This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Vice regent ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (See diff and the discussion below)
GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) has been citing this as evidence for protests in Syria, Libya, and Iraq against Macron's defense of freedom of speech. I thought this was both unsupported and too vague to be reported in Wikivoice. When I tried here and here to WP:HANDLE and reword the statement into ... Macron's defense of the caricatures, which is more concrete, verifiable, and mutually agreed upon, he reverted the change thrice:
in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammadfrom the same source, even though it explicitly refers to the cartoons.
The second revert was to be my last. Since the user in question didn't bother to start discussion, I initiated this in a last attempt to assume good faith, even though I'd be stating the obvious. Notice that this is the third disputed matter within a short period of time, and is concurrent with two ongoing RfC processes. Please hop in to reach consensus. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
France has urged Middle Eastern countries to end calls for a boycott of its goods in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad." Assem Khidhr is trying to rewrite history by saying Macron defended the cartoons themselves, which is false entirely. Instead, Macron has defended, and the source says he defended, the
"right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad". So I have reverted Assem Khidhr's POV editorializing, which in any case violated the Engvar policy. GPinkerton ( talk) 05:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.
Meanwhile, small anti-French protests were held in Libya, Gaza and northern Syria, where Turkish-backed militias exert control.? Or did you somehow read it and decide the occupation of the area in which these "protests" are said to have taken place by the armies of Erdogan's Islamists is somehow
nothing to do with the Turkish government? That's really quite a failure of logic, and contorting the interpretation of the Turkish propaganda coverage of an event non-corroborated by other sources (viz, the so called "attack" on the so-called "protest" by the so-called "terrorists") is well beyond, well, belief. GPinkerton ( talk) 06:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The people who oppose the free press are are [sic] 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.). The edits made above by Assem were reasonable attempts at handling the problem; GPinkerton is being aggressive and relying on extremely torturous interpretations of otherwise plainly stated facts from reliable sources to preach their point. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 05:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
We will not disavow the cartoons, the drawings, even if others recoil.. However, this was all a digression from the main subject of this section: can we state in Wikivoice that there were protests in Syria, Iraq, and Libya that were objecting to Macron's defense of free speech (as an abstract concept)? The go-to approach is to report, with appropriate attributions, the protesters' motivations the way they expressed their mind. In other words, it is to say that the protests were against Macron's perceived support for the cartoons, which would have been much more swallowable than going straight out to the ambiguous human rights (as GPinkerton previously wrote) or even freedom of speech. However, with Macron's support for the cartoons being explicitly grounded in reliable sources, shouldn't we instead say that the protests were against the support for a specific instantiation of the principle of freedom of speech, which was the cartoons? Assem Khidhr ( talk) 11:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
...with protesters in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Palestinian territories demanding that France condemn caricatures of the prophet. This would seem more in accordance with Assem Khidhr's wording. VR talk 15:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the diff provided as evidence of purported canvassing was at 00:45, 18 November 2020, more than a day before the discussion in question was even started, which was at 05:11, 19 November 2020. End of discussion. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 15:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
However, in refutation of GPinkerton ( talk · contribs)'s last straw to question the RfC above, which I was already anticipating, here is a list of the editors I notified, noting, importantly, that my notice referred to the RfC above, not the current discussion, where he for some reason decided to post the note:
Assem Khidhr ( talk) 06:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Murder of Samuel Paty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change : last jihadist bastion of the country
To:
"last opposition territory... " or "Last rebel stronghold"
"Jihadist Bastion" is overly colourful language that I think unhelpful. Also "jihad" is not only synonymous with war in Muslim culture, and this association is leading. Nor were all members of Syrian opposition either Jihadis or even religious. It also creates leading impression of Idlib region as a sort of terrorist stronghold, which is far from true. Not only for high civilian and refugee population, but also because of threat from ongoing regime attacks.
Small but I think important point.
2001:861:3740:C880:7809:33EF:24BD:AA6F (
talk)
19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we describe the event of Paty showing the cartoons in class as a motive for the crime? Assem Khidhr ( talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton: I'd like to remind you of WP:BLUDGEON. Your behavior on this vote (and to some extent the other RfC) seems to correspond to this sort of disruptive editing. With you repeatedly adding disputed material on the main page too, without bothering to open a discussion or seek dispute resolution, you're being quite uncooperative. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 04:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
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
?
