Talk:Charlie Hebdo

Splitting the article

The article is currently sized 82,521 bytes, and the rule of thumb mentioned at WP:SIZESPLIT says it is a candidate for splitting. I believe the content also justifies creating a sub-article named Charlie Hebdo controversies or Controversies surrounding Charlie Hebdo, since the article contains too much material about controversies. Pahlevun (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Readable prose is 29 kB or 4637 words, which falls under "Length alone does not justify division". I support splitting the article as I explained in the section above this one. My support is due to content rather than length.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Support splitting out article on controversies for both content/balance and length reasons. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Support: very long section, clearly notable enough to justify its own article John wiki If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 11:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Also Support, that makes sense.VR _talk 01:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note - per WP:CRITS, "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". If the length of the article is an issue (it really isn't, there's just a lot of sections), then perhaps a better solution would be to trim it down per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE given that a good portion of the sections of this article already have dedicated articles of their own. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the article is too long because it needs pruning, the Other controversies section could/should be deleted in it's entirety Unibond (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The controversies section could be trimmed, but splitting the article seems unnecessary. Psychloppos (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2022 (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) 23:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Something I have been curious about: Where was it ever made clear that a cartoon of a guy wearing a turban is a depiction of Muhammad, rather than a depiction of a stereotype Muslim? Did the magazine ever claim this? Or did terrorists simply choose to believe it? I see all over Wikipedia that this is supposed to be a depiction of Muhammad, but where is the evidence of that? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's the article about the cover: Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178. The front page is titled "Tout est pardonné" ("All is forgiven") and features a cartoon of Muhammad with a tear in his eye and holding a "Je suis Charlie" sign ("I am Charlie"). Some1 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately, neither the Wikipedia article nor the archived article from The Telegraph offer any evidence that this is intended to be a depiction of Muhammad. Our Wikipedia article describes other people assuming it's Muhammad, and The Telegraph archive page has only a photograph but no content. Yes Wikipedia is saying it's a depiction of Muhammad, but as far as I can tell, this claim is failing verificaiton. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's another source from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-reveals-next-cover-a-cartoon-of-prophet-muhammad-behind-the-sign-je-suis-charlie/ "Pictured is a caricature confirmed by French media to be the Islamic prophet Muhammad, shedding a tear and holding a sign..." Note, this is talking specifically about this cartoon - the Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178 one, not about the other cartoons of a guy wearing a turban. Some1 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

But it's that first cartoon that sparked the killing. At the time of its publication, where is the evidence that this is intended to depict Muhammad? Something made people angry enough to commit murder, and it's hard to believe that any drawing of a guy wearing a turban would do that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist and Some1: hello. FYI, the cartoon with the teary-eyed Muhammad was published after the 2015 killings so it did not start the controversy.

The whole story started in 2006 when Charlie Hebdo published the Danish cartoons as a defense of free speech. This was accompanied by this cover with a cartoon by another artist, Cabu (who was among the victims of the 2015 attack). The character was explicitely said to be Muhammad. Charlie Hebdo was sued by the Grand Mosque of Paris and the Union of Islamic organizations of France, and the magazine won in court on the grounds of free speech. That was the real start of the controversy: before that date, Charlie Hebdo, while strongly anti-religious, hadn't done that much about Islam.

In 2011, there was this cartoon on the cover on issue 1011, by Luz (the magazine's offices were targeted by a bomb after the issue was published). On this cover, the magazine was renamed "Sharia Hebdo" (in the context of the new Libyan government announcing, after the fall of Gaddafi, that it would enforce sharia law, and the Islamist electoral victory in Tunisia). The cover said "Muhammad, guest editor-in-chief", so the character in Luz's 2011 cartoon was explicitely said to be Muhammad. Therefore, people familiar with Charlie Hebdo (or who had at least seen the 2011 issue) could understand that the character depicted in the 2015 cartoon was Muhammad, because this is how Luz draws him. There is absolutely no doubt that the character is supposed to be Muhammad. In case this helps, here is one article quoting the cartoonist, and mentioning that the cartoon depicts Muhammad.

By the way, later on, there were also in 2013 a series of special issues about the life of Muhammad (illustrated with cartoons by Charb) that fueled the Charlie Hebdo/Islam controversy. I hope this helps you understand the timeline of the controversy which led to the 2015 killings. Psychloppos (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: Thank you. I missed the fine print on the cover saying "Muhammad, guest editor-in-chief". I see it now. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Anyway, since nobody knows what Muhammad looked like, besides the fact that he was male and alledgedly had a beard, there is no consistent way to portray him (as you can see, Cabu drew him as rotund, Luz as thin) so I guess he is bound to be represented as a "stereotypical bearded Muslim". Psychloppos (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist:Just for the sake of precision or nitpicking (and in case you or anyone else wants to use that image as an example, or in a discussion) the fine print just says, in French "Muhammad, editor-in-chief", the "guest" part being implied: the gist of the joke is that Muhammad is supposed to be in charge of this "special" "Sharia" issue of the magazine.

Also, in case one wonders, the part of Muhammad's dialogue about "dying of laughter" is less harsh than it may sound in English, since in French "dying of laughter" is a phrase as common and innocuous as "so funny". On social media, the French acronym "MDR" (for "Mort de rire", i.e., "Dead Of Laughter") basically means "LOL" or "ROFTL".

FYI, here is another article in French about the issue (published shortly after the 2015 murders), featuring Luz's two Charlie Hebdo covers. Also, in 2020, in the context of the trial of the 2015 attack, Charlie Hebdo republished part of the cartoons, including the original Danish ones and Cabu's 2006 cover, under the title "All that for this" (a French phrase meaning "All that fuss for what ?") Psychloppos (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Until that fine print was pointed out to me, I thought it was just a drawing of a guy in a turban, and had no clue why people were assuming the drawing is supposed to depict Muhammad. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I guess Luz did not bother to include a similar fine print in his 2015 cover, first because in the context of the murders he probably had other things in mind, and most of all because his 2011 cover was so famous in France (as it had led to the first terrorist attack against the magazine) so French readers were kind of familiar with the way he drew Muhammad (even though, as far as I know, he had drawn him only once before). Psychloppos (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL

How does MOS:LABEL apply to the Category:Islamophobia in France? The sources clearly suggest that the newspaper is indeed Islamophobic, so I don't see what's above the line here. Usually MOS:LABEL applies to contentious words, not to categories. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The "Islamophobia [in France]" category implies that the magazine is "Islamophobic" but the magazine isn't widely labelled as Islamophobic ("are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"). Some1 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If I added Emmanuel Macron to that category would it be valid, because Emmanuel Macron has been known to exhibit Islamophobic remarks? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to discuss that on the Emmanuel Macron talk article, not this one. I shouldn't have cited MOS:LABEL but instead WP:CATDEFINING, which states: The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Some1 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, one should define what "Islamophobia" means. Does this mean criticism of Islam (which is the definition that Islamic fundamentalists would like to apply) or calls for discrimination/violence against Muslims ? Charlie Hebdo is certainly "guilty" of the former, as it is a strongly atheistic newspaper, very critical of organized religions and even religious faith; but not of the latter, as it has never called for discrimination against religious people or specific groups. On the contrary, it is quite anti-racist. No one in France has seriously called Charlie Hebdo an "Islamophobic" newspaper, besides Muslim radicals and some misguided leftists.

As for Emmanuel Macron, as far as I know he has never "exhibited Islamophobic remarks", unless one counts saying that Muslims in France, including fundamentalists, must abide by French secular laws and constitution (which amounts to stating the obvious) as "Islamophobic". Psychloppos (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)