Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty

UNAOC

I've reverted the introduction of content referenced to UNAOC in the lead section. I'd have created a new subsection of the "Reactions" section (e.g. "By international organisations") and moved the UNAOC-related content there, if the A Call for Mutual Respect statement hadn't been so vague: it doesn't mention Samuel Paty or anything uniquely related to his murder directly – it is a statement of principles, needing OR to tie it to the subject of this page. If it were directly connected to the content of this page, indeed, it would seem that it calls Samuel Paty's actions "inflammatory" – which can hardly have been the intent of that press release. So, if that direct connection is lacking, it does not seem suitable material for this page. Again, a lot has been written in reliable sources about Paty, and his murder, and I'd be happy we arrived at a decent summary of that material, while drawing in vaguely related ramifications when the basic content hasn't been covered yet seems hardly appropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• There's a big difference between calling the cartoons inflammatory, which can be easily verified in reliable sources, and the way bolder attribution of Paty himself as an Agent provocateur. We should be mindful not to use such fallacies to justify overreaching M:deletionism or WP:CPP. Also, the development of an article is an evolutionary gradual process. Deciding that the current summary is decent just because it aligns with our views is a bit arbitrary, maybe we should rather make use of different contributions to reach at a holistic perspective appropriate with an encyclopedia? Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead should be a summary of the content of the article. Opinions vary. The "agent provocateur" expression is not used in the article, not in the lead section, not in the body (so I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this section). "a typical Islamist terrorist attack", which is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is in the lead section. It has a WP:INTEXT attribution to the French president, and is also, of course, mentioned in the body of the article, again with an in-text attribution to Macron. "inflammatory", which also is an opinion not necessarily shared by all (so not a "fact"), is not in the body of the article, and even less with references to reliable sources, and even less with an in-text attribution to who said it, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who would have said it in connection with the two cartoons Paty showed in his classroom, and even less with an in-text attribution to someone who is as closely involved and with a similar stature in public life as Macron. Failing all that, this is no lead material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Failing to see the connection just because the phrase isn't found verbatim is laughable tbh. Words translate into each other, don't they? As for lead-worthiness, Inflammatory -- that is, tending to provoke or inflame (the dictionary def), summarizes the potential of the cartoons to evoke tension, which is extensively wittnessed in both Background and Reactions sections. The article body says, e.g.:

      For many Muslims, any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemous.

      Brahim Chnina, a female student's father, accused Paty of disseminating pornography to students and filed a criminal complaint with the police.

      Sefrioui called the teacher a "thug" in a video (French: voyou), while denouncing the administration of the college.

      This, along with the "fact" that the very event (as well as other past and future events: Charlie Hebdo shooting and 2020 Nice stabbing) was motivated by the cartoons (as was already stated in the lead) and the repeated attestation of the qualifier in the reliable sources I provided, would be fairly enough ground for inclusion. I've also mentioned another word-for-word use of this very description in a very similar context in the Class B Lynching in the United States, which the reverter simply disregarded due to alleged unreliability of then-cited Vice Media, even though there's no consensus about its reliability as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Please find the caption here. Since I'm adequately informed of WP:BLUDGEON, this would be my last attempt to reach a middle ground via a direct discussion with you in here, unless there are unprecedented arguments or questions. Finally, I'd like to point out the change in the arguments given as excuses for WP:OWNERSHIP of the content, which, to me, is an obvious sign of bias. First it was the fixation on the legal definition of defamation, no matter how much I actively asked for a brainstorming of other appropriate qualifiers. Then, instead of discussing lead vs. body appropriateness, let alone incorporating what might seem as a valuable hint in the body article, reverters preferred to pedantize over the form of the contribution as manifesting in the source provided. When these were properly addressed and the contribution adjusted, I received an edit-warring warning and found out the mentioning of lead-worthiness for the first time. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    • On a side note, I wonder how you managed to know the "intent" of the press release? Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

