Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1

petition for delete
this entire article should be deleted it is Islamophobic and Xenophobic. It's not mentioned anywhere that the professor provoked the Muslim in question.

Free speech is not freedom from consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is unclear whether you are a fundamentalist or just a troll. The teacher asked Muslim students to leave the class before he discussed the Charlie Hebdo shooting, which any history teacher is entitled to teach. The murderer was not "provoked", he was not there and neither was any other Muslim. It's called "mind your own business". If you think that a bloody barbaric beheading is just a "consequence" then that is a very sad reflection on your perception. I see you post from Canada, where you no doubt enjoy the freedoms provided by the West. Rather than "Islamophobic and Xenophobic", you seem more concerned by truthaphobia. WWGB (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also certainly a troll since in 2019 they demanded the Expulsions and exoduses of Jews be deleted claiming tha article was antiemetic and stated that it wasn’t our fault god chose us.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it's mentioned in the opening lines that the murder was caused by the teacher's teaching Muhammed's caricatures. So do you want us to insert a POV in there as well and say the murder was justified? Where did you see anywhere that in a Wikipedia article that the editor inserted his own POV on whether any crime is justified or not? Please lead us to them so we could delete these justifyings based on alleged provocations.Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete? What utter nonsense. 99.229.116.186 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * antiemetics make me sick! Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The amount of idiocy that is in here is more than amusing. Balkanite (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose No. This is a perfect show of freedom of expression and the press. A man was beheaded on western soil and that is somehow xenophobic? A man was beheaded for showing a stupid cartoon and that is somehow xenophobic? The last terror attack in France was on September 25, this year. It got its fair share on the encyclopedia. Just because the guy showed a picture of Mohamed, he had even allowed his Muslim pupils to leave the class if they felt uncomfortable. It would be like saying that 'oh the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks were only 15 dead while people in the Middle East are dying every day at a much faster rate. And people die every day so who cares?', or saying that some people in the Bataclan attacks supported the Front National and thus it was an 'attack against the FN' and not against democracy. What is that mentality anyway? I hope that this is just a dark-humored troll from the internet toilet that is 4chan but if this is an actual person who believes this then please move to Metapedia, it's much better there for people with extremist views. This talk page will probably be used by some political commentator trying to prove his point that people on Wikipedia are just left-wing fanatics who believe that beheading a person for their belives isn't wrong because that person had the wrong beliefs. Or the equivalent would be to delete their Wikipedia page. Just like the whole 'Spanish flu' → '1918 influenza pandemic' proposal, it makes no sense, just like deleting this page (click here if you're interested).--Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename / delete / translate
Would be better to translate fr:Attentat_de_Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. Yug (talk)  11:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What if I do translate the article, as I am French, and change the title to Conflans-Sainte-Honorine beheading? Omir Laa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the French word attentat needs a good translation, "behading" is not accurate. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it isn't, but I don't know if attack works in this case. If I rename it attack can I translate the article from the French Wikipedia? Omir Laa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See below for the reason not to change the title of this article. Translating the French article can be done without changing the title. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nationality
I removed from the box the assumption that the perpetrator was a French citizen. The sources say he was given refugee status and ten-year right to residency this year. Countries don't usually make their citizens apply to remain every ten years. There needs to be citation for any possible Russian citizenship, as there is the possibility of resigning it, or the family never having it in the first place if they left in 2002 when the separatist conflict was still ongoing. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Reaction removed
You recently removed some reactions of celebrities and politician in your this edit. Can I know the reason please? --  Manasbose   (talk &#124; contribs) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess it was because he considers them to be of insufficient relevance/importance to be included. Where should the line be drawn in regard to who should be included in the Reactions section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Michael (talk • contribs)
 * They are just stating personal opinions. They do not speak on behalf of any notable organisation. Who cares what they think? WWGB (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, they can be added in public protest section (as they are "notable" public) . --   Manasbose   (talk &#124; contribs) 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request
Can someone replace the phrase "invited Muslim students to leave the classroom" in Section 1.2 of the article (Events leading up to the murder) with "allowed Muslim students to leave the classroom"? Invited does not make sense here as it implies that the victim was not involved in the class though he himself taught the class. 45.251.33.115 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 04:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Guardian says he "invited" Muslim students to leave the class if they wished, whereas BBC article says he "advised" them to do so. The parent of a student said Paty "asked Muslim students in the class to raise their hands and then directed them to leave the classroom", but Paty contested this.VR talk 04:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ I do not share the OP's concern that the word "invited" creates confusion. A teacher in a classroom can invite a student to leave that room. It shows that the teacher initiated the departure, whereas "allowed" could mean that the teacher merely responded to a student request. In fact, it is the same term used in the accompanying reference . WWGB (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The title ignores the political context
Hi, French sources use the term attentat, which means something like "attack" in English but has political connotations (such as the murder of a politician or official). A Thousand Words (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) There is a reason that the President Macron and other ministers have commented on the attack and those reasons are that the attack has a political dimension. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Paty was the sole victim who was specifically targeted, so the title Murder of Samuel Paty is the usual format, regardless of the killer's reason for choosing him. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Murder is not accurate. Do you murder beef? No. Murder is a legal term. Nobody has been convicted. Homicide of Samuel Paty or Killing of Samuel Paty or Beheading of Samuel Paty is more accurate. Please comment on which you prefer. Carunitfiat903 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Murder of [victim's name] is the standard title for such articles. We have many which have been quickly followed by the killer's death. It isn't seriously being disputed that this was a murder.
 * Beef isn't from humans, so that's irrelevant. Jim Michael (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a rule; Other Crap Exists. Each article is judged separately. This could have been not guilty due to insanity or manslaughter. This is a more chilling article because the teacher's head was cut off. Therefore, Beheading of Samuel Paty is the most appropriate, in my opinion but "murder" is just an opinion, not supported by the courts or facts. Just like hospice is not considered murder. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was allowed to die while having a heart attack but it was not murder, but a sexual affair. Carunitfiat903 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Murder, and killing both seem like they should be acceptable. I think "beheading of..." is not usually a good idea, but in this case, it's the main fact that the news is focusing on, so it's a common name. Natureium (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My vote for all these articles is that they be named "The Killing of Jane Doe". The guy does has a point. Especially in the cases where it still isn't technically charged as murder and that term is factually and legally is still incorrect, it might go to be manslaughter, etc. The Killing of is a wide umbrella term that most search users would probably type first too.Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It standard for us to name articles Murder of x when there was a sole victim. The mainstream media & the French President have clearly said it was murder & there's no doubt that Paty was deliberately killed & that he was personally targeted. It can't seriously be argued that it wasn't murder. Article titles of Killing of x is done when a suspect/defendant is in custody or when the killer has been convicted of a lesser crime in relation to the killing (such as manslaughter), rather than murder. Jim Michael (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that "Killing of [Name]" is preferable to "Murder of [Name]" in the absence of a murder conviction, even when we know that there won't be a trial (, though it was moved back shortly thereafter). There is a RfC about this subject matter: Wikipedia talk:Article titles TompaDompa (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Killing of ... is actually even worse since it further removes from the title the fact that the death had a political context. What's the point in trying to suppress the political context? Many French sources and the French article uses attentat and the closest English translation is Assassination of .... earlier you championed that this article should take inspiration from its French-language counterpart, yet now you seem to ignore both the title of the frWP article as well as French-language sources? For instance French Yahoo uses assassinat (assassination). Therefore I propose the article be changed to Assassination of ...' A Thousand Words (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * World leaders (JFK,MLK) are assassinated, humble school teachers are not. WWGB (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , knock it off with assuming bad faith. earlier you championed that this article should take inspiration from its French-language counterpart I assume you're referring to where I added the Expand French template, but that was in response to  (which was in turn a response to ), and . If you are to keep assuming that all my edits are made in bad faith, I suggest you take your grievances to WP:ANI. I would of course prefer if you simply stopped and assumed good faith instead. TompaDompa (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The victim was nowhere near prominent enough for this murder to meet the definition of assassination. Murder is more precise & accurate than killing. A title such as Conflans-Sainte-Honorine attack makes it sound like the location is the most relevant aspect of it, but there was only one victim here who was specifically, individually targeted - the location is significantly less relevant. Also, attack is usually used in titles in which there are multiple (often random) victims, such as Attack on Pearl Harbor, September 11 attacks & November 2015 Paris attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, the only addition you made was a tag whereas many other editors have managed to make many contributions using both English and French sources. Of course I would prefer that you helped with building this article using WP:RS sources. A Thousand Words (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of this. Your preferences about how I spend my time on Wikipedia in general and this article in particular are no reason to assume bad faith. As you correctly pointed out, a large number of other editors have expanded the article, so I don't see how or why it is a big problem that I haven't (also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY). Again, if you think I am behaving WP:DISRUPTIVELY, you can make your case to that effect over at WP:ANI. TompaDompa (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Have we considered the possibility that "murder" is already the COMMONNAME? It appears to return more results (156 results) on Google News than "killing" (102 results). --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, scratch that last thought. It appears when you discount one non-RS, you get "murder" (31 results) and "killing" (87 results). --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewed about ~15 original reporting articles (AP News, Reuters, CNN, NPR, Euro News, WSJ, VOA, etc.., instead of reprints) and the sources often (with few exceptions) avoid calling it a "murder". Even those who mention Paty being "murdered", refer to the event as the "killing of Samuel Paty". France24 is an exception and more often calls it a "murder", some times assassination. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Assassination is clearly wrong, no Eng sources refer to it thus and no reader would look for it thus. In English, that word is only used for political figures killed because of their politics/high political position - JFK, MLK, Franz-Josef, Ian Gow, but not Jo Cox. I concur that 'killing' is preferable to 'murder' since the second has a specific legal definition which has not been met. Although gruesome, I would have no objection to using the manner of death, as we do with other forms of killing.Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We only have a few articles that are titled Beheading of x. We have many times more which are titled Murder of x; many of those - like this one - were not followed by a murder conviction due to the killer's death. Jim Michael (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that. However, all that is immaterial unless you can show that "murder" is the COMMONNAME for this death. Articles about killings that were not followed by a murder conviction are called "murder" because that is the COMMONNAME for the event in RS. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I also oppose "beheading" since that is a rarely used title (currently only 4 articles use it). That also needs proof of COMMONNAME. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