Assem Khidhr (
talk)
06:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
French President Emmanuel Macron has called The New York Times media correspondent to criticize English-language coverage of France's stance on Islamic extremism after recent attacks, arguing it amounts to "legitimizing" violence.. Further
In his column about their exchange, Smith said the French president had argued "foreign media failed to understand 'laicite,'" or secularism, a pillar of French policy and society.Therefore I propose that per WP:NONENG, that the best sources available might not be the ones published in English-speaking countries. It now stands that the English-language sources being called upon to change this article are now themselves the subject of dispute. A Thousand Words ( talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Earlier this year, President Macron described Islam as a religion "in crisis" and defended the right of magazines to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Such depictions are widely regarded as taboo in Islam and are considered highly offensive by many Muslims.and this is what the article should say. A Thousand Words ( talk) 08:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Support, controversial only, or whatever you think is right. A plain support, in this context, would suggest a support for any combination. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 13:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
17:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)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, ascendingly sorted by date, see:
Since I'm voting for inclusion, I'll give a recap of the arguments given throughout those discussions as grounds for my position:
French President Emmanuel Macron has said he can understand why Muslims were shocked by controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
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.
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.
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.
Charlie Hebdo is a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders
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)
Despite coming back from a block for edit-warring here, GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) reverted my edit today and manually reverted another edit. I'll try to resolve the matter here.
As for
their 1st revert, according to Merriam-Webster, to
amend is to put right or to alter for the better
. Thus, to speak of Trudeau's second remarks (where he emphasized defending free speech) as amending the first (where he emphasized the limits of free speech) raises two problematic suggestions:
Instead, we should just report the two remarks without WP:EDITORIALIZING.
As for their 2nd revert:
understands Muslims' shock over prophet cartoons(noting that he spoke of Muslims as a whole). See a reference here.
This fairly translates to the wording The response of the French government has been criticized by many Muslims
without any blackmailing of the type GPinkerton spoke of.
Assem Khidhr (
talk)
18:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No, no, that uncited claim of yours is editorializing. The attitude one religion or its members is really quite irrelevant; the actions and policies discussed in the article are those of jihadists like the killer and Islamists like Erdogan, the Saudis, and the others who have taken offence at the liberty of people in France to criticize authority, something we know Erdogan and bin Salman are especially thin-skinned about. This we know from sources. Suggesting Erdogan leads or represent Muslim opinion in general is absurd, akin saying bin Laden was a saint. Our sources describe Erdogan as an Islamist leading an Islamist political party, and that's how the lead should describe him. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Some "anger in Muslim countries" is not the same as saying "many Muslims" sympathize with what Erdogan and Anzarov have done. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No-one is retracting comments, and no-one should suggest the word "amend" means "retract", since the dictionary, we now know, says no such thing. We do know though, that "clarify" means "make clear" and "amend" means "mend". If something was not unclear, why the need to clarify; if Trudeau had not equivocated he would not have had to amend his remarks, an event reported by reliable media. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly I think it's worth being aware of WP:LAME. Neither of these disputes seem hugely significant. Do you two really care whether we say Trudeau "amended" his position or "elaborated" on it? Or is this part of a squabble. It may be worth thinking how can you both make wikipedia as good as it can be - this is what should be motivating you, and the answer is certainly not ensuring the right verbage is used in relation to the evolution of two statements by Trudeau. With regards the specific edits, I am fine with either wording in the first sentence, and neither wording in the second. In the first, both "amended" and "elaborated" seem to fit the sentence and source, in my eyes, though I have a small preference for "elaborated." With regards the second sentence, both "many muslims" and "many Islamists" seem to be WP:WEASEL to me. The source only justifies saying that 1 Muslim/Islamist was unhappy: Erdogan. He's a significant figure, so it's notable to include his view. The sentence should be rewritten, though, to just say "Erdogan's view is..." and make no reference to a nebulous "many" of any group of people. Awoma ( talk) 19:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@
Vice regent: having 4/5 Muslims in some demographics "blaming" "Western disrespect" for "controversy" is nothing like equivalent to claiming that anything more than a vocal and powerful minority support the trashing of France's constitutional freedoms in favour of theologically inspired religious strictures. Perhaps you missed the note that says the bar chart only includes people claiming to have heard of the cartoons, and can therefore not be used as any kind of support for numerical claims like "many". Where are getting the idea that it is possible to be a non-extremist and yet call for the beheading of a teacher and a boycott of his country's products?
GPinkerton (
talk) 02:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I also assume by the less-than-small minority you're referring to is the
27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
statistic you've adduced. If policy and common sense did not prohibit interpreting highly localized statistics from a half-decade ago to gauge public opinion about an event in autumn 2020, we might say that yes, if fewer than a third of a demographic standing in for a global cohort representing less than a third of the world's population is condoning the actions of ISIS, then yes, we can say a minority of Muslims agreed with Anazarov. This, however, would be wholly wrong to do. Suggesting that kind of synthesis is not going to be productive.
