Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Elsa Cayat

The only female to be killed was Jewish. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? And it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/09/erin-intv-bramly-cousin-paris-terror-victim.cnn 79.181.122.208 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What do sources say about it? Do they merely mention it? We don't include things in the article simply because they "seem" something—speculation, original research, and synthesis on our parts are strictly off limits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

From what we know, the only one who was targeted was Charb; after that they shot randomly in the group with their automated rifles, aiming at head level. Hektor (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been reported that other women at the magazine who came face to face with the killers were told by the killers themselves that they were not being killed because they were women. At the same time, the killers then proceeded to order these women to convert to Islam, and abide by hijab. Meanwhile, the only woman killed, Elsa Cayat, seems to have been killed despite being a woman because she was Jewish. At least one source, CNN, has reported "She was definitely killed because she was Jewish". Al-Andalus (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What you say is what was told to Coco. She was coerced into leading them to the level where the Charlie team was meeting. There were only two women: Coco and Elsa Cayat. Coco first tried to mislead them but then to third floor but finally they went to second floor. And then she had to type the code... After that as said previously they shot at anyone present. But I guess that Coco did not enter and just escaped via the stairs. Hektor (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Hektor, I appreciate many of your sources and insights that you provide. I'd like to pose this question though: if there were only two women, then what exactly was Sigolène Vinson's role in the building? This source not yet used in the article that I found quotes her direct testimony, and that she and another male survivor named Laurent Leger had already heard gunfire and thought it was a joke at first like someone lighting up firecrackers. So, there was gunfire and then a pause at some point before Charb had been killed. They said the shooters then burst in to the main office where the larger group was and called out Charb's name. They were deliberately looking for him as you mentioned, and then started shooting on the group. This level of detail is not yet included in the article. It's a useful piece of information related to the attack. In addition, a second source already cited in article provides direct testimony from Corinne Rey: "They wanted to go inside, go upstairs. I punched in the code. They fired on Wolinski, Cabu … it last five minutes … I hid under a desk … they spoke flawless French … said they were with al-Qaeda.” This signifies that Wolinski and Cabu were the first to die (which was the initial gunshots that Vinson and Leger heard), and then a pause in firing before the gunman entered another room where Charb, Leger, Vinson and many others were. As Coco was ordered to open the initial door and then witnessed the murder of both Wolinski and Cabu, and then hid under a desk, then clearly she entered the office space as well and was present during all of the gunfire. This can only mean that her life was deliberately spared by the gunmen. Currently it's known that 1 Jewish woman was deliberately killed and 2 non-Jewish women were deliberately spared. Zup326 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Merabet's religion

The inclusion of the sentence "Merabet was a Muslim." only seems to serve one purpose, which is showing that Islamists also kill other Muslims. We already know that, and it does seem redundant and even a bit propagandist ("look guys, they killed other Muslims too, so don't be mad at all Muslims" kind of thing). It's doubtful whether it belongs on Wikipedia.

Look at it this way - if the other victims don't have their religion listed, why is it necessary to list his? Yes, it's only for the purposes of influencing the reader. Nice job, whoever did that.89.176.209.84 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For exactly the reason you proposed: they kill their own kind, what sort of "jihad" is that? It goes to prove that they are not true Islamists, just thugs who kill indiscriminately in the "name" of Islam. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've wondered this too, and WWGB, I think that's precisely why we shouldn't say it. Wikipedia shouldn't be making any points. We can leave that to media commentators. We should just report the secondary sources, not be one. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I second the comment by Dweller. If it is included to "prove that they are not true Islamists", then it is original research which should not be in the Wikipedia article. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

But we aren't making any points, merely stating a fact published in a reliable source. We don't know the religion of the other victims as that was not published. There is nothing sinister in publishing a known fact without commentary as to its significance. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that that information is never mentioned in the article. Per Rich below, the article should then include an analysis of WHY this is significant. And it were your own words that it was mentioned "to prove that they are not true Islamists"..... And with regard to the comment that you are "merely stating a fact", I am wondering why you do not "merely state the fact" that Elsa Cayat was the only female that was killed, which is also relevant, as it has been reported that the attackers separated men and women before the shooting (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/france-charlie-hebdo-attack-scene/). In all honesty, I actually think that it could be relevant to mention and discuss the fact that Merabet was a muslim, but then based on proper sources discussing why that is a notable fact. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason this is so widely reported is that it is a cognitive dissonance, and of course commentators draw (varied) conclusions. We should report both on the fact, and the commentary. Ideally we would like to draw from academic analyses of the commentary, but balanced and robust peer reviewed work is a long way off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

• • cognitive dissonance? What, do you think the terrorists stopped and asked each cop they saw yesterday and asked what their religious affiliation was before shooting at them? This is absurd. 10% of France's population is immigrant Muslim and if you are a terrorist on rampage and kill any dozen Frenchmen chances are at least one is bound to be submissive to Allah. Including the info just because it is being referenced by any given news source, with no further valid reason, is not encyclopedic. XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merabet's religion is mentioned by reliable sources and therefore should be reported. If we are going to talk about "Islamic" terrorism, and the fact that the attackers shouted "Allahu Akbar", I don't see why we need to be shy about reporting that at least one of the victims was himself Muslim.VR _talk 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC) It is absolutely biased - even malicious - to report on the religion of the attackers, but to somehow hide the religion of the victims. What is the motive for hiding Merabet's religion

