Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 2

Protesting against freedom of speech in Syria, Libya, and Iraq?
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Vice regent (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (See diff and the discussion below)

has been citing this as evidence for protests in Syria, Libya, and Iraq against Macron's defense of freedom of speech. I thought this was both unsupported and too vague to be reported in Wikivoice. When I tried here and here to WP:HANDLE and reword the statement into ''... Macron's defense of the caricatures'', which is more concrete, verifiable, and mutually agreed upon, he reverted the change thrice: The second revert was to be my last. Since the user in question didn't bother to start discussion, I initiated this in a last attempt to assume good faith, even though I'd be stating the obvious. Notice that this is the third disputed matter within a short period of time, and is concurrent with two ongoing RfC processes. Please hop in to reach consensus. Assem Khidhr (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * once automatically
 * and another manually, both without new sources or even arguments in edit summaries.
 * and then automatically again, citing in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from the same source, even though it explicitly refers to the cartoons.
 * How is it mutually agreed upon? I am disputing it, and only you are trying to edit war your preferred (objectionable) wording into the text, despite, as I have said, quite misrepresenting what the cited source says. The source says: "France has urged Middle Eastern countries to end calls for a boycott of its goods in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad." is trying to rewrite history by saying Macron defended the cartoons themselves, which is false entirely. Instead, Macron has defended, and the source says he defended, the "right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad". So I have reverted Assem Khidhr's POV editorializing, which in any case violated the Engvar policy. GPinkerton (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oopsy! Macron did say he'll defend the cartoons themselves. Read We will not give up cartoons: Macron in homage to murdered teacher from France24. Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is English your first language? Macron did not defend the cartoons, he defended all cartoons. He said: "We will not give up cartoons". I don't know how it could be clearer: Islamists want cartoons banned, Macron says no, cartoons should not be banned. This is about free speech, and has always been about free speech, just as Paty's class was about free speech. They killed Paty, now they want Macron. Or France. Or they wanted both for a long time, the issue is the same; free speech is allowed in France, Ilsmaists object to this, and some kill people in order to prove their point. Read it again. GPinkerton (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't, Mr. native speaker, but I know from linguistics what collective nouns are. In English, there are four grammatical constructions to denote them, including the zero/plural generic at hand here. I also know from linguistics that there exists a pragmatic significance along with the semantic one. That is, when it is emphasized that state bodies will defend the "category of cartoons" at a time where specific cartoons are at the centre of a crime, then it can be deduced that those cartoons are being included by the same assertion in that category and consequently defended too. QED. Assem Khidhr (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that's how logic works I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken; the freedom to produce and consume literature is what Macron is defending here. Your flawed argument could be applied to the Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Erdogan, to Disney, to any other aspect of modern civilization Islamists are opposed to; the right to free speech and the corollary absence of laws against blasphemy in most advanced societies will not be changed on their behalf, and Macron had no need to defend any particular cartoon, since no cartoons are considered any more or less blasphemous than others. Instead, Macron defends "cartoons" in general, since as is well known satire and the right to mock the powerful and pompous and self-righteous is an important part of democracy and human dignity. Hence, just as Anzarov decided that satire was crime for which France itself was responsible, so Macron has said that the Islamists' attacks on free expression are attacks on the values of democracy. GPinkerton (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does the reliable source say, nor the protesters themselves, that they are "against free speech". The protesters perceive themselves as being opposed to, what they consider, "Macron's hostility toward Islam". This included Macron's statements made before the murder where he said "[Islam is]a religion in crisis all over the world".VR talk 05:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, see above. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Also, I'll forgive you for not being familiar with the topic, but as point of fact that article (which is Turkish state propaganda not fit for quotations of fact in any case, especially in an article dealing with their continued genocidal conduct in Syria) was published after the attack and nowhere claims Macron's comment, which can hardly be rationally disputed, happened before the Islamists struck. (again) GPinkerton (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * TRT World would be considered reliable in this case as Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says
 * This is something that I'd consider "miscellaneous". We can take this to WP:RSN if you want.VR talk 06:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be unnecessary because "not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest" certainly covers the two topic on which the article is fictitiously cooked up, namely, the Syrian Civil War, in which Turkey is a belligerent, and the ongoing legal action between France and Turkey over this very issue. How the Turkish government could not be "considered to have a conflict of interest" here is beyond absurd to suggest, and you retract it. Policy already covers this issue; Turkish propaganda is not to be used as for claims of fact, especially in contrived misinformation like this. GPinkerton (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But this information is neither about the Syrian war nor about legal action. Its about protesters who feel that Macron's comments displayed hostility towards Islam.VR talk 06:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? This supposed event, which labels the victims of Turkey's ongoing genocide in the region occupied by its armed forces and its allies "terrorists", presents as fact claims that happened in places presently occupied by forces loyal to Erdogan, one of the major proponents of the anti-free speech lobby. How can you suggest this has nothing to do with the civil war? In which reality would that be the case? Here on earth, claims of the opinion of the masses of an occupied territory cannot be reliably attributed to the sate media of an authoritarian Islamist occupier. It's really funny to read read your claims here, given your strenuous allegation about non-reliable sources in other discussions ... I wonder why that might be. The source cannot be used, and the events as described almost certainly never took place, given the usual reliability of wartime statements from official Turkish sources and their clear conflict of interest in reporting the latest genocide in their long history of genocide in the region.  GPinkerton (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The protests did take place and they were corroborated by BBC. The only thing TRT is used for is what the protesters said at the protest, and that has nothing to do with the Turkish government.VR talk 06:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read the part of the source that says Meanwhile, small anti-French protests were held in Libya, Gaza and northern Syria, where Turkish-backed militias exert control.? Or did you somehow read it and decide the occupation of the area in which these "protests" are said to have taken place by the armies of Erdogan's Islamists is somehow nothing to do with the Turkish government? That's really quite a failure of logic, and contorting the interpretation of the Turkish propaganda coverage of an event non-corroborated by other sources (viz, the so called "attack" on the so-called "protest" by the so-called "terrorists") is well beyond, well, belief. GPinkerton (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * On a related note, we should spin out the reactions section into a separate article like 2020 France-Muslim world row. There are a lot of mutual tensions between the French government and Muslims both in and out of France and the Paty murder is only a small part of it. A lot of these protests are against other grievances not related to this topic.VR talk 05:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a obvious POV fork. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:CANVASS GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am going to remark as a user very rarely involved in Islam-, Europe- or Middle East-related articles or issues that has been handling this evidently week-long conflict with GPinkerton with remarkable grace and patience given the latter's apparent desire to push a very specific POV (specifically, an effort to make sure everyone knows they think Islam is incompatible with free expression, e.g. The people who oppose the free press are are [sic] meaningless minority and to describe them as such would be undue pandering to the extremists, who, naturally, are the only ones to oppose the images.). The edits made above by Assem were reasonable attempts at handling the problem; GPinkerton is being aggressive and relying on extremely torturous interpretations of otherwise plainly stated facts from reliable sources to preach their point. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment above contains and obvious and defamatory falsehood. I have not, until now, mentioned Islam once in this discussion. I urge you to retract your unfounded and provocative claims! GPinkerton (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a dogwhistle—vulgar depictions of Mohammad are likely to be opposed by moderate Muslims even on just personal grounds, because it is (deliberately) blasphemous; I am sure similar depictions of Christ would spark outrage elsewhere (as they have). So you are either just factually wrong in stating "extremists" are "the only ones" opposed to the image or trying to insinuate any Muslim who objects to an obscene depiction of a holy figure is ipso facto an extremist. And, again, nothing in this talk page or article disputes the role of radical Islamic extremism in the murder of Paty. You just seem dead-set on writing the article such that that is the only feature mentioned, not even allowing for a basic description of the circumstances that preceded the murder as described by a litany of reliable sources. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Macron defended free speech, this is factual. Macron did not endorse the cartoons themselves, merely the right of free liberal people to paint and publish such cartoons. That some angry mob thinks otherwise, is not a reason to falsely paint Macron's actions. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's agreed that Macron asserted that he defends free speech, even though his assertion is disputed as well, see e.g. Amnesty international comment here. It can also be said that he endorsed the very cartoons. Speculations and personal interpretations aside, reliable sources pretty clearly use this wording. For instance, see The Guardian's Anger spreads in Islamic world after Macron's backing for Muhammad cartoons. Further, please find the official translation of the transcript of Macron's speech in Samuel Paty's tribute here. Namely, he said We will not disavow the cartoons, the drawings, even if others recoil.. However, this was all a digression from the main subject of this section: can we state in Wikivoice that there were protests in Syria, Iraq, and Libya that were objecting to Macron's defense of free speech (as an abstract concept)? The go-to approach is to report, with appropriate attributions, the protesters' motivations the way they expressed their mind. In other words, it is to say that the protests were against Macron's perceived support for the cartoons, which would have been much more swallowable than going straight out to the ambiguous human rights (as GPinkerton previously wrote) or even freedom of speech. However, with Macron's support for the cartoons being explicitly grounded in reliable sources, shouldn't we instead say that the protests were against the support for a specific instantiation of the principle of freedom of speech, which was the cartoons? Assem Khidhr (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NBC News says ...with protesters in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Palestinian territories demanding that France condemn caricatures of the prophet. This would seem more in accordance with 's wording.VR talk 15:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Claims of canvassing
Please note that the of purported canvassing was at 00:45, 18 November 2020, more than a day before the discussion in question was even, which was at 05:11, 19 November 2020‎. End of discussion. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

