Jump to content

Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/move discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed move to 2015 Paris attacks

[edit]

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

– I think that 2015 Paris attacks or something should be the name of the Article. Yogurto (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Agreed. And since all four incidents took place within Île-de-France; the sect encompassing Paris, I think that 2015 Paris attacks is most appropriate; rather than 2015 France attacks. Undescribed (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda Disagree. This was the most prominent of the attacks internationally. I feel that there should be an article on the attacks as a whole, but this was a complex situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and/or rename. If these are unrelated or are materially different in scope, separate articles may be warranted. In any event, the article has ballooned well beyond the shooting at the weekly. In addition, the international reaction to the rest of the events may be different or less. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is kind of what I was going for. The attacks do need an article, but I believe that this needs one as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Strongly support renaming it 2015 Paris attacks. There has now been a police officer and four hostages killed in separate incidents to the office shootings. Tomh903 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree *I agree fully. That would be most consistent with other multi-scene attacks, e.g., 2008 Mumbai attacks. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree Guys, the attack on Charlie Hebdo is very particular because it is about terrorists exercising preemptive censure power on freedom of speech through selective intimidation of the media. This has proven to work: already yesterday Jyllands Posten was the only medium in Denmark to not publish any Charlie Hebdo cartoons, as a result of the numerous attacks they have received prior for merely publishing cartoons. The regrettable terrorism against the kosher grocery, yesterday's policewoman, and the printer are, sad to say, routine terrorism. The Charlie Hebdo attack is a special attack on the West's freedom of expression, and deserves its own article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree on renaming - Support unique article for Charlie Hebdo : All the incidents may be related. But the Charlie Hebdo attack is related to a long history of events, plus that the attack on a newspaper is completely another level. I suggest two articles, a general article on all attacks called 2015 Paris attacks with a brief section in that all inclusive article that leads to a separate and extensive article on Charlie Hebdo shooting. Plus that the Charlie Hebdo story will, because of its nature, continue for a long time in the future as well and will need constant updating whereas sadly the other stories will die down rather quickly. werldwayd (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree While I think there's certainly room for a general article covering all of the attacks, as related, I think this one specifically needs to stay its own separate article. As pointed out, it involves morew backstory and has had (and is likely to have) a great deal more coverage. Everything else in ancillary. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree with a rename. "Charlie Hebdo" is already the well-established and publicly known term regarding the attack. The sieges today were carried out by the same individuals and thus do no warrant a new article either. Today's sieges are related and will also be remembered as part of the "Charlie Hebdo saga" so to speak. Having another article called "2015 Paris Attacks" or some such is divisive and confusing for essentially a continuation and conclusion of the same issue. It would be best to simply expand this article to include the January 9th sieges and their aftermaths here. Zup326 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The article is about more than just the Charlie shooting. 67.86.15.242 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Yes, the Charlie Hebdo incident is the incident getting the most attention, but that doesn't mean that the other three incidents shouldn't have their place in the title. I could understand if it was just the incidents involving the Montrouge shooting and Dammartin-en-Goële hostage crisis where there was only one hostage and the perpetrators were killed. However,the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis was much more significant. At least sixteen hostages, four hostage deaths and a massive police raid, killing the suspect. The five deaths in that incident should definitely be enough to have it's respectable place in the article title. We don't see these types of incidents in first world countries very often. Also, the combined deaths of the three other incidents account for nearly half of the total fatalities in the incidents. All of these reasons should warrant a title change on the basis of rarity and significance. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree All of the events appear to be related. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose – Imprecise name, and WP:PRECISE is an article title criteria. The events were not all in Paris, firstly. Secondly, the other events were just continuations of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, which was the main event in a small series. The present title is the most concise and precise. It instantly tells the reader what is being referred to. What's more, the proposed title implies that the events took place throughout 2015, which is very misleading. Leave the title alone. The present title is the correct one. Note, for example, that the BBC uses "Charlie Hebdo" to reference the whole series of events, rather than "Paris". RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per rgloucester. 89.242.84.73 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err...you mean disagree? Or you agree with the name change due to completely disagreeing with him? He is against the name change. Zup326 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree with a rename the bbc article is an example of a RS designation for the events - this has been 'framed' pretty much already in RS and its too late to change it - if 'je suis 2015 paris attacks' badges appear then re-name - until then I don't think it should be changed. Sayerslle (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree "Paris" wasn't the target—Charlie Hebdo was. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off. The move may indeed be justified, but it's the same day and the press needs to figure out its terminology. No sense moving it today and moving to something else tomorrow. If I don't strike it sooner this "!vote" expires a week from today. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree All of the events are clearly related. Redirect the current title to the new one (we could add "terrorist" to the title, and could add the month ... if we are feeling hopeful). Similar to our articles 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks, 2014 Yobe State attacks, 2011 Norway attacks, 2014 Kashmir Valley attacks, January 2011 Iraq suicide attacks, Sadr City terrorist attacks, April 2005 Cairo terrorist attacks, and February 2009 Cairo terrorist attacks. If this article becomes too long (it is not there yet), at that point in time a spit can be considered. Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I'd comment that most if not all of those attacks you've listed were on or in the city/location or against its people with no intended target. There really wasn't much else you could name them. In this case, Charlie Hebdo was the clear target without question and was more than an attack on just Paris or its people. It just so happens that Charlie Hebdo was located in Paris. It likely would have happened no matter the city or country they were in. All of the subsequent incidents as well are a continuation of the Charlie Hebdo attack and are not isolated incidents. The term "Charlie Hebdo" is pretty entrenched into the media currently as well and is the term that most people currently use to identify all of these attacks. Zup326 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that list though my name suggestion would probably be Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks which includes all 4 incidents. Zup326 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Charlie Hebdo shooting is part of those three (connected) terrorist attacks, however it doesn't represent the whole. Gugganij (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree per RGloucester. If the article is to be renamed, I would support Charlie Hebdo attacks but, per Zup326, all the attacks are related to the initial massacre that was specifically targetted at Charlie Hebdo. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Chalie Hebdo attacks could mean any of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. See the history at Charlie Hebdo — Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree and strongly oppose, however... This article is about the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I do not think that this should be renamed. If you want to make an article containing more in-depth information about all the other attacks, go ahead. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree, ″January 2015 Paris shootings″ is more appropriate IMO. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Again, "Paris" was not the target of these attacks (and some of the action took place outside Paris), and I'm sure there may be more run-of-the-mill shootings this month in Paris. The essential bit of this incident is that it was an attack on Charlie Hebdo, which is also how it is characterised in RS. The other incidents were directly connected, and merely aftermath. They were not independent shootings. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the shootings were connected, not independent, shows that Charlie Hebdo wasn't the only target. If "2015 Paris shootings" is too generic, the title could be "2015 Paris attacks". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charlie Hebdo was the only target, and the media's coverage of events frames it that way. The other shootings would not've happened if not for the events at Charlie Hebdo. They were merely fallout in the wake of a premeditated attack. The proposed title implies a year of "attacks" or "shootings" in Paris. This article is not about all the attacks and shootings in Paris in 2015. RGloucester — ☎ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The gunman at the supermarket said that the shooting that killed the policewoman was part of the plan. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about January 2015 Paris and suburbs attacks? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit wordy. If any of the attacks took place outside of Paris proper, (January) 2015 Île-de-France attacks or (January) 2015 Île-de-France shootings would be better. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I think we should wait for now. The fact that one more suspect is still out there, plus the fact that this could be the work of a new terrorist cell in France, leaves open the possibility of more attacks, possibly ones even more devastating than the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree There's nothing wrong with titling this article after the first and most notable of the attacks. For instance, we do the same thing with the Boston Marathon bombing article, which discusses the subsequent Cambridge shooting and Watertown firefight and manhunt. If in a few weeks or months it turns out that people really do remember this as "the January 2015 Paris attacks," and not "the Charlie Hebdo shooting and subsequent attacks," we can rename this... But my strong suspicion is that won't be the case, just as the Boston Marathon bombing isn't remembered as "the April 2013 Greater Boston attacks." — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Well said. People are always going to remember this incident for Charlie Hebdo. Zup326 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Move to 2015 Île-de-France shootings - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I never thought of that one. That would make more sense than the original two I mentioned. Undescribed (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Move and create an article only about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, see proposal below. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree, the article is now (with an Charlie Hebdo shooting infobox and an related events infobox) only about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, with naming the other events. No need for changing the name. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The attacks go beyond Charlie Hebdo. Xharm (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree for reasons already explained, kudos to editors for taking the time in opposing this nonsense. Such a waste of time. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Please, no rude comments about it being nonsense, waste of time, etc. We all have our own viewpoints and everyone's views should be respected in accordance with Wikipedia's code of conduct on civility Thank you. 72.87.108.194 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Let me posit an alternative: Charlie Hebdo shooting and manhunt. My reasoning is that we could congeal the disparate infoboxes so that a reader could get the entirety of the story from a cursory glance of the lede. (cf. Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt) The shooting of the police officer and the siege of the kosher market are all encapsulated and derivative of the initial Charlie Hebdo shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Move and create a parent article for the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and two sub-articles: Charlie Hebdo massacre and Hyper Cacher massacre. The other events would remain exclusively under the parent article. Reason for the necessary change is that this is a series of attacks and events. I strongly object to adding January to the name as we do not know that there will be more terrorist attacks in Paris this year! gidonb (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perpetrators and Article name.