We should not include it just because it is known, or because we think it's an interesting juxtaposition, etc. However, we should include it if the RS's note it. Do we think the fact that he was a muslim matters? It's irrelevant. Do the sources think it's relevant? Yes. Therefore, we reflect what they say. It's not for us to decide whether they are right or wrong. It's well within the bounds of due weight and notability to mention it, as a lot of RSs have. Now, if we wanted to devote a section to him and the fact that he's a muslim, that would violate due weight. But a mention does not, and is in line with the sources.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. If the religions of the other victims aren't listed, there's no reason to list his. Shabeki (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason for mentioning it is that reliable sources consider it relevant/notable. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic points out that he "was a French Muslim man who died defending the laws that allow satirists to mock his religion". Many sources actually describe him as "the Muslim policeman".VR _talk 07:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

By this absurd standard, Georges Wolinski "was an ethnic Jewish man who died defending the right to satirise and mock religion". The Atlantic is being disingenuous. XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Come up with reliable sources like he did and let others decide on what's absurd and what's not. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here are four sources actually describing the victim as a Murdered Jewish French Cartoonist Born in TunisiaXavierItzm (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said he wasn't, my comment was in response to what you described as absurd. MoorNextDoor (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian « The officer .... was killed as he tried to stop the two heavily armed killers from fleeing the offices of the satirical magazine that had poked fun at his religion ». The New York Times « "He himself was a Muslim," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters ». MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Include. § Shooting says (emphasis added):

From an "authenticated video":

After murdering Merabet who was a fellow Muslim, the gunmen were heard briefly discussing his death. "It's all good. He wasn't Algerian," they said. It turned out that Merabet actually was of Algerian descent.

This establishes that the killers considered the victims' national origin or descent (they weren't distinguishing) significant. Therefore it is relevant and should be included. --Thnidu (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair argument, Thnidu. Agree. My point remains that either we include ethnicity and descent for all, or for none. You have a strong argument for doing it for all. XavierItzm (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I must agree: include for all. --Thnidu (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree: include for all.VR _talk 02:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

In the "Shooting" section it states that the killer knew the police officer was a Muslim before he killed him (or it implies it). How did the killer know this? This part of the article is unclear and I don't know what the writer is trying to say. "It's all good"? What's all good? He never met the policeman. Perhaps some explanation as to how the killer knew his victim was a Muslim, or that this remains a mystery, would be helpful, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. (174.131.5.205 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

on the contrary, it's pretty clear they shot him because they thought he was not Algerian, I.e., they thought he was not Muslim. As the article says, they were wrong. The logical conclusion is that the terrorists were not willing to kill Muslims, and only did so by error. As you say, someone should clean up the text because it is confusingly written right now. (Obligatory, boring and unnecessary clarification for the Political Correctness police: yes I am aware you can be Algerian and not be Muslim. I'm just working with what the terrorists said) XavierItzm (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not the writer who said that. "It's all good" was a direct quote by the killers. It means they were thinking, "Ok no problem, it was fine that we killed him because we believe he was not Algerian/Muslim." It was the logic they applied to it in that moment, right or wrong. Of course they didn't know for sure if he was of Algerian descent or not but it implies they cared enough about his ethnicity to give a second thought after killing him. Why would this confuse you? It's pretty clear to understand the meaning unless English is not your native language. Hope that makes sense to you. I've already stated my opinion in a previous discussion that all of these religious details are relevant of both the victims and shooters. Some would disagree but there is definitely progress being made here. Good work Thnidu, XavierItzm and others. Zup326 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Anjem Chaudry's support for the attacks

Anjem Chaudry's support for the attacks does not deserve a place in this article. He does not command any significant following that gives his opinion any weight.—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, for such an insignificant Muslim person (as you say), he sure does have quite an extensive Wikipedia biographical entry. Maybe he is not as insignificant as you yourself think he is? XavierItzm (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is cognitive dissonance to suggest that because someone has a lengthy wikipedia page, he has a significant follow. Shabeki (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

the gentleman is important enough to have an extensive Wikipedia entry. If he and anyone he represents wish to support the terrorists, should Wikipedia editors be in the business of suppressing their positions, if such positions are reported by a RS? XavierItzm (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

His views were written in an editorial in USA Today, America's only national newspaper. Gotta admit that is some relevance, even despite his lack of qualifications in Islamic theology. At the same time, one can say that ISIS/Al Shabab have no qualifications in Islamic theology, but are blatantly notable in reaction to this attack. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

9 January is not 9 January!

It is written: «Around 700,000 people walked in protest on 9 January, with major marches being held in Toulouse (attended by 100,000),»

This is inaccurate: Toulouse was on saturday 10 january, french time. People was more numerous in Toulouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.142 (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Arson attack on Hamburger Morgenpost

Charlie Hebdo shooting: Arson attack on German newspaper that published cartoons AP reuters abc.net.au should be new section. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. There's very little info to go on right now, however. The perpetrators may have been arrested. -- Veggies (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I added this to the media reaction, although as this page moves like a whirlwind I can't confirm if it's still there '''tAD''' (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Social media

