Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

How much "Background" is appropriate?

How much and what kind of background information should be in this article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Let's follow this Code of Conduct

1. Assume Good Faith
2. Back up all assertions with evidence.
3. Focus on the argument, not the arguer, and avoid rehashing older disputes.

Curly Turkey's position

We need information on the background demographics of the incident. It should be kept concise---one to two paragraphs---and should not be have its own subsection, so it doesn't draw undue attention to itself. I've made a few attempts at doing so: this is my most recent.

• WP:DUE: Major news sources have devoted entire articles to this stuff:
  • Power, Carla. "Why There's Tension Between France and Its Muslim Population". Time. Retrieved 12 January 2015.
  • Blair, David (8 January 2015). "Charlie Hebdo attack: the tormented links between France and Algeria". The Telegraph. Retrieved 16 January 2015.
  • Fisk, Robert (9 January 2015). "Charlie Hebdo: Paris attack brothers' campaign of terror can be traced back to Algeria in 1954". The Independent. Retrieved 16 January 2015.
  • Marlowe, Lara (10 January 2015). "'Charlie Hebdo': why jihad came to Paris". The Irish Times. Retrieved 16 January 2015.
  • Steven Erlanger and Katrin Bennhold (7 January 2015). "'Dangerous Moment' for Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Many include such details without devoting an article to them. Wikipedia must give weight to articles that the sources do---and the sources give these details considerable weight.
• Context: Initial reports emphasized the gunmen spoke "perfect French": BBC, CNN, and over 2000 hits on Google News Search alone. This is obviously surprising to a great deal of (most?) English-speakers who (a) assume Muslim terrorists would be foreigners (à la 9/11); and (b) do not know that France has a large population of Muslims (the largest in the EU). The large number of English-language news sources carrying these details strongly suggest they recognize the need to dispell readers' preconceptions on these issues; my own experience talking to people in real life about the incident affirms the need to clarify (briefly) these details.
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamebuster19901's position

• I don't believe we need any demographical information regarding the entire country of France, as it strays too far from the topic at hand, and I do not see how it is related at all. Though many news sources put weight on this factor, Wikipedia is not a news source, and shouldn't strive to be a news source, we don't need to include opinions/a pro-con list.

• Secondly them speaking perfect french would not be a surprise to a reader who has actually read the article, as it states they were french citizens, Is it really surprising that french citizens speak french? (Quote from article: "The two Muslim French nationals,[Citations here] both born in Gennevilliers, were aged 34 and 32 respectively.[Citations here])" Surely nobody would assume that there are no Muslims in France.

• Thirdly, The information is presented in present tense, while the article itself is in past tense. The fact that it uses inappropriate use of tense puts undue weight on itself, and also shows how unrelated that content really is. While that information may be accurate, that information will always be changing and will become inaccurate. Stating that it was at a certain percentage at a point in time before the actual attacks would make the information irrelevant.

• And lastly, if the information is included from consensus, please remove the obvious bias:

Anti-Muslim opinions are held by 27% of the French public, according to a May 2014 Pew Research survey.[47] A January 2013 Ipsos survey published in Le Monde found that 74% of French citizens view Islam as "intolerant" and "incompatible" with French values.[48] The same 2013 study found that 8 out of 10 French believe that Islam seeks to impose its values on others.[48]

An August 2014 ICM survey found that one in six French citizens (16%) sympathises with the Islamist group ISIS - also known as Islamic state.[49] Support for ISIS rose to 27% of French citizens aged between 18 and 24.[49] Newsweek’s France Correspondent Anne-Elizabeth Moutet stated, "This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds [who are] unemployed to the tune of 40%, who’ve been deluged by satellite TV and internet propaganda."[49]

Gamebuster19901 (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs above are much too long, and the citations are not in the context of the shootings (for example, a Le Monde article from 2013). The article should be restricted to sources about the subject.
  Issues of tense are handled by changing to an appropriate tense.
• Is it really surprising that french citizens speak french: when you word it that way, it sounds silly, but the news is not reporting "Two Native French Citizens Shoot Twelve Other French Citizens". Thus we make it clear that there is nothing unusual about a French-speaking Muslim by saying so. This is why sources put such weight on it, because it's something readers don't know (and are likely to assume otherwise). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Including the demographic information draws a causal link between the growth and distribution of the Muslim population and the heinous acts of a few Islamists. Therefore the material cannot be in the article. Multiple editors have removed this material, only to be continuously reverted by one editor. Therefore the consensus already exists to not have this material in the article. Further discussion must take place without the material disgracing the article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If there are multiple editors reverting the same material back and forth, then by definition there is no consensus. Please, Abductive, in this discussion we are discussing the merits and demerits of the text in question and assuming good faith, not pointing fingers. Please strike those portions of your comments. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with abductive, it does imply that there is a link between growth and distribution of the Muslim population and the shootings. We won't be able to establish a link without using bias sources. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Gamebuster19901: The paragraph I wrote makes no such causal link, and in fact explicitly contradicts it. Have you read it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No I haven't read it, Perhaps you could post it here as a response? Gamebuster19901 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I was hoping to avoid that, as I've already posted it on this talk page, and I've linked to it several times. Here it is:

Extended content

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, which was the largest Muslim population in the European Union. While most French Muslims abided by the values of the country, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remained in the memories of many French of Algerian descent, some of whom felt their ethnic background had excluded them from mainstream French society. A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqābs, yarmulkes, and other symbols deemed ostentatious have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and has been challenged in court.

