Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Contentious editing of the lead

@Andiar.rohnds: You are to cease your contentious edits to the lead. You have no consensus, and you've demonstrated your bad faith by characterizing your edits as "reverting vandalism". Your options are (a) to get a consensus here on the talk page, or (b) leave it alone.

Let's not forget this this is the same contentious editor who gutted the lead[1][2][3] with such edit comments as "various minor corrections at lead section". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Gutted the lead? It was during a phase in which the entire lead was written like crap, with large portions of mismatched or false information. Since then it has been rewritten by a more-competent editor (not you) and then further improved by myself without any gutting. You seem pretty intent on removing the word "muslim" from the title of "french national police officer". Does this personally devastate you? Nothing could be closer to the truth. This edit is very appropriate in style and form to describing the event. Please explain how you think this information is irrelevant. Bold as it may be, it actually is *extremely* significant, especially since this article is heavily tied with community/global response and other social circumstance. You also take habit of removing a well established edit, and then challenging the person who is trying to restore it. This is very asinine, stop deleting the word "muslim" from "french national police officer", you are the initiator of the edit-war. Leave it be until discussed here. Thanks --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Since then it has been rewritten by a more-competent editor (not you): actually, that was me who re-added the lead that you almost entirely deleted without consensus, a fact you tried to hide by labelling it "minor". Your POV-pushing contentious editing will stop. Nowhere in the article is the relevance of the officer's ethnicity established, let alone lead-worthy. The onus on you is to provide sources that demonstrate his ethnicity was so important that it has been established as a primary detail of the event, and thus worthy of including in the lead. Good luck with that—though I suspect you'll rather resort to more personal attacks. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, the original "gutting" you're referring to was written very poorly. Literally the worst I've ever read on Wikipedia. And perhaps you are a person who contributed on the need to rework the article. Very good. But you are still vandalizing this article. And I'm not the most seasoned editor, I consider anything under a paragraph to be a minor edit, and I honestly don't remember why one of the guttings was marked as minor, It was probably a manual revert or undoing of another revert or something. And sometimes I add edit summaries, sometimes I don't. I certainly don't need to explain myself to you. You seem festive in labeling my faith. You actually have no clue. And There is no need to discuss every edit on the talk page. The original edits you keep reverting are just fine, unless further discussed here, by a legitimate consensus and not friends or vpn/proxy accounts of yours. Thanks --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do make mistakes... What is your point? Ahh you must be agreeing with me on the date format subject I posted earlier. Yes, it looks very retarded, this is fact, and I can't believe Wikipedia actually allowed it. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreeing with you on the date format? Of course not—it's a well-established international standard, and besides, it's in another thread that I haven't commented on. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Several related attacks

Related to what? This is too broad of a summary, and is stung together poorly as a separate event. The only relation the other attacks have with charlie hebdo is *most* of the gunmen were involved. Thats it. One can only speculate that the rest of the attacks were probably more as acts of desperation rather than terror, especially after being hit with the reality of an entire country, an entire police force hunting you. The reality is, no amount of totally legitimate spiritual faith or bravery or training can prepare you for something like this. I assure you "allah" will not grant you the strength of fighting 1000 armored men. Thats just an opinion though. Anyway - "Several more attacks" seems more simple and direct than "several related attacks" do we agree? --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, why remove the simple line of "After the charlie hebdo shooting..."? This is not redundant or verbose --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It's both redundant and verbose to "followed". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Some of these attacks were more "related" than others. Is there a better way to make this distinction? Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggestions would be helpful, but if any of the other incidents were unrelated they probably don't bear mentioning in the lead at all. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Cease and desist undoing of "Muslim" [French National Police Officer]