In the interest of journalist/encyclopedic thoroughness only — mention might be made of pro-atackers statements on social media. See NYT report. (Sca personally has no sympathy whatever for their POV.) Sca (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Unity march / Marche républicaine

Should we put up a split-off article for this large demonstration with lots of world leaders? Or a split-off article for all demonstrations? Iselilja (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, apparently 40 world leaders have attended, surely that is notable? Perhaps we could make a list of which notable figures attended? IJA (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

yes I think a separate article could look at issues raised by the march as well as detailing the event narratively- including the hypocrisy , like Sergei Lavrov being there apparently - saw this on twitter - 'Is minister #Lavrov really here, at #paris solidarity march? The day after people with #JessuisCharlie posters arrested in #moscow?' - Sayerslle (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

BBC News is reporting that the "British, German, Turkish, Jordanian, Israeli and Palestinian leaders were among the world leaders joining the beginning of the march". [1] IJA (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Fail Daily Mail is reporting/ has pictures of Donald Tusk, David Cameron, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, Angela Merkel, Mahmoud Abbas, Matteo Renzi and Jean-Claude Juncker as well as senior French figures like Francois Hollande, Anne Hidalgo, King Abdullah II of Jordan and Nicolas Sarkozy. [2] The Daily Mail has a full list at the bottom of the article. IJA (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry and religion of victims

There is already an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of Merabat's Muslim religion. The other victims' details have been expanded to include their various ancestries (Tunisia, Algeria) and one victim's Jewish religion. Given that this information played no part in their targeting for death (it was their place of work that got them killed), I contend that this inclusion places WP:UNDUE weight on this detail. Yes, it might be cited in a reliable source, but this is not a biography of the victims, and we do not have to include every known fact about their lives. Thought? WWGB (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Many reliable sources have deemed the religion of Merabet to be significant in showing that this was an attack by a very radical Muslim group, and in no way represents the sentiments of French Muslims. I don't get it: we take pains to emphasize every Islamic thing the attackers said, e.g. Allahu Akbar, yet we want to hide the fact that at least one of the victims was Muslim? Isn't that very biased?VR _talk 06:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have missed the point of this section. The topic is whether we need to report that some victims were born in Algeria or Tunisia, and one victim was Jewish. This discussion is NOT about Merabat's religion. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

By this reasoning, why should we include the ages of the victims, e.g., Frédéric Boisseau, 42; Franck Brinsolaro, 49? It seems to me that the fact that Ahmed Merabet was a Muslim is more relevant than his age. Jts10101 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Include all or include none. If numerous RS have brought up the ancestry and religion of a number of victims, either include that of all for whom there is RS, or include none. Otherwise it is bias. XavierItzm (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Who's stopping you from including the others ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. I'd still say that it's interesting to note the ancestry of the victims, since we do point out that the perpetrators were "Franco-Algerian".VR _talk 06:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with reflecting the backgrounds of the victims, if reported by RSs. In that, I agree with VR. In much of the rest of what VR said, I disagree strongly. Of course the background of the perpetrator may have much more to do with his killing of the victim(s) than the background of the victim(s) has. The killers indicated that their killings were spurred by their beliefs, and that they were motivated by those in their circles (in at least one case); motive is of interest. They don't necessarily focus on the fact that a cartoonist is of Tunisian ancestry, and don't I expect in a firefight know the religion of the police officer. Of course -- are you kidding? -- the shouting of an Islamist battle cry is more relevant, if we are comparing, than the fact that a police officer happened to be Muslim (that's not why the event took place), or that a cartoonist happened to be of Tunisian ancestry.... as those don't bear of the motive for the event.