All of this is sourced to articles about the incident, and none of it implies blame on Muslims as a group (in fact, it explicitly contradicts that view—the contradiction is also sourced). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I need time to think and to review everything, As I see both sides of the debate are logical. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have read the discussions) I applaud this group of editors who are taking productive steps to resolving this. As you can all plainly see above, it is a more positive experience to actually begin to understand each other's positions and try to compromise in order to attempt to reach a productive result. I think I can understand both positions here (i.e. Why include background on innocent Muslims? and Why not have background on the socio-political climate?). Now, from where I can see, one editor has actually done some work researching and writing a proposed solution. I challenge the other editors to attempt the same. To get you started, I suggest someone research and write another proposed background paragraph (i.e. background on the terrorists themselves? Here is a possible source.). Good luck and sincere best wishes to everyone. Prhartcom (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While that is a good source, most of that information is already in the section about Chérif and Saïd Kouachi. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through the paragraph and attempted to make it sound more neutral to help with both sides of the argument, Would this work? I personally would be fine including the information below because it is not irrelevant (It explains why many French Muslims are upset, but doesn't make general statements about all French Muslims) Gamebuster19901 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. While most French Muslims abided by the values of France, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remained in the memories of some French of Algerian descent, some of whom felt their ethnic background had excluded them from mainstream French society. For example: A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqābs, yarmulkes, and other symbols deemed ostentatious have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and has been challenged in court for breach of freedom of religion.

• I would support this version. I just have a question: why do you feel the population figures should be removed? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because it seems to imply that the growing population is harmful to France. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I could see how a reader would think that it was an issue. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest adding this improved version then as soon as possible, of course mentioning this discussion in the edit summary, and when/if an editor or IP removes it, calmly ping them to this discussion so that they can get caught up and hopefully see that they were wrong to do so. You may revert their removal at that time also or you may first wait for their acknowledgement here (I would not revert the same editor more than once per 24 hours, though). Good work. (P.S. Is the tense right? I personally think present tense: "abide", "remain", "has".) Prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added it Gamebuster19901 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamebuster19901: Sorry about that, but I removed it. This has already been discussed and the questions that have been raised by myself and other users are still open for whoever insists on adding the above paragraph. I know you're trying to help but I really don't see the point in starting a new discussion about it while one already exists. The background section is meant to indicate the information essential to understanding what happened, and as far as I know, nobody has blamed either the Muslims nor the immigrants for the actions of 3 criminals that swore allegiance to an international terrorist organisation that admits responsibility for it. The French know more about it than anyone else, have a look at their wiki page and see for yourself what the background section consists of. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in starting a new discussion about it while one already exists: as clearly stated above, the point was that the other discussion was deadlocked and acrimonious. In this discussion we're assuming good faith and considering each other's arguements.

nobody has blamed either the Muslims nor the immigrants for the actions of 3 criminals that swore allegiance to an international terrorist organisation that admits responsibility for it: nowhere in the paragraph is such a thing implied.

The French know more about it than anyone else: of course---they're French. What's obvious to them is not obvious to the rest of the world, which is why so many English-language sources bend over backwards to provide this information.

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

When and if you find a reliable source that clearly blames the immigrants and the Muslims for the attack (be it in English or in Japanese), I'll be more than happy to include that paragraph. MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's not what we're discussing. There's no blaming of anyone at all occurring at any point in the paragraph. Please read the paragraph before responding. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the role of the background section ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been described in detail above. Please read it and the paragraph before responding. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me be more precise. What is the role of the background section (of any subject, not just this one) ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To give the general reader the necessary context to make sense of the facts, and to disabuse the general reader of assumptions they are likely to have on the subject, as determined by Reliable Sources. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3 lost souls, just like Gilles Le Guen and Jérôme Courtailler, that claimed allegiance to an international terrorist organisation (Al Qaeda, which claimed responsibility for the attack). Any other fact we should mention ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Can you elaborate please? Gamebuster19901 (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MoorNextDoor: I think we're egetting at the heart of my point here: if you're not explicit about what you mean, you can't expect those to whom you're talking to understand your point.

Are you trying to say that we need background specific to the terrorists as well? The two kinds of information are not mutually exclusive---the paragraph above does not replace the stuff you're talking about. If that's your concern, get some sources and add some text. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamebuster19901: Which part are you referring to ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

MoorNextDoor: The whole thing Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 03:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As Abductive said before me, including the demographic information and the status of the immigrants draws a causal link between the growth and distribution of the Muslim population, the Muslim immigrants and the acts of 3 French born and bred islamists that swore allegiance to Al-Qaeda (an international terrorist organisation); 3 terrorists that are no different to Gilles Le Guen and Jérôme Courtailler. This is about Al-Qaeda and Charlie Hebdo, the only undeniable facts that everyone agrees on. MoorNextDoor (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a few arguments and questions about this.

• 1. What is this casual link is and why is it important?
• 2. You are talking about something no content before that even remotely flows, that is not what the posted paragraph is.

• During daylight, the sky appears to be blue because air scatters blue sunlight more than it scatters red.

• 3. Wikipedia is not made entirely of facts that everyone agrees on. If that were such, we would not have an article about Earth because some people would say it's flat.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Causality

2. You lost me.

3. True, but it certainly is not made up of WP:SYNTH

We will discuss it further tomorrow if you want. MoorNextDoor (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1. We all know what "causality" means. Gamebuster is asking you to demonstrate how it applies to this paragraph. Niether of us sees any causality implied. Please quote and demonstrate.
2. ---
3. MoorNextDoor: If you see SYNTH, you should be able to demonstrate it. Please do so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

user:curly turkey is engaging in tenditious editing to try and ram through his wrongheaded edits that blame a people for the actions of a few. IF he does not desist I will try and get him topic-banned. Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive: Please report me now, then. I've been asking for your evidence for more than a week, and you've yet to present it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Tendentious editing. It means you keep asking for things when you have no consensus. The demographic material is a disgrace, and it will never be in the article. Why? Because more editors don't want it than do. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is your modus operandi. Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive: So please gather your evidence and report me. Here's the address: WP:ANI. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Both of you stop your bickering. Abductive, this discussion was going well and there wasn't any bad faith until you came, I am telling you to cease and desist your attitude.