This article is already latent with religious views, and the most recent excuse for removal given in the articles edit-history was laughable. The officer was not killed because he was Muslim, which indeed is true, but the motive for these killings are based off terrorist ideology, which are heavily tied to racism, among other things. The officers religion raises an interesting point, and is more than relevant enough to be included. Andiar.rhonds has already found more than enough support, and if these moderation and editing tactics remain persistent, perhaps Andiar can raise even more support, in an overwhelming force. 184.77.94.119 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat. I would choose words very carefully if I were you. WWGB (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Responding to threats with more threats? My supposed threats are of a legitimate body, and your threats are pathetic. You really should stop. What exactly do you mean by "choosing my words carefully"? Please elaborate. I don't think you understand what this is.184.77.94.119 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't the article mention that the police officer was Muslim lower down? Would that be acceptable? Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
He was Muslim "lower down"! Which part would that be? WWGB (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Lower down in the article, I mean! Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just being a smarta$$! I don't see any reason to mention that victims were Muslim, Jewish or any other religion. There is no evidence that the perps spared or shot anyone on the basis of their religion, so it's irrelevant information. WWGB (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
One could say that it's irrelevant, but the secondary sources mention it so that counts as analysis of the event, no? Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Context is everything. How to sources deal with this information? Do they mention it merely in passing? Do they use it as clickbait? Or do they carefully analyze it, and make it a central detail to the officer's murder? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess that the point that the sources are making is that the perpetrators were not showing mercy to a co-religionist. Well, I just thought I'd raise the idea. Abductive (reasoning) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The sources probably were, but unless the sources demonstrate that the officer's religion played any role (such as that the terrorists were aware of it), then it's inappropriate in an encyclopaedia article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that saying he was of Algerian descent is enough. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The police officer? Why? It has not been claimed that his ethnicity had any role in the events. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It was mentioned that the killers said he wasn't Algerian just after they killed him. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Source? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Can't find it. Don't worry about it. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Easy understanding for readers

I suggest replacing the current formula Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178|the following issue with just the name of the concerned article Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178. Thanks for your participation. Trackteur (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Trackteur is talking about the lead, not the body. In the lead, the number is just noise and unhelpful to the reader in getting a bird's eye overview of the topic of the article. For instance, it's not clear from the issue number that this is the issue that came out immediately following the shooting incident. In the lead, we want to get to the point, and the issue number is unimportant and distracting at that scope. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that the issue number is not necessary in the lead. A link to the article on the issue is appropriate if people want to get all the details. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