However, in refutation of 's last straw to question the RfC above, which I was already anticipating, here is a list of the editors I notified, noting, importantly, that my notice referred to the RfC above, not the current discussion, where he for some reason decided to post the note: Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , a chief editor who was the first to disagree with my proposal. I notified them here.
 * A group of previously uninvolved admins I randomly chosen from here:
 * , here
 * , here
 * , here
 * , here
 * , a previously uninvolved admin who participated in the discussion at NPOVN. He was supporting calling controversial in Wikivoice and was the only admin to participate. Note that no other user particpated in NPOVN that I didn't notify, except if they already participated by the time I started posting notices. I notified them here.
 * , a previously involved user who to some extent shared my view. I notified them here.
 * Perhaps you could explain the criteria you chose for deliberately deciding who not to notify? GPinkerton (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI: I have this page in my watchlist and have been (probably) editing it before either Assem Khidhr or GPinkerton. Its silly to claim I was "canvassed" here.VR talk 06:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet you you chose to take part in the discussion or edit only when asked to do so by someone that thought you would agree with them, precisely the disruptive behaviour WP:CANVASS seeks to prohibit. GPinkerton (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020
Change : last jihadist bastion of the country

To:

"last opposition territory... " or "Last rebel stronghold"

"Jihadist Bastion" is overly colourful language that I think unhelpful. Also "jihad" is not only synonymous with war in Muslim culture, and this association is leading. Nor were all members of Syrian opposition either Jihadis or even religious. It also creates leading impression of Idlib region as a sort of terrorist stronghold, which is far from true. Not only for high civilian and refugee population, but also because of threat from ongoing regime attacks.

Small but I think important point. 2001:861:3740:C880:7809:33EF:24BD:AA6F (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. "Rebel stronghold" is supported in the source. Note, however, that "jihadist stronghold" would also be supported. Awoma (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the Motive of the Crime
Should we describe the event of Paty showing the cartoons in class as a motive for the crime? Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Motive of the Crime)