[edit]

So far there are two groups designated as perpetrators in the info-box. How can AQAP and ISIL both be responsible for the same massacre? As far as I know, the massacre committed by Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi concerning Charlie Hebdo had ties to AQAP whilst the Porte de Vincennes siege carried out by Amedy Coulibaly had ties with ISIL. I wish to ask if it would be more prudent to rename the article from the Charlie Hebdo shooting to something more general (such as January 2015 Paris shootings) concerning both shootings, as it may confuse readers. At the moment, the article name is focused on one particular event, whilst focusing on other similar but different ones. StanMan87 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the infobox, I removed that. It wasn't established by the cited sources, which were just reporting a single eye-witness report, "links" between the perpetrators and IS, and a video were AQ does not actually claim responsibility for the attacks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
split
If there are two groups designated, and because there are several events, we can create the article such as January 2015 Paris attacks or January 2015 Paris shootings with a link to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 11:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: They started doing this on the French Wikipedia, see: fr:Attaques terroristes de janvier 2015 en France with separate articles including fr:Attentat contre Charlie Hebdo, fr:Assaut de Dammartin-en-Goële and fr:Prise d'otages de la porte de Vincennes. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to move to 2015 Île-de-France shootings - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: The genesis event for all of this was the Charlie Hebdo shooting. That the violence or the perpetrators ensnared other areas does not change the fact that the subsequent events stem from the CH shooting. The Boston Marathon bombings article is an example of an article with the title of the initiating event but encompassing the eventual multiple shootings and firefights, a city on lockdown, and a manhunt. I can't understand the reasoning behind "splitting" an article to such a broad title, since this title can already fully cover the entirety of the events thus far. -- Veggies (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your reply User:Veggies, but that is exactly what I mean, to have an article that fully cover the entirety of the events and besides of that a separate article about the Charlie Hebdo shooting/manhunt. The Montrouge shooting and Porte de Vincennes siege are said to be linked, but are not about the Charlie Hebdo shooting. As this article will be moved to January 2015 Paris shootings or so with Porte de Vincennes siege has a separate page, the Charlie Hebdo shooting should also have a separate page. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree and strongly oppose There is no need to split the article. You can create the other articles, but removing the information about the other attacks in this article (which is what a split does) seems like it would harm it rather than help it. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree and strongly oppose as per above. I'm not really sure it's necessary to make 4 or 5 different articles for what is all related to essentially the same main issue. I oppose these splits but that being said, these splits and side articles are likely going to happen anyway though so I won't bother contesting them at all. We've already got a Porte de Vincennes siege article which is probably not even necessary on its own given the yet relatively moderate size of the main article. As far as name change issue, we've already got three discussions about the issue. I'd just like to mention again that using "Paris" in the name for any of these attacks implies that they were merely random attacks on or in "Paris" or against its citizens which the attacks certainly were not. The attackers never planted random bombs to indiscriminately target Paris civilians as seen in other terrorist attacks. It was a clear and deliberate terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. I oppose all of these name changes for this reasoning, unless the name retains "Charlie Hebdo" in it. Zup326 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the events were not just a deliberate attack on Charlie Hebdo but also a deliberate attack on a Jewish supermarket because of it's Jewishness. Gugganij (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with all my being – We don't need any more articles. We've got too many as it is. The "Charlie Hebdo shooting" was the genesis, as Veggies says above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree and strong support: 1. Right now, the infobox at the beginning just mentions the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and waaaaaay down there are separate infoboxes of the police officer and the victims of the Jewish supermarket. Since the infobox is intended to give a quick overview of events it's totally inacceptable to relegate the other victims. 