UNAOC's "A Call for Mutual Respect" statement

Returning to the OP of this section, I don't see a direct connection between UNAOC's "A Call for Mutual Respect" statement and the topic of this page, that is, the murder of Samuel Paty (thus far it needs WP:OR to tie the two topics). I've found, thus far, no reliable independent secondary source tying the topic of this UNAOC statement to the 16 October 2020 events in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. So it's probably best to stay on topic on this page, until if and when such secondary sources would turn up. Or am I missing something? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Aljazeera explicitly links the statement with Paty incident, saying:

The statement on Wednesday by Miguel Angel Moratinos – who heads the UN Alliance of Civilizations – follows growing anger in the Muslim world over France’s response to the beheading of a teacher who had shown his pupils the images as part of a class on free speech.

Assem Khidhr (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That's implicit, not explicit. Saying something followed something else does not unambiguously mean anything. Napoleon followed the Visigoth Sack of Rome. What of it? GPinkerton (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Weapon

The lead section says, both in the text and the infobox, the perpetrator used a cleaver. However, there is a slight ambiguity in the expression

"killed and beheaded Paty with a cleaver"

– a cleaver might be used for both parts of the act, but probably it was used for the second one only...

This gets half-confirmed by the equally ambiguous part of the Murder and beheading section:

"Using a knife (...), Anzorov killed Paty and beheaded him in a street"

– a knife might be used for the first part only or for both (but the latter is far less probable).

Taking both sentences together, I guess this means "killed with a knife, beheaded with a cleaver" – but do I really have to guess...?

Please, somebody make these sentences unambiguous
...and add a knife to the infobox, BTW. --CiaPan (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

PS.
Was an 'airgun' mentioned in sources an air rifle or rather an air pistol? I guess the latter, because rifle-type weapon would be too conspicuous before a planned murder in the street – but an encyclopedia article should rather inform, not make you guess... --CiaPan (talk)

WP:SOFIXIT – I mean, it's not Wikipedia's fault that some reliable sources speak about a cleaver, and others about a knife. Some even give dimensions of the knife... which are rather the dimensions of a cleaver. I mean also, your guesswork should, of course be rejected: go look it up in the sources, and make the article conform to those sources. That's all that is needed, not some sort of original research what "might" have happened according to your personal guesswork. Same for the airgun. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: So Fix It? You may be pretty sure I'd love to. Alas my limited knowledge of English language and limited time I can use for studying sources do not let me reach the boldness level necessary for this fix. That's why I ask others to do it. --CiaPan (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Still, you can propose it on this talk page, like you did above. Only, next time you propose something, you're just losing your own time (and the time of fellow-editors) if you think this is a page where to post original guesswork: look it up in reliable sources, and whatever you find let us know, here on this talk page, or directly updating the article, whatever suits you best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Your reply seems to ignore almost entirely my explanation, so it appears a pure waste of your precious time. Please, don't loose your time for replying to me. --CiaPan (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

POV reverts by ‎GPinkerton

A wide range of mainstream news organizations call the cartoons controversial:

[1] [2] [3]

"(CNN)France was irrevocably changed by the Paris terror attacks of January 2015. Three days of violence began with a massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had previously published controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. They ended with a siege at a kosher supermarket."

Washington Post: "And when he introduced the topic of the controversial cartoons in class, he acknowledged that it might be hurtful to Muslim students and offered them a chance to look away."

BBC: "Earlier this month teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded in a Paris suburb after showing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to some of his pupils." Hardyplants (talk)