I also find odd the claim (though I completely agree with premise that VR is asserting), that the by-chance fact that one officer who was killed in a firefight was Muslim "shows" that this "in no way represents the sentiments of French Muslims." The conclusion is, I strongly believe, true -- but it most certainly is not "shown" by that random fact that may well not have been known by the killers. Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, probably his killers didn't know, but never mind, if he was a French Muslim, doing the job he was doing, that is after all a piece of the evidence about French Muslim sentiments. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This does not make sense. This was a shooting situation between policemen and terrorists. Do you think that either party stopped and considered the potential religion of the guy shooting at them? This is no evidence of sentiments of anyone. XavierItzm (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's not super relevant, but how exactly does the Algerian background of the perpetrators factor into their motivations? I can understand that the killers' being Muslim is prerequisite for them to be radical Muslims, but not how their ancestry matters. Radical Muslims terrorist come in different ancestries, including Caucasian in case the radical Muslim is a convert.VR _talk 07:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a longer discussion than we probably want to have here, but in short background of Islamists is often of interest in the RSs, which almost always report on it. For example ... there has been much RS interest in converts to Islam who are Islamist, especially Causcasian ones. There was much interest that many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. There are Muslim countries which one very rarely sees as the ancestry of Islamists (and others where it is the opposite). It's actually quite a fascinating subject. Which is why, perhaps, it is virtually always reflected by RSs (which is a good guide for editors, who wish to check their own editing to makes sure it is driven by RSs, and not personal views). Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And this is interesting, vis-a-vis the Algerian background. We now learn that Algerian intelligence warned France about an impending attack, the day prior.[3] --Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We're not including every fact about their lives, we're merely stating their origin which, just like the origin of the suspects, has been reported by RS for a reason that neither of us has to understand or agree with. MoorNextDoor (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: were the Jewish and Muslim victims targeted for their faiths or ethnicities, or were those details incidental? Specifying their faith or ethnicity can imply that they were relevent to their being targeted—perhaps fine in an editorial or somesuch trying to make sense of the details, but not so in an encyclopaedia article. Unless RSes explicitly say these details were relevent to the victims' being targeted, then they should be left out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems to me to be looking at the event from the aggressors' point of view. An encyclopedia has to try to account for all relevant points of view. Do we say that their backgrounds didn't matter to Wolinski, Merabet, the people in the supermarket ... and all the others who died too? Their backgrounds did matter to them, and helped to shape why they were doing what they were doing. So their backgrounds matter to us and our readers also. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How is that "looking at the event from the aggressors' point of view"? What evidence is there that these people were targeted for being Muslim or Jewish? What about the Catholics & atheists? No—specifying only the Muslim and Jewish victims as such is feeding into the idea that their ethnic backgrounds are what got them killed—and the sources do not say that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The gunman at the Jewish supermarket said that it was targeted b/c it was Jewish. Personally, I think that if reliable sources talk about a victim's background, it should be mentioned. At the very least, the background of the Muslim cop & the victims at the Jewish supermarket should be mentioned. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish supermarket was targeted because it was Jewish—has anyone tried to remove that from the article? Sources have not said that any of the people in the Charlie Hebdo offices were target for their ethnicities (or that the shooters were even aware of their ethnicities)—ditto the Muslim cop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources have not said that the perpetrators committed the act because of their ethnicity either, yet, that did not stop anyone from reporting it. The bottom line is that RS deemed it important to report the ethnicity of the victims and so should we. MoorNextDoor (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

News sources perform a different job than an ecnyclopaedia does. We do not include details from sources indiscriminately. Some of these news sources are playing up the "irony" angle, for example, by mentioning the Muslim backgrounds of some of the victims. That's how they snag readers and populate the comments sections. That is something we do not do in an encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said about the sources that mention the Algerian background of the suspects (after all, not all of them do). That being said, I find it amazing that the mention of the origins of the victims could warrant such a debate, yet nobody seems to mind that the suspects are described as Franco-Algerian on the basis of a single source (the independent), while every other source (including the independent) describes them as French nationals of Algerian descent, which is a neutral et clearer description that leaves no room for interpretation. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, the merits and demerits of which warrant its own discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: The religious backgrounds of victims is clearly relevant and well-discussed in the media. It lets us know that the killers in the Charlie Hebdo shooting were willing to kill anybody inside that building regardless of who they were or what their faith was. They never spared the Algerian or Muslim victims. They wanted to wipe out Charlie Hebdo at any cost, even murdering people of their own religion to do so. In the Porte de Vincennes siege, it is widely believed that the location was chosen because it was Jewish. Even the French president called it an act of anti-Semitism. It's simply not possible to justify these facts as being irrelevant. Political correctness must not cloud or censor these relevant details. Zup326 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Where does political correctness enter into it? The supermarket was targeted explicitly for being Jewish. None of the sources claim Wolinski was targeted for his ethnicity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Had all 12 victims been Jewish by nothing more than mere coincidence, then certainly it would have been reported as a "main motive" in the reliable source despite not being so. The fact that the killers were willing to kill even Muslims makes their religion important, or at least the mention of the victims who were Muslims only. The "include all or none of the religions" is a weasel term for political correctness. All the best. Zup326 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the killers were willing to kill even Muslims makes their religion important: an interesting tidbit that deserves to be described and contextualized in prose. This list is the wrong context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It must be noted that the only woman sought out for murder at Charlie Hebdo was Jewish. This is noteworthy because it has been reported that other women at the magazine who came face to face with the killers were told by the killers themselves that they were not being killed because they were women. At the same time, the killers then proceeded to order these women to convert to Islam, and abide by hijab. Meanwhile, the only woman killed, Elsa Cayat, seems to have been killed despite being a woman because she was Jewish. Al-Andalus (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)'

"seems to have" or "was reported to have": if the former, it stays out; if the latter, it likely should go in. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Has this issued been closed? On 16:46, 11 January 2015‎ MoorNextDoor asserted that the relevance of Merabet's religion is no longer being questioned. The "relevant?-discuss" link has been eliminated from Merabet's religion but has been left in place for the two Jewish victims at Charlie Hebdo. XavierItzm (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim reactions

The section on Muslim reactions is divided into two, with some condemning and other supporting. The condemnations are coming from mainstream Muslims, where as the support are coming from lone individuals, often with no association to a major Muslim organization. Therefore, the section on support should not be given undue weight. Because it is certainly possibly to flood the article with Muslim condemnations of the attack, all sourced to reliable and notable sources.

Instead, I suggest we give broad summaries of the condemnations and support.VR _talk 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Where comments are made (on either side) by notable persons or organizations (e.g., those with wikipedia articles), I see no reason to hide the reactions from wikipedia's readers. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying comments should be quoted in full? Wouldn't it suffice to say simply say "ISIS praised the attack", as opposed to quoting ISIS' exact words?

