Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Split article

2015 Paris attacks
Journalists, police officers and emergency vehicles converged on the street of the Charlie Hebdo shooting as seen in this photo a few hours after.
Location	Paris, France
Date	7 January 2015 - present 11:30 CET (UTC+01:00)
Attack type	Mass shooting, hostage taking
Weapons	AK-47s Shotgun RPG
Deaths	13
Injured	12
Perpetrators	Charlie Hebdo & CTD Saïd Kouachi Chérif Kouachi Possible third person (suspected) Montrouge & Porte de Vincennes Amedy Coulibaly Hayat Boumeddiene
Motive	Jihadism

This article covers 4 significant but related events.

• Charlie Hebdo shooting
• Montrouge shooting
• Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis
• CTD hostage crisis

We should split the article into AT LEAST two articles, one covering the suspects of Charlie Hebdo, then another for the Montague suspects. Or, if we were to keep all of them, we should rename the article to 2015 Paris attacks with different sections covering everything. 199.249.227.164 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not for the moment IMHO. There seem to be an initial event, the Charlie Hebdo shooting, and then direct consequences (kilers fled, manhunting, hostage crises). The article is not that big (mind that 1/3 of the page length are references, which is definetly a good thing).

Things will be clearer tomorrow (French local time), fortunately or infortunately, there is no hurry to rename or split for the time being.

cdang|write me 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone add appropriate anti-Semitism categories. Targeting a kosher grocery store speaks for itself. 166.216.157.117 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Montrouge and porte de Vincennes events - assassination of Clarissa Jean-Philippe, Hypercacher hostages

There are reports that the main suspect in the Montrouge killing of a policewoman has been associated with the same gang as the Kouachi brothers Article RTL Hektor (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. But, unless this is officially confirmed, or at least we have a lot more consensus between multiple WP:RS, I think this is a case where we should wait for more confirmation before reporting it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

More on the same Article Le Monde Hektor (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome: I had already put mention of this murder in the article yesterday, on the admitteldy WP:OR notion that the event was very likely to be linked, since you do not usually have people in flak jackets wielding automatic weapons in Paris. On second though I though that the person who removed that bit was commandably cautious and did well; but this is in all likelihood something that is being confirmed and will end up in the article. Rama (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The guy has just attacked a supermarket kasher at Porte de Vincennes. http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/prise-d-otage-dans-une-epicerie-casher-porte-de-vincennes-a-paris-09-01-2015-4432557.php . Hektor (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Too many attacks in the same period if thime, the article need a Afthermath section naming at least these two events, conected or not.200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We have two hostages crisis under way in parallel, all hostages takers having already killed. The second crisis is at Hypercacher (23 Avenue de la Porte de Vincennes, 75020 Paris). There is at least a child among the hostages. Hektor (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There have been people killed there. Hektor (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hostage taker mugshot from Le Monde Hektor (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

At least 2 dead and five hostages [1] Undescribed (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Le Parisien, citing the Agence France Presse, the two shootings are connected : Désormais, un lien est clairement établi entre les deux suspects de la tuerie de Charlie Hebdo et l'auteur de la fusillade à Montrouge (Hauts-de-Seine) jeudi, qui a fait une victime, une policière. Selon des sources proches du dossier citées par l'AFP, c'est ce tireur qui est suspecté d'être impliqué dans la prise d'otage porte de Vincennes. [2] Blaue Max (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We have four events, the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the murder of Clarissa Jean-Philippe, the hostage crisis in Dammartin-en-Goële and the hostage crisis in Hyper Cacher. Two parallel flows with two teams of terrorists. I think the article should be reorganized accordingly. Hektor (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and the number of victims adapted accordingly. Blaue Max (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This situation is looking more and more similar to the Boston Marathon incident in terms of the initial attack and then spree shooting incidents with a massive manhunt. Only difference is that this one killed more people and also potentially has more suspects involved and multiple hostage situations. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It reminds me of the 2008 Mumbai attacks - multiple coordinated attacks across a city over a continuous time period of a few days. If all these events are ultimately determined to be linked (as is being reported now), the article should probably be renamed to have a broader title (January 2015 Paris attacks), etc. Neutrality^talk 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, wasn't a street sweeper (as yet unnamed) gunned down along with Ms. Jean-Philippe? Neutrality^talk 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He was injured indeed. Hektor (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is still not clear whether there have been people killed in the kosher store. The Police Prefect has denied there were casualties. Rama (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This source says that French police have now confirmed the two deaths. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7519935/paris-supermarket-hostage-crisis 72.87.108.194 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure we can talk about coordinated attacks. Although the killers seem to be well trained, they made several big errors, and don't seem to have logistic support (e.g. they stole food). Seems to me that the Charlie Hebod attack was well planified, but that the rest is improvised. The team splitted and thus we have two styorylines, but no evidence for coordinated attacks.

cdang|write me 15:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Another "armed incident" now being reported near the Eiffel Tower http://www.rageandwar.com/report-trocadero-square-evacuated-near-eiffel-tower-reports-of-armed-incident/ 72.87.108.194 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's old. There was nothing. --Stryn (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Related to all above Twin Hostage Situations Erupt in France in New York Times. 220 of ^Borg 16:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how valid this report is but it says some sort of gunfire and explosion at the hostage site.http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/01/10/breaking--gunfire--explosions-in-hostage-situation.html Does anyone have any more info on this development? Undescribed (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the French may have launched simultaneous operations to end the sieges. Vive la France! 220 of ^Borg 16:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the Libération site web [3], things are over in Dammartin at 17:21 local time. Hostage free, killers killed.

cdang|write me 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Le Parisien [4], things are also over at Porte de Vincenne at 17:34 local time. Probably simultaneous assault to prevent communication between the two groups.

cdang|write me 16:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Vincennes situation

The police have apparently confirmed that the situation in Vincennes is over. Details are still hot, though, so make sure to have a backup source when possible. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• They are all dead (Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly). Hektor (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the status of the other participants are, eg. the alleged female accomplice in the Vincennes situation? -- The Anome (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Three hostages killed according to police sources, the hostage taker had placed booby traps in the store. It seems there was an accomplice (male) who was killed too. So five killed total. Not known the whereabouts of the woman whose mugshot has been distributed earlier on. Hektor (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Injuries

the number of non-fatal injuries is now 15+ (total) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.25.38 (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Organisation de l'armée secrète