 * Support, sounds like WP:COMMON sense to me. Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, this is anything but. The motive was Islamism on the part of Anzorov. It had absolutely nothing whatever to do with anything done by Paty and to suggest otherwise is abhorrent! GPinkerton (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: really cases of blaming the victim are inhumane. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: This is the widely understood immediate cause. Extremist Islamism was a background condition, in the same way racism was a background condition in the Murder of Vincent Chin. But that does not mean we should ignore the full course of events——for Chin, it was a dispute at a strip club that angered racists, and for Paty, it was depictions of Mohammad that angered an extremist. To acknowledge this fact is not victim-blaming; it is an accurate portrayal of the circumstances. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So the motive of the assassination of JFK was what, the election of an American president?! The motive here is the Islamism of the murderer; the circumstances and life-history of the victim do not form part of the motive. Is the motive of gangsterism the honest hard work of the people whose money is extorted? Of course not! GPinkerton (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. One of the more notable things about JFK's assassination is that the Warren Commission was unable to pinpoint an overriding motive; it was a confluence of factors. Regardless, it is entirely plausible to say Islamic extremism was a factor here, but what we write about it in this article depends upon what reliable sources say. They overwhelmingly discuss the murder of Paty in the context of both Islamic extremism and his portrayal of the cartoon, often explicitly identifying the cartoons as the immediate factor that motivated Anzorov to murder him—see e.g. here, here, and here. I am frankly confused as to how this is even controversial. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, a confluence of factors. Factors that conflowed in Oswald's head, not in Kennedy's. The motive of the crime was the desire on the behalf of Anzarov to martyr himself in the suppression of free speech. The reason that Paty's background is mentioned is because he was the victim, not because he supplied a motive. This is like saying the motive of the assassination was the desire to ride in an open top car. GPinkerton (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a flawed analogy. You are right that it would be wrong to say, for instance, that the cause of Lincoln's assassination was his decision to go to the theater per se. It was rather because he led the Union during the Civil War, defeating the South and freeing the slaves. That, along with John Wilkes Booths' racism and Confederate sympathies, was a primary motive of the assassin. Imagine how utterly bizarre it would be to say that acknowledging the specific reason for Booth's actions is a form of "victim blaming" against Lincoln. So too with this case, which, again, is what is established in reliable sources, a fact for which you appear to have no rebuttal for. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the motive of the assassination had nothing to do with anything Lincoln did; the motive is nowhere said to be have in any part Paty's which is what this RfC is all about trying very hard to suggest. And yes a suitable rebuttal is that, no, no source has said "the motive of the attack was something other than jihadism" and the long-running war against Islamism and free speech, as represented by these cartoons, which are almost as old as the killer was. GPinkerton (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think user has a good point. It would be strange to say that it was Islamism and Islamism alone that was responsible for the death of Samuel Paty. Rather, it was a combination of things, including the fact that these cartoons were shown in the classroom. Merely pointing this out, is not to blame the victim, it's just an established fact. Maqdisi117 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we also point out that Islamists have killed around 250 people in France in the past five years? Should we point out this is all just Islamists' reaction to some cartoons that were published two years before Anzarov ever arrived in France from Russia? Shall we point out numerous journalists have been killed by Islamists because of the Islamists' own opposition to freedom of the press? Shall we point out that all the "controversy" is generated by jihadists? Merely pointing this out, it's just series of established facts. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a lie to claim that a violent ideology has nothing to do with murder. The penalty for blasphemy according to Sharia law is death. Sharia could have stipulated that the punishement for blasphemy is a fine, two days in prison or being stripped of your rank, but no it is death. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the motive was Jihadist/Islamist. Explaining the Jihadist viewpoint (i.e. "kill the infidels" or "kill those who disparage the prophet") would be too cumbersome and non-neutral for the infobox. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * just to make things clear, this vote isn't meant to replace the contents of the infobox, which indeed should remain generic. It's about describing the event as such in the lede, which was previously the case until . Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A motive is a psychological state which the perpetrator finds themselves in, such as a belief, an idea, a desire, or an emotion, which drives them to commit a crime. In hate crime, for instance, the motive is not "the victim was black" but "the perpetrator was racist." In this case, the motive is the underlying extremist philosophy. Awoma (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:COMMON. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be worth engaging a bit with the arguments opposed. Support does not seem especially common, so a case needs to be made. Awoma (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose As A Thousand Words states, this is effectively blaming the victim. Number   5  7  14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the proposal does not make logical sense in the English language. The motive was not the actions of the victim, the motive was extreme distaste/revulsion/hatred by the perpetrator of the cartoons used in the class.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:78.26 and other comments above. The victim's actions being the "motive" for murder doesn't make logical sense; not to mention it's essentially victim blaming, like saying Person B committed rape because of what Person A was wearing. See: https://crimeslab.com/motives-for-murder/ The motive in this case is similar to the motives for 2020 Paris stabbing attack and Charlie Hebdo shooting. Some1 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Motive of the Crime)
I'd like to remind you of WP:BLUDGEON. Your behavior on this vote (and to some extent the other RfC) seems to correspond to this sort of disruptive editing. With you repeatedly adding disputed material on the main page too, without bothering to open a discussion or seek dispute resolution, you're being quite uncooperative. Assem Khidhr (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, what you mean is that I disagree with you. That's not non-cooperation. This is not a vote. GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, what they mean is you are indeed bludgeoning this talk page with a zealous insistence on acknowledging nothing about this heinous attack but the role of Islamic extremism—the relevance of which is not at all disputed here or in the article—in a way that would be much more suitable on Conservapedia or elsewhere. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the personal attacks, can you explain you explain why you believe the policy of WP:NPOV should be ignored? If the motive is known and has been established beyond question both by investigation and by the explicit declarations of the killer himself both before and after the killing, why are you interested in speculating on the possible cause or antecedents of the killer's own actions, which by their nature diminish the responsibility of the murder for his crime by strong implication, which runs contrary to the established fact that he was a self-declared jihadist who considered his attack on Paty an act of faith in a holy war against free speech and the other values of France. I'm struggling to see why other speculative points of view should be inserted unsourced into the article. I have yet to read anywhere that "the motive of the crime was in some way the responsibility of anyone but the killer and his numerous accomplices (alleged pending prosecution outcomes etc.)", and until I do I will continue to point out that this is unsourced, POV speculation, and wrong as well. GPinkerton (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Describing Charlie Hebdo Cartoons in the Lede
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 lede to describe the cartoons as controversial/inflammatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking/disparaging/ridiculing Muhammad instead of the current showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Muhammad? Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Describing Charlie Hebdo Cartoons in the Lede)

 * Support, as per the arguments below. Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are 6 alternatives in the RfC. I want to know which ONE I am voting on before I vote in the affirmative. WWGB (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. The slash here was meant to correspond to an or conjunction, meaning that you should oppose if no option seems right to you at all. If you agree to at least one of each of the slash-separated combinations, then you should support and probably specify that one option. Assem Khidhr (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, because this is what NPOV sources say about them. Not saying so is a fringe POV. I support the wording "controversial". Hardyplants (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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."


