Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015
Section: "Muslim Reactions", "Supporting the attacks". In the sentence: "The attack was also praised by ISIS.[247] ISIS militant Abu Mussab from Syria praised the massacre.[248] Al Shahab, a militant Islamist organization in Somalia, also praised the attackers.[249][250]"

Al Shahab is a typo. Al Shahab should be changed to Al Shabaab.

158.169.40.9 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

USAs attack on Iraq ?
It looks as we can trace this back to USA (again) and their attack on Iraq i 2003 and Abu Ghraib torture in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.157.25 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

In depth article on authors radicalisation

 * 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)

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 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  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 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)

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)

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.
 * &bull;    five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
 * &bull;    86men and 103women, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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: What_SYNTH_is_not, What_SYNTH_is_not, What_SYNTH_is_not. 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)

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)

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)

Current version states, at the opening of a paragraph: "Images of Muhammad are not banned in Islam." This is incorrect, partly because it's untenable to make a sweeping generalization about all of Islam, and partly because there is a well-documented aniconism in Islam, especially regarding Muhammad. Numerous sources would support a far more nuanced opening to this paragraph, e.g., CNN or BBC. Perhaps a better opening would be, "Though the Quran does not explicitly ban images, [many] authoritative Islamic views have long opposed human images, especially those of prophets." Not sure what qualifier, e.g., many, would be helpful. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 06:23, 15 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)

Possible related operations in Belgium
There seem to be numerous possibly-related police operations ongoing in Belgium at the moment: see 2015 Verviers police raid -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are saying for now that they appear to be unrelated to the Paris attacks, but the possibility is still under investigation. Undescribed (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Move?
– I think that 2015 Paris attacks or something should be the name of the Article. Yogurto (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

✅ 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Exactly. The 2015 Paris attacks article would be a bare bones overview article leading most people to whatever it was that they were looking for. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * How would you feel about 2015 Île-de-France attacks then? After all, the way some things are stated by the media are not always the truth. For example, shortly after the first attack, it was being called by many media outlets the "deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since the 2005 London bombings" which is obviously not true, and therefore it was removed from the Wikipedia article. This demonstrates that how things are worded by the media does not have to be the same way they are worded in Wikipedia. The same applies to media calling the incidents the "Paris attacks" rather than the "Île-de-France attacks;" even if "Paris" is not technically accurate, they say it because "Île-de-France" is not an area which non-locals are familiar with, so it's easier just to say Paris. So 2015 Île-de-France attacks would probably be best IMO; and it has the word "France" in it, so it won't be an unrecognizable term. Undescribed (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME "Paris attacks" appears to be used more in the media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Due to the fact that many people are saying it would be best to have a general page for all the attacks, I have created a page titled 2015 Île-de-France attacks and which does just that. I have adjusted the infobox on the article accordingly as well. Hopefully it will settle this very controversial matter which has taken days to be resolved. Undescribed (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I Oppose anything related to name changing and Agree with the creation of the 2015 Île-de-France attacks parent article. Further, that messy and outdated discussion for moving/renaming/splitting what have you -- of which no one wants to touch or add to anymore -- could probably be best closed and forgotten about. Creating the parent article pretty much solves most of the problem. Zup326 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ 100% with the above statement. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Main article redirect "2015 Île-de-France attacks"
Even if it is not termed as "main article" shouldn't there at least be some sort of redirect link on the top of the page to this article? Undescribed (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I have something for that. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is it? Undescribed (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If needed, you could add this template, or this one, to provide a similar effect.
 * However, I think you might want to look for consensus before adding it to the page. Maybe not. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The second format would be best imo. But yes, we should probably wait for more consensus first. Undescribed (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts? Undescribed (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added to the top of the page Gamebuster19901 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [Redacted sock comments]
 * Good work. It looks good at the top of the page. Zup326 (talk) 22:51, 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)


 * MoorNextDoor has removed the following text with the edit comment: Charlie Hebdo satirical works: WP:SYNTH You cannot combine material from multiple sources to blame the Muslims or anyone else for the actions of 3 criminals:


 * Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. By the time of the shooting, the Muslim population of France had surpassed 5 million, which was the largest Muslim population in the European Union. While most French Muslims abide by the values of the country, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remain in the memories of many French of Algerian descent, many of whom feel their ethnic background has excluded them from mainstream French society. A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqabs, yarmulkes, and other ostentatious symbols have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and is undergoing court challenges. 
 * As clearly no "blaming" has been done, nor anything resembling WP:SYNTH, I've reverted it as vandalism. MoorNextDoor has an agenda and his edits should be monitored. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple people have been complaining about this material, and you are outnumbered. The article needs to tone down the general material on Muslims.  Abductive  (reasoning) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abductive: Your comment is gibberish: This is the result of removing several paragraphs worth of material, when several others have been calling for its expansion.  Please pay attention before making non-sequitur comments.  We're all aware of your biases and the reason for your block—it doesn't look good for you to support a fellow edit-warrior. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Abductive's position is that all of this material must be effaced from the article, and had himself blocked for doing just that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I was not blocked for doing that; I was blocked for violating 3RR to keep this crap off the page. You have lost now that more people have determined that the material can't be in the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for violating 3RR to keep this crap off the page: What I said. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's WP:SYNTH, I don't know what is. Explain to me what is the purpose of the background section and what makes you think you know better than the French themselves ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right, you don't know what WP:SYNTH is, neither do you care, nor are you willing to listen. You certainly have made no effort to demonstrate it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not make personal attacks, read WP:PERSONAL. Just answer the question please. MoorNextDoor (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not make accusations of personal attacks. I've stated facts: you refuse to listen to those you are "discussing" with, and you refuse to make any effort whatsoever to back up your accusations of WP:SYNTH. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is exactly that, a paragraph of "facts" from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. What is the purpose of the background section and what do any of those "facts" have to do with the actions of the 3 criminals ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the supposed conclusion implied is ... ? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That the Muslims and the immigrants are to take the blame for what happened, which is completely wrong and you know it. I repeat the question: What is the purpose of the background section and what do any of those "facts" have to do with the actions of the 3 criminals ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how "While most French Muslims abide by the values of the country" can be interpreted as "the Muslims and the immigrants are to take the blame for what happened".
 * I've answered your question several times already.
 * Please demonstrate WP:SYNTH, or retract the accusation.
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "While most French Muslims abide by the values of the country" means ? Why is such statement relevant to Muslims only ?
 * What, you're saying it excludes other ethnicities? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered the most important question: What is the purpose of the background section and what do any of those "facts" have to do with the actions of the 3 criminals ?
 * If you're truly interested in the answer, you wouldn't ignore it each it I give it to you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already did. Answer the question above and everything will become clear to you.
 * You've asserted (without evidence) that I've combined sources to reach a conclusion that "the Muslims and the immigrants are to take the blame for what happened". I've demonstrated (with evidence) that not only is this false, but that the paragraph says exactly the opposite.  When will you retract your falsified assertion? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MoorNextDoor (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MoorNextDoor (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that the attackers are motivated by French culture; the section doesn't belong.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is this statement even supposed to mean? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Due to a post at ANi I just reviewed this disputed section as an uninvolved editor, and I think it does not belong in this article. There is enough there for a stand alone article, and it might be worth linking to it, but it is not appropriate for this article. Please stop edit warring over it. Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Legacypac: this isn't about the disputed section—that's a separate discussion. It's very specifically about this one paragraph, which is in the general "Background" section (or was—the editwarring is fast and furious). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, and with all due respect to everyone, I still oppose any mention of Muslim demographics in France. I think the background section should focus on things like Charlie Hebdo, it's drawings of Muhammad, and perhaps even Al-Qaeda. The Muslim population of France is not relevant, IMO.VR talk  08:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with MoorNextDoor that the single paragraph I've presented above is WP:SYNTH, or do you simply believe it's not necessary? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * having wanted it all removed I have changed as regard the odd sentence or two about muslims in fance partly because, muslims in france have been discussed in RS in articles directly pertaining to these attacks and partly because it seems inconceivable that the hebdo  muslim-related cartoons, as with the catholic-related   cartoons would not exist in the quantity they do without the expectation of being understood by their readership - why does hebdo not  have lots of  Zoroastrian cartoons - (i'm assuming they don't)- because there aren't lots of zoroastrian  symbols and wouldn't be understood - surely the content against religions , the pope, prophet etc  is because the cartoons use  stuff from the culture that surrounds the makers of the art and consumers of the art - so the rise in the muslim population is kind of  related to the magazine , its content, its fate, - that's my , poorly expressed opinion.  Sayerslle (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey: I think it's completely irrelevant.
 * Vice regent: If it's irrelevant, why do you think so many mainstream newssources have devoted so much space to explaining these background demographics? Why do you think Wikipedia should make such an exemption?  I'm afraid this would spill over into Andiar.rohnds‎ territory, where he places support above condemnation because he feels that the way it should be.  Should we really be cherrypicking our sources to match our personal versions of what we think should be there? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle, you're right that the Charlie Hebdo may have made these cartoons after being alarmed by the increase in Muslim population of their country. They could also have made this cartoon due to anti-Muslim sentiments in both Europe and France. If we are to mention Muslim demographics in a sentence or two, we should also mention that this is a minority subject to frequent discrimination by the French (also in a sentence or two).VR talk  15:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean they were alarmed by the increase - I just meant they deal with the real world around them - so it gets reflected in their art - more mosques in real world around them, more mosques in their art ,kind of thing-that's all - some of their former contributors - Olivier Cyran, a hostile witness it seems to Charlie hebdo, says in this article -  they became more obsessed with Islam pas raciste si vous -  the left is a bit split -  Sayerslle (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be pure editor speculation, which is not a valid basis for including any content in the article. If we can find sources that say that the cartoonists were reacting to an increase in mosques in France, then it might be fine to cite them. But in the absence of that, we can't just make stuff up that seems plausible to us. Formerip (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * of course, - the difference between discussing on a talk page and the article itself - in the meantime the article by cyran pas raciste si vous certainly shows more examples of the -pretty visceral - art - ( just discussing, didn't mean to annoy you formerip NOTFORUM,  I know, I know. Sayerslle (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I'm not annoyed. You say that as if you have heard rumours about what I might do to you!
 * Main point is we shouldn't be coatracking content into the article that isn't in sources directly related to the article topic. Formerip (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - actually at leninstomb,via louisproyect, I found the article translated into English Charlie hebdo not racist if you say so - so its not just making stuff up, if RSsources from former writers in English are available)- (from 2013 -so probably better at main if use-able at Charlie Hebdo article, not here - ma faute Sayerslle (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies to all
I accept responsibility for my part in the ill will that has spread here and has contributed to poor quality of the discussion.