I fail to see what this organisation has to do with the Charlie Hebdo attack. I followed the link to find out, but as far as I could tell it's only relevant to the 1961 attack, which is itself a historical detail not very relevant to the current article. Removing it would save other readers from similarly wasting their time, so I did that. It's been put back. I won't remove it again without discussion, but is there really any reason to mention it in the lead? Anybody wanting to know about the 1961 attack will find all the relevant information through the wikilink to that attack. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to give the context of the 1961 attack and the perpetrators. Blaue Max (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A better "Formulierung", without OAS: "the worst terrorist attack in France for half a century and the bloodiest single assault on western journalism in living memory." --91.10.13.75 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a better way of formulating it. I see that the sentence in question has now been expanded with extra detail about the 1961 attack. As though the lead wasn't crowded enough already! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All of the predictable platitudes from uninvolved foreign leaders are dominating this article. It is time to split off this section and move it to a separate article, consistent with past practice for disasters and attacks. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree for above reasons Gamebuster19901 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree likewise. The spontaneous public demonstrations are real news, the motherhood-and-apple-pie platitudes from politicians can just be shunted somewhere else for summarization here. -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Possible It's likely headed that way but it may be a little too soon to split. There is still a lot more information yet to come out about the actual attack itself. International reactions are naturally the first type of important information that is available. They pretty much have to be included but when more information is available, it will be added and "restore balance" so to speak. Impatience due to someone's idea of what symmetry is or isn't, is seldom helpful to these types of articles. Allow the article enough time to grow as more people find and contribute relevant information. And yes political response to these types of acts is relevant, like it or not. The public demonstrations are going to yield a lot of information as well. Zup326 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Possible. Maybe this can be split off if it gets too proportionally long to the rest of the article. Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Reaction from world leaders is quick to come in, so it tends to be a large % of article for first few days. This will form a small portion of the final article, as this event progresses. Standalone article, of reactions only, is not notable - the attack, pursuit/capture/prosecution of suspects, changes to life in France is the notable story. Also, how many details of the individual reactions from world leaders are required in final/future version of the original article? (see Boston Marathon bombings#International) Jmg38 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Like 10 governments have made responses, I believe that makes it notable. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that predictable, meaningless platitudes from uninvolved foreign leaders need to go somewhere else. Did anyone think that the representatives of any democracies were going to praise the Islamic terrorists? --- [added later] Also ---> Now some genius added the Catalonian sub-government head's platitudes and added a pretty flag? Catalonia Hey! Let's start adding the comments from mayors around the world too and adding cute little icons! XavierItzm (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would be worth noting that the Catalan government represents more people than others from the list, such as Iceland, Kosovo, Singapore, or Serbia. (But no, it shouldn't be included. This sections needs to be trimmed, not expanded.)--RR (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Looks like you got your wish. I just noticed that someone added the New York City Mayor haha. Priceless really. I hope the delete wolves aren't losing any sleep yet. As per WP:Content removal "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length." It would be wise to also remember Wikipedia:Don't_stuff_beans_up_your_nose Zup326 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree per Jmg38. Reactions from leaders are always quick to be dumped in these types of articles. They are soon pruned and removed. As of right now, the section is incredibly bloated, and will undoubtedly be trimmed down as the event settles. I don't think splitting bloated content is something you want to encourage. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I wouldn't split. I would just heavily trim the section and leave three, four paragraph at most. There's no need to quote every single world leader next to a pretty flag. And the information is not notable enough to get an article of its own. That kind of stuff makes sense when there are conflicting opinions, or at least room for nuances. But in cases like this one, is a waste of space. --RR (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: As RR says, this is better trimmed than split. Summarise it to a maximum of a sentence per (major) world leader, confining it to the major NATO and EU countries and the international organisations like the UN. Prioryman (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I disagree with "trimming." The event is less than 12 hours old here folks. There has not yet been sufficient time for responses to turn into actions. It's not really a "requirement thing" in terms of numbers or someone's idea of what's too long or not. It's a requirement in terms of notable response and the impact it eventually leads to. Responses start with these type of statements but eventually include more than statements as well. An event as brutal as this doesn't impact France alone. It will lead to changes in defense systems and many other countries will undoubtedly make updates to their national security policies as well. Other nations will be looking to learn from this. When dozens of world leaders address the world over the issue, then what they say or do in response IS notable. Viewing the initial international responses -- within less than 12 hours of the event even happening -- as "meaningless platitudes" is closed-minded and counterproductive to growing the article before further information is even added. Trimming is also counterproductive. Zup326 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The target is not "growing" the article, but "improving" it. If something is not notable, it should go. And the fact that the Icelandic prime minister says that "our thoughts remain with the victims and their families" is not notable. If, as you say, any country updates their security polices THEN that will be notable and it will merit inclusion to the article.--RR (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree The second article would not be warranted under these circumstances. The reactions will be edited down, and as we get more information regarding this incident, the other sections will lengthen.