please don't move this page without *explicit* consensus (not determined by you for that matter: your page move has now been reverted twice). I agree with the reasoning above to keep this at "Murder ..." for the time being, and really, it is much too early to determine a "common name" based on reliable sources (which, also, would rather lead to something with "terrorism"/"terrorist" or "beheading"/"decapitation" for what I've seen thus far). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit overly bureaucratic to me, but sure – I'll start a WP:RM. TompaDompa (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Perpetrator is Russian
Maybe Chechen anyway, his nationality is russian. Or not ? Why not mentioned ? --2001:A61:BBC:101:111A:DFD6:7010:B495 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the following is correct: citizinship - Russian, nationality - Chechen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2AC7:4A00:3410:5958:900F:F75E (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The perpetrator is not a Russian citizen. However, he was of Chechen descent. Balkanite (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Depiction of the cartoon showed
Can we find a picture of the cartoon showed? What was shown was significant as it seems to be at the center of the murder.VR talk 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See here. WWGB (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, would the naked image be considered too offensive to include on wikipedia? VR talk 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so that's not really the question we should be asking ourselves. The questions we should be asking relate to MOS:PERTINENCE and copyright. TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems someone has added one of the pictures shown by Paty. The image seems to be straight out of the magazine as published by newspapers and I'm not sure what the copyright status is. Could be used under fair use? The other image can be seen here as pointed out by .VR talk 18:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Nature of the depiction
Whether we resort to the sources provided or to plausible expectations about the incident, a mere depiction is unlikely to be a criminal motive. While I'm not keen on the word defamatory, due to its legal sense, although it isn't the only attested meaning in use -- this is what I thought would accurately paraphrase lampooning, which even the reference thought was appropriate. Rather than solely ascribing the description of the depiction to the perpetrator, I encourage anyone, especially those who rushed to revert the qualifier, to suggest better descriptions of the depictions to reflect an objective and verifiable outlook thereof. Referring to WP:EDITORIAL is specious in a way, since it's concerned with adverbs imparting a subjective tone, not those that are at the core of the meaning to be conveyed. Finally, I personally hope that editors engaging in this discussion will manage to eliminate the bias arising from their account (and/or impression) of my own cultural background. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "... unlikely to be ..." according to a Wikipedia editor's appreciation is WP:OR 1.0, so can't be done according to that core content policy. The perpetrator can't tell us about his motives, and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to deduce them from whatever they know about the incident. There has already been written quite a lot about this in reliable sources, merely summarizing all that in this article would make it much larger than it is now: adding personal deductions to that would still be a no-no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Original in WP:OR pertains to the content to be included in the encyclopedia. The process of writing an article, however, necessarily includes an editor's appraisal of what matters in the sources. Apparently, this would be inherently original, nay favorably so! Simply put, a caricature is per se a type of misrepresentation, or at least some type of depiction. Insisting on describing it as a typical depiction and disregarding the relation of its nature to the course of the event, even if evident in the sources, is difficult to fathom tbh. Anywho, I think I thereby made my point and it'd be up to the community to decide what works best for the article. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is selected for the Wikipedia article and what isn't is subject to consensus among Wikipedia editors. Thus far you're not making a good case to win other editors over with your OR, of which you now offer more of the same, e.g. "a caricature is per se a type of misrepresentation" – afaik that is not necessarily the case: afaik a caricature can as well take the form of an apt representation. Also qualifying every misrepresentation as necessarily "defamatory" is not the product of unavoidable logic: I'm sure some misrepresentations would quite rightly be experienced as flattering, e.g. when some defects are photoshopped out of a picture. So, no, your continued OR is thus far, afaics, not convincing anyone, and even less building some sort of consensus to include such questionable material in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The way your reply fails to address both clauses of the simple coordinating conjunction by which I defined a caricature and its fixation on the redundant legal discussion of defamation both obscure the bold questions of this discussion: Is there a suitable qualifer for the cartoonish depictions whose use would better illustrate their role as a motive, especially since the inclusion of both drawings would go against WP:GRATUITOUS? If yes, what are they? Such cherrypicking of my contention, I'm afraid, can well be taken as WP:CPP, particularly when coupled with more or less gloating over the lack of support for my opposing stance, assuming other editors have already read the discussion. Forget about defamation and focus on lampooning in the RZ source, nice and easy. If you think the inclusion of a qualifier would be WP:UNDUE, please explain this in light of the arguments given in favor of the antithesis: It'd be a substitute for showing both caricatures, it's significant because it describes the main trigger of the whole disaster, and it can be straightforwardly paraphrased from the reference provided. I hope I made myself clear. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to suppose the picture is defamatory. It is not because the terrorist find it defamatory that is was. Of course he attacked this teacher because some islamists denounced him on the internet (that is largely documented in French medias), but it won't make the teacher responsible of defamation, nor the caricatures. Those can be vexing, yes, and I personally find some, especially this one, stupid. But if they haven't been declared defamatory per the justice system, they're not. They can just be considered stupid, awful, useless, what you like. Declaring those defamatory contribute to the idea that the caricature and the teacher are (at least partially) responsible, and not the terrorist.Passant67 (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, defamatory was my own attempt to render lampooning, the description given to the drawings in RZ source. I don't believe it to be the absolute best. Still, I initiated this section to point out the inconsistence of retracting from qualifying the depiction at all merely to avoid it being understood as a legal defamation. After all, our fears of the backlash from implicitly ascribing some sort of responsibility or guilt to the victim by accurately specifying the nature of the drawings shouldn't urge us to distort the narrative by oversimplification. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand what is your goal here. The terrorist killed a teacher because some caricature was shown. There is no ambiguity, no distortion and no oversimplification. There is no fear, there is no responsibility from this teacher nor anyone, besides the terrorist and those who encouraged him to kill. The nature of the shown picture is to be a caricature. That's all.Passant67 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Watch your IP sock, bro. Edits history is archived here on Wikipedia. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not your "bro". I didn't try to mask anything, just forget to connect. Is that a menace ? Passant67 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, not when we assume WP:GOODFAITH at least. It's just that your fervent assertion makes it appear dubious. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fervent assertion" ? Of what ? That you don't need to qualify a caricature as defamatory ? The only culprit here is the terrorist, not the teacher or the picture. There is nothing more than that. So please stop.Passant67 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of calling it "defamatory" why not just state the facts? That the cartoon showed Muhammad naked and included male genitalia? Readers can interpret that as they will.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020
Remove the the cartoon image Reasons,