 * "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 Hardyplants (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This sprawling RfC makes no sense. Work out what you want to insert into the article before asking why it is wrong. The controversialness or otherwise is irrelevant to the case at hand. The cartoons are not described as such in any of the articles dealing with any of the numerous atrocities by those who controvert the publication of cartoon images they consider blasphemous. To add extraneous adjectives to the lead is unnecessary and adds nothing of factual import to the article. The people who oppose the free press are are meaningless minority and to describe them as such would be undue pandering to the extremists, who, naturally, are the only ones to oppose the images. Indeed, opposition to the images is ipso facto extreme. No, the motivation here is clear, and I oppose it! GPinkerton (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose French president Macron disputes that English-language sources are "neutral" in this and points out that what they write ends up legitimizing Islamist violence. Per France24: French President Emmanuel Macron has called The New York Times media correspondent to criticize English-language coverage of France's stance on Islamic extremism after recent attacks, arguing it amounts to "legitimizing" violence.. Further In his column about their exchange, Smith said the French president had argued "foreign media failed to understand 'laicite,'" or secularism, a pillar of French policy and society. Therefore I propose that per WP:NONENG, that the best sources available might not be the ones published in English-speaking countries. It now stands that the English-language sources being called upon to change this article are now themselves the subject of dispute. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems false because there are sources from France that call them "Controversial". Also, there maybe strong forces in France to censor the fact that they are controversial but we are not in France. "French magazine Charlie Hebdo to republish controversial Mohammed cartoons as terror trials start"https://www.thelocal.fr/search/?q=Controversal+cartoons
 * Aug 27, 2020 "including some of France's most celebrated cartoonists, were killed...including hugely controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed" - https://www.thelocal.fr/20200827/waiting-for-justice-france-remembers-charlie-hebdo-terror-attacks-as-suspects-go-on-trial
 * "Mr Paty was beheaded in the street outside his school after showing controversial cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad to students, during a lesson about freedom of expression." - https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Macron-promises-immediate-action-against-Islamic-terrorism
 * "French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, the target of a massacre by Islamist gunmen in 2015, republished on Wednesday hugely controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed to mark the start of the trial of alleged accomplices to the attack." - https://www.france24.com/en/20200901-france-s-charlie-hebdo-to-republish-mohammed-cartoons-at-start-of-terror-trial
 * It is still the case that Muslims in France find the cases controversial per the BBC: Earlier this year, President Macron described Islam as a religion "in crisis" and defended the right of magazines to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Such depictions are widely regarded as taboo in Islam and are considered highly offensive by many Muslims. and this is what the article should say. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I support calling them controversial at the very least given how most Muslims (~2 billion) found the cartoons to be offensive, so much so that you have protests against the government of France in many Muslim countries, not to mention boycotts on both national and community levels. This is not a "meaningless minority" as one person above put it. Case in point:    Maqdisi117 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are most definitely not 2 billion Muslims in the world, and if there were, they would still be a minority, and even is every one of them were an Islamist opposed to the free press, as the examples your have quoted do not suggest, they would still constitute an extremist minority to whom we should not give undue weight, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. GPinkerton (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From your above comment It appears you do not understand those policies GPinkerton. Hardyplants (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the article would state that Muslims find the cartoons controversial, that is amply supported by the sources and according to Zineb El Rhazoui satirical cartoons are banned in nearly all Muslim countries. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We could split hairs over the exact population of Muslims all day, but it is approximately 2 billion as stated by the following study, dating from 2010 . Given that an entire decade has passed since, I'm inclined to think it's appreciably higher than it was last reported. Moreover, Muslims weren't the only ones who found the cartoon's questionable. For example, Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, stated that freedom of speech has limits . Unsurprisingly, even Amnesty International took note of France's hypocrisy on freedom of speech, and how it can be "used for covering up the measures that put people at risk of human rights abuses including torture." . Maqdisi117 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Justin Trudeau is not a politician in France and this article is about a jihadist terrorist attack in France. Are Amnesty International experts on jihadi terrorists/terrorism? A Thousand Words (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The original question was whether the cartoons were seen as controversial. Next, it was suggested that only Muslims found the cartoons (and the French notion of freedom of speech in general) as controversial. I've demonstrated that's clearly not the case. Please, let's avoid steering off course, thank you. Maqdisi117 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to make an article about a jihadi terrorist attack in France, a secular country, into an article about whether cartoons are in line with religious ideas? Sounds like WP:COATRACK. A Thousand Words (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support given the extensive evidence of similar wording in reliable sources and elsewhere on Wikipedia, as outlined by Assem Khidhr below. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which word(s) are you supporting? WWGB (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as in stating that depicting Muhammad is controversial (or inflammatory), Wikipedia would be endorsing the hardline Islamist viewpoint in violation of NPOV. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think this RfC is well structured. Editors are being invited to voice a simple support/oppose stance, when what is presented amounts to twelve different options. It is wrong to give blanket support for any of eleven different changes away from the status quo. Of the individual changes, I don't think "inflammatory" is justified, but "controversial" would be. However, the current sources used for this particular statement don't support the addition of "controversial" so an additional source (such as those given above) would be needed. Regarding the second half of the sentence, I don't think any of these wordings are justified. While Reuters uses the word "lampooning" (itself less charged than an option like "mocking") the majority of sources prefer the word "depicting" here, and the article is right to follow them. Awoma (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I did notice this, but I still think this can be solved easily by following one's binary vote with the specific form(s) of all the slash-separated words with which it is agreed. In your case, for example, you would write Support, controversial only, or whatever you think is right. A plain support, in this context, would suggest a support for any combination. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Such a description justifying the act is completely uncalled for in an article about an islamist attack. --Aréat (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * how is calling the cartoons controversial akin to "justifying" the murder? They have been controversial long before this event.VR talk 15:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's akin to how you don't present a rape scandal by describing the victim as wearing a provocatively seductive dress. It may have been previously described as provocative, but it's very uncalled for to mention it when the intro is of the article of the rape, here a murder by beheading.--Aréat (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support calling them "controversial". This is very obvious if one uses logic:
 * Things are disagreed by a significant number of people are "controversial" by definition of the word "controversial" (controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views").
 * We have sharply opposing views on the cartoons: much of the Muslim world regards the cartoons as offensive, some non-Muslims regard them offensive too; on the other hand others have defended the cartoons.
 * Thus the cartoons are "controversial".
 * I think users opposing this do not understand the meaning of the word "controversial". If someone disagrees, please point out which of the following statements (#1, #2, #3) you actually disagree with.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 15:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A blatant violation of WP:SYNTH - even if a significant number of people consider eggplants controversial, we need to write which people think this. Cartoons have a long tradition in France and this article is about an event in France. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No using the dictionary definition of words is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. I'm happy to take this to WP:ORN if you keep insisting it is.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose characterising the cartoons as "inflammatory", per NPOV; support "lampooning Muhammad" rather than "depicting Muhammad". Cheers, gnu 57 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * would you agree to describing the cartoons as "controversial"?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Depicting Muhammad" is even more well supported by the sources though. Does "lampooning" take priority? I don't see why it would. Awoma (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, based on NPOV sources. Idealigic (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you give the sources you based this on. I think none of the sources currently in the article or presented above support the terms "inflammatory", "mocking", "disparaging" or "ridiculing." Awoma (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, because this is what NPOV sources say about them. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think it's best to avoid using wikivoice to describe them as controversial in the lead. We could explain what happened in the body (with appropriate attributions). -  (talk)  17:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why we can't say they are "controversial" in the lead and why something so obvious needs attributions? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also obvious that the cartoons are in French language, are not distributed free, are printed n wood pulp paper rather than hand painted on vellum. What information does this give the reader about the jihadists' crimes? What useful information does it convey? The purpose of Wikipedia is not furthered by the insertion of extraneous adjectives merely because journalists have copy to fill. GPinkerton (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per NPOV. The wording of the current sentence is the most neutral and supported by the majority of reliable sources. Some1 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Describing Charlie Hebdo Cartoons in the Lede)
This matter was extensively discussed on and out of the page with the situation almost stalemating; however, only few editors were involved. Still, the discussion came to evolve a bit, which is why I filed this RfC to get more input and hopefully reach a consensus. For previous relevant discussions, ascendingly sorted by date, see:
 * 1) Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1, discussing whether the cartoons defamatorily depict Muhammad.
 * 2) Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1, discussing whether the cartoons should be called inflammatory in wikivoice in the lede.
 * 3) Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1, discussing how should we file this request.
 * 4) Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, discussing whether a number of edits, including one engaging in the matter in question, conform to NPOV.
 * 5) Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty, discussing whether removal of "controversial" was legitimate.

Since I'm voting for inclusion, I'll give a recap of the arguments given throughout those discussions as grounds for my position: 1. Being controversial is not value-laden and to report something as such imposes no committment on Wiki to either side of the controversy.

2. Referring to the controversy is encyclopedically significant since it historically contextualizes the killing.

3. Showing both cartoons that Paty showed would go against WP:GRATUITOUS, with one of them extremely likely to be perceived by a considerable number of Wiki readers as signifcantly more offensive. As such, it is important to convey what the cartoons contain in the prose. In this context, to say that they plainly depict rather than mock or ridicule their subject would be misleading.

4. The cartoons have repeatedly been described as controversial, inflammatory, ridiculing, lampooning, and/or mocking in reliable sources (as per WP:RSPSOURCES) and by French officials. Here are some examples: Occurrences in reliable sources

The BBC wrote French President Emmanuel Macron has said he can understand why Muslims were shocked by controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The CNN titled an article Charlie Hebdo to reprint controversial cartoons as terror trial begins.