Agree it supposes an unfounded belief governments could not be involved and would allways have a seperate case to deny further documentation. 77.248.209.86 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: So far, we have 3 disagrees, 4 agrees, and 2 possibles. Epicgenius (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Possible As stated by Zup326 and Epicgenius, a split is more plausible if the section becomes much longer than needed in the article. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree It would be best to summarise the responses of different states in a paragraph and split the current list. Mbcap (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree for initial reasons Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree mostly because it makes the article less cluttered and more can be said about some of the political cartoons that have come out of the incident. Benbuff91 23:53 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Perhaps not yet. First, the article is not so long that it calls for a split yet. Second, not all of the statements are predictable (though most are); for example, Iran has spoken up. It will be interesting (to me) to see if Qatar and Jordan's Parliament and Tunisia and Lebanon and Libya speak up, what they say ... and it will be interesting as well if they say nothing. Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:35 countries/organizations are listed, that is a lot of lines being taken up, I would say that's pretty long. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You may in your personal opinion think that's long. But wp has standards. See our Article Size Guideline. This is nowhere near the size that our guideline suggests calls for an article to be split (the prose size, which is what we look at per the guideline, is currently 29 kB, and per our guideline "< 40 kB--Length alone does not justify division"). --Epeefleche (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree "predictable platitudes" should be removed altogether 77.249.127.13 (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree what 77.249 said. Zap them here. A much shorter and well written piece of prose in summary style would do the trick much better, and in line with our guideline. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree No reason to have these platitudes dominate this article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree The section in this article is not that long. I would even say I prefer it not to be edited down because you could lose relevant information.--75.118.128.7 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Being predictable is not a good enough reason to split or shorten the reactions. It's fine. Doing so has only an aesthetic value.--Joey (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Trim down the mince and there will be no need to split it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Split it off to another article before it gets too big and trim the section down. Xharm (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree per SUMMARY STYLE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Agree as above. There should presumably be a summary here, of course, and the full list should exist somewhere. But not here. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree For the most part, it's uninteresting fluff. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree The list will only keep getting bigger as more leaders respond. It'd be better to turn the move list to a new article and turn existing list to a prose.--Chamith (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I've noticed that a significant amount of people who want the list gone or pruned want such merely for their own personal idea of what's aesthetic for which there is no wiki basis to back it with. With regards to size, it's currently within size limits of what's "too big" in comparison with the rest of the article. If the size of the list bothers the majority of folks merely due to aesthetic purposes then there is simply no need for action on the issue yet. Remember that Wikipedia is not a polling station and majority votes cannot replace or supersede meaningful discussion as it relates to guidelines. Some of the political reactions and statements actually are quite interesting to be honest and do give relevantly notable insight about the stances of each nation. It's not every day that dozens of governments, ministers, and/or presidents all speak up about a single issue. As such, their responses are even notable whether they are "interesting" or not. The Boston Bombings certainly never got this many notable responses from literally dozens of political leaders around the world. Zup326 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: No offence but I believe people in general waste a lot of time on trying to figure out what someone else is thinking and then a reference to a rule is launched on the basis of the assumption made about what the other person is thinking. Unless a person says "for aesthetic reasons" etc. we can not assume that is the basis of their opinion. I think its better and much more constructive to just address the words written by the individual rather than an assumptive view of what may be behind those words. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You made quite an assumption in thinking that assumptions were made. I'm in favor of splitting the article when it calls for it but there's no need to rush it. The "Je suis Charlie" article was instantly nominated for deletion as expected. Why rush this article to a split as well when it's barely a day old and is still within the size guideline? Zup326 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody rushed to split the article. Or else it might have been split already. This is just a discussion. An editor suggested that it should be split due to reasons of his own, which he presented here. Objective of this discuss to establish a proper consensus. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a merge/split/move if someone feels that it's necessary.--Chamith (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree The list is becoming too large and therefore merits its own Article. Avono (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree - at least for now. The condemnations are a part of the ongoing process. A split is proper later, when the news hubbub has petered out. --Janke | Talk 15:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the international reaction list is becoming to big, it needs to split. CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree The article, doubtlessly, is big enough to get its very own article.Elephantrul (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Common sense says yes but good luck explaining it to the guys over at Articles for Deletion. The split article will be instantly pegged for deletion and we'll have to have this whole conversation all over again from scratch. It's best to wait until the international response article has clearly grown large enough that this discussion need not be had all over again. Zup326 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree - International reactions are usually predictable, meaningless and (somehow) non-encyclopedic material. We just have them for record keeping and they still meet the GNG criteria. The article can live without them, and we can still mention some of the notable and significant ones in a short summary. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Is likely it will take up a greater part of the article soon. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 19:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree And trim reactions, the rest of the article will become bigger as details surface. Loganmac (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree There's even some mayor and province administrators cites. Oscar-HaP (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is supposed to have articles on encyclopedic or important topics. "Reactions from foreign leaders to XYZ event" is not really a topic worthy of a separate encyclopedia article. A section in this article is fine. Efforts can be directed to shortening the section by including only brief statements from important leaders (heads of states). No need to include statements from provincial or local government officials. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:: I would recommend taking alook at this section at the French wiki. Theirs is the way to go. --RR (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any improvement there really. Just because it's in prose doesn't make it better. It's all over the place and quite disorganized with its content to be honest. I mean Jimmy Kimmel and Conan O'Brien? I think we're doing alright here. Zup326 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree - The list sure is lengthy. I believe it needs its own article. Aria1561 (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Nothing is gained by simply transferring this section's problems to a satellite article. The general tone of the reactions is the same, and the actual wording does not seem to be important, so the content is largely redundant and needs to be summarized. GregorB (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree unnecessary, superfluous Susangrigg1 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: 20 agrees, 13 disagrees, 3 possibles. We probably have a very narrow consensus to split. Epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree The current list should be drastically trimmed, and no separate article is necessary. These platitudes are predictable and pointless and hence unencyclopaedic.--A bit iffy (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Whether or not a separate article should hold these reactions, there's a clear general desire for the list in this article to be cut down.--A bit iffy (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I disagree with the above commenter. The general desire is NOT clear. At this point a split is really the best viable option to satisfy everyone. The purpose of holding off on the split was to allow the article to grow in size. Currently, it's not going to grow much anymore because there are too many deletionists chomping at the bit to either blank or prune the article. Splitting the article is the only way to satisfy those who want it gone from here, because a consensus to keep it, trim it, blank it or whatever angle won't be achieved. In addition, enough governments have responded to make the article more than notable enough to exist on its own. When 50+ governments of the world issue responses on the same subject, it's more than worthy of inclusion for its own article. I believe we have enough firepower now and have enough sourced content that it would be able to survive a debate at Articles For Deletion. Zup326 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: There's currently a majority in favour of creating a separate article which implies the current article should be trimmed. Many of the those opposing the separate article indicate the current article should be trimmed. Hence this is why I say there's a clear general desire to trim this article's list.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to think that if trimming was the general desire then creating a new article would have never been proposed or supported in the first place. We also need to take into account the editors who contributed to and grew the response list who are clearly in favor of inclusion, yet not present in this discussion. I'm always in favor of inclusion when there is no justification for removing the information in question. I'm not prepared to ignore the human element of contribution in favor of personal opinions of what's notably interesting or not. Some people -- in their own personal opinions -- think that sports is not interesting and is therefore not notable encyclopedic content. Does that mean they need to start trimming details or even blanking commentary that is related to sporting event articles? Definitely not. Splitting the article at least provides the deletionist with the option to "ignore" the information that they want gone from the main page. For aesthetic purposes, they never need to visit the new article just as the person who dislikes sports commentary doesn't need to visit major sporting articles. Zup326 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I do see your point that "yes" people want to keep the list somewhere, and hence whether it's a pointless collection of information. Personally I'd like to just move it now and immediately put the new article up for deletion.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Don't make a separate article. Wait a little while, then remove or otherwise trim them down. How relevant are the statements from the President of Chile, for example? They send their condolences in a copy-paste manner, just as every other leader of the ~200 countries. Keep the statements from nearby Europe? Snd0 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: So, on what basis will you delete the Chile pablum and keep the U.S. slop? As it is, the U.S. and a few others are privileged because not only do you get the mush from the head of state, but you also get pap from a peripheral windbag, in the case of the U.S., Kerry. XavierItzm (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved to International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Please add Bulgaria to Reactions section (Other Countries).

• Bulgaria – Prime Minister strongly condemned the attack and further added "This bloody terrorist act causes anger against those committing murders and attacking the freedom of speech. We express solidarity with the French people in this difficult time and share the grief of the families and relatives of the dead. There is no cause that justifies terror."

