Jump to content

Talk:Charlie Hebdo

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.244.95.179 (talk) at 15:14, 10 January 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please use the talk page for discussing changes to the article. It is not for general discussion. Opencooper (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so

The drawings were ugly distortion of reality. Was libelous and raking muck to the Christ, the Prophet and the Presidency. Charlie Hebdo was stupid and now condemned to be "Charlene Ebay". The libelers liked the final and the bullets of the victim. They have bullet points not numbers sniffing "Charlie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.91.52 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Ebdo was the user ugly cartoon with big noses and bulging eyes. He was not officially on the left and only had a phobia to the established order of the presidents, churches, mosques and business leaders. While the idiots with guns, bullets and chewing gum should be stopped, emptied and crushed, slander has no place in a free press also. The head-wax is new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.95.179 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page for discussing changes to the article. It is not for general discussion. Opencooper (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too little emphasis on past self-censorship

In the light of recent events, where the paper has been somehow labelled a defender of freedom of speech, there could be more detail about their past self-censorship of a supposedly "anti-Semitic" column.

"A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off." Mr Val's decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing reference in paragraph 4 of Early years

QUOTE: As a result, the journal was once more banned, this time by the Minister of the Interior.

But I find no reference above the quote to the first time that Hara-Kiri was banned. Thanks in advance to anyone who can amend or clarify this sentence. 139.149.31.232 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, that was my poor edit over two years ago. Corrected. Mezigue (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

When recounting the 2015 attack, the spelling of the Prophet Muhammad is wrong, and instead of calling the terrorists "Islamists" which is just the belief that Islam should guide people's way of life, it would be preferential to call the terrorists "Islam extremists" or "Muslim extremists". Pimpdaddyfresh (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, please mention specific changes in an X to Y format.

Note: Different spellings are used in the sources cited in the article.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, where it's a reference to the Islamic prophet in Wikipedia's own voice the spelling should be consistent i.e. Muhammad, per the Wikipedia article and most current rdferences to the name in this article; this is just editorial consistency. There were 2 instances of this where it was spelt Mo. and I've changed those. There was one instance of a name of another person being written as Mohammad and I've left that per the linked to Wikipedia article on that person. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of (hate) Speech

Charlie Hebdo: The ‘them and us’ narrative is a dangerous downward spiral

“…It is not the time for “I told you sos” and point scoring or for bombarding people with the most offensive of cartoons to make a racist point under the moral guise of freedom of speech. This only enhances the separation of two communities under siege, brought there by individuals that represent neither. The victims of the attack are not only French journalists, but also French Muslims, one of whom died in the attack, and the rest who have not condoned it but will nevertheless feel the backlash…”

The Guardian, Comment is free, Thursday 8 January 2015

Using my Freedom of Speech, I ask whether it is time to start asking who backs Charlie Hebdo - and what are their aims? If it is to start an anti-Muslims backlash, should Wikipedia allow this so-called 'newspaper' a platform to spread its' hateful views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.112.255 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.90.244.95.179 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo&oldid=641877949"