If both of you would pay attention, you would realise there is no demographic information so this argument is pointless! It's No wonder nobody wants to participate in this discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question to closer: as the two editors who are opposed have not delivered the evidence requested, do their "opposes" count per WP:!VOTE? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I vote not to close discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Many editors (not just two) are opposed to its inclusion and you know it. In any case, WP:ONUS means, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on you, not the other way around. MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • MoorNextDoor: Many editors (at least seven—possibly eight now if Visite fortuitement prolongée's statement below can be counted as support) have expressed support for including this information, and you have yet to have offered any concrete evidence of its inappropriateness. Not any. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Please, don't make me laugh. Like I said, WP:ONUS means the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on you, not the other way around. Since a lot has changed since you combined material from multiple sources while the event was still unfolding, WP:RSBREAKING, I really don't see how any of that nonsense is going to make it into the article now that the perpetrators (Al-Qaeda) are known and that access to secondary sources is easily achievable. MoorNextDoor (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      • MoorNextDoor: You still don't appear to have read the pargraph in question—you still seem to be hammering away at the long-disproven idea that the paragraph somehow implies the blame of any group. Why are you so reticent to back up your assertions? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • MoorNextDoor: We're still waiting for evidence of your assertions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
          • There really isn't much I can say to someone who thinks that such a paragraph should be included: ".. so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French". WP:ONUS means the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on you, not the other way round. Since a lot has changed since you combined material from multiple sources while the event was still unfolding, WP:RSBREAKING, I really don't see how any of that nonsense is going to make it into the article now that the perpetrators (Al-Qaeda) are known and that access to secondary sources is easily achievable. MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
            • MoorNextDoor: Two very important errors in your comment:
              1. My argument is not and never has been "so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French"---my argument, as clearly stated above, is WP:DUE: major newssources (as linked above) devote considerable space to these background details. The "perfect French" thing is no more than a single example of why sources would devote so much space to such issues.
              2. Your Al-Qaeda statement still clings to the long-discredited idea that the paragraph lays any kind of blame on any group at all. It doesn't and never has. Your continued insistence on this point appears to be evidence that you haven't read the paragraph under discussion.
            • Please reread WP:CONSENSUS, and please keep in mind that a consensus is determined by the quality of arguments and not by the number of editors holding an opinion. There are numerous examples of RfCs closing with the consensus determined to be with the monority of !votes. If you don't wish that to happen, you will have to demonstrate that you have participated in quality discussion, and not merely made unsupported accusations of WP:OP and WP:SYNTH, and linking to WP:ONUS. Abductive's !vote will undoubtably be discounted at the very least. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I've been busy with some sporting events these days. I am in support of both Gamebuster19901's revised version of the paragraph and/or the original. The background information would flow a lot better if it were connected as per Curly Turkey's contribution. However I've lost interest in discussing the matter because it's been hashed to death for the better part of 2 weeks. Further, I've already done all of what I'll write for the article so I have nothing further to contribute. Zup326 (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Curly Turkey mention me : I oppose the including of the poll § and the "no-go zones" §, and I have no opinion about the remaining §, below. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please let me correct an internal link:

Extended content

Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. While most French Muslims abided by the values of France, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remained in the memories of some French of Algerian descent, some of whom felt their ethnic background had excluded them from mainstream French society. For example: A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqābs, yarmulkes, and other symbols deemed ostentatious have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and has been challenged in court for breach of freedom of religion.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Visite fortuitement prolongée: Sorry—which link did you correct? I don't see it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Islam in Europe" Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References

POV concerns about undue highlighting of French nationality

Seriously, what possible non-POV purpose can be served by highlighting the Brothers' Frenchness halfway through the article? This is seriously as blatant POV pushing as it gets.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what the sources say. That piece of information is crucial and far more important than the origin of their parents. Would you seriously object to it if they were Iranian terrorists ? That's a rhetorical question btw. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That they were born in France and spoke perfect French is already in the article. How can you seriously justify calling them "French brothers"? Why are not the victims "French cartoonists", "French journalists", and "French police officers"? "That's what the sources say", after all. That's not a rhetorical question, btw, so don't forget to answer it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't call them "French brothers", the sources do, period. I don't have to waste my time answering any of your nonsense. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the sources do no such thing. This is blatant POV-pushing, and you have no consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

They all describe them as French and brothers (starting with "Le Monde"), if you have a comprehension problem, deal with it and do not waste people's time. Consensus is not needed to state a fact. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The article already states they were brothers. The article already states they were French. At the very, very least, it's redundant. But of course, it's not just that---it's your blatant POV, which is why you refuse to try to get a consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble!

Like it or hate it, I do not need anyone's permission to state a reliably sourced fact (that was there right at the start and was later removed for no apparent reason). You obviously have a problem with them being French, deal with it and don't waste my time. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You've amply demonstrated that you're well aware that that's not how things work here. Now your POV-pushing is clearly on the public record. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You've amply demonstrated that you're a first class time waster. Check the page of any French personality and see whether the fact that they French is clearly stated or not. MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Name even one where they are introduced as "the police identified the French brothers". That's right! There aren't any! But keep filibustering. Because building an actual consensus would be impossible. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you disputing the fact that they are French brothers ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You know I'm not, so obviously you're dodging the issue: your blatant POV pushing---your slanting of the presentation of the facts. And two other editors have removed your POV, so obviously consensus is against your distortion of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble!