37.143.200.114 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

• Czech Republic – Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka called the shooting an act of terrorism aimed at freedom of speech, which is essential for sustaining democracy.

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Reprisal mosques and restaurant attacks?

Should we include that in the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/mosque-attacks-charlie-hebdo_n_6436224.html Moorrests (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) [I took the liberty of refactoring your comment to move the link from the very end of talkpage, which is not a handy place to have it] --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Absolutely. Different people, same devil. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources on the movations or are we speculating again. Until there are sources, this seems to be a "us too" addition.

Heh. You gotta love that in the Charlie Hebdo talk, a number of editors were concerned at the beginning that just because the terrorists used muslim phrases ("alluh akhbar", etc.), it did not establish that the terrorists were islamist. Fair, but no such exquisiteness arises when talking about "reprisals" of which little is reported, and where the report is, I kid you not, The Huffington Post, a.k.a. über-RS. This, notwithstanding the fact that a number of islamic arsons in France and the U.S. have been by mosque members, examples:

• The French Imam who burned his own mosque http://www.larepubliquedespyrenees.fr/2014/01/18/l-ancien-imam-de-la-mosquee-de-pau-doit-quitter-la-france,1174790.php
• The Texas Muslim who burned his own business, claimed a hate crime http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/national/30arson.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1096639369-syWuCM5a5zG8/2NdY6he/A&_r=0
• The Atlanta Muslim who burned his own mosque http://www.cbs46.com/story/14763929/arrest-made-in-cobb-mosque-arson-7-07-2010
• The Seattle Muslim who burned his own store, claimed a hate crime http://seattletimes.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2002011636_arson21m.html

Look, the Thursday arsons in France may very well be reprisals, but have the facts been conclusively established yet? XavierItzm (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any authoritative statements on this, I've changed the wording to "in apparent reprisal attacks". -- The Anome (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, whether we think it's fact or not doesn't matter. What does matter is what the sources say. If the sources call them reprisal attacks, we should not add our edits to it and call them "apparent" reprisal, because we are misrepresenting the sources.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Video of killing of Ahmed Merabet

Given that the video has been shown around the world countless times and shows the actions of the perpetrators, and a victim, would it be violation of copyright to include this video in the article? Either that or a screencap of the hooded men in said video I think should be included. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored Loganmac (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Censored" policy has nothing to do with copyright. Unless the video is free / legitimate fair-use, no. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should show a video of a person being shot dead (or an image of a dead person) out of respect for the individual and their family and friends, because the individual has been identified by name in the article. I don't know if that's censorship. All I can ask is: how would you feel if it was your dad or brother or whatever? Mention of the video is sufficient in my opinion. Maybe a screencap before he is shot, showing the attacker and the victim. Rob984 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the reason is more for if it improves the article and not out of respect in most cases. Per WP:CENSOR, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link.. In any case, we could only use it if we had a legitimate reason for copyright purposes. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Wouldn't clear my conscience. We are the editors... WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rob984 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude – I don't think the video (or even the screen shot) would add much to the article. We can all envision a man lying on the ground and another walking toward him. Why add the video (or even the screen shot)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Include video if we can license it, or discuss it properly so as to justify Fair Use. I am skeptical we can do the former, but the latter certainly should be relevant (the dialogue, the paramilitary behavior of the attackers, the rooftop journalists are all discussed in the press). Wnt (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue it's not censorship to not include the video, unless the video itself becomes the focus of media attention. If the focus is more generally the death, then we are free to cover that any way we wish, whether it's text, images, etc. in that case, good taste in not showing a disturbing video is not censorship. It's only censorship if the video itself was the focus. And since it's not commons, I think you'd be hard pressed to make a Fair Use argument since it's not necessary to cover the issue at hand.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Death of Ahmed Merabet

Is it certain that Ahmed Merabet, who was dead lying on the sidewalk, was shot in the head? I saw the video on talkingpointsmemo.com, I see that the gunman aimed at the head and shot, but I see no blood that an AK-47 would make. It is more likely that the shot is a miss. Besides, the official police and autopsy report is not out yet, and the media can just be skipping to conclusion for sensation. 75.80.145.53 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I also found the lack of blood in that video/photo to be odd. If a man was shot in the head (with an AK-47), I'd imagine a huge (and immediate) pool of blood. No? However, you also state: "It is more likely that the shot is a miss." If the shot was a miss – and he did, in fact, die – are you suggesting that he died from the first (original) injury (the one that left him laying prone on the ground in the first place)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

CBS News, generally a RS, says "one gunman shooting him in the head as he writhed on the ground". I guess that's the best we've got until the coroner's report. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's right. We shouldn't be engaging in original research ourselves -- although we can apply our judgement to filter out implausible things, and not add them to the article, if they are only reported by a very few sources. -- The Anome (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you a ballistics expert? Are you certain you are looking at an AK 47 and not an ak-74? Looks like a single shot from a carbine (small) version of an ak-74 which is a 5mm bullet (about the diameter of a .22 caliber). I have seen a few scored people who have been shot by military firearms with 5.45, 7.42x39 and 556, and the results including, head wounds, are highly varied from heads that have exploded to single entry no exit with virtually no blood splatter and no external sign of trauma in a headhshot. Don't base your views on Hollywood. People also don't go flying when shot, most have no visible movement from the impact. I find the video on liveleak to be consistent with quite a few shootings with that type of weapon. And the video does not linger long enough to see blood pooling68.49.150.102 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. As 68.49.150.102 says, the Hollywood depiction of the effects of gunfire is completely misleading. I'm not a ballistics expert, but the physics is clear, and we can easily make a first-order order-of-magnitude approximation for what is likely to happen. Since energy scales with velocity squared, but momentum only linearly with velocity, a small fast projectile can have a lot of energy, but still relatively little momentum. If we guesstimate the muzzle velocity at about 700 m/s, and the weight of the bullet at about 2g, we have an energy of 490 J, but a momentum of only 1.4 kg m/s. A human head weighs about 5kg, so even with 100% momentum transfer and zero resisting force, provided the head remains intact, you would only see a "jerk" of at most roughly 0.28 m/s from the shot, and since human heads are not free-floating, you might expect less in practice: anywhere between that figure and almost zero (for example, if the momentum transfer is directed mostly downward into the direction of the spine), depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, a human head is roughly 20cm across. If the bullet stops inside the head going from muzzle velocity to zero in that distance, it would take roughly of the order of 0.3 to 0.6 milliseconds to do so, equivalent to a momentary power output of the order of about a megawatt over that short time, sufficient to cause disastrous and instantaneous damage. -- The Anome (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What 68.49.150.102 and The Anome said, and more simply: it is just implausible that the attacker would miss at point-blank range, not double his shot in that unlikely event, and that the policer would die from other injuries, and that the entire media would gratuitously report a death from an inexistent head wound. I understand the need to reflect on the events to digest them, but we are flying into 9/11-truther territory there. Rama (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As a reminder, NOTAFORUM. Whatever the RSs say is what we say. This is not the place to engage in speculative discussion. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping the International reactions uncluttered

For the past hours, a number of entries were added to the "Reactions" section of the article, but few entries broke the original ones, and tried to be on top (for no valid reason, i suppose).