The Independent wrote Many people around the world have defended the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed in the wake of the massacre at its Paris offices and the following attack on a kosher supermarket, in which three gunmen killed 17 people in total.

Reuters wrote The middle school teacher knifed to death on the street of a Paris suburb on Friday showed his teenage students a cartoon lampooning the Prophet Mohammad as part of a class on freedom of expression earlier this month, parents said.

Charlie Hebdo was banned before in France for disparaging the death of General de Gaulle, a national symbol (note the Times article being titled The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo) Occurrences in official statements

French ex-Foreign minister Laurent Fabius described the same cartoons as pouring oil on the fire.

French ex-president Jacques Chirac condemned the magazine's decision to republish previous cartoons of Muhammad and described it as overt provocations.

American ex-president Barack Obama commented on the same cartoons: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".

5. With the reservations made on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POINTy behavior, being adopted in other Wiki articles, let alone highly assessed ones, still bears some meaning to the overall community consensus. For this reason, here are some examples where the cartoons or other very similar ones were called as proposed here: Occurrences in Wiki

Class C Charlie Hebdo lead section 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.

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

There's a dedicated section in Charlie Hebdo called controversy.

See the description of a white-supremacist cartoon as inflammatory in the Class B article Lynching in the United States.

In a reference to previous Danish cartoons, Class C The Cartoons that Shook the World lead section reads: The book itself caused controversy before its publication when Yale University Press removed all images from the book, including the controversial cartoons themselves and some other images of Muhammad Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Disputed edits by User:GPinkerton
Despite coming back from a block for edit-warring here, reverted my edit today and manually reverted another edit. I'll try to resolve the matter here.

As for, according to Merriam-Webster, to amend is to put right or to alter for the better. Thus, to speak of Trudeau's second remarks (where he emphasized defending free speech) as amending the first (where he emphasized the limits of free speech) raises two problematic suggestions: Instead, we should just report the two remarks without WP:EDITORIALIZING.
 * 1) That Wikipedia thinks of the second statements as true and the first as false. (which is way too subjective for Wiki to adopt).
 * 2) That Trudeau retracted his first remarks, which he didn't explicitly say.

As for : This fairly translates to the wording The response of the French government has been criticized by many Muslims without any blackmailing of the type GPinkerton spoke of. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Macron himself said that he understands Muslims' shock over prophet cartoons (noting that he spoke of Muslims as a whole). See a reference here.
 * 2) Reliable sources elsewhere speak of anger over Macron in Muslim countries. See e.g. The Guardian's article here.

No, no, that uncited claim of yours is editorializing. The attitude one religion or its members is really quite irrelevant; the actions and policies discussed in the article are those of jihadists like the killer and Islamists like Erdogan, the Saudis, and the others who have taken offence at the liberty of people in France to criticize authority, something we know Erdogan and bin Salman are especially thin-skinned about. This we know from sources. Suggesting Erdogan leads or represent Muslim opinion in general is absurd, akin saying bin Laden was a saint. Our sources describe Erdogan as an Islamist leading an Islamist political party, and that's how the lead should describe him. GPinkerton (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Some "anger in Muslim countries" is not the same as saying "many Muslims" sympathize with what Erdogan and Anzarov have done. GPinkerton (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No-one is retracting comments, and no-one should suggest the word "amend" means "retract", since the dictionary, we now know, says no such thing. We do know though, that "clarify" means "make clear" and "amend" means "mend". If something was not unclear, why the need to clarify; if Trudeau had not equivocated he would not have had to amend his remarks, an event reported by reliable media. GPinkerton (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "clarify" because that is the word used by the source. "Amend" is misrepresenting the source. "Amend" means "change", but "clarify" means "explain", not change. Lev¡vich 22:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I think it's worth being aware of WP:LAME. Neither of these disputes seem hugely significant. Do you two really care whether we say Trudeau "amended" his position or "elaborated" on it? Or is this part of a squabble. It may be worth thinking how can you both make wikipedia as good as it can be - this is what should be motivating you, and the answer is certainly not ensuring the right verbage is used in relation to the evolution of two statements by Trudeau. With regards the specific edits, I am fine with either wording in the first sentence, and neither wording in the second. In the first, both "amended" and "elaborated" seem to fit the sentence and source, in my eyes, though I have a small preference for "elaborated." With regards the second sentence, both "many muslims" and "many Islamists" seem to be WP:WEASEL to me. The source only justifies saying that 1 Muslim/Islamist was unhappy: Erdogan. He's a significant figure, so it's notable to include his view. The sentence should be rewritten, though, to just say "Erdogan's view is..." and make no reference to a nebulous "many" of any group of people. Awoma (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both Erdogan and Islamism need to be mentioned, because although he has made the biggest fuss, others have made their confected fury known, among them the Saudis, Iranians, some Islamic NGOs, etc., not to mention the Islamist imam who's in custody and whose mosque and network has been banned for inciting the murder. The vague "many" should not be there. GPinkerton (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many, many Muslims who have criticized Macron's response. Most don't seem Islamist, and most importantly, reliable sources simply describe them as "Muslims" (added the sources).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Many" implies it was a significant proportion, rather than an extreme fringe. All I see is radical/extremist politicians and some angry mobs. The phrasing "Muslim world" is even worse, as it suggests, quite without foundation, that the Muslim world in general is against the concept of free speech, which is well beyond Vice regent's capacity to determine, far less allege in Wikivoice. We could better say "governments and protestors in Islamist states". "Muslim" suggests this attitude or Erdogan et al.'s is based in a world religion rather than a political ideology antithetical to democratic freedoms of expression. No more than a tiny minority of Muslims support the Islamists' ideological claims, least of all in this particular case. GPinkerton (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should say what reliable sources say. The reliable sources widely use the term "Muslim world" to describe Macron's critics on the issue. Many reliable sources have been using the term "many Muslims" or just "Muslims".
 * And, fyi, polls for previous Muhammad cartoons showed that most Muslims simultaneously condemn both the cartoons and any violent response to the cartoons. Your claim that only a tiny minority of Muslims condemn the cartoons are most likely not true (see also these PEW polls).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

