Talk:Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege

article comments

Hello, Curly Turkey deleted the ethnicity of the victims as it stood next to each victim's name, with the following reasoning. (→‎Victims: the targets are already stated as having been all Jews in a Jewish supermarket, targeted for being Jews. Are we trying to break a record for the number of times we can include the word "Jew" in an article?). The issue is that in the parent article, Charlie Hebdo Shooting, the ethnicity/religion of all victims for whom RS provide the data is mentioned.
It seems to me that it is unencyclopedic/bias/unfair/inconsistent/demeaning to victims who were targeted for their religion to discriminate against them by not mentioning next to their names that which is indicated next to the names of the other victims,
XavierItzm (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes he's a bit stiff when it comes to the contexts of lists. In this article I agree with him because it's a clear fact that encompasses all of the the victims and can be easily stated in prose. Writing a prose section under the list stating that "all of the victims were Jewish" or some such would explain it a bit better. I don't think he would object to that if you can provide an RS which states it. There should be dozens of sources. The main Charlie Hebdo article could use a prose section for the victims as well, but for that article I believe the religions and ethnicities 'should be in the list due to the higher number of varying victims. Some readers are going to want that information quickly rather than wading through prose about each victim to find it. Zup326 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair points, although at this hour in the parent article the religions and ethnicities for some are still apparently up for discussion with the tag "relevant? discuss", even though there are multiple RS for each. Some of relic/ethn have already been repeatedly deleted and reinstated later, so we'll have to see how it plays out. XavierItzm (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's getting to be quite frustrating. I have no desire to partake in any type of edit war, and we've had around 6 discussions on edit wars already. Most of them are essentially going nowhere with very few outside comments. It's hard to establish consensus on these issues when no one is interested in sensible discussion either. Zup326 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous name change

Seriously, WTF?! We've gone from the perfectly appropriate Porte de Vincennes siege to Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis a couple of days ago, and then to Hypercacher kosher supermarket attack and then Hypercacher kosher supermarket shooting in the space of less than five minutes today. The most recent changes make no sense, because they could equally apply to a drive-by shooting, rather than the actual hostage situation that seems to have been the whole point of Coulibaly's actions. I should note that the issue of the page's name was mentioned in the deletion discussion, but hardly anyone expressed disatisfacion with the original Porte de Vincennes siege. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The AfD made the news at http://www.historyandheadlines.com/je-suis-charlie-deletion-discussion-wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.123.193 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Zt"l and z"l

I have been removing honorifics for the dead from this article, as it seems to be clearly against our manual of style on the subject.

Also, this article had zt"l, which it appears should only be used for rabbis and other religious leaders. None of the victims here fall in this category.

Please correct me here if I'm wrong. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC) - And by correct, I mean tell me why I'm wrong, not to continue edit-warring :) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Amedy Coulibaly's "manifesto"

Thanks to a mobile phone line that was unintentionally left open, Amedy Coulibaly's speech to his hostages, justifying the attack in his eyes, has been transcribed by RTL. The text is here. I'm willing to translate this into English and add it to the article if other editors think it's a good idea. Stu (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I performed the translation and inserted it, but it was promptly deleted with the comment that Wikipedia is not the place for terrorist propaganda. The reason for yesterday's RFC was precisely that I feared some editors might take exception to using the criminal's own words. It's a pity they didn't comment here. As it now stands, only Francophones will be able to understand Coulibaly's motives.

NOTE: This comment originally included the wikiname of the deletor, who then removed his/her name citing a need for privacy. However, of course, the name persists in the history both of this page and the article page. Stu (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@StuHarris: Just remember that Wikipedia isn't censored. The informational value of the speech overrides whatever propaganda value it might have. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bathily

Bathily's religion has been the subject of numerous articles in reliable sources. In fact, J.K. Rowling's praise for him comes in the context of a debate about whether Muslims in general are to be blamed for the hostage crisis. The religious motivations behind this act of terror are obvious.