One of them being the edit by User:MoorNextDoor making Algeria on top of the list, no reasons were given so i reverted to an old version, but the user started an edit war.

So, I'm asking if users should really consider other people entries and just write theirs at the end of the section rather than cause disturbance, especially that it considers (more or less) the time when these reaction were officially stated. Can we work on this?

At oussama (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it relevant to this story to include all the international reactions to it? To me it seems not relevant. I have not sen this on other major event, and i dont want it here.

Franke 1 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reaction sections should not list out every major international reaction (see for example Boston Marathon bombing. Key statements from the French gov't, and a general statement of support of the international gov't are fine, but these should be summarized and not one by one as listed. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Second section lead on left/light is too interpretive at this point

"Tension between ethnic French and those perceived as outsiders, including immigrants and native-born Muslims, manifested itself in right-wing politics such as in the anti-immigration platform of the National Front political party led by Marine Le Pen."

I find this a bit too interpretive at this stage, especially given it is equally or more arguable le the "tension" leading to this event was a "manifestation" from a LEFT wing political critique of Islam. This article should stick to the facts. 68.49.150.102 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed it, as it was not what the source says. Blaue Max (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is nutso. Here you have tension between Muslim immigrants and an extreme left publication which constantly goes after the government, corporations, Christians, etc. For some reason the corporations nor the Christians ever firebombed the lefty rag Charlie Hebdo. So, what does Marine Le Pen, a nationalist-populist, so-called "right wing" party have to do in this article about the massacred Charlie Hebdo? I think the whole paragraph referencing the National Front needs to be removed. XavierItzm (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The right-wing stuff has been removed (and yes, it was in the source, despite what Blaue Max says). The rest is necessary background information. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarkozy Coulibaly

Coulibaly was in the newspapers six years ago. http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/image/201501/phpwxyvdbparisien.png

The first name spells differently: Amedi vs. Amédy. Aditionally, Coulibaly is quite a widespread name. So be careful, this might be a homonym, although the Nouvel Observateur and [Libération] also talk about him working in the local Coca-Cola factory.

cdang|write me 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Le Nouvel Observateur says: "selon toute vraissemblance" (i.e. most probably).

cdang|write me 16:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

it is fact. Coulibaly went from "small time crime to big time crime to Islamist". Direct quote from Le Monde. Along the way he met in 2009 with president Sarkozy, while Coulibaly worked at a Coca-Cola plant and trafficked drugs. So Le Monde titled the article "from the hope of employment reinsertion to religious terrorism"

source: http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/09/amedy-coulibaly-de-l-espoir-de-la-reinsertion-au-terrorisme-sectaire_4552778_3224.html XavierItzm (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Death toll in hostage crisis

Should the deaths of the perpetrators be included in the final death toll? Also, USA today is reporting at least four hostages were killed http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/09/paris-hostage-supermarket/21489449/ Undescribed (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Three hostages killed, the fourth killed person who is not Coulibaly seems to be an accomplice. Hektor (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The death toll is now 17 plus 3 terrorists. 12 Charlie Hebdo killing, the policewoman and four hostages in the grocery store. Hektor (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reactions - Other (edit request)

After the reaction of Salman Rushdie, the one of Richard Dawkins could be added:

On 7 January 2015, Richard Dawkins, best-selling author of The God Delusion, commented "They shouted “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad.”... Some useful idiot will claim it had nothing to do with religion." On 17 December 2014, after the Peshawar school massacre, he wrote that "Mental illness can drive a lone nutter to it. But an organised group needs an extreme motivation – faith, in something like a god or nazism."

Je suis Charlie (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Reaction by Hezbollah

Here's a reaction that seems more interesting than the entire "Other countries" section as it stands now: "Hezbollah chief Nasrallah says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons"

This is a kind of reaction that could warrant a separate mention. In contrast, the "Other countries" section is repetitive and of marginal value to the reader. GregorB (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

well add it scrupulously - it says , 'Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God." - so hes just sectarian point scoring and still attacking secular leftists really -if he hates terror why doesn't he condemn the barrel bombs on Aleppo, and ghouta sarin terror attack etc - oh he's sectarian that's why - hardly revelatory and warranting much of a mention imo - I agree that those interminable lists of 'countries' reactions are of marginal value though Sayerslle (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word assailants in the second paragraph is confusing

"This gunman had also taken hostages near Porte de Vincennes.[21] Police raids were simultaneously conducted in Dammartin and at Porte de Vincennes, with all assailants killed, and some hostages injured or killed.[22] François Hollande confirmed that four people were killed in the siege in the Vincennes supermarket.[23]"

Since the police were conducting the raid they were also assailants, but in this case it means (alleged?) terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.226.39 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Rushdie

I suggest to add the full (!) quote by Rushdie: "I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect." Source: http://www.englishpen.org/campaigns/salman-rushdie-condemns-attack-on-charlie-hebdo/ 90.184.23.200 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

For inclusion in the section on "Demonstrations" please consider the image below.

it is a strong professional quality image that captures the emotion of the night at Place de la Republique on the face of a woman in the silent crowd. context and location are strong too.

Silent crowd of 35,000 people filling Place de la République in Paris the night of the attack on Charlie Hebdo January 7th, 2015

or see here html link to wiki commons image location : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silent_gathering_at_the_Place_de_la_R%C3%A9publique_in_Paris_the_night_of_the_attack_on_Charlie_Hebdo.jpg

Max-BlackDot (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There seem to be quite a few images already, including one from the same place.
IMHO, the one that's there has more EV  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ongoing security operation"

Some recent material has been removed by one editor because it reported an "ongoing security operation". I very much doubt that there are any operational security issues here: all this is splashed across the entire world's online press sources in real time (that's how we get it to add it here -- see the cites given), and cannot in any way be regarded as secret. I have, however, removed the name of the company that had been added, as it was not given in the cited source. -- The Anome (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Speculation on a ongoing hostage situation does not belong on Wikipedia. Already information provided by Reuters regarding a causality has been contradicted by police. Should we also report the whereabouts of police officers too? The media does that: [link redacted]. Rob984 (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RSBREAKING. Rob984 (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Specifically "[Wikipedia] does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors." Rob984 (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We report what is in WP:RS. If it is later found to be untrue, we can remove it or correct it. As to the level of detail, that's up to the editorial judgement of the community. As it says, reporting all details in real-time is certainly too much: but we can certainly report significant developments, on a coarse grain, in real time, without breaching the sprit of those content guidelines (which, to be clear, are only guidelines, and not policy).

