are falling into the "trappings" (I think you mean "trap", "trappings" is something else) of 'political correctness'? DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo-National Front

 * Charlie Hebdo has been struggling for years against racism, against the far-right National Front...Charlie Hebdo has always been a very politically-focused weekly, and this is why people read it. The staff makes fun of everyone, and they also participate in the policy debates of the left wing in France. In 1996, they launched a petition to forbid the existence of the National Front, the main far-right party in France. It got more than 150,000 signatures. The paper was also involved in the movement of solidarity with undocumented immigrants in the ‘90s. https://medium.com/@NabilWakim/the-charlie-hebdo-shootings-explained-to-my-american-friends-81f34f3c9c3e


 * The National Front and the Le Pen family were in fact their primary targets above all others http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.htmlRudiLefkowitz (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Political alignment of Charlie
In the right column Charlie's political alignment is described as "Far left", and once again in the second sentence. It is just not true. But it is a common mistake (so that the "describes itself" could simply be replaced by "is often described"). The last sentence of the first paragraph gives a much better caracterisation noting that Charb said the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers", with as a footnote «Charlie Hebdo, c'est la gauche plurielle». "Gauche plurielle" is a bit more than "left wing pluralism", it is a reference to a governmental coalition of the centre-left, a relatively wide coalition but the only part of the left wing which was not in this coalition was precisely the far-left (at least what most people in France call far-left: PCF can sometimes be called far-left but just like Obama is called a socialist).

An other interesting sentence comes from Cabu (unfortunately I don't have the precise reference), saying «on est pas des anarchistes, nous sommes des républicains, les lois de la République nous suffisent, mais souvent ces lois ne sont pas appliquées», i.e. «we are not anarchists, we are republicans, the laws of the Republic are enough for us, but those laws are often not applied» ("those laws" might be a reference to the text of 1905 about separation of Church and State)

The problem is actually that you can not describe 45 years of existence of this journal into a single political characteristation: indeed it had some anarchist and far-left influences when it got created, in 1970, just like pretty much everybody in France at that time, but in the 80's it started drifting on the right, just like the whole French society (or maybe the whole world). Philippe Val, former director, has even be accused of being very close to Sarkozy. Nowadays, the best English/American word to characterise Charlie Hebdo is maybe "liberal".

J.frison (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All the sources indicate Far-left. You are entitled to a different interpretation or view for what ever reason, but the source states so and so it remains. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC) ps just read an article on Charlie Hebdo and it simply stated that: The brainchild of far-left cartoonists, the weekly Charlie Hebdo. Compared to Le Monde (which is described as simply Left-Wing). Charlie Hebdo in it's aggressive tone, choice of usual political targets, article content and most revealingly corroborated  by the statements made by late Stéphane Charbonnier makes it evident that Charlie Hebdo in the French political spectrum is of the radical-leftwing with hints of anarchism. To say anything else sounds like a euphemism or simply put PC!
 * "All the sources" do not indicate far-left. As far as I can tell, only one BBC article uses the phrase and it is quite inaccurate.  Charb himself said in the article in Le Monde that the editorial team in recent times was spread across left, far-left, anarchism and environmentalism.  This can only be described broadly as left-wing.  (And I really don't see what political correctness has to do with it!  Are you sure you know what the phrase means?) Mezigue (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the magazine is in no way far-left, it really should be described as Left-Liberal. From the article "In France, the term extrême-gauche ("far left") is a generally accepted term for political groups to the left of the French Communist Party (such as Trotskyists, Maoists, Anarchists and New Leftist)" Unibond (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From the horses mouth "En avril 2010, Charb, directeur de la publication, décrit la ligne politique du journal comme une réunion de « toutes les composantes de la gauche plurielle, et même des abstentionnistes" ref and even quite explicitly not extreme left  "Après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, Charlie Hebdo se désolidarise de certains courants d'extrême gauche" Unibond (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

'Non-Conformist' Yet Pro-Government?
"To be a believer is a personal choice that concerns no one else," Biard said. "We respect that, in the same way that we respect a person's private life as long as the individual does not inject his or her private life into the public sphere." Charlie Hebdo Editor, NBC News, 18 Jan, 2015

But why should Gerard Biard be happy to give the impression that Hebdo is stridently non-conformist in tone – when his opinions appear to reflect the views of the governments he claims to hate? For he claims that, “if God becomes entangled in politics, then democracy is in danger", has been put forward over the ages by the powers-that-be. While it is clear why governments would want to keep God and morality at-a-distance - should Charlie be helping them with this aim? And might not Wikipedia highlight Charlie's 'Non-Conformist', yet Pro-Government, views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.239.67 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a POV that you link his statement to what "governments" do. Is it supported by reliable sources? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your real question, no, your incomprehensible rant should not be in the article. Mezigue (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What is incomprehensible is why some of the folks feel need to be rude and needlessly insulting?