2. The attack on the Jewish supermarket was not a consequence of the Charlie Hebdo shooting but planned in advance. Thus, both the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Porte de Vincennes siege are part of a coordinated terrorist attack in Paris. The current imbalance can be addressed in two ways: Either renaming the current article (with ONE infobox) and with different sections dealing with the three different attacks of this terror operation or creating a new article (January 2015 Paris attacks) with ONE infobox and, if necessary, links to articles of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Porte de Vincennes siege like the French wikipedia did (fr:Attentats de janvier 2015 en France) Gugganij (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 2015 Île-de-France shootings or January 2015 Paris shootings - While I think this split discussion is not being done correct, I will support a split as above. This was a complex situation with multiple attacks. At the same time, one of the attacks was the major focus. Thus, there should be an article for the major attack and an article for the attacks in general. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree (January) 2015 Paris shootings or (January) 2015 Île-de-France shootings should be an overview of all of the attacks. Charlie Hebdo shooting should cover the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis should cover the supermarket shooting. If necessary, create an article about the killing of the policewoman. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Move and create a parent article for the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and two sub-articles: Charlie Hebdo massacre and Hyper Cacher massacre. The other events would remain exclusively under the parent article. Reason for the necessary change is that this is a series of attacks and events. I strongly object to adding January to the name as we do not know that there will be more terrorist attacks in Paris this year! gidonb (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with calling either of these articles "massacres". They are terrorist attack, or shooting, or hostage crisis. I have no objection to splitting. Abductive (reasoning) 21:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Massacre is more precise than the other definitions. gidonb (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shootings would be more precise. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would that be more precise? Shootings "can take place in a shooting range or in the field in hunting, in shooting sports, or in combat." Not to mention shootings at weddings or other expression of joy that are quite common in some locations. How would "shooting" even start to describe what happened at these events? gidonb (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "shooting" & "shootings". What you're describing (except for possibly combat) would usually be called shooting. Shootings usually only refers to people being shot (unless 1 person is shot, which isn't the case here). Then again, since what happened at Charlie Hebdo was 1 event, the title of this page is shooting. If this article ultimately only covers what happened at Charlie Hebdo, then I could see massacre being more precise (though massacre might receive some POV objections). If this article covers all of the events, shootings is more precise IMO & might be better for POV reasons. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: This is primarily based upon the shootings. Even the 3 attacks afterwards were based on this. As of now I have no opinion, but I am leaning toward agreeing. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown requested move 13 January 2015 continued

[edit]

This is a continuation of the original discussion regarding the moving of the page Charlie Hebdo shooting. Please post any new comments in this section. The archived discussion can be found here: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 4 Undescribed (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, I'd quick-fail close this immediately. I'm unwilling, as I'm sure other busy admins are, to evaluate a RM discussion that's split between multiple pages, particularly since so many arguments are likely to be rehashed by the same people, making it difficult to determine consensus.
I suggest moving the discussion out of the archive and into its own sub-page where everyone can participate, or move it back to this talk page and set the auto-archiving to a longer expiration. And when you move it, be sure that the list at WP:RM is properly updated. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Undescribed (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting/move_discussion&oldid=1142374968"