What a pathetic attempt at hiding a reliably sourced fact. MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're on the public record of having little regard for "reliably sourced facts", and nothing is hidden: The article clearly states they were born and grew up in France. Why do you hate consensus so much, by the way? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find that you're the one who ignores the "reliably sourced facts". It's clearly stated in the sources, and as such, it should be included. The reader does not have to guess. Why are so stubborn, btw ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The reliably sourced facts are in the article: You're the one who wants to (a) remove facts you don't like and (b) repeat facts you do like. So, back to my question: why do you hate consensus so much? Don't forget to answer this time! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck disputing a reliably sourced fact. MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Which reliably sourced fact is under dispute? The fact that they are brothers and the fact that they are French is in the article, so what is disputed again? Oh, right! Your slanting of the facts to push your POV! Just like how you remove reliably sourced facts that don't fit that POV! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Publishes articles that mock Judaism, Israel"

According to wikileaks, the only time one of the writers tried to publish anything mocking Jews, he was fired for "anti-semitism", was taken to court by the Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (LICRA), and won a €40,000 court judgment against Charlie Hebdo for wrongful termination.[5][6][7]. There is no mention of this anywhere in the highly detailed background or the main article, which both claim the magazine targets Judaism and Israel, when it never has. Not only should this be included, but so should the hypocrisy accusations that have been made in response to this information being leaked. --Steverci (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• An incident that should definitely be noted in the Charlie Hebdo article, but your statement that it never has targeted Judaism or Israel is patently false. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Any reason you do not link to Wikileaks claiming that directly? Mezigue (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I linked the six year old article they brought to the media's attention, here is their claim. This already is in the article about the newspaper. I still think this should be put in the background that goes back to 2006 and include the hypocrisy accusations. --Steverci (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Find some major sources that link the "hypocrisy" accusations to the shooting, then. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an interesting and detailed look at the issue. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cut back on quotes?

This is an awful long article (45kb of readable prose), and I think one way to cut it down considerably without losing any important details is to slash a lot of the quoting—a lot of the quotes are more or less stock political responses, or long-winded quotes by random people, and are actually notable in and of themselves. Examples:

• From an unnamed Canadian demonstrator: "We're against terrorism and want to show them that they won't win the battle. It's horrible everything that happened, but they won't win," commented one demonstrator. "It's not only against the French journalists or the French people, it's against freedom – everyone, all over the world, is concerned at what's happening."
• From the French consul in Perth: "We are far away but our hearts today [are] with our families and friends in France. It [was] an attack on the liberty of expression, journalists that were prominent in France, and at the same time it's an attack, or a perceived attack on our culture."
• Salmon 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 ... religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today."
• Lars Vilks: "got what they wanted. They've scared people. People were scared before, but with this attack fear will grow even larger"[289] and that the attack "expose[s] the world we live in today"
• Joe Sacco (in a block quote!): "but ... tweaking the noses of Muslims ... has never struck me as anything other than a vapid way to use the pen ... I affirm our right to "take the piss" ... but we can try to think why the world is the way it is ... and [retaliating with violence against Muslims] is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other's world"

Etc etc etc—in many (most?) of these cases, the statements can be summed up easily, or even dropped as redundant.

Does anyone disagree? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the anonymous quotes, but Rushdie and Vilks are named on the Al-Qaeda most wanted list. Condense them together if you wissh, leaving reference to both being on the hit list. If anything the equivocation of Noam Chomsky and Sahra Wagenknecht is more in need of condensing. Criticism of the United States government, Foreign policy of the United States#Criticism, Drone strikes in Pakistan have large articles that suggest US/Wester hypocrisy. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I never intended to remove any of that stuff, just the excessive quotation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Potentially biased article

I have noticed there is a lack of pictures and info for protests against charlie hebdo. We should probably include this information also. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 06:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is stopping you? WWGB (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BUSY AND Wikipedia:STUDY "Because Wikipedia is completely voluntary, under no circumstances are editors obligated or expected to make any edits, respond to any messages, or to otherwise have any involvement." Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 14:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're too busy to participate, then tagging it with a neutrality dispute and reverting someone else who removed it hours later is not the way to go. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I was too busy to participate at that moment, but I intend to work on it, and I do have free time. I can't just stop what I'm doing at work and edit an article. Also, the purpose of the template is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight, there was no reason for it to be removed in the first place. The person who removed the tag didn't even participate in this discussion.

I also do not own any images relating to anti-charlie protests. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 21:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had tried to insert pictures and content of anti-Charlie protests into the article, and other editors were censoring it out, you'd have a point. There is no neutrality dispute here; its just a situation where you think such material should be included but you haven't done the work yet. Drive by tagging is discouraged and a more constructive approach is to post on the Talk Page suggesting that the article would benefit from the material's inclusion, and ask others to contribute. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I did do that, and the response I got was "What is stopping you? WWGB (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)". But I will go into more detail:

1. There is only one paragraph on protests against charlie hebdo, and it includes no pictures. However, there is a whole section with a gallary for protests for charlie hebdo. The omission of the info makes in not neutral and unbalanced. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