having 4/5 Muslims in some demographics "blaming" "Western disrespect" for "controversy" is nothing like equivalent to claiming that anything more than a vocal and powerful minority support the trashing of France's constitutional freedoms in favour of theologically inspired religious strictures. Perhaps you missed the note that says the bar chart only includes people claiming to have heard of the cartoons, and can therefore not be used as any kind of support for numerical claims like "many". Where are getting the idea that it is possible to be a non-extremist and yet call for the beheading of a teacher and a boycott of his country's products? GPinkerton (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC) I also assume by the less-than-small minority you're referring to is the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196 27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks. statistic] you've adduced. If policy and common sense did not prohibit interpreting highly localized statistics from a half-decade ago to gauge public opinion about an event in autumn 2020, we might say that yes, if fewer than a third of a demographic standing in for a global cohort representing less than a third of the world's population is condoning the actions of ISIS, then yes, we can say a minority of Muslims agreed with Anazarov. This, however, would be wholly wrong to do. Suggesting that kind of synthesis is not going to be productive. GPinkerton (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton, the dispute is whether my version here is accurate:
 * The content that "many Muslims" merely "criticized" the French government "response" is well supported by the sources:
 * Criticizing a government doesn't make you an extremist.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Demanding an end to freedom of speech in a foreign country very much does make one an extremist. I note that the phrasing of Deutsche Welle is near identical to the wording I employed to describe the protests Macron "defended secularism and freedom of expression in France ... His comments prompted a wave of protests and criticism from the Muslim world." This itself is awfully close to the BBC write-up: "Tensions between France and Turkey also intensified recently after French President Emmanuel Macron's pledge to defend secular values and fight radical Islam". and Reuters: "The Nice attack, on the day Muslims celebrated the Prophet Mohammad’s birthday, came amid growing Muslim anger across the world over France’s defence of the right to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet." and also that of AP: "Smaller demonstrations in Lebanon, Turkey and India followed on anti-France protests across the Muslim world last week that were mostly led by Islamist groups. The renewed protests came after President Macron’s interview late Saturday in which he said that he understood the shock Muslims felt at caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Macron was speaking with the Qatar-based Arabic TV station Al-Jazeera, where he also defended freedoms of expression and France’s secular values." So its clear that the protests are very much "against Macron's defence of free speech". I feel the Associated Press phrasing is the most succinct, we should emulate that for the lead. Here's how the sources treat Erdogan, this paragon of illiberal values:
 * We should also make plain that:
 * In short, I oppose the lumping together of extremists like Erdogan with the whole "Muslim world". We can say there were protests in the Muslim world, but the real issue here is Islamism. This is of course why the Muslim organizations in France will be invited to publicly affirm that "Islam is a religion and not a political movement", since we know that Islam and Islamism are separate, and it is the Islamists that are calling for "vengeance" against France for Anzarov's death in general and the death of Macron and the French constitution in particular, just as they had earlier called for the beheading of Paty. I will not be convinced this can rationally be classified anything other than extremism. GPinkerton (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that this about "freedom of expression" is an important POV and deserves mention in the article. But it is not shared by all. This columnist (and Amnesty)point out that French Muslim students are banned from wearing headscarves (yet teachers showing naked cartoons of Muhammad is defended as free expression). In fact, in the aftermath of the Paty murder, sources were quick to point out the very long list of forms of expression and speech that are banned in France (insulting the flag, BDS campaigns, burkinis etc). Amnesty says that "thousands" are convicted in France annually for "contempt of public officials" which in their view "silences dissent". Meanwhile this article points out that the European Court of Human Rights argued that the Muhammad cartoons "exceed" the limits of free speech.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "a POV" it is an established fact. Until the Islamist Erdogan took power in Turkey, Turkish students were also banned from wearing headscarves. Indeed, forcing children to wear headscarves is a well-known sign of Islamism, a fact recognized by Ataturk and all of his successors but one. Your sources are again not reputable. All are opinion pieces quite unsuitable for claims of fact, and take a peculiar POV that is not worthy of encyclopaedia.
 * You would do well to note that The Guardian article you have cited, far from supporting your claims, explicitly says: Self-censorship in response to Islamist threats needs resisting. which again shows plainly that the opponents of the cartoons' publication are the Islamists and their objective is the repeal of freedom of expression, a central and focal part of the ideology of Islamism. The fact that France also criminalizes Holocaust denial (a favourite topic of Islamists) is really neither here nor there.
 * As for the Lukman Harees article, it would really be wise if you would just drop the attempt to cite the Turkish state media. We have no need of Erdogan's pet journalists to supply fact in this article. Not only is Harees a TRT employee, a highly biased and pro-Erdogan state organ, but he cites an outrageously piece of misreporting by Daily Sabah, which on these matter is hardly better. The ECHR has no power to overturn Austrian law, which as a result of its illiberal blasphemy laws is able to convict people of such crimes, a thing inconceivable in France or in most secular states, and the ECHR 's position is a judgement on whether or not the decision was allowable under Austrian law, not under some objective or international standard of freedom of the press. To try and claim that the ECHR's ruling in that case was in some way relevant to Charlie Hebdo is lunacy that could only be contemplated by those led astray by the Turkish media, and has no place whatever.
 * I note that Amina Easat-Daas, though a slightly more credible source, has also written for TRT and is also just engaging in whataboutism, and refers to now-illegal extremist organizations as "Muslim-led and Muslim-centred anti-racist organisations", referring to BarakaCity, a group led by Idriss Sihamedi, who glorified the 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo only in September this year and refused resolutely to condemn ISIS's pseudo-caliphate. I note other articles in MiddleEastMonitor call this person "persecuted by France" which I think just about trashes any vestige of doubt about whether or not it was a wholly or only usually unusable source for this type of topic. Trying to suggest that cartoons should not be published in France and that youth should not be educated on freedom of expression as required by law because France also criminalizes other forms of extremism is pure whataboutism and cannot be used to imagine that the publication of cartoon is somehow not an essential part of the right of freedom of the press. It is itself a highly criticized partisan Islamist rag, and even Jeremy Corbyn was wise enough to avoid a soirée chez eux ...
 * To present this as the perspective of "most" of the Muslim world really, really thin gruel. GPinkerton (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you think the Islamic headscarf worn by French students is necessarily "extremism"? Do you also think that Muslims finding naked cartoons of their prophet to be deeply offensive are necessarily all "Islamists"?
 * Here's another source noting "laïcité has been weaponized and misused as a political tool to limit the visibility of religious signs, especially Muslim ones".VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that this about "freedom of expression" is an important POV and deserves mention in the article. But it is not shared by all. This columnist (and Amnesty)point out that French Muslim students are banned from wearing headscarves (yet teachers showing naked cartoons of Muhammad is defended as free expression). In fact, in the aftermath of the Paty murder, sources were quick to point out the very long list of forms of expression and speech that are banned in France (insulting the flag, BDS campaigns, burkinis etc). Amnesty says that "thousands" are convicted in France annually for "contempt of public officials" which in their view "silences dissent". Meanwhile this article points out that the European Court of Human Rights argued that the Muhammad cartoons "exceed" the limits of free speech.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "a POV" it is an established fact. Until the Islamist Erdogan took power in Turkey, Turkish students were also banned from wearing headscarves. Indeed, forcing children to wear headscarves is a well-known sign of Islamism, a fact recognized by Ataturk and all of his successors but one. Your sources are again not reputable. All are opinion pieces quite unsuitable for claims of fact, and take a peculiar POV that is not worthy of encyclopaedia.
 * You would do well to note that The Guardian article you have cited, far from supporting your claims, explicitly says: Self-censorship in response to Islamist threats needs resisting. which again shows plainly that the opponents of the cartoons' publication are the Islamists and their objective is the repeal of freedom of expression, a central and focal part of the ideology of Islamism. The fact that France also criminalizes Holocaust denial (a favourite topic of Islamists) is really neither here nor there.
 * As for the Lukman Harees article, it would really be wise if you would just drop the attempt to cite the Turkish state media. We have no need of Erdogan's pet journalists to supply fact in this article. Not only is Harees a TRT employee, a highly biased and pro-Erdogan state organ, but he cites an outrageously piece of misreporting by Daily Sabah, which on these matter is hardly better. The ECHR has no power to overturn Austrian law, which as a result of its illiberal blasphemy laws is able to convict people of such crimes, a thing inconceivable in France or in most secular states, and the ECHR 's position is a judgement on whether or not the decision was allowable under Austrian law, not under some objective or international standard of freedom of the press. To try and claim that the ECHR's ruling in that case was in some way relevant to Charlie Hebdo is lunacy that could only be contemplated by those led astray by the Turkish media, and has no place whatever.
 * I note that Amina Easat-Daas, though a slightly more credible source, has also written for TRT and is also just engaging in whataboutism, and refers to now-illegal extremist organizations as "Muslim-led and Muslim-centred anti-racist organisations", referring to BarakaCity, a group led by Idriss Sihamedi, who glorified the 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo only in September this year and refused resolutely to condemn ISIS's pseudo-caliphate. I note other articles in MiddleEastMonitor call this person "persecuted by France" which I think just about trashes any vestige of doubt about whether or not it was a wholly or only usually unusable source for this type of topic. Trying to suggest that cartoons should not be published in France and that youth should not be educated on freedom of expression as required by law because France also criminalizes other forms of extremism is pure whataboutism and cannot be used to imagine that the publication of cartoon is somehow not an essential part of the right of freedom of the press. It is itself a highly criticized partisan Islamist rag, and even Jeremy Corbyn was wise enough to avoid a soirée chez eux ...
 * To present this as the perspective of "most" of the Muslim world really, really thin gruel. GPinkerton (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you think the Islamic headscarf worn by French students is necessarily "extremism"? Do you also think that Muslims finding naked cartoons of their prophet to be deeply offensive are necessarily all "Islamists"?
 * Here's another source noting "laïcité has been weaponized and misused as a political tool to limit the visibility of religious signs, especially Muslim ones".VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This NYT article published on Oct 30 adequately covers the position of many (IMO, even most) Muslims: that cartoons should not be published but any violence against cartoons is wrong: VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 23:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This New York Times article is evidence of exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Though Muslims in the countries named have been supportive of freedom of expression five years ago, (the growth of political Islamism in these countries and the corresponding erosion of civil rights has meant that) five years on, their repressive governments have seen fit to jump on the Islamist bandwagon driven forward by Erdogan et al. The absence of any mention of demonstrations in 2020 support of Charlie Hebdo rather shows the opposite to what you claim. The other quotation proves the same thing; now the Islamists are victim-blaming, taking sympathy with the killer and his apologists rather than the victim, which is the state of France and its freedoms as represented by Paty. GPinkerton (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton, the NYT article doesn't say what you claim. Anyway, the point about Islamists does not take away from NYT's article's quoting an expert who argues that Muslims perceive that "France has a problem with Islam". BBC News also reports reports "Macron has been accused of expressing anti-Islamic sentiments". An op-ed in Gulf News accuses Macron of "encouraging hate and division". Egypt's (anti-Islamist) president said "Mr Macron’s actions had offended 1.5 billion Muslims around the world". According to op-ed pieces in Foreign Policy and Al-Jazeera this is tied to upcoming French elections: {[tq|Depicting Muslims as a problem in the public sphere pays dividends at the polls in France and elsewhere in Europe—and it may win Macron a second term.}}
 * Maybe this article has a paragraph that captures both what you are trying to say and what I'm trying to say:
 * VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Vox article doesn't add much, and I'm dubious about its repeated reference to unnamed "experts". The quotations from Mobashra Tazamal might be worthwhile, but the other quotations are just reprints of the other op-ed: . I don't think the language of the lead to rely on op-eds quoted in op-eds, we need factual reporting for the basic facts, not the spun version. If France is "demonizing" Muslims (an ironic claim given the devil imagery adopted by the Islamists for Macron) then that would be reported straight by reputable news agencies, not solely sourced to an opinion piece. And again, the framing in any case is still Islamists ("the Erdogans and Khans", the Iranians and Hezbollah) vs France/Macron/secular freedom, and not "Muslim world vs France" or "Muslims vs freedom to publish". The polarity is between democracy and Islamism; the abstracted notions of generalized "Muslim opinion" is just being invoked by the demagogues and this rhetoric can't be taken literally. GPinkerton (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, in point of fact, the source you describe as being from the BBC is actually from Associated Press. Some of the opinions expressed there might be due, such as the sociologist quoted as saying "Islam is not Islamism, a Muslim is not an Islamist. An Islamist is not necessarily a jihadi, ... What I fear is that identities radicalize, with on one side those claiming the Muslim identity and on the other those claiming the identity of France" but other parts are simply not correct, such as the statement that "Muslim men initially came to France to take menial jobs following World War II", which overlooks that large part of France were once part of the caliphate and that there was a for long a mosque and Muslim cemetery in Marseille before the French Revolution and that Aristide Briand, who signed the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, was also in part responsible for the building of the state-funded Grand Mosque of Paris long before WWII shattered the Kellogg-Briand pact. GPinkerton (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