shouting allahu akbar in the lead

I'd like to discuss the bold in the following sentence in the lead: "Armed with assault rifles and other weapons, they killed 11 people and injured 11 others in the building, and shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is [the] greatest"). " It seems slightly unencyclopaedic in tone to mention this detail in the lead, and is rather sensationalistic. I'm sure they, and all terrorists shout all kinds of things in the heat of their attacks; why are we singling out this shout in the lead? Is it normal to mention what attackers shout during their attacks? Based on a cursory perusal of similar wiki articles it is not. But I suppose a case could be made that this is somehow illustrative of the motivations of the attackers in this case. However, in the interest of NPOV I think it would be better to stick to discussing the major points of the attack in the lead, discuss their ideological motivations in neutral language, and bring up such "colourful" details later in the text. Any views? Peregrine981 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead has been written and re-written dozens if not hundreds of times by numerous Wikipedia editors. The phrase has survived all those edits. For that reason alone, and for respect of the many hours the Wikipedia editors have spent on it, I'd be inclined to keep it.
Furthermore, it needs also be kept because the phrase is integral to so many of the RS reports of the events, that censoring it out would imply the Wikipedia has chosen to censor out that which the RS considered important to advise to readers. XavierItzm (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If the lead was overlong, the material could be cut. But it isn't. Abductive (reasoning) 20:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think either of those arguments directly addresses the need to keep the material in the lead. Just because it has been there through a lot of edits (but only few weeks) is by no means a reason to keep it. See WP:LONG for a discussion of why that is not a solid argument for inclusion. Similarly, just because an article is not long does not mean we should keep nonsense or unwarranted things in the article. Perhaps I should explain my thinking more carefully: The sentence takes special note of three things 1)how they were armed 2)that they killed 11 and injured 11 and 3) that they shouted Allahu Akbar. Numbers one and two seem to be important basic facts of the case, but what they said during the process does not seem that important to me. We could equally mention what they were wearing, or how they arrived, or other things that they said. Those may all be interesting things, but do not seem to belong in the "headline facts" of the case. If I want to gain a quick understanding of what this case was about, what they shouted seems rather trivial. I'm open to an argument that it illustrates their motivations or background, but as I mentioned think that in this case it's simpler and more neutral just to state what we know about their background or motivation rather than putting in this kind of relatively incidental detail. If this were a newspaper story or a novel I could see the value, but this is supposed to be a sober encyclopedic treatment, not a journalistic recounting. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've made more edits to the lead than any other editor, and my reason for keeping it has more to do with not wanting to step on a minefield than anything else—I've already been accused numerous tiems of being both pro- and anti-Muslim. Personally, I'd love to see it go, as it makes the wording awkward, and it's made clear elsewhere in the lead that they were Islamists. Honestly, I'd even like to drop the "Islamist" from "Islamist brothers", as that's made clear enough where Al-Qaeda claims credit for the shootings—it's redundant. I won't be touching either detail myself, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, User:Peregrine981. You can put me down for tentatively agreeing that per WP:WEIGHT, their shouting doesn't need to be in the lead. Let's see what other editors think. Abductive (reasoning) 02:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Curly Turkey's point is brilliant. If anyone removes the fact that the terrorists shouted "allahu akbar" as they gunned down their defenceless victims, and replaces it with any sort of qualifier such as "muslims" or "islamists" or practically anything else, an edit war will start for certain. In fact, there are some that say that the "Islamic State" is not Islamic! Bottom line, today's politically correct speech does not allow descriptive language to be used, and instead mere facts must be listed.
A sad alternative someone will probably propose will be to completely sanitise the issue by removing any and all references to what motivates the terrorists from the lead; if this happens, maybe someone can include on the lead that we have always been at war with Eurasia. XavierItzm (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - AQAP is mentioned in the lead, more relevant than just Muslims/Islamists/Jihadists shouting Muslim slogans, but a specific jihadist org. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Way to totally and utterly mischaracterize what I stated, and to make my point, to boot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No one disputes whether they said it or not. The question is whether we need to mention this rather trivial fact in the lead. I have no problem with it being included later in the article. Look around at other terrorism related articles, and I defy you to find a mention of what the terrorists were shouting or saying as they committed their crimes in the lead. For example, 2011 Norway attacks, 2015 Copenhagen shootings, Rome and Vienna airport attacks, Columbine High School massacre, 2008 Mumbai attacks, 7 July 2005 London bombings, etc... The lead is supposed to provide a summary of the most important facts, not detailed narrative features. I quote from WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." No one's trying to suppress information here, it's just a matter of striking an encyclopedic tone and giving due weight to the most important aspects of the incident. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Disagree that the fact is trivial. At all. Agree that it is a most important fact. Agree that it defines the topic, establishes context, and summarises important controversies. Agree that it is important to the topic, according to numerous reliable, published sources. Agree that the fact needs to be in the lead and in the remainder of the article.