And if we started doing that, pretty soon we'd need to fork off an article like "Muslim reactions condemning Charlie Hebdo shooting", since there are literally, at least, 50 different notable Muslim individuals and organizations that have condemned the attack in lengthy statements.VR _talk 06:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing or shortening what they say, or lumping it together, would be fine with me -- editorial discretion (where the extra words add nothing, certainly it would be better). If it is Churchillian, then I would quote more. I'm focused on deleted that x took position y, if x has a wikipedia article, and RSs have reported it. I would be open to deleting views of people or organizations that don't have wp articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim official condemnations are many, almost unanimous. V has a good point, policy-wise. Some sense of proportionality per WP:Undue is needed. The article is already suffering from bloat, and one can barrel-scrap to get fringe support evidence, but is it important?.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm deleting this reaction: "Shots of joy in the Palestinian camp of Ain al-Hilweh, in southern Lebanon, were heard Wednesday..." This is a simply anonymous reaction from non-notable individuals. While the camp of Ain al-Hilweh itself is notable, its hard to believe that the "shots of joy" are representative of the camp. Let me know if anyone disagrees.VR _talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

wait, are you saying you are in a Better position to assess what the major Lebanse newspaper publishes (and cites a major TV Network as corroboration, to boot) than the local reporter who wrote the report? Are RS to be considered Less Reliable than Wikipedia editors from this point forward? Please advise, XavierItzm (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• isn't it ridiculous that the boring and repetitive condemnations of the terrorist attack by heads of state got spun aside into their own little article, and now we are looking at that list being repeated under this section, only for Islam countries only? XavierItzm (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting point. How do you propose this be handled? Please note that the majority of the world's Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries, so the official reaction of those countries is actually indicative of a lot of Muslims.VR _talk 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • since by far the majority of countries you allude to are not free and open democracies as we know it in the West, the assertion that anything those governments say is indicative of the population is open to challenge, don't you think? My humble suggestion is that government statements stay on the government subpage that has been created for that purpose and we keep this page clean of government tropes, propaganda, deflection, or positioning tactics. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• This was reverted. Why?VR _talk 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

because he did not condemn the attacks straightforwardly - he used sectarian language - takfiris etc - he is happy with shia terror - and assad regime terror , he is part of it - and he simultaneously continued to attack Charlie hebdo by saying the takfiris are worse than even the leftist cartoonists - so to just leave up 'he condemned the atatcks' - is too Hezbollah friendly imo and misrepresents the speech- which was sectarian and religious fascist imo - against sunnis and against the leftists of Charlie hebdo. - the extended quote, which is still not much, is necessary imo. Sayerslle (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

disagree. Who is Wikipedia to judge "the language" of Hezbollah and adjudicate the sectarian disputes of the followers of Allah? If the RS provides a quote from Hizbollah, then it should be included verbatim, and to do otherwise reflects bias (note Hizbollah is not a government so it is OK to include in this section). XavierItzm (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

i'm not arguing to judge the bloody language i'm saying report the choice of words used by this man in his condemnation of terror scrupulously. ffs. a few extra words to represent what was said accurately, the exact words, and i'm accused of seeking to adjudicate sectarian disputes. load of bloody rubbish. include verbatim - yes, that is what I want - what was wanted was obliteration of the exact words precisely with the effect of making it biased. 'Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet." reuters - reuters highlights the language used - if you say 'oh its not for wp to reflect sectarian language, thats not our business' , i'd say - stick to RS - don't seek to erase exact language in RS for any 'PC' concerns - 'ooh its not for the likes of us to get involved ...' Sayerslle (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you.  ;-) XavierItzm (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Shooting: Attack

In the sub-heading "Attack" within the heading "Shooting", there are several quotes attributed to the two gunmen (and also to the police officer, Merabet). Nearly all of those quotes are written in English. I can only assume that these individuals actually spoke in French and that Wikipedia is simply translating the French into English for its readers. This should be made clear. When the article states: The gunman said "It's OK if he's dead. He wasn't an Algerian.", that implies that the conversations took place in English (which is likely inaccurate). Please edit accordingly. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please fix this typo

The person's surname is Lepère, not Lepere (as written in one place at the moment). 109.157.79.50 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Abductive (reasoning) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jogger in Fontenay-aux-Roses

It seems that there was a previous attack before the policewoman : Fontenay-aux-Roses: Un lien entre Amedy Coulibaly et l'agression à l'arme automatique d'un joggeur Hektor (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

The guns used was apparently not AK-47 since Amedy Coulibaly confessed he was financialy supporting Kouachi brothers. In the video Coulibaly have a Sa 58. Compact behind him, so it is wise to assume that they were using Sa 58. Not AK-47. (Its kinda rare to use it in Western Europe). McxCZ (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide a source for the information you want changed, since the current version is already acceptably sourced. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

AK-47 type weapons have become quite common in the criminal underground since the war in Yugoslavia. They have replaced the Colt 1911 as the standard weapon of gangsters. Rama (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

German tabloid firebombed after running Charlie Hebdo cartoons

"A German tabloid that reprinted cartoons from the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo lampooning the Prophet Mohammed was targeted in firebombing Sunday, police said.