not necessary and the releveant information can be provided with description,

will increase further hatred and anger,

will hurt the emotions of millions of people 39.33.112.53 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not censored <span style="background: -webkit-radial-gradient(red, blue); -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;">Dylsss(talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 21:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Foreign reactions
A lot of countries, including Turkey, have reacted strongly to Macron's statements after the attack which has resulted in significant diplomatic spats between France-EU and Turkey. Any reason this is not mentioned here (it is after all directly related to this) or is it in some other article? Gotitbro (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, only Erdogan reacted strongly. Boycotts are not endorsed by states, but by particulars, private organizations or specific institutions. If it is mentioned, it must be mentioned that many of these reactions are base on lies (French boycott, caricatures on public buildings, oppression, quasi-accusation of genocide), as it is fueled by Erdogan's deception.Passant67 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to now be very strong reactions in multiple countries to Macron, does make sense to mention them separately. Boycotts are by definition not endorsed by states, those are called sanctions. Will put some reactions in when I have time, but the sources can be readily found in the wiki ITN page for those interested. Albertaont (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Albertaont, separate articles are warranted given the reaction to Macron's statements. While the death of Samuel Paty was the starting point, this seems to be going in a separate direction as international reactions occur and are seemingly affecting international relationships. Perhaps a brief mention can be made in this article and a more in depth overview can be made in appropriate separate articles. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear God no, not another "reactions to..." article. Those invariably end up as flag salad WP:QUOTEFARMs that fail WP:10YEARS. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020
The sentence asked for a reference:

"Many Muslims called for French products to be boycotted in their countries, while European leaders[who?] supported his remarks."

Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte condemned Erdogan for his remarks about Macron on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/MinPres/status/1320690440941772803 Farioko (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this inclusion of this citation as it supports the second part of the quotation. Though I personally prefer news articles, tweets that are clearly from foreign leaders are acceptable forms of citation. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Done * Jurisdicta (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Age of the students ?
Anybody knows? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Students in Middle school are aged between 11 and 14. According to this article they were mostly 13-year-olds. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete the cartoon Image
including the image apparently means you agree with charlie hebdo or their ideas of freedom of speech. The relevant information can also be provided by description it is like wikipedia is working all the job of charlie hebdo intention maybe different but the result is the same. I don't want to argue but it is something which should be done if you want to maintain the wikipedia a neutral platform. And it is something which almost 1 billion people find offensive .Think about it as a human — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.112.53 (talk • contribs)