Then again, while governments make a big show of being Church-led and God-fearing, just consider what happens when the Church attempts to highlight the impact of government policy (on the poor unemployed and disabled). “The prime minister has firmly rejected claims by the archbishop of Canterbury that the coalition government is forcing through "radical policies for which no one voted". David Cameron said Rowan Williams was free to express his concerns, but he "profoundly disagreed" with many of the comments. The Guardian, 9 June 2011

Cannot such comments-and there are many-be related to Charlie Hebdo telling the Church keep out of the public sphere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.239.67 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's best to keep your politics out of articles—if sources in general are saying these kinds of things, then they are appropriate for the article. We don't cherry-pick sources that happen to support our own POV—the appropraite venue for that kind of stuff is your own personal blog.. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No they cannot. You are mixing up everything.  Charlie Hebdo is a French, not British paper. Mezigue (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay,okay - last comments. If it is best to keep politics out of articles, why are the views of Charlie being pushed in this article? And why is Charlie being treated as a defender of free speech?
 * I didn't say "it is best to keep politics out of articles", did I? I said "It's best to keep your politics out of articles".  Of course we report the subject's politics—it's what the sources are all talking about.  Your politics (or mine) are irrelevant. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

For while the quote was from a British paper, it was useful in highlighting how governments (from any country) tell the Church to Keep Out! And now the stridently non-conformist Charlie appears to be saying that the views of the Church should be kept out of the public sphere. As to the rude undertones of some of the above editors, while someone might disagree with editors being rude - must they not defend their right to say it? For, in defence of free speech, Charlie Says: it is everyone's human-given right to insult and highly offend people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.229.10 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding—our interpretations of events are irrelevant. We report on what reliable sources have to say about the event, and not our interpretations of what was said. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

While the aim is to maintain a neutral Point Of View, it is questionable whether maintaining such a level of (hard) evidence is possible. And, given that that totally evidence-based reports are an almost impossible aim–is not a certain degree of reasoning-based evidence difficult to avoid in this media-driven world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.216.202 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No original research. All you have said is your own conclusion. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"To be a believer is a personal choice that concerns no one else," Biard said. "We respect that, in the same way that we respect a person's private life as long as the individual does not inject his or her private life into the public sphere." Charlie Hebdo Editor, NBC News, 18 Jan, 2015

Okay,okay - no POV pushing. But, by itself-and free of conclusions of others-might not such a direct quote be considered to be useful in giving an insight into the opinions of the Charlie Hebdo Editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.97.202 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Charlie Hebdo has a (rough) editorial line, that is extremely anti-clerical, and pretty anti-religious. The fact that governments might or might not have a similar inclination is by coincidence only. Charlie is not in the business of supporting the government. Aesma (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Does Charlie Hebdo no longer publish images of Muhammed?
On the Internet you can find a lot of news sites spreading the statement by Laurent Sourisseau that Charlie Hebdo will no longer print images of Muhammed. This information seems to originate from Deutsche Welle who refer to an interview on Stern. I do not have access to the full article on Stern, only a section of it. In this section Laurent Sourisseau doesn't say what Deutsche Welle claims (although he doesn't refute it either). Is there someone who could check the original source and comment on this or maybe add something to the article? Thanks in advance. 37.219.33.173 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't, but I know that Charlie Hebo staff ridiculed the "news" on Twitter at the time so it seems that Stern twisted his words. DW quotes him as saying he's not drawing Muhammed personally (and I'm not sure he ever did), not that the magazine will not. Bottom line: there is no statement from them to that effect. Mezigue (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

European migrant crisis
I was going to change to this:

has removed the section. There is a reasonable argument for inclusion of material about how controversial artistic works are perceived/mischaracterised by modern 24 hour news cycle outrage politics that seeks to enrage their audience rather than inform about the original intent.

I'd argue that the material should be included in a way that passes the 10 year test, and hopefully, dispassionate/neutral articles that analyse the artistic content, the intent of the work, and the reactions to it.