Of course they are controversial. People have been murdered because of them. Use of the term is fine. WWGB (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hardyplants: I've been trying to deliver this point for a long time now and recieved a warning for edit warring. There's a centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty. Please join and let others know what you think so that an appropriate action can be taken to prevent any disruptive editing. Same goes to you, @WWGB. Since you're having second thoughts (thankfully you did), I'd encourage you to express that on the noticeboard to put it into effect. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Khidhr's edits are introducing a US bias, but this article isn't about Muhammad cartoons, it is about an Islamist terrorist attack in France. How do French sources describe the cartoons? For instance Reuters: "France has allowed displays of the cartoons, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. This clearly shows that in France (the topic is an Islamist terror attack in France, not the cartoons generally) it isn't universally the case that the cartoons are considered controversial. French sources should take precedence per WP:BESTSOURCES. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the nature or otherwise of the cartoons is irrelevant, this whole nonsense sounds like victim-blaming, far from fit for the lead. If you want to write that American news shrank from defending freedom of speech then go ahead and add a US section to the international response. GPinkerton (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Does that really matter? This is an English encyclopedia covering topics all over the world. There are numerous sources that call them "controversial". The fact is it is clearly called such from a wide group of sources. They are not all from the US either. Also no one is "victim-blaming" which I find a childish POV argument to negate a refenced fact. Wikipedia is about what the sources say about a topic not our personal biases. Hardyplants (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it matters. Calling something "controversial" means reasonable people can disagree with it. This is something else entirely. Here, the "controversy" is the basic incompatibility of free speech and Islamism. Add the word controversial to the lead is meaningless, and suggests there might have been some reason beside religious intolerance for the killing of Paty. GPinkerton (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@1Kwords: This is the second time you quote a policy without bothering to read it. WP:BESTSOURCES points to sources that are good, unbiased, reputable, and authoritative. I can't see any prioritization of sources native to the country of origin of the article subject. Please pay a visit to WP:RSPSOURCES, where an extensive list of reliable sources is shown. In case there is consensus that a source's reliability is questioned in some concerns (e.g. Aljazeera neutrality when it comes to Arab-israeli conflict), an annotation is attached to restrict its scope of reliability. If you think all the sources me and others provided so far are unreliable when it comes to reporting the recent events in France, try to gain similar consensus for your theory. Otherwise, it's a personal opinion. On the other hand, being controversial is neither negative nor value-laden in the first place. It just refers to the fact that controversy was evoked as a result of the cartoons. Btw, consensus is starting to gather on this side: you now have me, vice regent, WWGB, Hardyplants, Masem at NPOVN vs. Francis Schonken, GPinkerton, Passant67 (who didn't engage in all discussions and admittted his limited English, which questions his ability to resolve such a nuanced aspect of language use), and you (who admitted the cartoons ridicule rather than merely depict). You might wanna think it through before I file an offical RfC or a request at DRN. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your argument then is with reliable news sources. clearly from your perspective they are all "unreasonable". Here is a German one: "He vigorously defended the controversial cartoons, saying they were protected under the right to free speech. He later added that "we won't renounce the caricatures."" - https://www.dw.com/en/france-muhammad-cartoon-row-what-you-need-to-know/a-55409316

You are pushing a point of view (that calling them controversial validates the killing, that is not supported by any sources. Hardyplants (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. You are unable to see that this is WP:UNDUE and WP:PROFRINGE and not fit for the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Now you are calling mainstream news organizations fringe.Hardyplants (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No. I'm calling your insertions of this material into the lead of the article encouraging fringe. GPinkerton (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

How so when it is reported as such by many mainstream news sources.? Your view point is the one that is fringe. Hardyplants (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say it does not advocate what should be said. Hardyplants (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No it is not, and the attempt to shoehorn this stuff into the lead despite the ongoing discussion and in the face of existing consensus is a clear manifestation of the truth of the opposite of what you claim. Look at the lead of the article Charlie Hebdo shooting. Does it describe the cartoons as "controversial"? No. GPinkerton (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source that can be used in other articles. It seems that page may need to be edited also to report what sources say.Hardyplants (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Note that page has this in the introduction "Charlie Hebdo is a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders."

So you're hereby declaring your intent to POV-push beyond this article as well? Marvellous. GPinkerton (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh-oh! It seems like someone wasn't reading carefully:

1. Last paragraph in lead section of Charlie Hebdo shooting reads Charlie Hebdo is a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders
2. 2nd paragraph in lead section of Charlie Hebdo reads The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad.
3. There's a dedicated section in Charlie Hebdo called controversy.