When charlie journalists was killed due to their bribe why the french school teacher paty was not taking the lesson and showing false picture in the class room of just middle school students. The President of Turkey and Prime Minister of Pakistan Condemn President Macron act for awarding teacher highest award of France for Charlie old false pictures. The information in news papers are inconsistent publishing misleading information.France is not considering 200 Billion dollar trade with Muslim Majority countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh Qatar and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.147.18 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The above commenters clearly have a fundamental interpretation the koran and scripture. The second commenter in particular seems to suport the killing. Wikipedia is secular and neutral. The argument of "wow this offended people, maybe she should exclude the picture", IS ENTIRELY THE POINT. The picture should be added to save people having to look for the motive elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.2.155 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

the sunday rallies
The rallies were called by the teaching unions - includind the most left wing of them. They were not aimed at "the ineffective response to radical islam". They were to mourn and protest.2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:1DB3:CEC3:8BBC:B984 (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Scheduled for Legion d'Honneur
Apparently Samuel Paty is to be awarded the Legion of Honour according to Forbes. Keep watching this space. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Was already awarded, on 21 October, added to article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good work. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus against this move  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Samuel Paty → Killing of Samuel Paty – Per discussion above. To the extent that there is a WP:COMMONNAME, it is "killing" rather than "murder" (see comments by ). "Murder" is a legal term with a specific definition, and nobody has been convicted of murder (nor is anybody likely to be, for obvious reasons). There is a related centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles TompaDompa (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Per comments above. While "murder of ..." is sometimes used in RS, most often by AFP and France24, "killing of ..." is the most commonname in RS. The reports by Reuter and AP are the most often reprinted in RS. Both tend to use "killing" to describe the event. As do original reports by BBC, CNN, NPR, Euro News, WSJ and VOA. On occasion, they use "murder", "terrorism" etc., but most consistently use "killing". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was clearly a murder & in most cases we use murder in the titles of articles about cases such as this in which the killer can't be tried due to his death. Some mainstream media sources have described it as a murder. The fact that it's also been described as a killing doesn't mean that it's not being regarded as murder; it's common for murders to be described as killings. Jim Michael (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the word killed is also applied to car accidents or casualties in wartime. Murder is indeed a legal term, but not strictly a legal term either. Therefore there is no real problem with the current title and the suggested move is actually worse than the current title. The terrorist was "killed" by police officers acting in the line of duty. Those police had no intention of killing anyone when they got out of bed. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a "simple killing", why are antiterror agency chiefs commenting on this attack? Objectively it can't be argued this is "just another killing". A Thousand Words (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the only person to refer to this as either a "simple killing" or "just another killing" is you, so who is this in response to? I'd also note that we have an article called Killing of Osama bin Laden (as the result of a recent WP:RM), which is even less of a "simple killing"/"just another killing", so I'm not sure why you think the use of the word "killing" is downplaying anything. Here's a list of articles with titles that begin with "Killing of" by the way, if anybody is interested. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The killing of Osama Bin Laden was a military action. If you follow that logic every soldier who killed someone in battle is a murderer. Some may think that way but it is not a generally held belief, unless it's a war crime. Someone Not Awful (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose factually this was a murder and reliable sources are reporting it as such. If anything a title like Conflans-Sainte-Honorine terror attack would be a better alternative. The objective of this attack was to instill terror against those inclined to excercise their freedom of speech to caricature Muhammad. 81.249.219.165 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NCE, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed. It's also a bit odd to name the targeted killing of a single individual after the place where it happened. TompaDompa (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps "terror" is unnecessary with the 9/11 article being a classic example of its non-usage. On the French version of this article this event is referred to as the Conflans-Sainte-Honorine attack. 81.249.219.165 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In some languages, this article is named after the victim; in others it's named after the location. It's usual for us to use the form Murder of [victim's name] when there's only one victim who was specifically targeted. Jim Michael (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The person accused of carrying out this killing is already dead, and the police aren't looking at anyone else for directly attacking Paty. There's no way anyone will be convicted of murder now, just accessory at best, so why should we keep the title constrained because there's no one to try for murder? Especially when this was carried out with such clear, depraved intent that legalities don't make much of a difference? Love of Corey (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is a large category of Category:Unsolved murders which for all we know could have been manslaughter, suicide or even just missing people cases. For my understanding the usual "Killing of" titles are to protect the WP:BLP of suspects, who may end up convicted of a lesser charge like manslaughter, and to satisfy sub judice laws in countries like the UK. There are no such concerns here as already expressed Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The arguments for and against this move are both fairly weak, but in the absence of a good reason to carry it out (that outweighs all the arguments against it), we probably shouldn't bother. Glades12 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as the WP:COMMONNAME pointed out above.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? Per that chart, "killing" is the word to use as it was not capital punishment nor has there been a murder conviction in the case. TompaDompa (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, guess I somehow misread it. Strong support. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose many of the citations refer to it as murder, and referring to it as a killing glosses over the fact that this was a terrorist act. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was clearly a murder and reliable sources are reporting it as such. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe that the term 'Murder' is correct in this instance. And numerous sources will agree with me on this.--Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The criteria on the flowchart appear to be inapplicable as the flowchart fails to specify cases where the murderer is known to a high degree of certainty, but can't be convicted due to his death. This is such a case. We shouldn't Wiki-lawyer this with nonsense rules that don't account for the circumstances of this event. --2hip2carebear (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is splitting hairs. Quite clearly a murder, whether legally ruled to be one or not (and obviously there won't be a trial as the murderer is dead). Sometimes we just have to use common sense in article naming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was a pre-meditated murder in which the victim was specifically targetted. No weasle words should be used. Unrelated to this discussion but still worth mentioning: today there was a similar attack in which a victim was beheaded in Nice, France and several others were also killed. Someone Not Awful (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Even though strictly reflecting legal terminology would be unfeasible in an encyclopedia, the mentioned guideline is there for a good reason. The direct course of a notable criminal event can sometimes seem obvious enough, at least for adopting a personal opinion. However, erroneous exploitation of this sort of claims and arguments have also been repeatedly used throughout history to justify extrajudicial killings and summary executions. No matter how conflicting this might sound with banal activism, humanitarian empathy, or one's personal identity, Wikipedians, and objectivists in general, shouldn't fall into such anti-civil trap. The process of legal invistigation that leads to formal conviction or lack thereof goes well beyond the conspicuous to examine motives, backstories, mental capacity, and others; all of which cannot be fully addressed in absence of an actual trial. After all, the French police is supposed to have killed the perpetrator in an act of defense, not to carry out a legal order of execution. Assem Khidhr (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Murder of X is a common and recognizable article title on Wikipedia and multiple reputable sources have referred to it as so. Wertwert55 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Murder of X is a common and recognizable article title on Wikipedia and multiple reputable sources have referred to it as so. Wertwert55 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Reactions
The Reactions section is longer than the balance of the article. It should be severely pruned, or a separate Reactions to fork should be created. WWGB (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the reactions to the attack in the aftermath are relevant to the subject, they are supporte by a large number of sources and therefore deserve a prominent place in the article. If anything, WWGB's comment indicate that other sections of the article need more work. Therefore it is far too early to create a fork. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Samel Paty
I think there should be a photo of Samuel Paty in the article. Şöhrət (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I had a look through Commons and nothing so far. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC preparation
taking time to prepare an RfC before launching it is commendable. My user talk page is however not really a suitable place to do that. The talk page of the article about which the RfC is going to be (that is this talk page ...) is likely the most preferable place to do that, so that others can chime in if they feel like. If you want an example of an RfC I prepared, here is one (totally different topic, just mentioning it while in the end, the admin who closed the RfC after completion commended me for the good preparation). As for the content of your proposal: OR is not, afaics, the central difficulty at this point. Above I explained in detail what the remaining difficulties are. I'm not going to repeat that. Either you address those difficulties (which you didn't thus far), or it's likely going to be a lot of lost energy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll do my best to give it the first form, but we apparently had different opinions. You might probably address some of these yourself, disinterested as you should be. To the best of my knowledge, lead-worthiness, verifiability, and relevancy are all covered in the current phrase. What you're probably referring to as disregarded is in-text attribution and other aspects related to the notability and connection of the agent to whom the context proposed is ascribed. However, this begs the question of the context being a personal opinion, which I'm arguing isn't the case and which takes us back to the OR discussion again. To make our lives easier, I chose to propose the reverted change verbatim and leave to voters the freedom of assessing whether there'd be difficulties at all. I'll also mention the previous discussions in this talk page as well as the guidelines we quoted. Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposed section title : RfC on contextualizing Charlie Hebdo cartoons
 * Proposed RFCCATs :
 * Proposed opening question : Given what's already incuded in the body and what we can know about the cartoons from a NPOV, would it be appropriate for the lead to give context to the motive of the killing as showing controversial/inflammatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking/disparaging/ridiculing Muhammad instead of the current showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Muhammad?
 * Proposed opening comments
 * See Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1 and Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty for the previous relevant discussions.
 * See the discription of the cartoons in relevant sources already on the page: 1 2 3 4.
 * See WP:EDITORIAL, WP:OR, WP:GRATUITOUS, WP:UNDUE, WP:CPP, WP:INTEXT.

Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Assem Khidhr, do you agree with the last updates to the article about this issue? I haven't looked in detail yet, but on first sight this seems pretty much OK to me. If it can be settled this way, pursuing an RfC may become redundant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think they've gone some way towards addressing opposite views, but the treatment of the cartoons is still gratuitously decorative. For example, how would you explain that the author of the in-text attribution hesitated to go from "some Muslims" to "many muslims", even though it's easily verifiable that at least most Muslims (if not the great majority) affiliate with such view? Yet further, from a NPOV, do you think that it's entailed by elegant diction to describe a caricature showing a notable subject (whose notability isn't sexually derived) in a sexually explicit position annotated by references to content critical of them -- as merely depicting them? This is not to mention how such description of a crime motive feeds on the stereotypical notion that "any depiction is blasphemous" (which is mentioned in the body), thus delivering a false impression that the content of the cartoons carries no weight in the reaction. That is, a depiction glorifying Muhammad would have the same consequences as one disparaging him. Given, also, that viewing the cartoons directly would go against WP:GRATUITOUS and that they're already seldom circulated in notable sources, wouldn't such poor diction be boldly misleading for readers who aren't aware of what the cartoons actually were? When all this is coupled with another similar cartoon in a higher class article being described as inflammatory without attribution, with only the ideological scope differing, then we are clearly facing a matter of prejudice, whether consciously or not. Please read this thoroughly and let me know if we should proceed in the RfC. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well aware that some fine-tuning would be needed: my question was rather about whether you think the direction this has been taking over the last 24H would be more promising than an RfC. An RfC runs, under normal circumstances, at least for about a month. So would normally take vastly more time than some fine-tuning to what has been developing now; on the other hand, if the decision is to have an RfC anyhow, I'm not sure whether I'd bother to fine-tune whatever, pending an RfC decision about the same (i.e., RfC proceedings may de facto freeze whatever is in the article before it starts: changing it while the month-long discussion lasts might be perceived as counterproductive, if not disruptive). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, given the warning you've given me, I desisted from attempting to finetune the content myself, especially since the 3 edits were different in content and rationale and still were considered as "persistent addition of the same". Besides, all the previous reverts did't bother to hop in and apply, or even suggest, what they thought would be more appropriate. It was mere passive deletion. So, it's really your call to make, Francis. I've already said what I thought of the recent edits, both positively and negatively. I'm in no rush to start RfC and I'd certainly prefer to resolve it in-house, so to speak. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning the propose opening question: the showing controversial/inflammatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking/disparaging/ridiculing Muhammad phrasing is that it shouldn't use WP:WIKIVOICE to say the cartoons are inflammatory or controversial, as they are not universally controversial. Instead the showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad which Muslims find blasphemous would be a more appropriate phrasing. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To say that the cartoons are ridiculing rather than merely depicting is a good start. Quoting WP:WIKIVOICE is a bit fallacious though. The word controversial complies with NPOV since it solely refers to the verifiable "fact" that the cartoons have provoked controversy. It doesn't require the encyclopedia to subscribe to any "opinion" held by any side of the controversy, nor does it carry an inherent value judgment or normative standard. Contrarily, the word blasphemous, for example, has an inescapable prescriptive significance and is thereby incompatible with encyclopedic tone. Finally, dicussions of universality are irrelevant, since even facts aren't nececssarily universal! That is, they don't have to be true in any time and any place and under any circumstances, they just have to be true (in the sense that they're agreed upon by an overwhelming majority) in a particular occurrence. In other words, universal facts are a subset of facts. I don't think the cartoons are universally controversial, but I, along with an overwhelming majority, do think that they are verifiably controversial in the world we live in. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't use exlamation marks in violation of WP:CIVIL. The main topic of this article isn't "Muhammad cartoons", the main topic is the Murder of Samuel Paty in France, a secular country and therefore the position of the position of the cartoons in that society should take precedence in the lead section. If the Muslim worldwide community holds other beliefs, they should go in the "reactions" section, not the lead. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reactions of the Muslim world are clearly notable in this case as they have been widely reported in the media and so do deserve some prominence.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 08:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your quotation of policy is arbitrary, I'm afraid. Excalamation marks don't universally denote ridicule and can only be sarcastic according to context. I don't see the part where it's directly mentioned in the policy. Maybe you should instead WP:Focus on content, given that you are not running out of arguments. Now I'm glad you've openly stated how opinionated you think Wikipedia should be. It'll come in handy in case of an RfC. The bad news is, according to NPOV, Wikipedia should adopt an objective stance whether compatible with the political definition of identity in the country in question or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It reports events as-is, neither how a national entity would expect or favor it to be nor how a factional entity would. If the cartoons have sparked controversy, then they are controversial. If laicists, secularists, libertines, antireligionists, say what you will, think the cartoons shouldn't have been controversial and their opinion was relevant and notable, then Wikipedia can report such assertions along with the appropriate attributions. This would be the last time I reiterate basic principles to show this kind of bias for a personally involved contributor. You might, expectedly, prefer to have the last word, but for me to discuss the same issue again would be redundant and pointless. Assem Khidhr (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, even some French high officials have described the cartoons as controversial. Frances's ex-Foreign minister Laurent Fabius literally described them as pouring oil on the fire, a clear figurative reference to controversy. Ex-president Jacques Chirac also described a previous Charlie Hebdo cartoon as overt provocations. Charlie Hebdo article says, in the lead, The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad. For open-minded non-ideologues, there is abundant evidence of what's more. Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Assem Khidhr, enWP is not WP:RS and your opinions do not count per WP:NOTFORUM! If you have sources saying they are controversial (in France), then please link them! (noted that you are okay with exclamation marks). A Thousand Words (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