Therefore, as per WP:LEAD, keep it. XavierItzm (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Because if they hasn't shouted it, it would somehow have been a completely different event? Somehow we're censoring that they're Islamists, while staying that al-Qaeda took credit for thebshooting? I think you've demonstrated that you're familiar with the term "doublethink". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any similar events' articles that mention what the terrorists said during their attacks. Why is this case so different? When we read about historical events we want to know above all what happened, not trivia about what they wore, or what they said at a given moment. Is it central to understanding the event? No, the important fact is to outline what they did, their background, the context of the attack. Can you cite me a precedent somewhere else of wikipedia that mentions what was said by attackers during an attack? Then we could at least discuss why it might have been included. Until now it seems the overwhelming precedent is not to include. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to keep trying all sorts of different tacks to try and find an excuse, no matter how Rube Goldberesque, to justify removal. Propositions such as "Can you cite me a precedent somewhere else of wikipedia that mentions what was said by attackers during an attack?" seem perilously close to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (a.k.a. WP:WL), don't you think?
The point is that the RS highlighted the fact and it would be unseemly to edit out what the RS proclaimed. Why did the RS do so? Probably because it was central to reader's understanding of the event. Probably because "it would have been a different event" (from a news consumer perspective, of course, not from a defenceless victim's perspective). Bottom line, recommend respect the RS and keep lead as is. XavierItzm (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Citing precedent is not wikilawyering... wikilawyering is trying to use technicalities that violate the spirit of the rule to try to get your way. I don't think that citing precedent is some sort of technical legal trick. The point has to do with what a lead should and should not handle.Peregrine981 (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Bottom line is RSes mentioned enough facts to give us a 49kb article. We're not talking about the body of the article—we're talking about the lead. So far, you've presented not one reason this piece of trivia must be in the lead. As you're the only one arguing it should, the onus is on you to provide us with your reasoning, not with WP:ILIKEIT. C'mon, now, we're waiting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of reasons have been given above. The suggestion to remove the material presented by numerous RS and characterise it as trivia is unencyclopaedic. XavierItzm (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If your reason for including it in the lead is "it's in the RSes", then what are your reasons for excluding the other 49kb of sourced text in the article from the lead? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to illustrate the point, the article cited also has information such as, "Another Charlie Hebdo staffer, Sigolène Vinson, told RFI that one of the shooters aimed his gun at her but spared her. “I’m not killing you because you are a woman and we don’t kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu'ran and wear a veil,” he told her." and information that some of the police officers arrived by bicycle, and that they spoke good French, and that the officer killed was 42, and that they drove a Citroen. The point is that there's a lot of detailed information available in RS and that we should present this information in summary style in the introduction without getting bogged down in the details. If people want to read about the details they can read further. This is not some sort of cover-up, it's an editorial decision about how to summarize the situation. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
When I first saw it, I thought it was incongruous in the lead. There seems to be a school of thought that the words have some sort of mystical defining quality linked only to acts of terrorism, and yet as the Takbir page makes clear, it can be used simply as an expression of joy or accomplishment. A bit like chanting "USA! USA!" It can also be pointed out that one is as much likely to hear it coming from the mouths of the West's Muslim allies, as from its enemies. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"it can be used simply as an expression of joy or accomplishment." Agree with you Nick. And what an accomplishment, indeed. Of course, now sanitised out of the lead. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment - AQAP is mentioned in the lead, (Anwar Al-Awlarki made threats and created a hit list that Charb was on) more relevant than just Muslims/Islamists/Jihadists shouting Muslim slogans, but a specific jihadist org that targeted Hebdo. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Also the Takbir was reported early on, AQAP claimed responsibility afterwards - WP:LEAD says that the lead should sum up the article, and newer AQAP facts are more relevant than just the fact that the killers had vague Islamist/Jihadist motives. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