All in Wikivoice. This boomeranged so bad, I guess. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It is important where the word "controversial" is being used. I'll take #2 here, as it is talking about the publication being controversial, and not the cartoons being controversial. We can say the publication of the cartoons has been controversial as there's numerous articles about the criticism from the Islamic community and their defense by the magazine and other groups, which is something in Wikivoice we can clearly identify as a controversial situation. We cannot identify the cartoons that way. In terms of the first point, while you are identifying a point in the lede, it is clearly sourced in the body under the background section, and per WP:LEDECITE as long as that is done in the body, the lede doesn't need to be cited. (That said, I do think that lede sentence is a tad too strong in Wikivoice, probably better to say "Charlie Hebdo has drawn controversy in the past with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders."). --Masem (t) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: As for #2, I'm afraid you've misunderstood the sentence somehow. The adverb controversially is modifying the next verb (depicting), not the previous (published), i.e. a number of cartoons published by the magazine that were controversially depicting Muhammad (depicting him in a controversial manner). If it were attributed to the publishing, it would've preceded the verb, I suppose -- that is, a number of cartoons, that it controversially published, depicting Muhammad. Also I agree with #1 being a bit subjective in tone. If you ask me, I'd replace always with repeatedly and it'll be good to go. Finally, it's somehow a false dichotomy to distinguish the controversiality of the cartoons from that of their publishing, because it's the cartoons that made the publihsing controversial in the first place: it's a perfect syllogism. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I read it a different way, and that's due to poor phrasing as the text "depicting Mohammed" should be after "a number of cartoons" (that's what the cartoons were about), and "controversally" is applied to the publishing verb. But the phrasing can be improved, but it is still right to say in Wikivoice that the publishing act was controversial. Yes, I think its possible to argue after the fact the cartoons were too and in Wikivoice, but in terms of the event directed at Charlie Hebdo, it was their publishing act itself that was clearly controversial and why the attacks happened. The article should explain why the publishing of the cartoons was controversial, which may include descriptions of the cartoons outside of Wikivoice, but that's all part of a clear controversy that can be stated as such in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 22:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright then. It's important to point out that other editors, nay, in this case, an uninvolved admin, think the cartoons can be descibed as controversial in Wikivoice. As you can see, this section was originally started when GPinkerton reverted the inclusion of this qualifier on grounds of consensus on the other side. This is proving apparently erroneous. Anyway, I'll wait for the NPOVN discussion to settle. Unless the matter is resolved there, I'll file an official RfC to vote for a final decision. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Assem Khidr's right that BESTSOURCES doesn't specifically apply here. It was WP:NONENG I was thinking of Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. In this case sources published in France are more relevant because this terrorist attack happened in France. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to condemn cartoons. Other wikipedia articles constitute WP:OTHERSTUFF and cannot be used as WP:RS. One article at a time, please. A Thousand Words (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Describing Charlie Hebdo Cartoons in the Lede

Given what's already incuded in the body and what we can know about the cartoons from a NPOV, would it be appropriate for the lede to describe the cartoons as controversial/inflammatory Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking/disparaging/ridiculing Muhammad instead of the current showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Muhammad?

Survey

• Support, as per the arguments below. Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are 6 alternatives in the RfC. I want to know which ONE I am voting on before I vote in the affirmative. WWGB (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good point. The slash here was meant to correspond to an or conjunction, meaning that you should oppose if no option seems right to you at all. If you agree to at least one of each of the slash-separated combinations, then you should support and probably specify that one option. Assem Khidhr (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, because this is what NPOV sources say about them. Not saying so is a fringe POV. I support the wording "controversial". Hardyplants (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This sprawling RfC makes no sense. Work out what you want to insert into the article before asking why it is wrong. The controversialness or otherwise is irrelevant to the case at hand. The cartoons are not described as such in any of the articles dealing with any of the numerous atrocities by those who controvert the publication of cartoon images they consider blasphemous. To add extraneous adjectives to the lead is unnecessary and adds nothing of factual import to the article. The people who oppose the free press are are meaningless minority and to describe them as such would be undue pandering to the extremists, who, naturally, are the only ones to oppose the images. Indeed, opposition to the images is ipso facto extreme. No, the motivation here is clear, and I oppose it! GPinkerton (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