French public debate on laïcité and English sources
I see many sections on a debate in France about caricatures and laïcité. I also see many foreign sources. I think it would be better stop using those media, as they are not representative. There is no debate in France about laïcité, nor the use of caricatures. Some minorities, islamist extremists, racialists and their political supports, use those events to highlight an islamophobia which is not official nor "systemic", as the "laïcité" principle is to authorize every religion as long as law is observe. There is of course racists and intolerants, as everywhere, but racists are from every ethnicity and religion. Individual actions, including from muslims against other individuals can't be qualified as global islamophobia. Foreign medias are biased on those questions, as recent articles on CNN or NY Times reports "debates" that are not real. They confuse ethnicity, skin color, religion and social problems, and thus create an illusion of permanent violence against muslims. Passant67 (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Try reading Islamophobia in France which makes it appear as though Muslims are persecuted in France. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, this article is from an English point of view (and islamist PoV), and illustrate what I say : confusing ethnicity, skin color, religion and social problems. US social model is not applicable to France, but English-based sources are always trying to do so. I live here, and I frequently hear racial slurs...about many "communities" again every "communities". Some Arabs and Turks hate each other, that's probably what I hear the most. Arabs hate "Africans". Would you qualify that as Islamophobia ? You can't if they are all muslims, but they hate each other, so what it is ? Racism or xenophobia, perhaps, but not islamophobia. All that is a complex, social and cultural problem, and extremists (far-left, far-right, islamists and racialists) love to play on those things to aggravate tensions or create them when they do not exist. Passant67 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)176.180.176.92 (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NONENG, sources in English are preferred if they are of equal quality, but if they are worse than French sources, then French sources should take precedence. It is also obvious that article (and the other one, Hijabophobia) are created and maintained US university students who don't even read French. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As for this article, it would be strongly surprising if the issues of integration and islamism were not subject to high-level public debates, I wonder if you could point us towards good sources in French? I read French a lot better than I write or use search engines in French. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently versed on those subjects to be of many help (and my English is limited). Of course there is debate in integration, but it is more cultural than religious (at least originally), as practice of Islam is protected as any other religion. Problem is : there is resent towards delinquency, which is unfortunately for a good part due to young from "ethnic minorities" (I don't like those terms) and who, unfortunately, happened to be muslims. You can argue that delinquency is linked to poverty, and you have a vast problem which has nothing to do with religion but associated with attempts by islamists to apply religious laws in France (gender separation in public spaces, prohibited food) and visible hate from some muslims (seeing women singing and dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers fell is not something enjoyable), it establishes an impression of religious tensions in France and debate on laïcité. On Islamism, I'm not sure you can qualify it as "debate" : actual discussions focus on how to prevent Islamists from teaching and preaching, not if it must be. "Debate" is more on the adoption of an American-like censorship and refusal to consider that communitarianism can be a problem. And when I'm reading some English articles on this event, I find it a little scary that they always see it from a communitarian perspective, where communitarianism is precisely fought by French State. Passant67 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article present the point of view of one French muslim association, saying that there is no persecution in France : https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/2891475-20201022-attentat-conflans-cfcm-propose-preche-imams-france. But you will always find others groups that will say the opposite. Passant67 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussions on how to prevent Islamists from teaching and preaching? Tell me more about freedom of expression LOL. I don't know whether your English is severley limited so as to miscommunicate a good faith point this much (i.e. WP:NOCLUE) or you are just trolling. Anyway, living in France can only qualify you to collect some anecdotal evidence, not to disqualify reliable sources over which there has been consensus in the community. Also, it's straight-out reductionism to describe non-French sources as English and/or American. In fact, foreign reactions on only this page are enough to show that notable segments of multiple nations are thinking the same about the situation in France and about the social and religious impacts of laicity. For example, you can find evidence of this in Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey, and in many places in the Arab region. Should we get rid of the good old eurocentrism, these voices would matter as well. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

From this link it is obvious that Wikipedia articles related to Islamism are being targeted by a US university and consequently many of the articles read like essays, not encyclopedia articles. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

New sources
As yet unused sources: Just some ideas. I'll likely be introducing content based on these press reports in the article. Feel free to list other as yet unused sources, or post other suggestions or comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * News 18, 7 November 2020: Three Teens Charged in French Teacher's Beheading (and similar reports in other languages) – for Murder of Samuel Paty I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * De Tijd, 21 October 2020: Vlaamse rectoren: 'Onze vrije meningsuiting is een kostbaar voorrecht' (in Dutch) – possibly for a new entry ("Belgium") in the Murder of Samuel Paty section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reuters, 6 November 2020: Pays-Bas: Un enseignant contraint de se cacher après un débat sur Samuel Paty (in French) – something for "Netherlands" in Murder of Samuel Paty afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Het Parool, 5 November 2020: Docent Rotterdam duikt onder na tumult over cartoon – about the same, in Dutch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great work, it is awesome that you take the time to post sources in other languages than English. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

New draft article
There is a new draft article here that may interest people: Draft:Jean-François Ricard

--2604:2000:E010:1100:6D33:D64C:D645:5E79 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOVN
See Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