I wouldn't, for example, consider police deployment details to be an acceptable subject: although I note that you've just provided a link to it, when I wouldn't have done so!

I've attempted only to add the most salient points, and only, in general, if it is either reported as being from official sources, or if multiple reliable sources have been concurring on it. Things which are not confirmed are reported as being "reported as" or "reported by", to make it clear that what is being reported on are the news reports themselves. -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Official sources are absolutely fine. And OK. We don't need to aid the spread of speculation by news outlets. We can make a judgement. Thank you. Rob984 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is what we are, collectively, trying to do here, by following reliable sources, with some delay to see whether they are reaching consensus. Do you, for example, have any realistic doubt that there is a siege going on in Dammartin-en-Goele? -- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to address one possible concern you may have, mobile phones are no longer working in the area, since the French authorities seem to have done the sensible thing and turned the network off. Presumably they will also have cut the phone lines to the industrial estate, so the suspects are presumably without Internet access at this point. But in any case, we should not be, and as far as I can tell, are not, publishing anything here (including this information about the phone network) which is not already splashed right across the world's media. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Gendarmerie have confirmed the ongoing operation in Dammartin-en-Goele, and have stated Ne pas relayer d'informations non confirmées par une source officielle "Do not distribute unconfirmed reports by unofficial sources". The National Police has stated Ne perturbez pas le travail du #RAID #GIGN en relayant des infos non officielles, "Do not disturb the work of the #RAID #GIGN in distributing unofficial info". Like I said above, reliable media sources have published images of the location of officers. We don't have to endorse everything the media does. Rob984 (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And as I say, we don't. I agree with you about publishing images or details of the location of officers or other real-time operational information: I think it's irresponsible to do this. But the fact of the siege, and its general location, are clearly in the public domain, regardless of what the French police would wish. -- The Anome (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. The siege has now been confirmed by Interior Ministry. Rob984 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's dangerous to NPOV for Wikipedia to take a position that government sources are reliable but others aren't. Provided some reliable source can be given for a statement it does belong in the article. While there's a faint, faint chance that terrorists check seven different sources and only Wikipedia repeats something from the news they find useful, there's also a faint chance that failing to relay a breaking news report causes some reader who might have avoided it to fall into the path of the terrorists. We're not God to see everything that can happen; we just collect the data and hope for the best. Wnt (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Please add Hungary to Reactions section (Other Countries).

• Hungary – Both President János Áder and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán have condemned the attack and sent their condolences to the families of the victims and to the French people. Orbán said "nothing can justify this ruthless attack and inhuman violence".

Thanks, --94.21.162.237 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Cite errors

something wrong please with 120 ref -autogenerated1- someone enter to fix it. --176.58.182.79 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Help placing reference

I'm not quite sure where in the reactions sections the following reference would go, since it's a bit multi-faceted.

• Bar'el, Zvi (9 January 2015). "How Arab world media responded to Charlie Hebdo attack". Haaretz. Retrieved 9 January 2015.

But I do feel like the following paragraph from that source is the most useful in it, though that's just my opinion.

"Muslims killing Muslims is normal. Muslims killing Europeans is “a clash of civilizations.” Islamic movements, like Christian and Jewish movements, have generated terror organizations and terror regimes. But nobody in Europe sees Ratko Mladic, who was responsible for the massacre of some 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia, as representing Christians or Christianity. It is just as wrong to see the two French terrorists, even if they are Muslim, as representatives of Islam."

So, where do you all think this reference and info should go in the reactions section? Media? Muslim community? Other? Silverseren^C 20:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO, it fits best w/Media. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to add media reactions to International reactions page

Because the Media section also covers the reactions of media outlets all around the world, should that section qualify as being part of the International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting article? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

I want to add the Kosher shooting to this article because it was connected to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. 108.234.36.176 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article now definitely addresses them. If there's a more specific detail you'd like the article to include, feel free to reäctivate this request (by changing answered=yes to answered=no in the template code). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Technical problem with dead/injured lists

So, if I try to click any link in the list of those killed or the list of those injured, instead of the article opening, the list reärranges itself, by moving the bottom entry in the left column to the top of the right column. Then, if I click anywhere in either of the columns (even not on a link), the change undoes itself. This behavior is not discussed at {{div col}}. Is this happening to anyone else? I'm browsing on Chrome v39.0.2171.96 on a Samsung Chromebook. I can take screenshots if my description isn't clear enough. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cartoons

There are some excellent cartoons being created, it would be good if some of those that have been shown in the press got a Wikipedia suitable license. Early days for that I know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

"Excellent" by whose definition? Why would you want to include those here? In what way would they, effectively and objectively, contribute to this article? Can those cartoons your refer to be in any way interpreted as political, and if so, would its publication on this site be appropriate? Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.211.91 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough is referencing the cartoons created to protest the attack which I agree would be notable enough for inclusion as examples to reaction to this event --DSBennie (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: Here's a link [5] to the sort of thing I believe Rich was talking about. Some extremely good 'commentary' there, "excellent" (In my humble opinion/definition) as Rich said. Nb. I previously started a thread about this lower down at Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#Cartoonists reaction. --220 of ^Borg 07:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of thing. The one with the gunbarrel blocked with a pencil was rather clever. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

• If the motive isn't Islamism, as discussed above, but offense taken by gunmen to particular cartoons, those cartoons are clearly relevant, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely a great writing point but unfortunately there isn't really a motive section yet. I'm not sure where in the article one could write on this subject but the relevance of the cartoons is very clear. Zup326 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not just "gunmen" who take offence to the cartoons. Use your heads and have some respect.131.137.245.208 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't about respect or offense, (although I'm sure the ones who were shot for it took offense) - of course, many english speakers would like to know what kind of cartoon would compel violence or offense? The entire planet has published them, over and over again. Would it not be good to have the Wikipedia discussion about them, instead of the reader being forced to go somewhere else, seeing them, and reading a summary from people and publishers who may not know what is offensive about them either? Would you want these people explaining the cartoon, or a more balanced discussion? then perhaps we could understand what is offensive about the response cartoons, and the response to the response cartoons, etc. Alias01 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim response