GPinkerton (
talk)
10:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The response of the French government has been criticized by many Muslims, including Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who have called for a boycott of French goods, some of who have called for a boycott of the goods.
Muslim groups urge Macron end ‘divisive rhetoric, reject hatred’. More than 20 European Muslim organisations...urging Macron to rethink what they called his “unilateral assault on Muslims, Islam and Prophet Muhammad”.
— [12]
Muslims in France – and elsewhere – are also furious at what they claim is a heavy-handed government clampdown on their communities in the wake of the killing 11 days ago of the high school teacher Samuel Paty.
— [13]
Macron defended secularism and freedom of expression in France, and said Islam was suffering a crisis, after a French highschool teacher was decapitated for displaying comics of the Prophet Muhammad in class. His comments prompted a wave of protests and criticism from the Muslim world.
— [14]
Erodgan is a pious Muslim who has sought to move Islam into Turkey's mainstream politics since his Islamist-rooted AK Party came to power in 2002.
— [15]
He lashed out at French President Emmanuel Macron, questioning his mental health, because of Mr Macron's crackdown on Islamist influence in France. Mr Erdogan has long championed Islamist causes - groups ideologically close to Egypt's repressed Muslim Brotherhood. He has been known to give the latter's four-finger salute - the "rabaa". In July 2020 he oversaw the conversion of Hagia Sophia - an Istanbul landmark - into a mosque, angering many Christians. It was built 1,500 years ago as a cathedral, and made a mosque by the Ottoman Turks, but Ataturk had turned it into a museum - a symbol of the new secular state.
— [16]
state secularism is central to France's national identity. Curbing freedom of expression to protect the feelings of one particular community undermines unity ...
— [17]
State secularism, or “laicité” is central to France’s national identity and demands the separation of religion and public life. Schools have historically instilled the Republic’s values in its citizens - a task some teachers say becomes ever harder as a minority of French Muslims and adherents of other faiths seek to express their religious identity.
— [18]
Self-censorship in response to Islamist threats needs resisting.which again shows plainly that the opponents of the cartoons' publication are the Islamists and their objective is the repeal of freedom of expression, a central and focal part of the ideology of Islamism. The fact that France also criminalizes Holocaust denial (a favourite topic of Islamists) is really neither here nor there.
This NYT article published on Oct 30 adequately covers the position of many (IMO, even most) Muslims: that cartoons should not be published but any violence against cartoons is wrong:
Representatives from Muslim countries like Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan and Qatar joined that march [in 2015] against terrorism and for freedom of speech. But all of these countries have in recent days [in 2020] criticized the republication of the caricatures, arguing that they offended Muslims.
"The publication and the republication are not the same thing," said Anne Giudicelli, a French expert on the Arab world who has worked for the French foreign ministry. "...Now there is the sense that France has a problem with Islam whereas, in 2015, France was the victim of terrorists."
VR talk 23:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
VR talk 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[Macron's] language, experts say, particularly demonizes French Muslims. That not only gives the Khans and Erdoğans of the world fodder to attack Macron, but also the space to animate their publics when it most suits them.
"Islam is not Islamism, a Muslim is not an Islamist. An Islamist is not necessarily a jihadi, ... What I fear is that identities radicalize, with on one side those claiming the Muslim identity and on the other those claiming the identity of France"but other parts are simply not correct, such as the statement that "Muslim men initially came to France to take menial jobs following World War II", which overlooks that large part of France were once part of the caliphate and that there was a for long a mosque and Muslim cemetery in Marseille before the French Revolution and that Aristide Briand, who signed the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, was also in part responsible for the building of the state-funded Grand Mosque of Paris long before WWII shattered the Kellogg-Briand pact. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I just read the The Atlantic's "France Is About to Become Less Free". Turns out the French government is advancing certain legislation in response to the murder. This should be noted in the article. VR talk 17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The beheading of the middle-school teacher Samuel Paty on October 16 by a young man enraged by Paty’s showing his class caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has prompted French President Emmanuel Macron to vow that France will never flinch in its defense of freedom of expression. In the name of upholding the core values of the French Republic, however, Macron’s government and members of his party have introduced new legislation that effectively restricts them.