UNAOC
I've reverted the introduction of content referenced to UNAOC in the lead section. I'd have created a new subsection of the "Reactions" section (e.g. "By international organisations") and moved the UNAOC-related content there, if the A Call for Mutual Respect statement hadn't been so vague: it doesn't mention Samuel Paty or anything uniquely related to his murder directly – it is a statement of principles, needing OR to tie it to the subject of this page. If it were directly connected to the content of this page, indeed, it would seem that it calls Samuel Paty's actions "inflammatory" – which can hardly have been the intent of that press release. So, if that direct connection is lacking, it does not seem suitable material for this page. Again, a lot has been written in reliable sources about Paty, and his murder, and I'd be happy we arrived at a decent summary of that material, while drawing in vaguely related ramifications when the basic content hasn't been covered yet seems hardly appropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC) "Brahim Chnina, a female student's father, accused Paty of disseminating pornography to students and filed a criminal complaint with the police." "Sefrioui called the teacher a "thug" in a video (French: voyou), while denouncing the administration of the college." This, along with the "fact" that the very event (as well as other past and future events: Charlie Hebdo shooting and 2020 Nice stabbing) was motivated by the cartoons (as was already stated in the lead) and the repeated attestation of the qualifier in the reliable sources I provided, would be fairly enough ground for inclusion. I've also mentioned another word-for-word use of this very description in a very similar context in the Class B Lynching in the United States, which the reverter simply disregarded due to alleged unreliability of then-cited Vice Media, even though there's no consensus about its reliability as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Please find the caption. Since I'm adequately informed of WP:BLUDGEON, this would be my last attempt to reach a middle ground via a direct discussion with you in here, unless there are unprecedented arguments or questions. Finally, I'd like to point out the change in the arguments given as excuses for WP:OWNERSHIP of the content, which, to me, is an obvious sign of bias. First it was the fixation on the legal definition of defamation, no matter how much I actively asked for a brainstorming of other appropriate qualifiers. Then, instead of discussing lead vs. body appropriateness, let alone incorporating what might seem as a valuable hint in the body article, reverters preferred to pedantize over the form of the contribution as manifesting in the source provided. When these were properly addressed and the contribution adjusted, I received an edit-warring warning and found out the mentioning of lead-worthiness for the first time. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between calling the cartoons inflammatory, which can be easily verified in reliable sources, and the way bolder attribution of Paty himself as an Agent provocateur. We should be mindful not to use such fallacies to justify overreaching deletionism or WP:CPP. Also, the development of an article is an evolutionary gradual process. Deciding that the current summary is decent just because it aligns with our views is a bit arbitrary, maybe we should rather make use of different contributions to reach at a holistic perspective appropriate with an encyclopedia? Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead should be a summary of the content of the article. Opinions vary. The "agent provocateur" expression is not used in the article, not in the lead section, not in the body (so I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this section). "a typical Islamist terrorist attack", which is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is in the lead section. It has a WP:INTEXT attribution to the French president, and is also, of course, mentioned in the body of the article, again with an in-text attribution to Macron. "inflammatory", which also is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is not in the body of the article, and even less with references to reliable sources, and even less with an in-text attribution to who said it, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who would have said it in connection with the two cartoons Paty showed in his classroom, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who is as closely involved and with a similar stature in public life as Macron. Failing all that, this is no lead material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Failing to see the connection just because the phrase isn't found verbatim is laughable tbh. Words translate into each other, don't they? As for lead-worthiness, Inflammatory -- that is, tending to provoke or inflame (the dictionary def), summarizes the potential of the cartoons to evoke tension, which is extensively wittnessed in both Background and Reactions sections. The article body says, e.g.: "For many Muslims, any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemous."
 * On a side note, I wonder how you managed to know the "intent" of the press release? Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

UNAOC's "A Call for Mutual Respect" statement
Returning to the OP of this section, I don't see a direct connection between UNAOC's "A Call for Mutual Respect" statement and the topic of this page, that is, the murder of Samuel Paty (thus far it needs WP:OR to tie the two topics). I've found, thus far, no reliable independent secondary source tying the topic of this UNAOC statement to the 16 October 2020 events in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. So it's probably best to stay on topic on this page, until if and when such secondary sources would turn up. Or am I missing something? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Assem Khidhr (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aljazeera explicitly links the statement with Paty incident, saying: "The statement on Wednesday by Miguel Angel Moratinos – who heads the UN Alliance of Civilizations – follows growing anger in the Muslim world over France’s response to the beheading of a teacher who had shown his pupils the images as part of a class on free speech."
 * That's implicit, not explicit. Saying something followed something else does not unambiguously mean anything. Napoleon followed the Visigoth Sack of Rome. What of it? GPinkerton (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Weapon
The lead section says, both in the text and the infobox, the perpetrator used a cleaver. However, there is a slight ambiguity in the expression
 * "killed and beheaded Paty with a cleaver"

– a cleaver might be used for both parts of the act, but probably it was used for the second one only...

This gets half-confirmed by the equally ambiguous part of the Murder and beheading section:
 * "Using a knife (...), Anzorov killed Paty and beheaded him in a street"

– a knife might be used for the first part only or for both (but the latter is far less probable).

Taking both sentences together, I guess this means "killed with a knife, beheaded with a cleaver" – but do I really have to guess...?

Please, somebody make these sentences unambiguous ...and add a knife to the infobox, BTW. --CiaPan (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

PS. Was an 'airgun' mentioned in sources an air rifle or rather an air pistol? I guess the latter, because rifle-type weapon would be too conspicuous before a planned murder in the street – but an encyclopedia article should rather inform, not make you guess... --CiaPan (talk)
 * WP:SOFIXIT – I mean, it's not Wikipedia's fault that some reliable sources speak about a cleaver, and others about a knife. Some even give dimensions of the knife... which are rather the dimensions of a cleaver. I mean also, your guesswork should, of course be rejected: go look it up in the sources, and make the article conform to those sources. That's all that is needed, not some sort of original research what "might" have happened according to your personal guesswork. Same for the airgun. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So Fix It? You may be pretty sure I'd love to. Alas my limited knowledge of English language and limited time I can use for studying sources do not let me reach the boldness level necessary for this fix. That's why I ask others to do it. --CiaPan (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, you can propose it on this talk page, like you did above. Only, next time you propose something, you're just losing your own time (and the time of fellow-editors) if you think this is a page where to post original guesswork: look it up in reliable sources, and whatever you find let us know, here on this talk page, or directly updating the article, whatever suits you best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reply seems to ignore almost entirely my explanation, so it appears a pure waste of your precious time. Please, don't loose your time for replying to me. --CiaPan (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

POV reverts by ‎GPinkerton
A wide range of mainstream news organizations call the cartoons controversial:



"(CNN)France was irrevocably changed by the Paris terror attacks of January 2015. Three days of violence began with a massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had previously published controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. They ended with a siege at a kosher supermarket."

Washington Post: "And when he introduced the topic of the controversial cartoons in class, he acknowledged that it might be hurtful to Muslim students and offered them a chance to look away."