French legislation in response to the murder
I just read the The Atlantic's "France Is About to Become Less Free". Turns out the French government is advancing certain legislation in response to the murder. This should be noted in the article.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly but The Atlantic's pearl-clutching spin is not necessary as well as inaccurate; the article claims the UN had opposed the bill, but in fact the linked statement refers to events in 2017. Likewise, it claims Amnesty International criticized the bill, but the linked report from Amnesty nowhere mentions anything of the kind. We could use Le Monde op-ed by Jérôme Fenoglio [article in need of expansion] which is the actual substance of The Atlantic piece, but the equation of these two issues is really just a matter of opinion and not one expressed by Fenoglio, which never mentions Paty or Islamism, or religion, or anything of that kind, despite what Kamdar's article suggests. The human-rights watchdog's criticisms aren't anything to do with Islam or religion or anything either, so the whole is just more whataboutery, adopting the strawman argument that because freedom is not absolute in France there is something hypocritical about retaining freedom of the press. I'd prefer to see an non-opinion news story that connects this bill, which is not legislation yet and may never be, with the subject of this article. GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The very first paragraph of the article connects the legislation to the murder:
 * That's a pretty solid cause and effect assertion.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but this is The Atlantic, a weekly magazine, and the author's qualifications seem to begin with being American and end with living in Paris. To repeat such an assertion would be quite undue. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that there's consensus that The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. See WP:RSPSOURCES. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:OPINION and WP:UNDUE. This is opinion not news. GPinkerton (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:OPINION and WP:UNDUE. This is opinion not news. GPinkerton (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me get that straight. You first questioned the accuracy of the article, the author's qualifications, and the direct relevance to Paty. When being told that The Atlantic is consensually considered reliable (accounting for your two concerns) and that relevance is quite evident, you didn't admit to that and try to see how this might question your earlier understanding of the source, but rather decided to resort to whole other guidelines, introducing for the first time a claim of undue weight and being an opinion, at once. Well, I'd like to remind you then that consuming guiedlines in this manner is only likely to WP:EXHAUST discussions, leading to frustration on both ends. By the way, if you pay attention on WP:RSPSOURCES, it's nuanced enough that a distinction between opinion pieces and news articles is sometimes actually made when it's agreed by the community. See e.g. the consensus over the reliability of Anti-Defamation League. If you'd like to raise a similar issue about The Atlantic, post it on the appropriate platform. Until then, we shouldn't adopt the distinction. I'll try to re-iterate. Apparently, the murder of Samuel Paty was a greatly significant event that came amidst tensions between the government plan to fight what they call seclusionism and a religious minority (regardless of how we call them). It had extensive media coverage and received a lot of government responses. In this context, when a new bill is introduced that will further enforce the values of the republic, it's hardly contested and thus not a matter of opinion that such bill is inspired by the murder of Paty. When a reliable source explicitly states the relationship, it becomes even more certain. Therefore, it deserves to be mentioned on the article. To assert that this will make France less free would indeed be an opinion that, if mentioned, would need an attribution. That's it. Assem Khidhr (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is not correct. No action is being taken in France against religious minorities. Jihadism is not a minority. The author of the Atlantic opinion piece is completely non-notable and trying to cite her opinion as fact is giving undue weight to an expression of opinion which is just that. I don't need to be informed that it is considered generally reliable; but I say that "generally reliable" is not equivalent to "absolutely true even in opinion pieces by third parties not corroborated by other reliable sources and when engaging in the logical fallacy of tu quoque. GPinkerton (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirects Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy, Draft:2020 France–Islamist controversy, 2020 France–Islamist controversy, and 2020 France-Islamist controversy. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Paty's caution to the students
I added to the intro that Paty had allowed his students to look away or leave the room while the images were shown. That's an important detail to mention. He was not cavalier about this, but gave his students warning beforehand. I feel like the intro subtly seems to implicate Paty in his own death. He asked nothing of the students - not even to look at the images if they were offended - but simply showed them the controversial images briefly in class. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:251F:1BB7:749D:8148 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . Assem Khidhr (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous placement was fine and the ordering made more sense: the cartoons were seen as offensive -> so Paty permitted his students to look away or leave the room. Some1 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummm the "many Muslims [who] saw the cartoons as offensive" refers to reactions that followed the murder, that's why it's succeded with " Muslim countries protest.", how could have that motivated any of the precedent Paty's actions? Why link two clauses with different subjects and time frame? Plus, I can't see why you used the button, instead of a partial manual revert, while you don't seem to disagree with the rest of the changes. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me; I already have this article on my watchlist. The placement of the Charlie Hebdo shooting was fine before also, but I restored the "portrays" to "portrayed" change though. Some1 (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this reply addresses any of my questions, nor do I think your last edit effectively follows WP:REVONLY. Being fine, just like doing no harm, isn't an argument. Assem Khidhr (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If "These cartoons were seen by many Muslims as offensive" refers to "reactions that followed the murder" as you say it does (I interpreted it differently, with the sentence referring to the cartoons itself), then it belongs in the third paragraph where all the other reactions are. I want to point out though, that the first source in that sentence (NDTV) says "father, who had led a fierce campaign against Paty for showing the cartoons seen by many Muslims as offensive." The sentence refers to the cartoons, that Paty showed "offensive" cartoons, not the reactions that followed the murder. I see that the second source in the same sentence (CBC) refers to the reactions of the murder, which is why we're interpreting the sentence differently, depending on which source we're referring to. Some1 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't just what I say, really. It's the citation that I referred to and even basic grammatical considerations. The meaning you interpreted would have amounted to "These cartoons had been seen by many Muslims as offensive. The other source being worded verbatim might suggest the original author had copied the form, but still wouldn't signify its meaning in the independent context in the article. As for replacement to the 3rd section, I wouldn't mind whatsoever, but then we'd unnecessarily have to intersperse reactions to the murder with those to the cartoons, instead of the better logical flow where reactions to the cartoons, both previous and subsequent, are mentioned in the same paragraph where they're introduced, as was in the reverted version. JFTR, you're still somehow ignoring the rest of the changes (mentioning previous shooting regarding the cartoons + deleting the redundant mention of Charlie Hebdo shooting next ot its hypernym: January 2015 Île-de-France attacks). Assem Khidhr (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the "Charlie Hebdo shooting" placement, well, it depends on where the sentence we were previously discussing ("These cartoons were seen by many Muslims as offensive") gets placed. If it is where it is at right now in the second paragraph, with the sentence describing the cartoons shown to the class as offensive, then the Charlie Hebdo shooting being in the middle of the sentence ruins the flow by adding an unnecessary description to the cartoons. If the sentence gets moved to the third paragraph, with the "offensive" referring to the "reactions" to the cartoons after the murder, then that Charlie Hebdo shooting change makes more sense. Some1 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I attempted to re-arrange/re-word per our discussion . Some1 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This version seems like a good middle ground. I'll just paraphrase the ...seen by many muslims as offensive to avoid redundancy and improve the quality of the prose. I'll also try to connect sentences of the same paragraph. Assem Khidhr (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Chnina's daughter alibi
Hi all,