— [27]
@ GPinkerton: Let me get that straight. You first questioned the accuracy of the article, the author's qualifications, and the direct relevance to Paty. When being told that The Atlantic is consensually considered reliable (accounting for your two concerns) and that relevance is quite evident, you didn't admit to that and try to see how this might question your earlier understanding of the source, but rather decided to resort to whole other guidelines, introducing for the first time a claim of undue weight and being an opinion, at once. Well, I'd like to remind you then that consuming guiedlines in this manner is only likely to WP:EXHAUST discussions, leading to frustration on both ends. By the way, if you pay attention on WP:RSPSOURCES, it's nuanced enough that a distinction between opinion pieces and news articles is sometimes actually made when it's agreed by the community. See e.g. the consensus over the reliability of Anti-Defamation League. If you'd like to raise a similar issue about The Atlantic, post it on the appropriate platform. Until then, we shouldn't adopt the distinction. I'll try to re-iterate. Apparently, the murder of Samuel Paty was a greatly significant event that came amidst tensions between the government plan to fight what they call seclusionism and a religious minority (regardless of how we call them). It had extensive media coverage and received a lot of government responses. In this context, when a new bill is introduced that will further enforce the values of the republic, it's hardly contested and thus not a matter of opinion that such bill is inspired by the murder of Paty. When a reliable source explicitly states the relationship, it becomes even more certain. Therefore, it deserves to be mentioned on the article. To assert that this will make France less free would indeed be an opinion that, if mentioned, would need an attribution. That's it. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirects Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy, Draft:2020 France–Islamist controversy, 2020 France–Islamist controversy, and 2020 France-Islamist controversy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6#Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 21:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I added to the intro that Paty had allowed his students to look away or leave the room while the images were shown. That's an important detail to mention. He was not cavalier about this, but gave his students warning beforehand. I feel like the intro subtly seems to implicate Paty in his own death. He asked nothing of the students - not even to look at the images if they were offended - but simply showed them the controversial images briefly in class. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:251F:1BB7:749D:8148 ( talk) 19:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
"reactions that followed the murder"as you say it does (I interpreted it differently, with the sentence referring to the cartoons itself), then it belongs in the third paragraph where all the other reactions are. I want to point out though, that the first source in that sentence (NDTV) [28] says "father, who had led a fierce campaign against Paty for showing the cartoons seen by many Muslims as offensive." The sentence refers to the cartoons, that Paty showed "offensive" cartoons, not the reactions that followed the murder. I see that the second source in the same sentence (CBC) refers to the reactions of the murder, which is why we're interpreting the sentence differently, depending on which source we're referring to. Some1 ( talk) 04:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"These cartoons had been seen by many Muslims as offensive. The other source being worded verbatim might suggest the original author had copied the form, but still wouldn't signify its meaning in the independent context in the article. As for replacement to the 3rd section, I wouldn't mind whatsoever, but then we'd unnecessarily have to intersperse reactions to the murder with those to the cartoons, instead of the better logical flow where reactions to the cartoons, both previous and subsequent, are mentioned in the same paragraph where they're introduced, as was in the reverted version. JFTR, you're still somehow ignoring the rest of the changes (mentioning previous shooting regarding the cartoons + deleting the redundant mention of Charlie Hebdo shooting next ot its hypernym: January 2015 Île-de-France attacks). Assem Khidhr ( talk) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This version seems like a good middle ground. I'll just paraphrase the ...seen by many muslims as offensive
to avoid redundancy and improve the quality of the prose. I'll also try to connect sentences of the same paragraph.
Assem Khidhr (
talk)
05:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Yesterday, 9 March 2021, new information was revealed to the public regarding the lead-up to and murder of Samuel Paty. The BBC at " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56325254" indicates the social media campaign against Paty was based on speculation. Specifically, the majority of information in the online campaign against Paty which preceded his murder, including police reports for indecency, came from a 13-year old student who was never present in the class. This unnamed individual invented the allegations and told her father who subsequently went to the police and started the online campaign against Paty. The French government has since determined this online campaign was how Abdullakh Anzorov heard about Paty, and ultimately murdered him.
In light of this information, this article needs to be significantly reworked to properly summarize and express the two very different stories behind this tragedy. It is likely more information will continue to come out, but at the moment the controversy over this issue is not properly expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.205.62 ( talk) 13:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's two more sources about this same thing. This definitely deserves at least a new section on the article.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/french-student-admits-to-lying-about-beheaded-teacher/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-samuel-paty-beheading-schoolgirl-b1814372.html 86.173.129.153 ( talk) 17:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Paragraph starts as "Brahim Chnina,[45] a female student's father," but 2 paragraphs later it states that the student had been expelled before the incident and that Chnina was aware she was no longer a student. Please remove the claim of being a student's father (not sure why "female" is relevant). At the very least change to "former student." 2600:8800:1580:147:0:0:0:1001 ( talk) 23:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Some editors appear to be removing the drawings shown by Paty. Should these removals be reverted? Thanks, Closingbracket ( talk) 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"The 13-year old girl who made the allegations against Paty has since confessed to lying." What allegations? This sentence has no context. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI in case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_April_12#File:Charlie_Hebdo_Tout_est_pardonné.jpg Some1 ( talk) 23:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Vice regent ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (See diff and the discussion below)
GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) has been citing this as evidence for protests in Syria, Libya, and Iraq against Macron's defense of freedom of speech. I thought this was both unsupported and too vague to be reported in Wikivoice. When I tried here and here to WP:HANDLE and reword the statement into ... Macron's defense of the caricatures, which is more concrete, verifiable, and mutually agreed upon, he reverted the change thrice:
in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammadfrom the same source, even though it explicitly refers to the cartoons.