With security services on high alert after a killing spree in Paris by Islamic extremists, police in the northern German port city of Hamburg said no one was injured in the blaze at the headquarters of the regional daily Hamburger Morgenpost, which caused only slight damage. (AFP)" [4] Abductive (reasoning) 21:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Suicide of police commissioner

Is the suicide of police commissioner Helric Fredou important enough to be in the lead? The lead is already getting too long. Abductive (reasoning) 22:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's getting to long. Xharm (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite parts of "Ideological Conflict" section

The Ideological Conflict paragraph contains very generalised information about blasphemy in Islam, and at first glance, it sounds like Muslims would kill a person if they're against their religion, which is highly wrong (If that's really the case, then how can i explain being in this place for that so many time...alive?)

I guess the second paragraph needs to be rewritten for more neutrality, exactly this:

some Muslims claim that the satire of religion, of religious representatives and - above all - of the Muslim prophet is forbidden blasphemy in Islam and can be punished by death.

At oussama (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The "some" is very important. Better wording is welcome. Yug (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.236.254 (talk)

I am Charlie Hebdo?

Criticism of Charlie Hebdo

With no reference to the 'I am NOT Charlie Hebdo' type protests, this (little) section almost seems like an after-thought. Given we are all defending Free Speech (no matter how vile or nasty) should not Wikipedia highlight a full range of opinions? Say if there was good evidence that (as well as being total "dickheads") the US neo-cons were backing Charlie Hebdo to stir up hate - would not Wikipedia have a public duty to highlight such evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.92.200 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The non-Muslim support for "I am not Charlie" is mostly based on the idea that Charlie Hebdo were racist. It was a minority opinion that was only tweeted around 20000 times by non-Muslims as compared to 3.5 million people who tweeted "I am Charlie" on the first day. I'm no math major but that's a ratio of 175:1. There is already a section in the Je suis Charlie article on this, under a subsection based on Criticism. Brief though it is, I can understand why as it's definitely not going to be a popular writing point. Feel free to expand on it if it's an important subject for you. Zup326 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

-curse removed-mighty, what evidence did you have that US Neo-cons were running a small anarchist atheist magazine in France? If you're trying to bring a point to the article, at least back it up with something other than your own grossly flawed conclusions '''tAD''' (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

11 January rally

Given that according to official sources the 11 January rallies in France are the largest in French history since WW2, I created a stub to cover them (linked to a corresponding article in the French Wikipedia). Please help expand it. --DarTar (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that much of the content in this article that relates to these rallies should go over to the new page, currently named Republican marches. This article should focus on the violent acts and the specific follow-ups to those acts. The Parisian, French, and worldwide marches featuring heads of state and others should be their own article. KConWiki (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree XavierItzm (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated removal of background demographics

There have been several attempts now to remove from the "Background" section demographic and historical information about Muslims in France. Here's the latest. Here's another that calls it "racist". The paragraph has undergone numerous changes, but this is the core:

Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. By the time of the shooting, the Muslim population of France had surpassed 5 million.

