Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting

Article title

I see the title of this page was changed from 2015 Charlie Hebdo magazine shooting without prior discussion. It should be moved it back to the original title, as the current title of Charlie Hebdo massacre is very much out of sync with our usual approach of titling such events. If anyone wishes to change the title, please discuss it here first. Prioryman (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(Addendum) An administrator will need to perform the move. I'll list it on WP:RM. Prioryman (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree someone should be bold and move the page back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support the move satusuro 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support moving back: shooting is more neutral than massacre. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved it. The article was never named "2015 Charlie Hebdo magazine shooting" prior to my move. The move is in line with previous events of magnitude. -- Veggies (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We attempt not to editorialize in article titles: the more neutral description is better for now. -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The '2015' is unnecessary. The term 'massacre' is quite apt in this situation, and is a well established term for events of this nature. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if you do say so yourself. In the meantime, let me present Aramoana massacre, Batang Kali massacre, Eilabun massacre, Munich massacre, and the Tula massacre as counterexamples. And I find it rather irritating you didn't even bother to open your decision up to discussion. -- Veggies (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no rush. Let's wait until reliable sources settle on a name for this event - Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. Just because reliable sources call other events "massacres" does not mean that everything else has to be called a "massacre" too. Bencherlite^Talk 14:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"There is no rush"— Oh, right. That must be why the decision was made without even the attempt to seek anyone's input. -- Veggies (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All those are widely accepted names for their subjects, as used in reliable sources. If the world decides to call this the "Charlie Hebdo massacre", we will eventually do that too. But for now, it's too soon to tell, so we should follow our well-established naming conventions, instead of performing what effectively constitutes original research to choose a name based on comparisons with other articles' topics. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no rush to be the first to call it a massacre. It is surprising that you of all people think it appropriate to complain about not seeking input before changing the title when, err, not only did you move it to "massacre" without seeking input but I can actually see a discussion above in favour of moving it away from "massacre". Does that "input" not count? Bencherlite^Talk 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing on the talk page when I moved it boldly. And I'm not wired into Wikipedia—I don't magically know when something's been posted. The first comment up here is at 13:55. The page was moved at 14:08. If you think 13 minutes is all the time that's required to wait for input, at least have the courage to say so explicitly. -- Veggies (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

13 minutes of discussion by five editors is, at least, a discussion. As far as I can tell, you didn't discuss it at all before making your move: there's nothing wrong with that (see WP:BOLD), but it does put you in a poor position to complain about others. Moreover: please don't accuse other editors of cowardice, which risks crossing the line between vigorous discussion and incivility. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article was just moved again to a more sensible title—and without (gasp!) a discussion. Morons. -- Veggies (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No one said that bold moves are inherently inappropriate. (Of course, this one reflects two users' talk page comments.) The point is that there's no rush to label the event a "massacre", which we don't do unless and until such a designation predominates among reliable sources. Otherwise, our convention is to use the term "shooting", "bombing" or "attack" (or the plural form, if applicable), depending on the incident's nature. —David Levy 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Disagreement is fine, but name-calling is not. —David Levy 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "magazine" is redundant (and arguably inaccurate as it is called a "newspaper"). The title would be better omitting this word in the interests of conciseness. —sroc 💬 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) The word "magazine" is redundant (and arguably inaccurate as it is called a "newspaper"). The title would be better omitting this word in the interests of conciseness. —sroc 💬 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For this reason (and because, as Gareth noted above, "2015" is superfluous, given the lack of other shootings in the same location), I've shortened the title to Charlie Hebdo shooting. —David Levy 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The offices were previously firebombed. Although that doesn't create a disambiguation issue (the firebombing doesn't have its own article in any case), I'd say that "2015" would be useful to readers in the future. No panic, because "Charlie Hebdo shootings" will do fine for now, just saying. Formerip (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view, it's more helpful to omit "2015" from the title, as its inclusion might lead one to infer that the earlier incident also involved a shooting (a possibility that entered my mind when I saw "2015 Charlie Hebdo magazine shooting" and recalled only that the offices were attacked previously). —David Levy 16:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The present title is the best possible title for the time being. There is no need for the "2015". Let it stand. We shall see what happens as this develops further. Be wary of WP:RECENTISM. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Second deadliest attack

Im not going to edit this but some non political editor really should include the Paris massacre, as it was an attack that killed more people.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.203.27.196 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

State violence is by definition not terrorism.Amyzex (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

State terrorism does exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism. And the massacre of Algerian protestors was exactly that: An organized attempt to achieve a political goal (silencing the Algerian protestors) through illegal violence. So yes, please include the Paris massacre ! (Pieter Felix Smit )Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Assassinations"

Should we be referring to the deaths as "assassinations"? it doesn't seem to fit the definition. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I initiated those changes and I thought it was appropriate for the nature as targeting intelligentsia specifically over dissent: assassination. The motive was political, individuals prominent and certain victims defined (strategically). 81.102.147.12 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word "assassination" is probably the result of poor translation from French, in which language "assassiner" means simply "to murder", but is easy to mistranslate if careless.

Victim pictures?

The years in the captions of the victims' pictures are confusing: "Victims [...] Cabu in 2012. Charb in 2011." These pictures are pretty recent, is the year information really useful? jan (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them. It looked as if it was the year in which they became a victim. jan (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Some mention that other victims names are not known yet would be respectful. It's odd that there are 12 dead but only a special subset shown/named. (174.131.5.205 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Why have the images of victims been removed (I also tidied up a broken reference to Time Magazine) Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NFCC are likely reasons. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When did Charb become editor?