This information is not relevant to the current event and serves an extraneous social agenda, and should be removed immediately. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)

You exemplify in every way the very meaning of brainwashed ideologue if you believe that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.64.179 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need a constant reminder that not 'all' muslims are bad? How is this related to the current event? The muslim community (along with their opinions) had absolutely nothing to do with this. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)

Stop trolling on wikipedia. Shabeki (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Trolling? Maybe we should include every irrelevant opinion by everyone-ever from now on. Nobody realistically believes this event was orchestrated by any official body of Islam, therefore any official response from the "Holy Islamic religion of peace" is irrelevant. Once again, we don't need constant reminders that all, or *most* Islamic people are not complete scumbag pieces of trash who litter the planet with their psychopathic ideology. If you cannot provide a logical reason as to how exactly the "Muslim Response" is relevant to the current event, than it most certainly should be deleted, permanently, with no further discussions. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)

Whilst Andiar.rohnds is demonstrating his frustration exquisitely, I agree with him that Wikipedia should not be a place that Muslims come to seek public sympathy. The majority of people already subscribe to the belief that radical Islam is a minute part of the religion, and therefore the assurance that not all Muslims hate us is not something that requires constant verification, especially in bias-neutral places such as Wikipedia. As such, the article should be succinct in its reference to the response of Muslims regarding the matter, so as to minimise any future such talk-page comments. HJBristow (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, just because every centralized corporate media outlet parades whatever sacred Muslim priest of the purest, most holy sacred order on camera denouncing the violence of some of their own people, doesn't mean Wikipedia has to do the same. This is often a tradition of biased media and not Wikipedia. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an attack in France carried out by Islamic extremists in the name of Islam. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to note the opinions of the Muslim community in France regarding the attack. To say that is about Muslims seeking "public sympathy" tells me that neither you nor HJBristow are qualified to contribute to this article because of your obvious biases. Shabeki (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading comprehension please, you're basically just reiterating defeated logic. Look above your post. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The Muslim reaction to murders carried out on the pretext of "avenging the prophet" is extremely relevant. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh you disagree? How magical. Please explain how this is significant beyond the scope of mainstream media. The irony is that listing those who praised the attack would inherently be more relevant given the nature and direct association to the event. Should Wikipedia also include a list of every credible source of radical support alongside the "Peaceful" Muslim response? Please continue with your input. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)

No need. I think what I said is clear enough. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think so? --Andiar.rohnds (talk)

I'm going to assume good faith, namely that you didn't deliberately create this account to troll this talkpage, but would ask you to step back and reflect on how much your behaviour makes it look as though you might have done. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I did, and what of it? Iv'e removed most of the pathetic trolling and kept only the logical/valid argument now. Are you going to do something about it? --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Tuck the tin foil back in. It's starting to show. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, wonderful argument --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What you define as trolling is open to quite a bit of interpretation. I suggest you cease with your own agenda, because your bias is showing too greatly for you to be a trusted editor on this article. Shabeki (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Grasping at straws now? Since when is logic defined as an agenda? My method of presentation may be a little colored and off, but the principals still remain. If anyone's "bias" is showing right now it's probably yours. All responses to this event have been typical, none have been noteworthy, and there is no logical excuse to include insignificant sources not directly related to the event. Let me be clear with you for a moment, this article looks very stupid, perhaps you may have something to do with it? --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Logically, those who praised the attack should be listed above those who condemned it. As this information is more relevant and directly tied to the event. Realistically, all responses should be summarized within a single sentence then moved away. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Many North American Islamic organizations have condemed the attacks. See http://www.isna.net/isna-condemns-paris-terror-attack.html and http://www.icna.org/icna-condemns-heinous-massacre-in-paris 65.60.182.99 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Blasphemy as motive

Wouldn't a reference to blasphemy and its interpretation be appropriate as a motive like for the assassination of Theo van Gogh? --Kiwi (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Do Reliable Sources say so? If not, it stays out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead vs body

MOS:LEAD tells us that the lead should "stand alone" as a summary of the body of the article, in which "significant information should not appear ... if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". WP:SAWW says when Muhammad appears in an article, "when it is the first reference in an article ... may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet, Muhammad". Dolescum has removed "the Islamic prophet" from the body as the editor interprets WP:SAWW to mean that any mention of Muhammad as the Islamic prophet in the lead means that Muhammad cannot be described as the Islamic prophet in the body of the article. I maintain this is a drastic failure to understand:

1. the spirit of WP:SAWW—hairsplitting at its finest, and totally ignoring the spirit in favour of the narrowest interpretation of the letter
2. the function of the lead—how can the lead summarize something that does not appear in the text being summarized?
3. the purpose of the "Background" section—how can a "Background" section mention Muhammad but not mention the role he plays, both as a target of the newspaper's satire and as the figure the shooters killed in the name of? Such a "Background" section fails to provide a key background detail.

Is it credible to say that WP:SAWW really forbids describing who Muhammad is a single time in the body of the article? A paradox that would be better solved removing "the Islamic prophet" from the lead than from the body (no, I don't propose anything so idiotic). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad has "Muhammad, the founder of Islam," in the lede, that may be acceptably NPOV and could be copied? -- Aronzak (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That would assume WP:SAWW meant only the literal words "the Islamic prophet" were not to be repeated. Personally, I don't care what wording is decided on as long as the "Background" makes it clear what role Muhammad plays for both Charlie Hebdo and the shooters. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to avoid language that looks like a religious honorific. That's a great proposal, Aronzak, thanks. Dolescum (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the death toll say 17 (+3 suspects) or 20 (including 3 suspects)?

Because it does say "total"; which means that the "+3" is defeating the purpose of the word. Undescribed (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon bombings include the perpetrator in the death toll. Undescribed (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The field says "Deaths". I changed the entry to "17 victims + 3 suspects". The 17 figure is important in my opinion. That's how many people were killed by the perpetrators of the attacks. The perpetrators themselves were killed in response. Two could be considered having committed suicide by cop. I think the 20 figure is less important. We could list both figures of course. See 7/7: "52 victims + 4 suicide bombers". Rob984 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus "20 (including 3 suspects)" doesn't make clear the 17 others were all victims of the attacks. Rob984 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the "suicide by cop" might have been a deliberate attempt to become martyrs. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Turkish reaction