7 January?

In Russia 7 January is New Year Holidays. When New Year Holidays finished in France? In Russia it was 11 January. I can't believe someone is working in the New Year Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.107.82 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no new year holidays in France. Only New Year's Day is off. In any case weekly papers appear every week. Mezigue (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Iranian commentary in "See also" section

@Curly Turkey, @Peregrine981 etc.: An editor is trying to insert a link in the "See also" section to an article about an obscure public relations statement published by Iran's government on Twitter and on its own website.[4] What do you think? Should we create an article for every comment made about the shooting by heads of state around the world and link to them in the "See also" section? Seems ridiculous to me.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary, "Worthless Islamist propaganda", just conveyed your personal opinion and had no logical reasoning based on which we could judge whether your undoing was right or wrong. In fact you are the editor who tries to remove a "directly related topic" from the see also section. As you know, the notable letter (not a regular comment) was said to be written due to the attacks and hence no one may ignore the relationships between the incident and the letter. According to Al-Monitor, it may be the first time that young people in the West have been directly addressed by a senior Islamic cleric about his religion.[5]. By the way, every notable comments on the incident made by the heads of states which are covered by reliable sources may be included here, why not? Mhhossein (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No one cares whether "it may be the first time that young people in the West have been directly addressed by a senior Islamic cleric about his religion". It is a run-of-the-mill PR statement with zero notability outside of the "Islamic Republic". (Related previous discussion on NPOV noticeboard when the same content was added to the "Ali Khamenei" article: [6])--Anders Feder (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It's again just a personal opinion on the content which might be respected by some! We're talking about including a topic in the see also section. The question is, Why should it not be included when it's directly related to the subject? Mhhossein (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
"It's again just a personal opinion" So is everything you write. The reasons are given above.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A minimal mention in the body here or the international reactions article would be much better than the prominence offered by a link in the "See also" section alongside links to articles about real, substantial topics.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:ALSO, "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics," while the letter is deeply covered by the sources and is directly related to the topic. What really forces us not to include it there as a link. However, what's the difference?. Mhhossein (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Include link to To the Youth in Europe and North America in "See also" section. It is defiantly connected to the shooting. A mention in the prose would be appropriate as well. (Not both of course.) A very notable Muslim jurist's reaction to the shooting that has its own article should be linked in someway. If you think the article is propaganda then you should propose deleting it. Until that happens, it should be linked. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote above, mentioning it in the prose among the other trivial media statements from heads of state would be just fine. Whether the article is propaganda is besides the point. We have articles about notable person's writings on Jews too, but that doesn't mean it would appropriate to link to it from the "See also" section of the Jews article.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Your argument about Jews is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. This is not an article on Jews, this is an article on an event and this was a response to the event. If it was not in the prose, then it should be in the see also. I see you have put it in the prose and I am fine with that and I am fine with the prose you have used. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It isn't an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument at all. If it was an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I would be arguing that we shouldn't do something here because it isn't done on some other article, which I am not. I am arguing we should not do it on either article for the same guidelines-based reason, namely that it would give WP:UNDUE prominence to a topic the reader is not likely to want to go to after reading the article. Applying guidelines consistently is not WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes it is clear that Mhhossein and Anders Feder have opposing opinions about how this letter should be presented on Wikipedia. Please, both of you, stick to discussing the content and stop trying to color the actions of each other as something evil when all you are really having is a content dispute. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Here we are discussing the issue, Richard-of-Earth! Mhhossein (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"But Your recent edit shows something else!" is an attempt to imply there is something evil with his edit without saying what. If it is violation of policy in some way, just say so. I get tired of sorting through drama to find the actual facts of the case. I suppose you two are more civil then most, I still find it annoying. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
His recent edit is not in accordance with our consensus, in my opinion. What do you think Richard-of-Earth? Mhhossein (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
His first sentence introduced the letter. His second sentence mentions that the letter was heavily promoted. Both are cited. I am annoyed with the article saying "posted to his Twitter account and published on his website Thursday". Obviously it had to be done in the opposite order as the letter is too long for twitter. As I look around I see others have made the same observation. The first sentence fairly assesses the letter. The second sentence mentions "spamming" which is a loaded term, but attributes it to the followers and not the Ayatollah himself. Some would see this as a propaganda campaign and others would not. As to the above consensus, it was said it could be mention in the prose, but not how, so he has not betrayed that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sentences from the letter were posted over several tweets, per New York magazine.[7]--Anders Feder (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The twitter account is not verified to be khamenei's. So, we'd better edit the second sentence so that the readers get the point. Based on the above discussion, one could add the title to the 'see also' section, couldn't he? Mhhossein (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Attribution of a twitter account to Khamenei

The account attributed to the supreme leader of Iran is not verified by him or other sources. I tried to find some clues but only found a sentence by Time saying that:"Iranians, Iran-watchers and journalists believe the Twitter account is managed by Khamenei’s office but it is not clear how directly involved the Supreme Leader is with its output."1 So, the account can't be attributed to him. Mhhossein (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Insofar "Iranians, Iran-watchers and journalists believe the Twitter account is managed by Khamenei’s office", and there is nothing to suggest otherwise, why can't it be attributed to him? Presumably he isn't involved in the daily operation of his personal website either. In fact the website and the images posted to the Twitter account[8][9] seems like they could have been designed by the same firm.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: What do you think?--Anders Feder (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Anders Feder: Of course we're talking about an account, not a website needing daily operation, although his official website is proved to be his official website considering the text at the top of the first page. By the way, you are still arguing based on your guess or analysis and Time and similar sources are not reliable for verifying his account. One thing suggested otherwise is that he holds no official twitter account and having similar design is not a good reason. Mhhossein (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, you are still arguing based on your guess or analysis. So are you. Please don't waste our time on redundant relativist observations. What source do you have for the claim that "he holds no official twitter account"?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note the editing on my last response! Logically, I need no source for proving NOT having the account, this is you who needs sources to prove that he holds an account. Mhhossein (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to "prove" anything. There's nothing in the sources to suggest that the account is not his and sources is what we go by on Wikipedia. But I will defer to Richard-of-Earth's judgement since he is the one who supported you above.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You do need! because there's nothing in the sources showing that the account is his and sources are what we go by on Wikipedia. Mhhossein (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely something "in the sources showing that the account is his". The expression "posted to his Twitter account" is a direct quotation of UPI.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not think that it was posted to his twitter account or posted to his website needs to be mentioned at all. It was an open letter. How it was distributed is not important. I can see it being hashed out on the article about the letter, it doesn't really need to be mentioned here. Just have the first sentence read "In an open letter titled "To the Youth in Europe and North America", Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged young people in Europe and North America not to judge Islam by the attacks, but to seek their own understanding of the religion." I am going to make that change. I won't be offended by reverts. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems fine.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrations on Jan. 7

Under "7 January" it says that there were major demonstrations in Amsterdam and other cities. The link in Amsterdam refers to a demonstration on January 8 of 100.000 people. On january 7, about 150 people, half French, gathered on Dam square, holding signs with "Je Suis Charlie". X10 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Charlie Hebdo shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What??