The second revert was to be my last. Since the user in question didn't bother to start discussion, I initiated this in a last attempt to assume good faith, even though I'd be stating the obvious. Notice that this is the third disputed matter within a short period of time, and is concurrent with two ongoing RfC processes. Please hop in to reach consensus. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
France has urged Middle Eastern countries to end calls for a boycott of its goods in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad." Assem Khidhr is trying to rewrite history by saying Macron defended the cartoons themselves, which is false entirely. Instead, Macron has defended, and the source says he defended, the
"right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad". So I have reverted Assem Khidhr's POV editorializing, which in any case violated the Engvar policy. GPinkerton ( talk) 05:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.
Meanwhile, small anti-French protests were held in Libya, Gaza and northern Syria, where Turkish-backed militias exert control.? Or did you somehow read it and decide the occupation of the area in which these "protests" are said to have taken place by the armies of Erdogan's Islamists is somehow
nothing to do with the Turkish government? That's really quite a failure of logic, and contorting the interpretation of the Turkish propaganda coverage of an event non-corroborated by other sources (viz, the so called "attack" on the so-called "protest" by the so-called "terrorists") is well beyond, well, belief. GPinkerton ( talk) 06:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The people who oppose the free press are are [sic] 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.). The edits made above by Assem were reasonable attempts at handling the problem; GPinkerton is being aggressive and relying on extremely torturous interpretations of otherwise plainly stated facts from reliable sources to preach their point. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 05:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
We will not disavow the cartoons, the drawings, even if others recoil.. However, this was all a digression from the main subject of this section: can we state in Wikivoice that there were protests in Syria, Iraq, and Libya that were objecting to Macron's defense of free speech (as an abstract concept)? The go-to approach is to report, with appropriate attributions, the protesters' motivations the way they expressed their mind. In other words, it is to say that the protests were against Macron's perceived support for the cartoons, which would have been much more swallowable than going straight out to the ambiguous human rights (as GPinkerton previously wrote) or even freedom of speech. However, with Macron's support for the cartoons being explicitly grounded in reliable sources, shouldn't we instead say that the protests were against the support for a specific instantiation of the principle of freedom of speech, which was the cartoons? Assem Khidhr ( talk) 11:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
...with protesters in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Palestinian territories demanding that France condemn caricatures of the prophet. This would seem more in accordance with Assem Khidhr's wording. VR talk 15:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the diff provided as evidence of purported canvassing was at 00:45, 18 November 2020, more than a day before the discussion in question was even started, which was at 05:11, 19 November 2020. End of discussion. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 15:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
However, in refutation of GPinkerton ( talk · contribs)'s last straw to question the RfC above, which I was already anticipating, here is a list of the editors I notified, noting, importantly, that my notice referred to the RfC above, not the current discussion, where he for some reason decided to post the note:
Assem Khidhr ( talk) 06:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Murder of Samuel Paty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change : last jihadist bastion of the country
To:
"last opposition territory... " or "Last rebel stronghold"
"Jihadist Bastion" is overly colourful language that I think unhelpful. Also "jihad" is not only synonymous with war in Muslim culture, and this association is leading. Nor were all members of Syrian opposition either Jihadis or even religious. It also creates leading impression of Idlib region as a sort of terrorist stronghold, which is far from true. Not only for high civilian and refugee population, but also because of threat from ongoing regime attacks.
Small but I think important point.
2001:861:3740:C880:7809:33EF:24BD:AA6F (
talk)
19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we describe the event of Paty showing the cartoons in class as a motive for the crime? Assem Khidhr ( talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton: I'd like to remind you of WP:BLUDGEON. Your behavior on this vote (and to some extent the other RfC) seems to correspond to this sort of disruptive editing. With you repeatedly adding disputed material on the main page too, without bothering to open a discussion or seek dispute resolution, you're being quite uncooperative. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 04:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
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
?