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan harshly condemned on Wednesday the deadly assault on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in central Paris. In a written statement, Erdogan said "We strongly condemn the heinous terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo Magazine in Paris today that has killed 12 and injured 20 people." The president extended his condolences to the "friend and ally" country France and said he expected the perpetrators to be brought to justice as soon as possible. Erdogan stressed that "terrorism has no religion or nationality and no excuse can be given for it." "It is of crucial importance that we have a common stance against terrorist attacks such as the one in Paris today. We have to take a firm stance against hate speech, intolerance to differences and attempts to present religious and cultural differences as ground for enmity," he added. In his statement, the Turkish president maintained that Turkey will continue its fight "against all forms of terrorism with determination." "We express our heart-felt condolences for the innocent people killed today and wish a quick recovery for the injured. We also wish patience and steadfastness for the relatives of the deceased and the injured and for the people of France," Erdogan said. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also condemned on Wednesday the deadly attack saying "Nothing can justify this kind of terror act." "Turkey has always taken this position against terror and violent acts, no matter what its justification," Davutoglu said.

source: http://www.worldbulletin.net/turkey/152466/turkish-president-decries-fatal-attack-on-paris-magazine

I believe that the reaction of the Turkish president is much more important than the reaction of the foreign minister. Could we change this? 94.219.58.111 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hidden hostage

In fact the Kouachi brothers had no hostage. The guy was hidden in a card board box with a cell phone and was tipping the police. He had a long day. Hektor (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He was also communicating with the police.Yogurto (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As Hektor says, that must have been a long day. Kudos to them for bravery and quick thinking. That's a situation in which you'd definitely want to be sure you had your phone ringer and the vibrate feature turned off. -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is that the guy in the box shouldn't be called a hostage (even though the Daily Mail used the word, knowing the Kouachis were unaware of him). A hostage is used to discourage an attack, or for negotiating. See the hostage article and Wiktionary:hostage. So he can't be a hostage if they don't know he's there. Art LaPella (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Noted and updated accordingly. I've removed the word "hostage" and expanded on the section. Zup326 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Verbatim from François Molins

This verbatim from François Molins in Libération provides a good source about what happened: De l'attaque contre «Charlie» aux assauts de vendredi, le récit du procureur de Paris Hektor (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For instance it says "A 11h45 le GIGN entreprenait des négociations avec les deux auteurs et laissait des messages sur leurs téléphones portables. Messages auxquels les frères n’ont jamais répondu." which means that the brothers never answered to the police which contradicts what is in the article, which says that officials established contact with the suspects, and negotiated the safe evacuation of a school 500 m from the siege. Hektor (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done It's a great source. I'm not skilled enough in French to pull the best facts from there unfortunately. I've updated the article with what you've brought up. Zup326 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

AQAP

French Wikipedia cites this source regarding the perpetrators' affiliation to AQAP. This was in the context of undistributed demands by the perpetrators made to BFM-TV. Here's a rough translation of the start of the third paragraph: "Cherif Kouachi claimed to be, to the channel, of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a branch of the organization in Yemen. 'I was sent, me, Cherif Kouachi, by Al-Qaeda in Yemen. I went here, and it was sheikh Anouar Al-Awlaki who financed me.'" I think it's worth readding to the article (it was removed in this diff [6]), so seeking consensus to add it back in. --RAN1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Jihadism"/"Antisemitism"

The infobox currently lists "Jihadism" as the motive, with a citation needed tag. This is not a solution. As much as some people are hellbent on scoring political points on the backs of dead people, a very strong assertion like that needs a likewise strong source. Until appropriate sourcing can be provided (and this may not be for weeks or even months), the parameter should be emptied in the infobox. Citing Hollande on "Antisemitism" as a Motive (especially since this article is on the Charlie Hebdo shooting in particular) is likewise unacceptable. --85.197.15.126 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jihadism is different from Jihad. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had to remove it again, after someone but it back again. It's going to take a long time for all this to settle, and, from Wikipedia's perspective, Hollande is not a WP:RS for this kind of value judgement. That doesn't mean we shouldn't report his opinion -- it's highly politically significant and widely reported, and therefore notable -- and it doesn't mean he's wrong, either -- but we shouldn't take it as a judgement of fact without waiting for analysis by reliable sources. My best guess? The choice of the last target probably was antisemitic, but the antisemitism was an afterthought: I think they were mostly trying to create as much terror as they could in aid of their primary goal, and they happened to be nearby and saw attacking a Jewish target as a bonus. I mean, a supermarket? I very much doubt they had even considered where they would target next before they found themselves on the run. But I'm not a WP:RS, so it doesn't matter what I think, either. -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The gunman specifically said the supermarket was targeted b/c it was Jewish. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to hear the killer at the kosher supermarket say he "targeted the Kosher grocery store because he was targeting jews." can listen to the killer here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates#block-54b04e67e4b0461a99f13aea You can also read it from Reuters here ("TARGETING JEWS" -their caps, not mine): http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-france-shooting-idUSKBN0KG0Y120150109 so, if Hollande's declarations that this was anti-semitism are not good enough for you, how about the killer himself? XavierItzm (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Amedy Coulibaly doesn't mention the fact that he took jewish hostages on purpose in the BMF TV clip so for complete objectivity and intellectual honesty the Category:Antisemitism in France should be removed for the time being. Unless proven otherwise in the future it seems inopportune to add this categorization. --Kiwi (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

the BFM clip explains that Coulibaly said that he chose a kosher shop because he targeted jews. It's at the end of the clip Hervegirod (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustapha Ourad

There is now an article about Mustapha Ourad on the French version of wikipedia. Hektor (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

alternative translation of 'Je suis'

'Je suis Charlie' is ambiguous:it might mean 'I follow Charlie'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.31.248 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Other variants include "Nous sommes Charlie" and "Nous sommes tous Charlie", which cannot translate as "We follow Charlie". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Reactions again

I have no particular view on what, if any, reactions should be included. But I do believe the reactions should be put in the right section as long as we are going to include them, particularly when the section implies something about the reaction. For this reason I moved 2 reactions here [7]. As stated in the edit summary, there are two issues here. Firstly, neither of the parts we quote is criticism of Charlie Hebdo, but instead criticism of French law and government policy and other things which arent't due to Charlie Hebdo. Secondly, one of these reactions is quoted as a Muslim reaction so belongs in the Muslim reactions section. However as it is neither explicit criticm of or support of the attack, I've made a new sub section. Also, we now include both support and criticism of the attack in the "Others" reactions without seperate subsections, I don't see a problem with this but I'm fine if people want to make new subsections. Nil Einne (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The title

Why is the article named "Charlie Hebdo shooting"? It should be named "Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack". 124.72.94.134 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See here and above. --2600:1008:B01F:6CA:1ECB:6340:7E39:F76E (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hayat Boumeddiene photo?

There was a photo of Hayat Boumeddiene that really ought to be reinstated, as she is an accused accomplice of a terrorist and a fugitive on the run from the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.77.4 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)