Therefore please don't remove Bathily's religion from the reactions, when reliable sources that report on the reactions themselves make a huge emphasis on Bathily's religion.VR _talk 15:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue was resolved on my talk page.VR _talk 17:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And now it has been removed once again. Can people please start discussing things on the talk page?

Recap, the source in which Netanyahu appreciates Bathily, clearly also states him as a "Muslim employee". His religion is definitely significant, and especially so, since Israeli foreign minister Lieberman makes a reference to "radical Islam" in his reaction.VR _talk 01:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Rowling's opinion as it is just that. She is not a noted source on such matters, her opinion carries no weight or notability. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you also removed the statement "Lassana Bathily, who is Muslim". That may have been unintentional. Can I assume you're not opposed to mentioning Bathily's religion?VR _talk 02:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone added what a "Hamas-linked publication" said in the reactions. If we can include that, why can't we include Rowling?VR _talk 13:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Amedy Coulibaly merger

I was looking at the article on Amedy Coulibaly, and there was a suggestion of merger of that article to this article. It makes sense per WP:BLP1E. Although the subject maybe notable as an criminal, the subject was not notable prior to the event which is the subject of this article. This article does not meet WP:AS to warrant sub-article(s). Therefore, a merger of the assailant's article to this article would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Amedy Coulibaly is a notable criminal. Major events in his resume were several armed robberies, a plot to assist the breakout of a prisoner from jail, and no less than three terrorist attacks. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply in this case. His partner in life and crime gives the article extra weight. gidonb (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge Coulibaly and the shootings he committed are synonymous to each other. Coulibaly isn't notable enough to warrant his own article. Besides, if there is an individual article on him, why not one of the Kouachi brothers, who are more infamous than him? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chérif and Saïd Kouachi are about to be split off as well. If consistency is the concern, it would be far better to keep this article. gidonb (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge in order to keep with consistency. The article Charlie Hebdo shooting has a section on the Kouachi brother, so I do not see why, no matter how extensive Amedy's history is, that the article shouldn't be merged. StanMan87 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Chérif and Saïd Kouachi are about to be split off as well. If consistency is the concern, it would be far better to keep this article. gidonb (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge, Amedy hasn't reached the fame of the Kouachi brothers, nor the Tsarnaev brothers, I think since he is only notable for the attack, a merge is appropriate. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Considering Chérif and Saïd Kouachi are merged, although they are also more notable. Xharm (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The Amedy Coulibaly article is defined as high importance under Wikiproject Terrorism, yet the project was not even notified of this discussion. Why is that? gidonb (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge It is Wikipedia policy that when possible, the crimes or the victims, and not the criminal, get any pages so that the dubious reward of recognition in Wikipedia after committing a horrendous crime is denied. Wikipedia does not exist to 'honor' criminals.Pbrower2a (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Per WP:CRIMINAL not notable enough for an article. The motive was not that unusual, the crime itself was not unusual and the victims were regular people. Only in the context of being connected to a bigger crime is it notable at all. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per discussion below. While the person, motive and act do not warrant an article, the press he has gotten does. People will want to know about him and he has become a cultural reference. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. RightCow -- I'm confused. To meet WP:BLP1E, the person/incident have to meet all three criteria delineated there. The person deserves an article under BLP1E, even though it is one event at issue, if criteria 2 or 3 are not met. Are you suggesting that he is, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual? And are you suggesting as well that the event is not significant, or his role was either not substantial or not well documented. I would be surprised to hear that you don't think the event significant. I would be even more surprised to hear that you don't think his role was substantial or well-documented. Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the event he was involved with was significant enough. Crazed Jihadist takes over a Jewish store, kills four and gets killed by police. If you search the news for hostage you will find hostage situations happen every month. The only reason this incident is notable is it's connection to the Charlie Hebdo incident. Coulibaly was not directly involved with that. He is dead, so he is not likely to get more notable. That covers all three criteria. He doesn't deserve an article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The test as to whether the event "is significant enough" is, on WP, what the level of RS coverage is. That's in WP DNA. It provides a more objective test, rather than a subjective personal viewpoint test. Consider how we handle AfDs -- it's not based on editor sentiment as to whether it is significant enough, but rather on substantial RS coverage.