2. While this article is not outright biased, it is not completely neutral as it omits important information about protests against charlie hebdo. Just look at all of these sources.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 22:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gamebuster19901 you've got a good point but the January 7th and January 8th demonstrations were an immediate reaction to the shooting and are therefore relevant and in contextual relation to the shooting. The protests that are against Charlie Hebdo did not occur until January 14th, after the 'All Is Forgiven' cover of Mohammad came out. Certain editors will be quick to launch nukes at anything if the source does not directly mention the shooting. I've read a lot of the sources you cited about the protests, and while some mention the shooting, many of them do not mention the Charlie Hebdo shooting at all. According to some editors, any source which does not directly mention the shooting is 'original research' and does not belong in this article. Those protests may as well be over ham sandwiches as far as this article is concerned, if the source doesn't mention the shooting. Zup326 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• AzureCitizen: "Drive by tagging" only apples to those who haven't contributed to an article. Gamebuster19901 has contributed to both the article and the discussions, so it's hardly an appropriate accusation. Too many equate all tagging with "drive by tagging". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected then, it's not a "drive by tagging", just an inappropriate tagging by a well-meaning editor who probably should have thought twice before hitting the undo button. Placing a prominent neutrality dispute tag above the lede because you foresee additional content that might be added isn't yet present in the article isn't good practice. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@curly turkey - you think the whole article should be tagged , which will be the first thing readers see, making them think, uh-oh , what kind of bias am I going to get here , just because an editor wants pictures of demonstrations against hebdo - which no-one here is saying there shouldn't be I don't think anyhow - and so because gamebuster thinks its a few pictures short the tag should stay? oh and while the tag is up there ,'i'm busy and wont do anything at all about addressing the bias I perceive to be unbalancing the whole article? ' - so, how bothered and upset by the bias are you anyhow? its a piffling complaint - its got some merit as an argument to go on improving the coverage, but not for tagging the entire article imo and put it crown of the whole page - I think that's pathetic really. Sayerslle (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle: Why the agression? And why are you directing this at me? I didn't add the tag—I only objected to the "drive-by tagging" accusation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I got the idea you were suggesting the tag is worthier than I think it is . anyhow 'drive by' , whatever the strict 'meaning', surely carries a sense of blasé-ness, and trifling-ness - and in that sense it was drive-by imo. ( just my opinion didn't mean to be aggressive exactly, just stating my opinion with my sincere feeling, and so energetic feeling( kind of thing)Sayerslle (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the argument that article tagging is overkill. The article is currently being seen by over 20,000 readers every day. If the first thing they see is a "bias" tag (reflecting the opinion of just one editor) who would blame them for thinking "Wikipedia is shit". There is no systemic argument here that cannot be resolved through calm negotiation on the talk page, perhaps using an RfC tag there. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamebuster opened a discussion upon placing the tag. How much "calm negotiation" has occurred? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If we don't have the content it's kind of hard to add it in (echoing AzureCitizen's point). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Has it been determined said content isn't available? Are the sources Gamebuster has linked to not valid? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: From the tagger, "I also do not own any images relating to anti-charlie protests." From the template text, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." No one is disputing that content could be added. A much more appropriate tag would be an expansion request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: Isn't that what this section is? Gamebuster is beign accused of being lazy. On the contrary, he has identified a problem and has taken steps to encourage rectifying it, such as pointing to sources. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: It's not a dispute. It's no one willing to get off their rears yet (I include myself in this) and spend time doing the work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If Gamebuster19901 has tagged the article for clear reasons then efforts should be made to correct the issue. Looking at the article, the points raised are true. It is written predominently from one perspective with no real content on the criticism and condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon. Neither have the protests around the world against charlie hebdo been expanded upon. These points requires expansion and elaboration within the main body of the text. Therefore I share the concerns of Gamebuster. Mbcap (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree but this is an article that is predominantly about the shooting. The Republican marches for example have their own separate article. I'm not sure that the main body of the text is the best place to include the anti-Charlie Hebdo protests because those protests began with the January 14th issue. The main beef seems to be with the fact that Charlie Hebdo survived the shooting and reprinted cartoons of Mohammad. I believe it might better serve the encyclopedia to create a new article such as Anti-Charlie Hebdo Protests or some such in order to expand upon and include all of the protests that are going on worldwide that are against Charlie Hebdo and its cartoons. Zup326 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia relies more on common sense than it does with neutrality. There is no possible way to word an entire article into pure neutrality without it compiling into endless nonsense. Please also note the majority of Wikipedia editors are not Arabic or Muslim, and your concerns with neutrality are seemingly questionable, or at the very least are sympathetic. You should also know that Wikipedia is a place of knowledge, and some editors could be questioning the neutrality of articles relating to the Muslim faith, which some believe is very well rooted as a criminal organization. As much of a historical fact this may be, this is definitely not the consensus of those who practice the faith. If anything, those articles are biased, but not because of any unrealistic fear of repercussion, but out of kindness and politeness. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. What an astounding comment. This editor's edits should be very carefully monitored. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely astounding. But the point is about how the religion of Islam really is rooted as a criminal organization, from a point of actual history and not bigotry. Please understand that some editors are very aware of this, and actually feel sorry for the people trapped in the mess. Most are innocent. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How much "Background" is appropriate?

How much and what kind of background information should be in this article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Let's follow this Code of Conduct

1. Assume Good Faith
2. Back up all assertions with evidence.
3. Focus on the argument, not the arguer, and avoid rehashing older disputes.

Curly Turkey's position

We need information on the background demographics of the incident. It should be kept concise---one to two paragraphs---and should not be have its own subsection, so it doesn't draw undue attention to itself. I've made a few attempts at doing so: this is my most recent.

• WP:DUE: Major news sources have devoted entire articles to this stuff:
  • Power, Carla. "Why There's Tension Between France and Its Muslim Population". Time. Retrieved 12 January 2015.
  • Blair, David (8 January 2015). "Charlie Hebdo attack: the tormented links between France and Algeria". The Telegraph. Retrieved 16 January 2015.
  • Fisk, Robert (9 January 2015). "Charlie Hebdo: Paris attack brothers' campaign of terror can be traced back to Algeria in 1954". The Independent. Retrieved 16 January 2015.
  • Marlowe, Lara (10 January 2015). "'Charlie Hebdo': why jihad came to Paris". The Irish Times. Retrieved 16 January 2015.
  • Steven Erlanger and Katrin Bennhold (7 January 2015). "'Dangerous Moment' for Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Many include such details without devoting an article to them. Wikipedia must give weight to articles that the sources do---and the sources give these details considerable weight.
• Context: Initial reports emphasized the gunmen spoke "perfect French": BBC, CNN, and over 2000 hits on Google News Search alone. This is obviously surprising to a great deal of (most?) English-speakers who (a) assume Muslim terrorists would be foreigners (à la 9/11); and (b) do not know that France has a large population of Muslims (the largest in the EU). The large number of English-language news sources carrying these details strongly suggest they recognize the need to dispell readers' preconceptions on these issues; my own experience talking to people in real life about the incident affirms the need to clarify (briefly) these details.
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamebuster19901's position

• I don't believe we need any demographical information regarding the entire country of France, as it strays too far from the topic at hand, and I do not see how it is related at all. Though many news sources put weight on this factor, Wikipedia is not a news source, and shouldn't strive to be a news source, we don't need to include opinions/a pro-con list.