It appears that most people reacting to the cartoons have never read the French columns, and have no idea that the paper is left-wing anti-racist, and that cartoons depicting a far-right worldview are intended as a parody. Unfortunately, there aren't that many reliable sources in English, and a lot simplistic yellow journalism/outrage mongering. -- Callinus (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a typical short cycle of column-filling nontroversy. Essentially what happened is one British lawyer wrote an angry tweet and journalists started reporting on that.  Wikipedia would double in size every three weeks if it recorded that sort of thing routinely. Mezigue (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue for inclusion in one week when there are better sources coming out and explaining how much non-outrage their was in france, and how the "journalists" and "social media" are creating an outrage campaign of confected offence-taking and tabloid fodder etc. -- Callinus (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that is also my opinion but Wikipedia doesn't ask for our opinions. The current version - which I am not going to correct for now because I don't think it should be there at all for reasons explained above - is all sorts of wrong.  It focuses on the cover, which was not the cartoon that was controversial, and it claims that Riss is the editor and chooses the cover, which isn't the case.Mezigue (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * further sources:
 * NYT - the cartoon was rejected - the one that was printed was of a European drinking a beer and using a migrant as a footstool under the title "welcome to migrants".
 * Huffpo in France says that nobody in France was outraged because they knew what was in the rest of the paper.-- Callinus (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The cartoon was not rejected actually, NY Times got that wrong. Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists every week compete informally to draw the cover cartoon, and the entries that don't win are all published on the back page under the collective headline "Covers you were spared".  If it had been rejected no one would have seen it.  This is by the by: the point is essentially what has happened here is some guy wrote an angry tweet and now the media echo chamber is riffing on it for a day or two.  This is the most minor of events in the 45-year controversy-filled history of the paper.  Media sites like HuffPost constantly have at some place on their home page a Twitter/Facebook controversy about something or other.  Not noteworthy. Mezigue (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the 370 stuff is not noteworthy. In my opinion, the european mgirant issue is noteworthy because the editor's column was in support of asylum seekers - it is, in my opinion, noteworthy that the context was stripped from reporting by yellow journalism overseas - this is significant as it illustrates a deliberate desire to smear the magazine. -- Callinus (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charlie Hebdo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109002354/http://enisyavuz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/jesuis05.png to http://enisyavuz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/jesuis05.png

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Hebdo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205220532/http://lci.tf1.fr/france/societe/2007-02/soutien-sarkozy-charlie-hebdo-fache-cfcm-4889140.html to http://lci.tf1.fr/france/societe/2007-02/soutien-sarkozy-charlie-hebdo-fache-cfcm-4889140.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107120424/http://www.charliehebdo.fr/ to http://www.charliehebdo.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Outright Blasphemy, ain't it?
Even looking at such pictures genuinely hurts those who are any bit religious. When Muslims dare not try to picture their Prophet, what right does anyone have to mock him and draw shameful resemblances to him? This is clearly not free speech and any justification of it is wrong. The UN itself has took notice of such incidents. Should now Another paragraph be added? Crazy clasher (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is free expression. Their religion forbids them from drawing such images, but many do not follow this religion and they've no right to impose their beliefs on others. Even if the entire world, except for one person, were to follow this religion, that single person should not be required to adhere to the practices of this religion, and should be free to criticize and mock. This right must exist, especially since these religions claim to be ultimate truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmaguire314 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with what you're saying. Do you have specific suggestions?VR talk 20:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, & --I just read this article for the first time while using a browser extension as an image blocker. It did not occur to me that the offending cartoons were in the article. I remember the one with the turban bomb from when it was widely reprinted a decade ago. These sorts of things incite a mortal fear in children, which are a major audience on Wikipedia. I would support the relocation of all the offensive images into a small montage (or montages), with the individual image size no more than say, 10x10 pixels. The { { ! } } template can be used to provide detailed mouseover text for those considering clicking on the montage. People who really want to see what a Muhammad turban bomb looks like can click on the montage and view the media-viewer slideshow. People like me who are wondering why there is a media controversy over this publication and why it is called Charlie can just skip it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable proposal.VR talk 11:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * These suggestions are not reasonable. Wikipedia is not censored and we have no duty to respect the wishes of religions. I am surprised there isn't an article on the cartoons themselves depicting them. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Even a hypothetical atheist 11 year old child in a secular country would be perturbed by the sorts of images involved here. Not because of the religious aspect but because of the morbidity involved. Unlike some of the more esoteric articles on morbid subjects, this article can be expected to receive considerable news-driven organic search traffic. A certain subset of that organic search traffic will be children. Accounting for this in a reasonable manner does not overly censor the article because the thumbnail sized images would still be in the article for those who are curious.


 * Wikipedia is not censored in theory, but it is regularly censored in practice. Some other reason is found to remove the objectionable image, so it is not called censorship. Yet it seems to be the same thing. In March 2019 I added a morbid picture depicting the Guernsey Martyrs to History of Christian thought on abortion. (The link is to the version with my image added.) The picture depicts an infanticide performed following a failed abortion. Both the abortion (as part of an execution of Perotine, the mother) and the infanticide were ordered by a Catholic judge and supported by priests. It was quickly removed. Even after I explained the bigger picture and cited sources to the person who removed it ( User_talk:Roscelese/Archive_16 ), it was not re-added.