BBC: "Earlier this month teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded in a Paris suburb after showing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to some of his pupils." Hardyplants (talk)


 * Of course they are controversial. People have been murdered because of them. Use of the term is fine. WWGB (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to deliver this point for a long time now and recieved a warning for edit warring. There's a centralized discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Please join and let others know what you think so that an appropriate action can be taken to prevent any disruptive editing. Same goes to you, . Since you're having second thoughts (thankfully you did), I'd encourage you to express that on the noticeboard to put it into effect. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Khidhr's edits are introducing a US bias, but this article isn't about Muhammad cartoons, it is about an Islamist terrorist attack in France. How do French sources describe the cartoons? For instance Reuters: "France has allowed displays of the cartoons, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. This clearly shows that in France (the topic is an Islamist terror attack in France, not the cartoons generally) it isn't universally the case that the cartoons are considered controversial. French sources should take precedence per WP:BESTSOURCES. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the nature or otherwise of the cartoons is irrelevant, this whole nonsense sounds like victim-blaming, far from fit for the lead. If you want to write that American news shrank from defending freedom of speech then go ahead and add a US section to the international response. GPinkerton (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Does that really matter? This is an English encyclopedia covering topics all over the world. There are numerous sources that call them "controversial". The fact is it is  clearly called such from a wide group of sources. They are not all from the US either. Also no one is "victim-blaming" which I find a childish POV argument to negate a refenced fact. Wikipedia is about what the sources say about a topic not our personal biases. Hardyplants (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it matters. Calling something "controversial" means reasonable people can disagree with it. This is something else entirely. Here, the "controversy" is the basic incompatibility of free speech and Islamism. Add the word controversial to the lead is meaningless, and suggests there might have been some reason beside religious intolerance for the killing of Paty. GPinkerton (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the second time you quote a policy without bothering to read it. WP:BESTSOURCES points to sources that are good, unbiased, reputable, and authoritative. I can't see any prioritization of sources native to the country of origin of the article subject. Please pay a visit to WP:RSPSOURCES, where an extensive list of reliable sources is shown. In case there is consensus that a source's reliability is questioned in some concerns (e.g. Aljazeera neutrality when it comes to Arab-israeli conflict), an annotation is attached to restrict its scope of reliability. If you think all the sources me and others provided so far are unreliable when it comes to reporting the recent events in France, try to gain similar consensus for your theory. Otherwise, it's a personal opinion. On the other hand, being controversial is neither negative nor value-laden in the first place. It just refers to the fact that controversy was evoked as a result of the cartoons. Btw, consensus is starting to gather on this side: you now have me,, , , at NPOVN vs. , ,  (who didn't engage in all discussions and admittted his limited English, which questions his ability to resolve such a nuanced aspect of language use), and you (who admitted the cartoons ridicule rather than merely depict). You might wanna think it through before I file an offical RfC or a request at DRN. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your argument then is with reliable news sources. clearly from your perspective they are all "unreasonable". Here is a German one: "He vigorously defended the controversial cartoons, saying they were protected under the right to free speech. He later added that "we won't renounce the caricatures."" - https://www.dw.com/en/france-muhammad-cartoon-row-what-you-need-to-know/a-55409316

You are pushing a point of view (that calling them controversial validates the killing, that is not supported by any sources. Hardyplants (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. You are unable to see that this is WP:UNDUE and WP:PROFRINGE and not fit for the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you are calling mainstream news organizations fringe.Hardyplants (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I'm calling your insertions of this material into the lead of the article encouraging fringe. GPinkerton (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How so when it is reported as such by many mainstream news sources.? Your view point is the one that is fringe. Hardyplants (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say it does not advocate what should be said. Hardyplants (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No it is not, and the attempt to shoehorn this stuff into the lead despite the ongoing discussion and in the face of existing consensus is a clear manifestation of the truth of the opposite of what you claim. Look at the lead of the article Charlie Hebdo shooting. Does it describe the cartoons as "controversial"? No. GPinkerton (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source that can be used in other articles. It seems that page may need to be edited also to report what sources say.Hardyplants (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Note that page has this in the introduction "Charlie Hebdo is a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders."
 * So you're hereby declaring your intent to POV-push beyond this article as well? Marvellous. GPinkerton (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh-oh! It seems like someone wasn't reading carefully: All in Wikivoice. This boomeranged so bad, I guess. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Last paragraph in lead section of Charlie Hebdo shooting reads Charlie Hebdo is a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders
 * 2) 2nd paragraph in lead section of Charlie Hebdo reads The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad.
 * 3) There's a dedicated section in Charlie Hebdo called controversy.
 * It is important where the word "controversial" is being used. I'll take #2 here, as it is talking about the publication being controversial, and not the cartoons being controversial. We can say the publication of the cartoons has been controversial as there's numerous articles about the criticism from the Islamic community and their defense by the magazine and other groups, which is something in Wikivoice we can clearly identify as a controversial situation. We cannot identify the cartoons that way. In terms of the first point, while you are identifying a point in the lede, it is clearly sourced in the body under the background section, and per WP:LEDECITE as long as that is done in the body, the lede doesn't need to be cited. (That said, I do think that lede sentence is a tad too strong in Wikivoice, probably better to say "Charlie Hebdo has drawn controversy in the past with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders."). --M asem (t) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As for #2, I'm afraid you've misunderstood the sentence somehow. The adverb controversially is modifying the next verb (depicting), not the previous (published), i.e. a number of cartoons published by the magazine that were controversially depicting Muhammad (depicting him in a controversial manner). If it were attributed to the publishing, it would've preceded the verb, I suppose -- that is, a number of cartoons, that it controversially published, depicting Muhammad. Also I agree with #1 being a bit subjective in tone. If you ask me, I'd replace always with repeatedly and it'll be good to go. Finally, it's somehow a false dichotomy to distinguish the controversiality of the cartoons from that of their publishing, because it's the cartoons that made the publihsing controversial in the first place: it's a perfect syllogism. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I read it a different way, and that's due to poor phrasing as the text "depicting Mohammed" should be after "a number of cartoons" (that's what the cartoons were about), and "controversally" is applied to the publishing verb. But the phrasing can be improved, but it is still right to say in Wikivoice that the publishing act was controversial. Yes, I think its possible to argue after the fact the cartoons were too and in Wikivoice, but in terms of the event directed at Charlie Hebdo, it was their publishing act itself that was clearly controversial and why the attacks happened. The article should explain why the publishing of the cartoons was controversial, which may include descriptions of the cartoons outside of Wikivoice, but that's all part of a clear controversy that can be stated as such in Wikivoice. --M asem (t) 22:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright then. It's important to point out that other editors, nay, in this case, an uninvolved admin, think the cartoons can be descibed as controversial in Wikivoice. As you can see, this section was originally started when reverted the inclusion of this qualifier on grounds of consensus on the other side. This is proving apparently erroneous. Anyway, I'll wait for the NPOVN discussion to settle. Unless the matter is resolved there, I'll file an official RfC to vote for a final decision. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Assem Khidr's right that BESTSOURCES doesn't specifically apply here. It was WP:NONENG I was thinking of Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. In this case sources published in France are more relevant because this terrorist attack happened in France. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to condemn cartoons. Other wikipedia articles constitute WP:OTHERSTUFF and cannot be used as WP:RS. One article at a time, please. A Thousand Words (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)