• Secondly them speaking perfect french would not be a surprise to a reader who has actually read the article, as it states they were french citizens, Is it really surprising that french citizens speak french? (Quote from article: "The two Muslim French nationals,[Citations here] both born in Gennevilliers, were aged 34 and 32 respectively.[Citations here])" Surely nobody would assume that there are no Muslims in France.

• Thirdly, The information is presented in present tense, while the article itself is in past tense. The fact that it uses inappropriate use of tense puts undue weight on itself, and also shows how unrelated that content really is. While that information may be accurate, that information will always be changing and will become inaccurate. Stating that it was at a certain percentage at a point in time before the actual attacks would make the information irrelevant.

• And lastly, if the information is included from consensus, please remove the obvious bias:

Anti-Muslim opinions are held by 27% of the French public, according to a May 2014 Pew Research survey.[47] A January 2013 Ipsos survey published in Le Monde found that 74% of French citizens view Islam as "intolerant" and "incompatible" with French values.[48] The same 2013 study found that 8 out of 10 French believe that Islam seeks to impose its values on others.[48]

An August 2014 ICM survey found that one in six French citizens (16%) sympathises with the Islamist group ISIS - also known as Islamic state.[49] Support for ISIS rose to 27% of French citizens aged between 18 and 24.[49] Newsweek’s France Correspondent Anne-Elizabeth Moutet stated, "This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds [who are] unemployed to the tune of 40%, who’ve been deluged by satellite TV and internet propaganda."[49]

Gamebuster19901 (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs above are much too long, and the citations are not in the context of the shootings (for example, a Le Monde article from 2013). The article should be restricted to sources about the subject.
  Issues of tense are handled by changing to an appropriate tense.
• Is it really surprising that french citizens speak french: when you word it that way, it sounds silly, but the news is not reporting "Two Native French Citizens Shoot Twelve Other French Citizens". Thus we make it clear that there is nothing unusual about a French-speaking Muslim by saying so. This is why sources put such weight on it, because it's something readers don't know (and are likely to assume otherwise). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Including the demographic information draws a causal link between the growth and distribution of the Muslim population and the heinous acts of a few Islamists. Therefore the material cannot be in the article. Multiple editors have removed this material, only to be continuously reverted by one editor. Therefore the consensus already exists to not have this material in the article. Further discussion must take place without the material disgracing the article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If there are multiple editors reverting the same material back and forth, then by definition there is no consensus. Please, Abductive, in this discussion we are discussing the merits and demerits of the text in question and assuming good faith, not pointing fingers. Please strike those portions of your comments. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with abductive, it does imply that there is a link between growth and distribution of the Muslim population and the shootings. We won't be able to establish a link without using bias sources. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Gamebuster19901: The paragraph I wrote makes no such causal link, and in fact explicitly contradicts it. Have you read it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No I haven't read it, Perhaps you could post it here as a response? Gamebuster19901 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I was hoping to avoid that, as I've already posted it on this talk page, and I've linked to it several times. Here it is:

Extended content

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, which was the largest Muslim population in the European Union. While most French Muslims abided by the values of the country, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remained in the memories of many French of Algerian descent, some of whom felt their ethnic background had excluded them from mainstream French society. A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqābs, yarmulkes, and other symbols deemed ostentatious have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and has been challenged in court.

All of this is sourced to articles about the incident, and none of it implies blame on Muslims as a group (in fact, it explicitly contradicts that view—the contradiction is also sourced). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I need time to think and to review everything, As I see both sides of the debate are logical. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have read the discussions) I applaud this group of editors who are taking productive steps to resolving this. As you can all plainly see above, it is a more positive experience to actually begin to understand each other's positions and try to compromise in order to attempt to reach a productive result. I think I can understand both positions here (i.e. Why include background on innocent Muslims? and Why not have background on the socio-political climate?). Now, from where I can see, one editor has actually done some work researching and writing a proposed solution. I challenge the other editors to attempt the same. To get you started, I suggest someone research and write another proposed background paragraph (i.e. background on the terrorists themselves? Here is a possible source.). Good luck and sincere best wishes to everyone. Prhartcom (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While that is a good source, most of that information is already in the section about Chérif and Saïd Kouachi. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through the paragraph and attempted to make it sound more neutral to help with both sides of the argument, Would this work? I personally would be fine including the information below because it is not irrelevant (It explains why many French Muslims are upset, but doesn't make general statements about all French Muslims) Gamebuster19901 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. While most French Muslims abided by the values of France, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remained in the memories of some French of Algerian descent, some of whom felt their ethnic background had excluded them from mainstream French society. For example: A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqābs, yarmulkes, and other symbols deemed ostentatious have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and has been challenged in court for breach of freedom of religion.

• I would support this version. I just have a question: why do you feel the population figures should be removed? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because it seems to imply that the growing population is harmful to France. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I could see how a reader would think that it was an issue. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest adding this improved version then as soon as possible, of course mentioning this discussion in the edit summary, and when/if an editor or IP removes it, calmly ping them to this discussion so that they can get caught up and hopefully see that they were wrong to do so. You may revert their removal at that time also or you may first wait for their acknowledgement here (I would not revert the same editor more than once per 24 hours, though). Good work. (P.S. Is the tense right? I personally think present tense: "abide", "remain", "has".) Prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added it Gamebuster19901 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamebuster19901: Sorry about that, but I removed it. This has already been discussed and the questions that have been raised by myself and other users are still open for whoever insists on adding the above paragraph. I know you're trying to help but I really don't see the point in starting a new discussion about it while one already exists. The background section is meant to indicate the information essential to understanding what happened, and as far as I know, nobody has blamed either the Muslims nor the immigrants for the actions of 3 criminals that swore allegiance to an international terrorist organisation that admits responsibility for it. The French know more about it than anyone else, have a look at their wiki page and see for yourself what the background section consists of. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in starting a new discussion about it while one already exists: as clearly stated above, the point was that the other discussion was deadlocked and acrimonious. In this discussion we're assuming good faith and considering each other's arguements.

nobody has blamed either the Muslims nor the immigrants for the actions of 3 criminals that swore allegiance to an international terrorist organisation that admits responsibility for it: nowhere in the paragraph is such a thing implied.