Assem Khidhr (
talk)
06:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
French President Emmanuel Macron has called The New York Times media correspondent to criticize English-language coverage of France's stance on Islamic extremism after recent attacks, arguing it amounts to "legitimizing" violence.. Further
In his column about their exchange, Smith said the French president had argued "foreign media failed to understand 'laicite,'" or secularism, a pillar of French policy and society.Therefore I propose that per WP:NONENG, that the best sources available might not be the ones published in English-speaking countries. It now stands that the English-language sources being called upon to change this article are now themselves the subject of dispute. A Thousand Words ( talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Earlier this year, President Macron described Islam as a religion "in crisis" and defended the right of magazines to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Such depictions are widely regarded as taboo in Islam and are considered highly offensive by many Muslims.and this is what the article should say. A Thousand Words ( talk) 08:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Support, controversial only, or whatever you think is right. A plain support, in this context, would suggest a support for any combination. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 13:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
17:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)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, ascendingly sorted by date, see:
Since I'm voting for inclusion, I'll give a recap of the arguments given throughout those discussions as grounds for my position:
French President Emmanuel Macron has said he can understand why Muslims were shocked by controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
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.
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.
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.
Charlie Hebdo is a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders
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)
Despite coming back from a block for edit-warring here, GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) reverted my edit today and manually reverted another edit. I'll try to resolve the matter here.
As for
their 1st revert, according to Merriam-Webster, to
amend is to put right or to alter for the better
. Thus, to speak of Trudeau's second remarks (where he emphasized defending free speech) as amending the first (where he emphasized the limits of free speech) raises two problematic suggestions:
Instead, we should just report the two remarks without WP:EDITORIALIZING.
As for their 2nd revert:
understands Muslims' shock over prophet cartoons(noting that he spoke of Muslims as a whole). See a reference here.
This fairly translates to the wording The response of the French government has been criticized by many Muslims
without any blackmailing of the type GPinkerton spoke of.
Assem Khidhr (
talk)
18:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No, no, that uncited claim of yours is editorializing. The attitude one religion or its members is really quite irrelevant; the actions and policies discussed in the article are those of jihadists like the killer and Islamists like Erdogan, the Saudis, and the others who have taken offence at the liberty of people in France to criticize authority, something we know Erdogan and bin Salman are especially thin-skinned about. This we know from sources. Suggesting Erdogan leads or represent Muslim opinion in general is absurd, akin saying bin Laden was a saint. Our sources describe Erdogan as an Islamist leading an Islamist political party, and that's how the lead should describe him. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Some "anger in Muslim countries" is not the same as saying "many Muslims" sympathize with what Erdogan and Anzarov have done. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No-one is retracting comments, and no-one should suggest the word "amend" means "retract", since the dictionary, we now know, says no such thing. We do know though, that "clarify" means "make clear" and "amend" means "mend". If something was not unclear, why the need to clarify; if Trudeau had not equivocated he would not have had to amend his remarks, an event reported by reliable media. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly I think it's worth being aware of WP:LAME. Neither of these disputes seem hugely significant. Do you two really care whether we say Trudeau "amended" his position or "elaborated" on it? Or is this part of a squabble. It may be worth thinking how can you both make wikipedia as good as it can be - this is what should be motivating you, and the answer is certainly not ensuring the right verbage is used in relation to the evolution of two statements by Trudeau. With regards the specific edits, I am fine with either wording in the first sentence, and neither wording in the second. In the first, both "amended" and "elaborated" seem to fit the sentence and source, in my eyes, though I have a small preference for "elaborated." With regards the second sentence, both "many muslims" and "many Islamists" seem to be WP:WEASEL to me. The source only justifies saying that 1 Muslim/Islamist was unhappy: Erdogan. He's a significant figure, so it's notable to include his view. The sentence should be rewritten, though, to just say "Erdogan's view is..." and make no reference to a nebulous "many" of any group of people. Awoma ( talk) 19:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@
Vice regent: having 4/5 Muslims in some demographics "blaming" "Western disrespect" for "controversy" is nothing like equivalent to claiming that anything more than a vocal and powerful minority support the trashing of France's constitutional freedoms in favour of theologically inspired religious strictures. Perhaps you missed the note that says the bar chart only includes people claiming to have heard of the cartoons, and can therefore not be used as any kind of support for numerical claims like "many". Where are getting the idea that it is possible to be a non-extremist and yet call for the beheading of a teacher and a boycott of his country's products?
GPinkerton (
talk) 02:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I also assume by the less-than-small minority you're referring to is the
27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
statistic you've adduced. If policy and common sense did not prohibit interpreting highly localized statistics from a half-decade ago to gauge public opinion about an event in autumn 2020, we might say that yes, if fewer than a third of a demographic standing in for a global cohort representing less than a third of the world's population is condoning the actions of ISIS, then yes, we can say a minority of Muslims agreed with Anazarov. This, however, would be wholly wrong to do. Suggesting that kind of synthesis is not going to be productive.