This matter was extensively discussed on and out of the page with the situation almost stalemating; however, only few editors were involved. Still, the discussion came to evolve a bit, which is why I filed this RfC to get more input and hopefully reach a consensus. For previous relevant discussions, descendingly sorted by date, see:

1. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1#Nature of the depiction, discussing whether the cartoons defamatorily depict Muhammad.
2. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty#UNAOC, discussing whether the cartoons should be called inflammatory in wikivoice in the lede.
3. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1#RfC preparation, discussing how should we file this request.
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty, discussing whether a number of edits, including one engaging in the matter in question, conform to NPOV.
5. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty#POV reverts by ‎GPinkerton, discussing whether removal of "controversial" was legitimate.

Since I'm voting for inclusion, I'll give a recap of the arguments given throughout those discussions as grounds for my position:

1. Being controversial is not value-laden and to report something as such imposes no committment on Wiki to either side of the controversy.
2. Referring to the controversy is encyclopedically significant since it historically contextualizes the killing.
3. Showing both cartoons that Paty showed would go against WP:GRATUITOUS, with one of them extremely likely to be perceived by a considerable number of Wiki readers as signifcantly more offensive. As such, it is important to convey what the cartoons contain in the prose. In this context, to say that they plainly depict rather than mock or ridicule their subject would be misleading.
4. The cartoons have repeatedly been described as controversial, inflammatory, ridiculing, lampooning, and/or mocking in reliable sources (as per WP:RSPSOURCES) and by French officials. Here are some examples:
   Occurrences in reliable sources

   • The BBC wrote French President Emmanuel Macron has said he can understand why Muslims were shocked by controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
   • The CNN titled an article Charlie Hebdo to reprint controversial cartoons as terror trial begins.
   • The Independent wrote Many people around the world have defended the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed in the wake of the massacre at its Paris offices and the following attack on a kosher supermarket, in which three gunmen killed 17 people in total.
   • Reuters wrote The middle school teacher knifed to death on the street of a Paris suburb on Friday showed his teenage students a cartoon lampooning the Prophet Mohammad as part of a class on freedom of expression earlier this month, parents said.
   • Charlie Hebdo was banned before in France for disparaging the death of General de Gaulle, a national symbol] (note the Times article being titled The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo)
   Occurrences in official statements

   • French ex-Foreign minister Laurent Fabius described the same cartoons as pouring oil on the fire.
   • French ex-president Jacques Chirac condemned the magazine's decision to republish previous cartoons of Muhammad and described it as overt provocations.
   • American ex-president Barack Obama commented on the same cartoons: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".
5. With the reservations made on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POINTy behavior, being adopted in other Wiki articles, let alone highly assessed ones, still bears some meaning to the overall community consensus. For this reason, here are some examples where the cartoons or other very similar ones were called as proposed here:
   Occurrences in Wiki

   • Class C Charlie Hebdo lead section reads: The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad.
   • Last paragraph in lead section of Charlie Hebdo shooting reads Charlie Hebdo is a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders
   • 2nd paragraph in lead section of Charlie Hebdo reads The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad.
   • There's a dedicated section in Charlie Hebdo called controversy.
   • See the description of a white-supremacist cartoon as inflammatory in the Class B article Lynching in the United States.
   • In a reference to previous Danish cartoons, Class C The Cartoons that Shook the World lead section reads: The book itself caused controversy before its publication when Yale University Press removed all images from the book, including the controversial cartoons themselves and some other images of Muhammad

Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the Motive of the Crime

Should we describe the event of Paty showing the cartoons in class as a motive for the crime?

Survey

• Support, sounds like WP:COMMON sense to me. Assem Khidhr (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, this is anything but. The motive was Islamism on the part of Anzorov. It had absolutely nothing whatever to do with anything done by Paty and to suggest otherwise is abhorrent! GPinkerton (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)