The French know more about it than anyone else: of course---they're French. What's obvious to them is not obvious to the rest of the world, which is why so many English-language sources bend over backwards to provide this information.

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

When and if you find a reliable source that clearly blames the immigrants and the Muslims for the attack (be it in English or in Japanese), I'll be more than happy to include that paragraph. MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's not what we're discussing. There's no blaming of anyone at all occurring at any point in the paragraph. Please read the paragraph before responding. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the role of the background section ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been described in detail above. Please read it and the paragraph before responding. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me be more precise. What is the role of the background section (of any subject, not just this one) ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To give the general reader the necessary context to make sense of the facts, and to disabuse the general reader of assumptions they are likely to have on the subject, as determined by Reliable Sources. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3 lost souls, just like Gilles Le Guen and Jérôme Courtailler, that claimed allegiance to an international terrorist organisation (Al Qaeda, which claimed responsibility for the attack). Any other fact we should mention ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Can you elaborate please? Gamebuster19901 (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MoorNextDoor: I think we're egetting at the heart of my point here: if you're not explicit about what you mean, you can't expect those to whom you're talking to understand your point.

Are you trying to say that we need background specific to the terrorists as well? The two kinds of information are not mutually exclusive---the paragraph above does not replace the stuff you're talking about. If that's your concern, get some sources and add some text. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamebuster19901: Which part are you referring to ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

MoorNextDoor: The whole thing Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 03:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As Abductive said before me, including the demographic information and the status of the immigrants draws a causal link between the growth and distribution of the Muslim population, the Muslim immigrants and the acts of 3 French born and bred islamists that swore allegiance to Al-Qaeda (an international terrorist organisation); 3 terrorists that are no different to Gilles Le Guen and Jérôme Courtailler. This is about Al-Qaeda and Charlie Hebdo, the only undeniable facts that everyone agrees on. MoorNextDoor (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a few arguments and questions about this.

• 1. What is this casual link is and why is it important?
• 2. You are talking about something no content before that even remotely flows, that is not what the posted paragraph is.

• During daylight, the sky appears to be blue because air scatters blue sunlight more than it scatters red.

• 3. Wikipedia is not made entirely of facts that everyone agrees on. If that were such, we would not have an article about Earth because some people would say it's flat.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Causality

2. You lost me.

3. True, but it certainly is not made up of WP:SYNTH

We will discuss it further tomorrow if you want. MoorNextDoor (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1. We all know what "causality" means. Gamebuster is asking you to demonstrate how it applies to this paragraph. Niether of us sees any causality implied. Please quote and demonstrate.
2. ---
3. MoorNextDoor: If you see SYNTH, you should be able to demonstrate it. Please do so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

user:curly turkey is engaging in tenditious editing to try and ram through his wrongheaded edits that blame a people for the actions of a few. IF he does not desist I will try and get him topic-banned. Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive: Please report me now, then. I've been asking for your evidence for more than a week, and you've yet to present it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Tendentious editing. It means you keep asking for things when you have no consensus. The demographic material is a disgrace, and it will never be in the article. Why? Because more editors don't want it than do. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is your modus operandi. Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Abductive: So please gather your evidence and report me. Here's the address: WP:ANI. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Both of you stop your bickering. Abductive, this discussion was going well and there wasn't any bad faith until you came, I am telling you to cease and desist your attitude.

If both of you would pay attention, you would realise there is no demographic information so this argument is pointless! It's No wonder nobody wants to participate in this discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question to closer: as the two editors who are opposed have not delivered the evidence requested, do their "opposes" count per WP:!VOTE? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I vote not to close discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Many editors (not just two) are opposed to its inclusion and you know it. In any case, WP:ONUS means, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on you, not the other way around. MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • MoorNextDoor: Many editors (at least seven—possibly eight now if Visite fortuitement prolongée's statement below can be counted as support) have expressed support for including this information, and you have yet to have offered any concrete evidence of its inappropriateness. Not any. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Please, don't make me laugh. Like I said, WP:ONUS means the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on you, not the other way around. Since a lot has changed since you combined material from multiple sources while the event was still unfolding, WP:RSBREAKING, I really don't see how any of that nonsense is going to make it into the article now that the perpetrators (Al-Qaeda) are known and that access to secondary sources is easily achievable. MoorNextDoor (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      • MoorNextDoor: You still don't appear to have read the pargraph in question—you still seem to be hammering away at the long-disproven idea that the paragraph somehow implies the blame of any group. Why are you so reticent to back up your assertions? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • MoorNextDoor: We're still waiting for evidence of your assertions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
          • There really isn't much I can say to someone who thinks that such a paragraph should be included: ".. so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French". WP:ONUS means the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on you, not the other way round. Since a lot has changed since you combined material from multiple sources while the event was still unfolding, WP:RSBREAKING, I really don't see how any of that nonsense is going to make it into the article now that the perpetrators (Al-Qaeda) are known and that access to secondary sources is easily achievable. MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
            • MoorNextDoor: Two very important errors in your comment:
              1. My argument is not and never has been "so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French"---my argument, as clearly stated above, is WP:DUE: major newssources (as linked above) devote considerable space to these background details. The "perfect French" thing is no more than a single example of why sources would devote so much space to such issues.
              2. Your Al-Qaeda statement still clings to the long-discredited idea that the paragraph lays any kind of blame on any group at all. It doesn't and never has. Your continued insistence on this point appears to be evidence that you haven't read the paragraph under discussion.
            • Please reread WP:CONSENSUS, and please keep in mind that a consensus is determined by the quality of arguments and not by the number of editors holding an opinion. There are numerous examples of RfCs closing with the consensus determined to be with the monority of !votes. If you don't wish that to happen, you will have to demonstrate that you have participated in quality discussion, and not merely made unsupported accusations of WP:OP and WP:SYNTH, and linking to WP:ONUS. Abductive's !vote will undoubtably be discounted at the very least. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I've been busy with some sporting events these days. I am in support of both Gamebuster19901's revised version of the paragraph and/or the original. The background information would flow a lot better if it were connected as per Curly Turkey's contribution. However I've lost interest in discussing the matter because it's been hashed to death for the better part of 2 weeks. Further, I've already done all of what I'll write for the article so I have nothing further to contribute. Zup326 (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Curly Turkey mention me : I oppose the including of the poll § and the "no-go zones" §, and I have no opinion about the remaining §, below. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please let me correct an internal link:

Extended content

Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. While most French Muslims abided by the values of France, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remained in the memories of some French of Algerian descent, some of whom felt their ethnic background had excluded them from mainstream French society. For example: A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqābs, yarmulkes, and other symbols deemed ostentatious have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and has been challenged in court for breach of freedom of religion.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Visite fortuitement prolongée: Sorry—which link did you correct? I don't see it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Islam in Europe" Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• Waiting for this to close. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Luz was on the scene

As I've mentioned over in his article, Luz's story (according to his Vice interview) is a bit more involved than "overslept; wasn't there." He apparently got carried away that morning celebrating his birthday with his wife, showed up shortly after the gunmen entered the building, heard "the first shot", saw the gunmen exit *and was shot at* "from a distance", entered the building and helped administer first aid in a vain attempt to save his dying friends.

Seeing as this is the man who drew the cover for the survivor issue, it occurred to me his experience and thoughts on the matter might be worth fleshing out a bit. It only works in practice (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Could you link us to the source you got this from? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebL1oCy6tgY. I think someone already added it as a citation to Luz's article but for whatever reason didn't change the article's content. It only works in practice (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the "first shot" he heard was the shooting in the street with policemen, not the actual shooting in the magazine, so it is accurate to say he wasn't on the scene. Compelling though his account is on a human level, it wouldn't really add anything to this article. Mezigue (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That may be. I agree his explanation of the sequence of events wasn't crystal clear--it would be nice if we could get a more in-depth account from him (or possibly a native French speaker could help here.) But his article said he "overslept" and wasn't there, which is plainly false and this article currently simply says he "wasn't in the building at the time of the shooting", which is literally true but extremely misleading. The gunmen shot at him (very probably not knowing who he was, but still.) That makes him a survivor of the shooting, not an absentee. That much, at least, is relevant to an article about the shooting. Also, if we're removing anything overly sappy re: terrorist attacks as "not really adding anything" then I think we've got a hell of a lot of pruning to do re: 9/11. It only works in practice (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a native French speaker. While I also got the impression from the interview that he was late because he was getting a birthday shag, he did not say it out loud and it is in any case really really not relevant to this article! I'll watch it again but I don't think he said he was shot at. As for comparing the article to the one about 9/11, well that's not really a constructive approach. It creates a race to the bottom. In any case, I'll have a look at the interview again and see if I spot anything useful that could be incorporated here.Mezigue (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I agree that (according to the subtitles) he didn't explicitly say that they got carried away with birthday sex, he did say that she made him cake and coffee, etc. I.e. the stuff about him oversleeping is wrong regardless.

At around 2:50 the subtitle says "I walked back up the street, saw two guys in black, and they started shooting in my direction" and he mimes sweeping with a rifle. Was this mistranslated?

I'm not proclaiming what is and is not relevant to the article. I simply provided a summary and said that *some of it* seems relevant to *some of the articles* surround the incident (Luz's article, the survivor issue article, and/or this one.) This isn't a random survivor or some low level intern telling his sad little story. This is one of the highest ranking surviving members of the magazine, someone who was presumably on the assassins' hit list (I recall they went in knowing specific names), and it is the man who made the decision to draw the cover for the survivor issue.

If person X survives an assassination attempt directed at him (among other people), I believe it is relevant to mention what person X says happened that day including a brief mention of why he showed up late and whether or not the assassins saw and attempted to shoot him. It only works in practice (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a slight mistranslation in the subtitles actually. He says "I saw two guys dressed in black. They started shooting... aiming their guns towards the street where I was. They didn't know who I was". He doesn't quite state that they shot at him. Nevertheless I have added a sentence. Mezigue (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording in lead paragraph about number of deaths

Right now, two sentences in the lead paragraph are as follows: "They fired up to 50 shots, initially killing 11 people and injuring 11 others, and shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is [the] greatest"). A French National Police officer was the last to die after he encountered the gunmen outside, shortly after the initial shooting." To me, this wording implies the police officer was the last of the 11 to die, when he was really a twelfth victim not included in that count. A slight change in the second sentence could make this unambiguous, such as "A French National Police officer was the twelfth to die after he...." 153.31.112.24 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@153.31.112.24:  Fixed and thanks for pointing it out! -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Date format

Can someone please explain what the hell is "9 January"? I know this article is supposed to follow the UK standard of "English", but honestly, these dates look very stupid. "January 9th" looks much better as written. Do we really have to follow an antiquated language standard? --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:BADDATEFORMAT, "9th" is unacceptable. WWGB (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

DMY was an established standard long before there was a Wikipedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, did anyone miss the big British flag at the top of this talk page, with the little text "This article is written in British English"? Provincials. XavierItzm (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)