If you search the RSs covering this event, as well as those covering this person, you find quite impressive and substantial RS coverage within these half a million ghits, and these 41,000 gnews hits. It's the level of RS coverage that we look to -- not our personal views, or our personal guesses as to "why" it has attracted the coverage. It is simply a question of what level of RS coverage exists.

That's already an extraordinarily high level of RS coverage, but contrary to your suggestion that he is not likely to get more notable because "he is dead", and even ignoring for the moment that his video which garnered much coverage was released after his death, the fact is that more will be certainly be written on him over the months and years -- we haven't even had time yet to see the books that will discuss him, and certainly more is written about him every day in the press (in part, as researchers learn more). Look just at all these articles published in the past 24 hours.

As to my first point above, I think (though people above seem for the most part only to be focusing on the first criterion of BLP1E) that criteria 2 and 3 of BLP1E are not both met.

Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. All right, you convinced me. I looked over the article with the recent additions you made and if merged much of it would get removed as giving undue weight. It needs its own article to support inclusion. I'll strike my !vote and change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind (sometimes, a rare think unfortunately at the Project). Best. Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Amedy Coulibaly is a notable criminal. Article has too much (notable) info to merge. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 11:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. For the reasons discussed above, IMHO this clearly -- though it is one (series of) event(s) -- clearly does not qualify for Wikipedia:BLP1E. To do so, it would have to meet not just the first criterion, but also the next two. Which it doesn't. Other comments above are rife with "otherstuffdoesn'texist" argumentation, which is irrelevant. In fact, his common law wife, who is a section of his article, has been indicated by the press to be the most wanted woman in France, and even by herself has attracted a great deal of press. Most of the merge !votes are deficient because they are based on BLP1E or otherstuffdoesn't exist, so no matter what the "count" application of wp policies should result in us not merging the articles. Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. For the reasons given by other wikipedians with the same opinion. - Joxemai (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• The result was keep. 178.95.155.204 (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators

I deleted Hayat Boumediene from the infobox, as it has since been established that she had left France several days before the attack and is currently in Syria. The police has just announced that Coulibaly did have an accomplice who apparently helped him reach Porte de Vincennes, though he did not take part in the actual hostage crisis. This man is apparently identified and said to be also in Syria, so we have to wait for the next developments. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hamas Condemn the Attacks but editors of this article insist it says otherwise

a) Netanyahoo tried to asscociate Hamas with the attacks. b) So Hamas put out a statement condemning them C) So now we're resorting to an Israeli newspaper saying something was put on a Facebook page on a site they say is "associated" with Hamas - to tar them with supporting the attack. Despite their statement. I tried to change it but... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.75.193 (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Hamas condemns the desperate attempts by…Netanyahu to make a connection between our movement and the resistance of our people on the one hand and global terrorism on the other,"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-hamas-condemns-charlie-hebdo-massacre-after-netanyahu-makes-comparison-to-gaza-rockets-9970096.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.193.213 (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think I have added enough to the article to cover your concerns. Alaney2k (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hostages execution

Hi, French guy here. There are some mistakes in the description of the hostages execution and for one of the gun used (please refer to the French article). I don't speak English well enough to modify the article by myself, so if anyone can do it... He did not bring a vz. 58 but two Škorpion vz. 61 instead. Concerning the executions, 3 were shot at the beginning by Coulibaly during the 7 minutes after his entrance in the Hyper (source: Coulibaly GoPro video, told in the following article, http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/charlie-hebdo/20150225.OBS3345/levez-vous-ou-j-vais-vous-allumer-la-video-macabre-de-l-hyper-cacher.html). First, Coulibaly asked his name to Braham (1st victim) and then shot him in the head, then the hostages begun to panic and hide while Cohen (2nd victim) tried to intervene and was shot, he did not die immediately. Saada (3rd victim) was shot in the back running to the exit. The supermarket owner was injured to the arm at this moment, running through the exit door (he escaped and survived). Hattab (4th victim), was shot several minutes after when he came back from the basement, where he had tried to hide with some others. Hattab saw one of the Škorpion vz. 61 on a box and take it to use it against Coulibaly. The gun had been abandoned there because it did not work... Coulibaly, alerted by the metallic noise of the gun manipulation, saw Hattab and shot him. (Source: hostage testimony in French : http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/11/coulibaly-nous-a-dit-voila-pour-ceux-qui-tentent-de-se-defendre_1178632)

Hope it helps.