This is then followed by a sentence describing ethnic tensions that has been changed a number of times, depending on whether particular editors want to ascribe ethnic tensions to the right-wing or not (which is supported by the source). The current source is from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Can we get some comment on this? I seriously can't see an article like this not giving such demographic details. We should make a decision about this here to point to so we can put an end to the editwarring. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Facts are facts. If we have RS that these are fact, then they should be included to give some background. I am guessing that the issue is that it is being taken as an assumption of not being relevant to the background of the attacks themselves. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is racist to mention that the French government has allowed mass immigration of Muslims to France and that now 1 in 10 people who walk the streets in that country are Muslims. This is obviously not the case in, say, Switzerland, or even in French-speaking Switzerland. Are facts racist? (Corollary: if you shoot 10 Frenchmen at random, you have a 10% chance of killing a Muslim). But I have no strong ideas on whether the 10% Muslim population fact needs to be included, except that if the PC police does not want it, then that would be a very strong indicator the data should be included.
Differently, I do think it is far fetched to bring the National Front into this. The massacre is the most recent outcome of a clash between, on the one hand, the Left (Charlie Hebdo: anti-religion, anti-capitalist, anti-corporations, critical of the currently constituted government of France) and, on the other hand, Islam. The National Front has no dog on this fight, and certainly did not cause Charlie Hebdo and Islam to be at each other's throat for the past few years.
Or does anyone think that the protests against the 2006 re-publication by Charlie Hebdo of the Jyllands Posten cartoons, or that the 2007 Islamic lawsuit against Charlie Hebdo, or the 2011 firebombing of Charlie Hebdo have anything to do or were in any way motivated or influenced by the National Front, or that such acts would not have taken place if the National Front did not exist? XavierItzm (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier - do you bother looking at the sources cited to justify text? if you did you'd read the Canadian broadcasting piece and see it mentions the FN. 'the fn has no dog in this fight' - oh really, that's your opinion, but that's not what the bloody source said, ok? so as for that paragraph it was the only source cited the text was pretty much improvising as far as I could see. and it looked like an opinion piece anyhowSayerslle (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing—I'm the one who added the National Front stuff (along with the rest of the stuff), but when issues with it came up in another discussion, I had no problem with its removal (again, this was after someone removed the entire paragraph to remove that one statement). So then it sat for a while with no mention or right (or left) politics until another editor deleted the entire paragraph because they felt it didn't reflect the article cited, which does go on about the National Front. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep it for sure. I'd like to say good work to Curly Turkey and others who kept bringing it back. I was thinking of raising this same question as well but you beat me to it. The information in question has been removed by about 3 to 5 editors or so that I've seen lately. I would propose that these editors stop removing the information immediately, as it is clearly relevant and provides notable background information. It could use another source or two, be expanded upon, and maybe be the last or 2nd last paragraph in the section, but blanking the info is not acceptable. Zup326 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I just did some checking and noticed that another main problem editors have with it, is the fact that it's the lead off paragraph. I've moved it to the bottom under a "Demographics" section. It may help to stop some of the edit wars, especially with editors who don't read the talk page here. Zup326 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but whatever that Zarka, Taussig & Fleury 2004 is you've cited, you've forgotten to add it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not my edit or addition. All I did was move what was there. A quick search reveals that it's a French book about Islam in France by the name of Yves Charles Zarka, Sylvie Taussig, Cynthia Fleury (éds.), L’Islam en France. I can't read French but I'd say it's more than likely a valid book source. Zup326 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I wonder who added that, then. There's a preview of the book at amazon.fr, but it cuts out a page 26 (the citation's for page 27). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PuffinSoc last reverted it from being removed and then immediately expanded it. Good on him. I have no doubt at all that's a good source at any rate. Zup326 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Would a 3RR rule on editing articles limit the number of removals of information? Because the event has become a rather hot political issue. -Mardus (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A "Rather hot political issue'. Something of a (British?) under-statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.92.200 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The information was removed way more than 3 times, but it was not the same person doing it so it's hard to apply a 3RR rule. It was not a 1-on-1 edit war. At least 4 editors reverted it, after at least 5 editors removed it for petty and absurd reasons. One user called it an "apocalyptic intro" and another called it "racist," which it certainly is not. Another user blanked it simply because they didn't like the location of it. Others blanked it with no explanation. These are not acceptable reasons to simply blank an entire piece of information, not without discussion at least. They must provide a sound reason through discussion, but I believe the new sections we've made have it under control now. Zup326 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to ask yourself why so many editors are continually removing that sort of information. It will not stop. Abductive (reasoning) 22:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not me bringing it back time and time again. A whole bunch of other guys have been reverting these deletes. I've done no reverts on the section at all. By all means keep partaking in these senseless edit wars if that's what floats your boat. I do a significant amount of writing on the main sections of this article and I merely witnessed this senseless edit war taking place. It's there, it's gone, it's there, it's gone. This has happened probably 20 times in the last 2 days. I merely offered support to the editors who actually work to help grow the article as opposed to the editors who senselessly delete relevant information without discussion. Zup326 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

More edit-warring in the background info

As if the demographics were not enough, another paragraph is also being blanked in the main section of the background info. It reads:

--- On 7 January 2015, the morning of the shooting, Charlie Hebdo issued a signed caricature of Michel Houellebecq on the front page; his latest novel Soumission, released the same day, described a future France in which a Muslim has been elected president. The magazine cover mocks Houellebecq's predictions: "In 2015, I'll lose my teeth. In 2022, I'll observe Ramadan." ---

How is it possible to use WP:OR and WP:Burden as a justification for the deletion of sourced and relevant content? It's logically impossible that a direct quotation of one of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons could be considered as original research because the primary source must be seen as the cartoon itself. The application of these rules in this situation -- to justify deletion -- is unsound and could even possibly be of bad faith. The information in question provides relevant background information about Charlie Hebdo's views. This type of over-the-top cartoon undoubtedly had a hand in fueling the attack. It is in turn directly related to the shooting, was also published the day of the shooting, and is therefore notable for inclusion. I had no hand in writing any of the background information but whoever wrote it did a good job. I would encourage expansion, clean-up, and a few more sources and not senseless deletion of entire paragraphs. Can we get any comments on this? Zup326 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, you seem to completely misunderstand the topic of this article. This article is about the recent spate of terrorist attacks on France. The article is already overlong, and unless and until somebody can show that the terrorists saw the most recent issue and decided that it was the final straw, it doesn't belong in the article. Put another way; suppose that day's issue had depicted Nelson Mandela spinning in his grave over something that had happened in South Africa. Would that deserve to be in this article? Of course not. Also, you will note that I am not removing that last Tweet information, which could have been received by the terrorists while they were driving over there, and because it is being reported by the secondary sources in connection with the attack. Your source talks about the guy on the cover, Michel Houellebecq, because nobody in the English-speaking world has any idea who he is. Your source does not draw any connection to the attack. Abductive (reasoning) 20:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The irony is that I was the one who started the Motive section and wrote over half of it, including the whole part on the final tweet. I also started both the siege and hostage sections and wrote them in their entirety, as well as a good 80% of the demonstration section. None of my edits have yet been reverted, and further I had no hand in writing any of the background information at all as I stated above. Failure to debate my concerns and then resorting to a personal attack by saying I have no understanding of what the article is about is a clear display of bad faith, as well as addressing me in italics over some writing that I did not even write myself but merely defended. I agree with you that a cartoon about Nelson Mandela would be unrelated and would be therefore irrelevant. So what's your point? This was not a cartoon about Nelson Mandela. It was a cartoon that mockingly portrayed Charlie's Hebdo's depiction of what they believed a future France would become as Muslim influence continues to spread in France. This is clearly related to Charlie Hebdo's core ideals. It also mocked Ramadan which is also a very important part of Muslim culture that was made fun of. Why should the gunmen themselves have had to see it directly in order for it to be relevant? The section is meant to give background on the overall sentience that generally leads to these attacks. That's why it was in the Background section, not the Attack or Motive section. Zup326 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