Yesterday, 9 March 2021, new information was revealed to the public regarding the lead-up to and murder of Samuel Paty. The BBC at "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56325254" indicates the social media campaign against Paty was based on speculation. Specifically, the majority of information in the online campaign against Paty which preceded his murder, including police reports for indecency, came from a 13-year old student who was never present in the class. This unnamed individual invented the allegations and told her father who subsequently went to the police and started the online campaign against Paty. The French government has since determined this online campaign was how Abdullakh Anzorov heard about Paty, and ultimately murdered him.

In light of this information, this article needs to be significantly reworked to properly summarize and express the two very different stories behind this tragedy. It is likely more information will continue to come out, but at the moment the controversy over this issue is not properly expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.205.62 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Updates regarding the case did show that Chnina's daughter wasn't present during Paty's class in question. However, this is NOT how we know that Paty had shown the cartoons in class. The cartoons were already on the national curriculum and it was admitted by French officials and reliable sources all over the globe. To persistently argue otherwise is disruptive editing. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's two more sources about this same thing. This definitely deserves at least a new section on the article.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/french-student-admits-to-lying-about-beheaded-teacher/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-samuel-paty-beheading-schoolgirl-b1814372.html 86.173.129.153 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Claim of student's father
Paragraph starts as "Brahim Chnina,[45] a female student's father," but 2 paragraphs later it states that the student had been expelled before the incident and that Chnina was aware she was no longer a student. Please remove the claim of being a student's father (not sure why "female" is relevant). At the very least change to "former student." 2600:8800:1580:147:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of drawings
Some editors appear to be removing the drawings shown by Paty. Should these removals be reverted? Thanks, Closingbracket (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the images are relevant and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Some1 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, confusing sentence
"The 13-year old girl who made the allegations against Paty has since confessed to lying." What allegations? This sentence has no context. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo image
FYI in case anyone is interested: Some1 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)