All I did was add a bold title to the article, why did I get negative votes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.208.243 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, "negative votes"? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Hebdo shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Charlie Hebdo shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not fond of the existing lead

I reworked the lead for my own wiki as follows:

The Charlie Hebdo shooting was a terrorist mass-shooting incident in Paris, France on the morning of 7 January 2015 that left twelve people dead, and another eleven injured. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region, where a further five were killed and eleven wounded.

The first terrorist attack was initiated around 11:30 local time when two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with assault rifles and other weapons, they killed twelve people and injured eleven others [before fleeing the premises ??]. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamist terrorist group Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen, which took responsibility for the attack.

France raised its Vigipirate terror alert and deployed soldiers in Île-de-France and Picardy. A major manhunt led to the discovery of the suspects, who exchanged fire with police. The brothers took hostages at a signage company in Dammartin-en-Goële on January 9 and were shot dead when they emerged from the building firing.

I don't understand why the current article does not contain the page title in bold, as is conventional. The only thing I had to do to convert this lead into a more standard narrative was to call it a terrorist shooting.

I'm registering my opinion that this lead could be improved, and I've provided a template fashioned as I would proceed, but I am not directly advocating any change to this page at all. If some future editor finds my posture convincing, he or she might want to incorporate some or all of my suggestions. I leave that up to the people here. — MaxEnt 00:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Poem on Website

After the attacks, the website featured an introduction to Charlie Hebdo through a comic. There was also a poem, I could not find it now on the net. The article would really benefit if that is featured.

Could someone could still find it or share here. Thanks. Thefall97 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Rename article to "Charlie Hebdo terror attack"

Per France24 public service broadcaster, the attack is called Charlie Hebdo terror attack in English, not "shooting". A Thousand Words (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll have to request that at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves.VR talk 20:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

IFOP discrepency

A Le point article says,

Par ailleurs, 82 % des Français musulmans condamnent l'attentat de Charlie Hebdo contre 92 % des Français de toute confession.

But the original source says

la grande majorité des Français de religion musulmane condamnent fermement ces attentats (72%), cette condamnation y fait moins l’unanimité que chez l’ensemble des Français (88%).

According to google translate, this means LePoint finds 82% of French Muslims condemning the Charlie Hebdo attack vs 92% of all French, but IFOP's summary says 72% of French Muslims condemn the attack vs 88% of the French public.

In any case, this is not the part about the IFOP poll picked up by most newspapers. Washington Post and New York Times both only picked up the part about 59% of French saying the magazine was right to publish the cartoons vs only 38% saying the same in 2006. It seems this statistic not the disputed statistic about French Muslims, is most notable in this poll.VR talk 17:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

And the rest of what was added isn't relevant to this article. For example, whether French Muslims in 2020 were more or less religious than other groups has nothing to do with this article.VR talk 22:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy in biography of Kouachi brothers

The article says "the brothers were orphaned at a young age after their mother's apparent suicide and placed in a foster home in Rennes. After two years, they were moved to an orphanage in Corrèze in 1994" That means their mother died in 1992. But the French Wikipedia says she didn’t die until 1995 ("leur mère … décédée en 1995"). French Wikipedia says nothing about a foster home in Rennes. Strambotik (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[1]

References

  1. ^ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A9rif_et_Sa%C3%AFd_Kouachi

Rallies in Chechnya

Chechnya. Not mentioned so far. It was claimed that up to 800,000 people demonstrated there in support for the attacks. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo image

FYI in case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_April_12#File:Charlie_Hebdo_Tout_est_pardonné.jpg Some1 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"Doly Gringy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Doly Gringy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Doly Gringy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting/Archive_7&oldid=1187063786"