Den Kant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.108.95.21 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Article name

This article is poorly named. It's not a "crisis". You could more reasonably call it a "shooting", "siege" or if you want to risk POV accusations "terror attack". Furthermore, "Porte de Vincennes"? It's much more commonly referred to using "Hypercacher" or "[French] Kosher supermarket" than the geographic designator. Can we work together to come up with a more suitable name? --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, siege is better than crisis. As for geography, any clues from RS's about how they refer to it? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As there is no opposition, I'm going to rename from Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis to Porte de Vincennes siege. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe this was moved here. As the siege article tells us: "A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault." By no stretch of the imagination was this situation a siege, even via hyperbole. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey:Perhaps you'd like to suggest a better name and we'll try to gain consensus for it, as above. --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the issue was supposed to be with "crisis", but how about "hostage incident"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. An "incident" to me sounds underplayed. A bunch of people died. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at one of the Categories it's in suggests "...shooting" or "...attack"? --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's wrong for the focus to be on the "siege" i.e. the police response, instead of on the act perpetrated. Also, the location of the incident is best known as the Hypercacher kosher grocery store, not the Porte de Vincennes arrondissement. I would suggest something along the lines of Paris kosher grocery store shooting and hostage standoff, though I'm sure we can find something less clunky. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that's because english is not my first language, but "siege" seems really exaggerated here. I agree with Curly Turkey, especially since I saw the place with my own eyes : there's no way that small supermarket can be described as a "city" or a "fortress". I followed the "incident" like everybody in France, and what concerned people more is that there were hostages. IMHO, "Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis" was a much better title. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

For a number of reasons it would seems logical that this article be named after the Hypercacher kosher supermarket rather than after the location where it happened. Firstly almost all references for this article refer to the Hypercacher kosher supermarket in the title, not Porte de Vincennes. Secondly, very few contemporary English language news reports included Porte de Vincennes in the headlines, but instead referred to the supermarket. Thirdly, the associated Charlie Hebdo shooting is named on Wikipedia after the target and not the location, for consistency then, this should apply to this article as well. And finally, Coulibaly targeted the kosher supermarket for what it was, a Jewish target, and not because he was targeting Porte de Vincennes. Clivel 0 (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Lassana Bathily should have standalone page

The coverage of Lassana Bathily has been sustained since 2015.

Examples from Google books and news searches:

1. 2018 BBC news Mamoudou Gassama: Travelling is a rite of passage for many Malians
2. 2018 France Inter Lassana Bathily sur Mamoudou Gassama : "Une fierté pour la France, pour l'Afrique, une fierté pour les immigrants"
3. 2018 Le Parisien Lassana Bathily, héros de l’Hyper Cacher, a «félicité» Mamoudou Gassama
4. 2018 Le republican Lorrain Que devient Lassana Bathily?104.163.139.33 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
5. 2018: Hybrid Media Events: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks and the Global ...
6. 2017: In "Social Networks as the New Frontier on Terrorism"
7. 2017 In Unfashionable Objections to Islamophobic Cartoons: L'Affaire Charlie ...
8. 2017 Not in God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence
9. 2017 Women, Insecurity, and Violence in a Post-9/11 World
10. 2016: In "Handbook of Heroism and Heroic Leadership"
11. 2015: in The Burdens of Brotherhood: Jews and Muslims from North Africa to France (Harvard Press)

Per the sustained coverage over a number of years, this should be a standalone page, as it is on the French Wikipedia. The French Wikipedia page is also a good source for biographical details. 104.163.139.33 (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Charliekosher.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)