GPinkerton (
talk)
10:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The response of the French government has been criticized by many Muslims, including Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who have called for a boycott of French goods, some of who have called for a boycott of the goods.
Muslim groups urge Macron end ‘divisive rhetoric, reject hatred’. More than 20 European Muslim organisations...urging Macron to rethink what they called his “unilateral assault on Muslims, Islam and Prophet Muhammad”.
— [12]
Muslims in France – and elsewhere – are also furious at what they claim is a heavy-handed government clampdown on their communities in the wake of the killing 11 days ago of the high school teacher Samuel Paty.
— [13]
Macron defended secularism and freedom of expression in France, and said Islam was suffering a crisis, after a French highschool teacher was decapitated for displaying comics of the Prophet Muhammad in class. His comments prompted a wave of protests and criticism from the Muslim world.
— [14]
Erodgan is a pious Muslim who has sought to move Islam into Turkey's mainstream politics since his Islamist-rooted AK Party came to power in 2002.
— [15]
He lashed out at French President Emmanuel Macron, questioning his mental health, because of Mr Macron's crackdown on Islamist influence in France. Mr Erdogan has long championed Islamist causes - groups ideologically close to Egypt's repressed Muslim Brotherhood. He has been known to give the latter's four-finger salute - the "rabaa". In July 2020 he oversaw the conversion of Hagia Sophia - an Istanbul landmark - into a mosque, angering many Christians. It was built 1,500 years ago as a cathedral, and made a mosque by the Ottoman Turks, but Ataturk had turned it into a museum - a symbol of the new secular state.
— [16]
state secularism is central to France's national identity. Curbing freedom of expression to protect the feelings of one particular community undermines unity ...
— [17]
State secularism, or “laicité” is central to France’s national identity and demands the separation of religion and public life. Schools have historically instilled the Republic’s values in its citizens - a task some teachers say becomes ever harder as a minority of French Muslims and adherents of other faiths seek to express their religious identity.
— [18]
Self-censorship in response to Islamist threats needs resisting.which again shows plainly that the opponents of the cartoons' publication are the Islamists and their objective is the repeal of freedom of expression, a central and focal part of the ideology of Islamism. The fact that France also criminalizes Holocaust denial (a favourite topic of Islamists) is really neither here nor there.
This NYT article published on Oct 30 adequately covers the position of many (IMO, even most) Muslims: that cartoons should not be published but any violence against cartoons is wrong:
Representatives from Muslim countries like Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan and Qatar joined that march [in 2015] against terrorism and for freedom of speech. But all of these countries have in recent days [in 2020] criticized the republication of the caricatures, arguing that they offended Muslims.
"The publication and the republication are not the same thing," said Anne Giudicelli, a French expert on the Arab world who has worked for the French foreign ministry. "...Now there is the sense that France has a problem with Islam whereas, in 2015, France was the victim of terrorists."
VR talk 23:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
VR talk 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[Macron's] language, experts say, particularly demonizes French Muslims. That not only gives the Khans and Erdoğans of the world fodder to attack Macron, but also the space to animate their publics when it most suits them.
"Islam is not Islamism, a Muslim is not an Islamist. An Islamist is not necessarily a jihadi, ... What I fear is that identities radicalize, with on one side those claiming the Muslim identity and on the other those claiming the identity of France"but other parts are simply not correct, such as the statement that "Muslim men initially came to France to take menial jobs following World War II", which overlooks that large part of France were once part of the caliphate and that there was a for long a mosque and Muslim cemetery in Marseille before the French Revolution and that Aristide Briand, who signed the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, was also in part responsible for the building of the state-funded Grand Mosque of Paris long before WWII shattered the Kellogg-Briand pact. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I just read the The Atlantic's "France Is About to Become Less Free". Turns out the French government is advancing certain legislation in response to the murder. This should be noted in the article. VR talk 17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The beheading of the middle-school teacher Samuel Paty on October 16 by a young man enraged by Paty’s showing his class caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has prompted French President Emmanuel Macron to vow that France will never flinch in its defense of freedom of expression. In the name of upholding the core values of the French Republic, however, Macron’s government and members of his party have introduced new legislation that effectively restricts them.