 * Reducing the image sizes to thumbnails here seems like a reasonable compromise here between my desire to censor gratuitously morbid images and your desire to keep the article uncensored.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the suggestion that there be a separate article just on the cartoons themselves might be a good compromise. Thus those who are not offended can see the full versions of all the cartoons and those who are can read about Hebdo without worry. Unibond (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone is offended by cartoons, they had better not read this article but their sensitivity cannot be used as an argument to remove the images. People might be even more horrified and disturbed by reading about the brutality and bloodshed of Islamist terrorist attacks in France, but enWP cannot ignore those subjects, either. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I support Unibond's proposal on the condition that 1. I don't have to write the new article & 2. Remaining cartoon illustrations in this article are restricted or even eliminated.


 * 1Kwords, I read this article with an image blocker on and thought it was helpful in answering unanswered questions. It was also brutal to to do burnings at the stake during the Counter-Reformation. If you think the woodcut should be re-added to History of Christian thought on abortion feel free to add it back.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Epiphyllumlover does make a valid point that giving way to religious sensitivity is a bad thing in this article and in others. If the article subject was Islam in France, there would be a point to the argument but the subject of the article is the Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine. It is a satirical magazine in a secular country so therefore the images are very relevant to the subject of the article and cannot be deleted. They should be kept per WP:PRESERVE. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides, the burning-at-the-stake analogy is faulty, murdering a family by burning them alive has since become a criminal act in most countries since. Drawing cartoons is not a criminal act in France and therefore not universally and objectively "an offsense" or "offensive" as such. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Further controversies...
People are adding a new paragraph to this article every time someone complains about a Charlie Hebdo cartoon now. This is absurd. There were controversies like that throughout the paper's history, for instance they were sued repeatedly by the French army, by far-right politicians etc... in the 70s and 90s. If we were to record them all the article would quintuple in size. This is recentism gone mad. Neither the controversy about the Russian plane nor the earthquake are remotely noteworthy. Mezigue (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Because Charlie Hebdo has gained notoriety anything they do is more notable and should be part of the article. People are interested. Later this stuff won't matter and it get get summarized/removed. It is the same at George Zimmerman article. He got punched in the nose, it got a paragraph. The Recentism mentions there are positive aspects to recentism. Have a look at it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is this gives the impression that Charlie Hebdo has changed recently and is somehow more provocative than before. When in fact it is pretty much the same. The real change is the number of people that get offended (mostly outside of France). Aesma (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If Charlie Hebdo is obviously racist (which it is) why does the first line of the article refer to them as "anti-racist" with a link to an article discussing what they did in the 1970's? Like yeah they may have been "anti-racist" in the 70's because everyone was extremely racist then? It doesn't apply at all past the 70's, if it ever did.76.107.33.58 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal of removal of a disrespectful content
Hello, I wish you are fine, guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful and hateful , Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them Thank you for being comprehensive and kind Sincerely Usernetme (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am talking especially about “controversy paragraph “ Usernetme (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the template at the top of this talk page that begins with the words Wikipedia is not censored. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hebdo doesn't fight racism, it IS racist
Hebdo is one of the most nationalistic racist and bigoted publications around that is considered normal mainstream. Hebdo is the epitome of racism in its caricatures of other non-white people. It is the epitome of bigotry in its hate of those who are religious, this coming from an atheist myself seeing their glaring bigotry and hate. The current article has serious bias. https://theconversation.com/charlie-hebdo-reinforces-the-very-racism-it-is-trying-to-satirise-53263 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/satire-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-problem https://www.salon.com/2016/01/14/charlie_hebdo_adds_to_its_long_history_of_racist_cartoons_by_portraying_dead_refugee_babies_as_future_monkey_rapists/ 96.31.177.151 (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * My thoughts precisely. The events surrounding Siné's sacking (and how that event compares to the magazine's treatment of brown, black and Muslim or Catholic people) are proof of it. This has nothing to do with being left-wing or satirical. A satirical magazine would have never sacked Siné for an innocuous joke and later on made fun of a drowned refugee child. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Charlie Hebdo has a long history as an anti-racist publication, strongly opposed to the far right. Anyone calling it racist is either ignorant of the subject or seriously biased. It is controversial and definitely antireligious, but calling it racist misses the point. As for the rest, they do use crass humour and their cartoons are hit-and-miss affair. But that does not make them racist. Psychloppos (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You've understood nothing then. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you know very little about the subject matter. Psychloppos (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you cannot distinguish between genuine take-no-prisoners satire and racist (and very selective) pornography masquerading as satire, then the only one who needs to do some work, on your own, with your own timing, somewhere in a corner, avoiding eye contact and without bothering anyone else is you. You have no constructive contribution to make to this debate. No more time wasted on you. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I happen to know this publication and its history. So you are welcome to do some homework. If you don't want to "waste time" with me, fine : I dont' think exchanging further would be very rewarding. IMHO, Mezigue said everything there is to say here. Psychloppos (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2021 and 21 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naowa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)