References

The section is meant to give background on the overall sentience that generally leads to these attacks ? what?? if RS discuss the houellebecq cover in relation to the attacks then it would be more obvious to add , but if they don't it seems pointless and OR adding it. (btw surely when you say 'It was a cartoon that mockingly portrayed Charlie's Hebdo's depiction of what they believed a future France would become as Muslim influence continues to spread in France' - that is not right is it - surely they were mocking houellebecqs fears of an Islamic future for France as over the top or am I getting all mixed up?) Sayerslle (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The content of that day's issue is totally irrelevant, and the article is much too long. User:Zup326, I am sorry if you took what I said to be a personal attack; I did not mean it to be so construed. But this article needs to be focused on the attack and aftermath, since it is so long and only getting longer. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure they mocked him the same as they mocked everything and everyone else they drew about. Insulting Ramadan at the same time lets us know that Charlie Hebdo was even willing to insult Muslim culture as well, not only the religion. We already knew they made fun out of the Prophet Muhammad as well as Islam as a religion, but this specific cartoon lets us know they insulted or do insult Muslim culture as well. How on earth can this be irrelevant? I've raised the question 3 times and have gotten no feasible answer, so we'll have to agree to disagree. All the best. Zup326 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you see that the article is much too long? Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No I don't. It's still relatively modest in size and even if it were too large, it's still not an acceptable reason to remove content as per WP:Article_size. There are other ways of handling articles that grow too large. "It's much too long" is simply not an acceptable argument for nuking valid content. Zup326 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is immense. The material equates the increase in Muslim population with terrorism and cannot remain in the article. People keep removing it for a reason. Abductive (reasoning) 04:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The article does no such thing. You've been called out on this before. Quit this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT horse manure. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive, you've changed your stance 3 times already. First you cited WP:OR and WP:Burden, when in fact there was no original research and no lack of verifiability. That failed, then you switched your stance to the fact that you felt the content was simply irrelevant. After I stated why it was relevant, then you switched your stance to the fact that you felt the article was too big. Now you just simply want it gone for your own personal opinion that more Muslims = more terrorists. Nobody here said that other than you. Zup326 (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You've done it again, and the edit summary is "see Talk"? What do we see in "Talk"? We see that you have nothing even approaching a consensus to remove this text and the sources. You will not remove it again wihout a clear consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"resented by some French people, particularly those on the far right."
seriously people? The right has no dog in this dispute between a lefty rag (Charlie) and the followers of Muhammad. If the right did not exist, does anyone think that
1. Charlie would not have published the Jyllands Posten cartoons of 2006
2. The Islam organizations of France would not have sued Charlie in 2007
3. Charlie would not have gotten firebombed in 2011
4. The terrorists this week would not have killed 12 people at Charlie
Really, what does the right have to do with any of this? This is a dispute between the anticlerical, anticapitalist left and a religion. You may as well be dragging Dracula on to this article, for all the relevance Dracula has to the Charlie Hebdo-Muslim conflict. XavierItzm (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So discuss it already. That one line has been removed and readded a number of times. Those such as Abductive are using it as an excuse to remove the entire paragraph, repeatedly, even though most of it has nothing to do with right–left politics. The paragraph is sourced to RSes. Removal will require consensus. Now discuss, and quit the editwarring. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• And Abductive has fucking well done it again. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reported it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey, Abductive has gamed the system in two discussions already by citing three separate policies in bad faith. Further, he continues to cite WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR in his deletions when no such violations have occurred. I'd recommend an immediate cease warring as he's already made it clear he won't stop. It's senseless to keep engaging him in this edit war. Zup326 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I already gave him a 3RR warning. He immediately reverted, and I ceased. He then personally attacked me on my talk page, calling me a racist, and threw that OR horeshit in my face once again. I reported him to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit---he's posted to ANI, asking for "more eyes". With 205 pagewatchers, I hardly think that's an issue.

"Secularism and blasphemy" section

This reference:

"FOCUS - Praying for a pardon: Christian sentenced to death for 'blaspheming against Islam' - France 24". France 24. Retrieved 11 January 2015.

is not a great reference for our purposes, as it appears to rely on platform-dependent embedded streaming video: not everyone will be able to see the content (I can't), and embedded streaming video does not archive well, if at all, thanks to the difficulties of archiving streaming media, the effects of bit rot on plugin-based streaming mechanisms, and (very often) the use of DRM. Does anyone have a better reference that gives the information in textual form? -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)