— [27]
@ GPinkerton: Let me get that straight. You first questioned the accuracy of the article, the author's qualifications, and the direct relevance to Paty. When being told that The Atlantic is consensually considered reliable (accounting for your two concerns) and that relevance is quite evident, you didn't admit to that and try to see how this might question your earlier understanding of the source, but rather decided to resort to whole other guidelines, introducing for the first time a claim of undue weight and being an opinion, at once. Well, I'd like to remind you then that consuming guiedlines in this manner is only likely to WP:EXHAUST discussions, leading to frustration on both ends. By the way, if you pay attention on WP:RSPSOURCES, it's nuanced enough that a distinction between opinion pieces and news articles is sometimes actually made when it's agreed by the community. See e.g. the consensus over the reliability of Anti-Defamation League. If you'd like to raise a similar issue about The Atlantic, post it on the appropriate platform. Until then, we shouldn't adopt the distinction. I'll try to re-iterate. Apparently, the murder of Samuel Paty was a greatly significant event that came amidst tensions between the government plan to fight what they call seclusionism and a religious minority (regardless of how we call them). It had extensive media coverage and received a lot of government responses. In this context, when a new bill is introduced that will further enforce the values of the republic, it's hardly contested and thus not a matter of opinion that such bill is inspired by the murder of Paty. When a reliable source explicitly states the relationship, it becomes even more certain. Therefore, it deserves to be mentioned on the article. To assert that this will make France less free would indeed be an opinion that, if mentioned, would need an attribution. That's it. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirects Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy, Draft:2020 France–Islamist controversy, 2020 France–Islamist controversy, and 2020 France-Islamist controversy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6#Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Assem Khidhr ( talk) 21:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I added to the intro that Paty had allowed his students to look away or leave the room while the images were shown. That's an important detail to mention. He was not cavalier about this, but gave his students warning beforehand. I feel like the intro subtly seems to implicate Paty in his own death. He asked nothing of the students - not even to look at the images if they were offended - but simply showed them the controversial images briefly in class. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:251F:1BB7:749D:8148 ( talk) 19:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
"reactions that followed the murder"as you say it does (I interpreted it differently, with the sentence referring to the cartoons itself), then it belongs in the third paragraph where all the other reactions are. I want to point out though, that the first source in that sentence (NDTV) [28] says "father, who had led a fierce campaign against Paty for showing the cartoons seen by many Muslims as offensive." The sentence refers to the cartoons, that Paty showed "offensive" cartoons, not the reactions that followed the murder. I see that the second source in the same sentence (CBC) refers to the reactions of the murder, which is why we're interpreting the sentence differently, depending on which source we're referring to. Some1 ( talk) 04:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"These cartoons had been seen by many Muslims as offensive. The other source being worded verbatim might suggest the original author had copied the form, but still wouldn't signify its meaning in the independent context in the article. As for replacement to the 3rd section, I wouldn't mind whatsoever, but then we'd unnecessarily have to intersperse reactions to the murder with those to the cartoons, instead of the better logical flow where reactions to the cartoons, both previous and subsequent, are mentioned in the same paragraph where they're introduced, as was in the reverted version. JFTR, you're still somehow ignoring the rest of the changes (mentioning previous shooting regarding the cartoons + deleting the redundant mention of Charlie Hebdo shooting next ot its hypernym: January 2015 Île-de-France attacks). Assem Khidhr ( talk) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This version seems like a good middle ground. I'll just paraphrase the ...seen by many muslims as offensive
to avoid redundancy and improve the quality of the prose. I'll also try to connect sentences of the same paragraph.
Assem Khidhr (
talk)
05:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Yesterday, 9 March 2021, new information was revealed to the public regarding the lead-up to and murder of Samuel Paty. The BBC at " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56325254" indicates the social media campaign against Paty was based on speculation. Specifically, the majority of information in the online campaign against Paty which preceded his murder, including police reports for indecency, came from a 13-year old student who was never present in the class. This unnamed individual invented the allegations and told her father who subsequently went to the police and started the online campaign against Paty. The French government has since determined this online campaign was how Abdullakh Anzorov heard about Paty, and ultimately murdered him.
In light of this information, this article needs to be significantly reworked to properly summarize and express the two very different stories behind this tragedy. It is likely more information will continue to come out, but at the moment the controversy over this issue is not properly expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.205.62 ( talk) 13:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's two more sources about this same thing. This definitely deserves at least a new section on the article.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/french-student-admits-to-lying-about-beheaded-teacher/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-samuel-paty-beheading-schoolgirl-b1814372.html 86.173.129.153 ( talk) 17:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Paragraph starts as "Brahim Chnina,[45] a female student's father," but 2 paragraphs later it states that the student had been expelled before the incident and that Chnina was aware she was no longer a student. Please remove the claim of being a student's father (not sure why "female" is relevant). At the very least change to "former student." 2600:8800:1580:147:0:0:0:1001 ( talk) 23:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Some editors appear to be removing the drawings shown by Paty. Should these removals be reverted? Thanks, Closingbracket ( talk) 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"The 13-year old girl who made the allegations against Paty has since confessed to lying." What allegations? This sentence has no context. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI in case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_April_12#File:Charlie_Hebdo_Tout_est_pardonné.jpg Some1 ( talk) 23:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)