Charlie Hebdo says:

Charb was the most recent editor, holding the post from 2012 until his death in the attack on the magazine's offices in 2015. His predecessors were François Cavanna (1969–1981) and Philippe Val (1992–2009).

In 2009, Philippe Val resigned after being appointed director of France Inter, a public radio station to which he has contributed since the early 1990s. His functions were split between two cartoonists, Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier) and Riss (Laurent Sourisseau).

Charb says:

...most known for his work with Charlie Hebdo where he became editor in 2009.

Charb worked for many newspapers, Charlie Hebdo – which he edited from 2009 until his death in 2015...

So did he become editor in 2009 or in 2012? (Or, who held the post since 2009?) —sroc 💬 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fudpukker just changed this article to say 2009, with the edit summary: "Charb was editor since 2009 - source - Charb wiki entry". Wikipedia articles cannot be a source for other articles (see WP:CIRCULAR); and it is contradicted by the Charlie Hebdo article in any case. It seems 2009 is probably right, so I haven't reverted it, but we need a definitive source on this and all three articles need to be updated to be consistent. —sroc 💬 15:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

2009 is correct. Mezigue (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits, we have the classic "as of"/"since" confusion to blame. Mezigue (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the circular reference reminder. There are a few French sources with the 2009 date [[1]] Fudpukker (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added coordinates for this article, using the coordinates given on Commons for the images. Can anyone verify that these are correct? -- The Anome (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: news articles are giving the rue Nicolas Appert as the offices' location: the coordinates match up with that. Whether they are for the exact address of the offices, I don't know. -- The Anome (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Update 2: the infobox also has coordinates, which are only very slightly different. Ideally, both should be checked/corrected, so we can settle on only one location. -- The Anome (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's right. Their offices are at 10 rue Nicolas Appert.[2][3][4] I've updated the coordinate template to show the more accurate coordinate. - Kollision (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Internal links

Hello. I think a link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should be added to the background section. Errontropy (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Undue weight to Vatican reaction

How come the vatican reaction gets a full paragraph on its own, while reactions by heads of state otherwise are clumped together with a mere mention for each? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion and politics, that's why. While we're on the subject, shouldn't Ian Hislop's reaction be included?

It was a deserving paragraph, as the other reactions should also have. Some editors are too impatient to allow expansion so the paragraph was axed. I'd revert it back to the list format that allows for indentational expansion but it would not last more than 5 seconds I reckon. Zup326 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie's statement should be included, or at least a synopsis. Capsuled so many topics in a short paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostradamus (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

Portugal

Someone add the Portuguese reaction to the list:

Portugal – The Government of Portugal. Falconet8 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried converting it to a list format as the amount of reactions worldwide is going to be too big for a simple prose format. There's no way to include the dozens of inevitable reactions by using prose, especially as they stand now only half of them are sourced. List format with a description of each reaction is the sensible way to include them all. I was about to include Portugal but alas never had the chance to before my edits were reverted. Zup326 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unites States

It could also be mentioned that John Kerry spoke in French about the killings to express is solidarity in the causes of facing extremism and defending liberty (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11330941/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-John-Kerry-speaks-in-Paris-following-shooting.html). Je suis Charlie (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Deadliest attack in Europe since 7/7/05?

I'm honestly quite surprised to find so many sources saying this. I mean, has everyone forgotten the 2011 Norway attacks? Undescribed (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly a matter of forgetting that the attacks in Norway were terrorism, because it was a white Christian who perpetrated them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.19.232 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say it is far less likely to be the religion claimed by the perpetrator(s) (was Brevik, Christian, I thought not) and more likely that the inclusion of Norway in the word 'Europe' is dependent on the intended definition of 'Europe', but I agree, to my mind, 'Europe' in the sense we should be using would refer to the continent rather than to the political entity. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since the bombings in London on 7 July 2005?

The article currently describes the shooting as "the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since the bombings in London on 7 July 2005" and uses this source. Time magazine obviously doesn't seem to consider the 2011 Norway attacks to have been terrorism, then?--86.190.67.16 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As per the above I've removed the statement. - Simeon (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since London 2005?

By death count, wouldn't it be the deadliest attack since the Utøya shooting in 2011? 92.200.76.254 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Vitry-le-Francois bombing of 18 June 1961

An article on the FLN bombing of the train referred to in this article should really be added and links provided both here and at List of massacres in France.Amyzex (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Motives unknown

People are still on the run, so how can you know the motives? No videos or manifesto. Stop guessing.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.37.239 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they verbally told us their motives before leaving. "Allahu Akbar. We have avenged the Prophet". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Je suis Charlie"

Do we really need a seperate "Je suis Charlie" article? It could probably be easily covered here. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, thus far it should be merged into this article. If it blows up into a larger, sustained, movement like Hands up, don't shoot or something, then we could reconsider. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been merged here, and totally messed up, twice. I am going to re-correct it and if it is messed up again I think it need to be split out.

My other concern is that it will dominate the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Attempts seem to be being made to do exactly that. The bloody slogan is not the focus of the demonstrations and other protests, the shootings are! The slogan is just a symbol, and should not be a major subject of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Last sentence of first paragraph reads "There are three suspects in total who escaped in a car and is still at large."

Should read "There are three suspects in total who escaped in a car and ARE still at large." 67.185.137.209 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)