Please sign below to express your commitment to renew a good-faith dialogue on all issues to do with this article.


 * 1) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Background discussion reboot
The discussions are such a mess that they have become nearly impossible to follow. I propose we renew the discussion to keep it accessible, so let's clearly and concisely restate our concerns: how much "Background" there should be, what parts are appropriate, if any, etc. Commenters in this section should follow the code of conduct; those who wish not to follow it are free to continue commenting in the still-open discussions above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 16 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)

Yep. His friends claim he used to call himself an "atheist Sufi". He was a fan of Nietzche. XavierItzm (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's one of the sources that describe Mustapha Ourad as a Muslim.


 * Here's some food for thought. Cherif Kouachi described himself as a "ghetto Muslim". Other RS describe the brothers as "occasional Muslims". Why are some people describing them as simply Muslims ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Because they murdered people with an Islamic motive. When you shout about Allah and boast about killing alleged blasphemers, it doesn't really matter whether you prayed five times a day or not at all. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of simple inline descriptions of weapons
User:Trackteur has been deleting the simple descriptions of what these weapons are (eg. "assault rifle", "rocket launcher", "submachine gun") from the intro to the article, on the basis that readers can just click the links on things like "Škorpion vz. 61" or "M80 Zolja" to find out what they are.

I believe this is counterproductive, and contrary to our convention of plain writing. Most readers are not arms experts, and it's unreasonable to expect them to click on the description of a weapon to find out what kind of weapon it is. For most purposes, they only want to know what kind of weapon these are (ie that they had "some submachine guns, a shotgun, and a rocket launcher"), and putting it in inline text suffices. If they want full details, then that's when they can click on the link and go to the full article. Adding the weapon names is a bonus, but the crucial information for most readers is the kind of weapon.

To Trackteur: instead of just reverting me again, please comment here before doing so. -- The Anome (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; if the reader has to click through to something just to find out what it is, the writing has failed. The links are there for people who want details.  This is why we don't link dates, for instance, or everyday items, or major countries, per WP:OVERLINK. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Can someone explain why the lead was allowed to be gutted? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of Elsa Cayat image
We need to come to a consensus over the usage of the file named Elsa Cayat.jpg in this article. User:PinkAmpersand was one of the most recent people to remove the file, with the comment that "once again, rm File:Elsa Cayat.jpg due to lack of fair-use rationale; include warning against using it without rationale". It is completely unnecessary for User:Andiar.rohnds to launch a personal attack against me by stating that "your own talk page suggests your edits be taken with a grain of salt." Can you also explain the "*yawn* the fair use claim seems unauthentic" comment? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It can't be used. NFC #8 is quite clear that the image must significantly impact reader understanding, not just serve as illustration or decoration. This image does not appreciably add to the reader's understanding of what happened at the Charlie Hebdo shootings, it is just part of a gallery. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [Redacted sock comments]

#KillAllMuslims
I recently went to Twitter and saw that the hashtag #KillAllMuslims is becoming a trend, I have no idea of how to edit the page but anyone can help me if this edit is accepted about the trending hashtag, similarly #KillAllChristians is also abit less trending than the Muslim hashtag Xizuki (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this content might be more appropriate at Je suis Charlie rather than this article. It seems like the hashtag was trending mainly through people saying "what a disgusting hashtag", rather than through people wanting to kill all Muslims. That's something that should be taken into account in deciding whether it is significant enough to include on WP (because not every single instance of something trending on Twitter is). Formerip (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * BBC News (of all places!) revealed this was left-wing/Muslim rather than an actual online pogrom. Either by conspiracy or by a stupid accident, they promoted the hashtag themselves while voicing their disdain to a very small amount of anti-Muslim people tweeting it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-30728491


 * I wrote on Twitter that this hashtag is just a bullshit to me, thats why I was wondering why was this so trending. Xizuki (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)