Talk:Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178

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

English language version[edit]

According to 'French Morning' "Anyone wanting to read the new Charlie Hebdo can check out the digital edition, available now on iphone et ipad, Android or Windows Phone. So far it’s only in French, but an update with the translation into English, Spanish, and Arabic, is expected soon." One reviewer of the app (as linked from the CH website) claims other language versions, including English, are "supposed to appear today". I think I read somewhere that the English version was initially/currently only intended to be digital only, whereas Spanish and Italian versions would also be in print. 31.55.241.55 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Survivors' issue" - a loaded term[edit]

Despite all that has happened, Wikipedia is NOT Charlie Hebdo. And yet, by using the term "Survivors' issue", you appear to be making some kind of a Charlie-supporting statement. To avoid any misunderstanding, might not a more neutral statement be used? What about, "Latest Charlie Hebdo issues printed"?

  • Is the issue not referred to as the "survivors' issue"? If it's not, then the title is totally inappropriate and should be changed. Unless some other term is being used in the media, I'd suggest either "Charlie Hebdo issue 1178" or "14 January 2015 issue of Charlie Hebdo". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is widespread use of the term in the media [1] [2] [3] [4]. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... WWGB, "survivors' issue" does not appear in a single one of the sources you linked to. The last two have the terms "survivors' edition" (in "scare quotes"), the second has "survivors' cover", and the first has "survival issue". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that survivors' issue is a loaded term, gonna go ahead and move this to "Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178". --RAN1 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the title of the article should be neutral, but it is fairly widely referred to as the survivor issue and this should be mentioned up front (I've edited accordingly.) It only works in practice (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@It only works in practice: we need a source, then, that explicitly says that it is widely called the "survivors' issue"—the BBC one does, but only in passing and in "scare quotes". It gives no impression that it's a term generally used to refer to the issue. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice straw man. That is not what my edit said. My edit did not say "widely" or "generally", but "also known as". I added the BBC as a source and the Guardian is another one that's already on the page, if you cared to look. Googling easily reveals thousands more from well-known names like HuffPo, Fox News, etc. Some of the examples are in the headlines.
Also, that is not what scare quotes are. Scare quotes are used when the intent is to disparage or question the thing being quoted. Those are essentially instances of regular unattributed quotes, a commonly used device by news outlets to attempt to maintain an appearance of neutrality by partially disowning (but not disparaging) the language they are using. The same basic form is used when the language in question is from one specific person. But even if they were scare quotes, that would still imply the terminology is widespread enough to qualify for a mere "also known as".
But I have a personal policy of not getting in pissing matches with lawyerly types on wikipedia though, so knock yourself out. I'm not going to waste my time adding multiple citations to satisfy whatever your fetish is here. Possibly someone else will. It only works in practice (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@It only works in practice: You're not understanding at all, are you? You need a source that explicitly states that it is also known as the "survivors' issue". Period. Anything else is WP:OR. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To put things in perspective: the four sources listed above give us "survivors' edition" (in two (thus "multiple") sources), "survivors' cover", and "survival issue". So do we open this article with: Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178, also known as the "survivors' issue", "survivors' edition", "survivors' cover", "survival issue", "etc", "etc", "etc", "etc", "etc", "etc", "etc", "etc", "etc", ... ? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've abandoned your straw man, hoping that no one will notice, covering up your change in tactics with a contemptuous "you still don't get it"... and now your entire premise is to assail the irrelevant part of the phrase! People probably use the phrases "No. 1178 cover", "edition no. 1178" as well. That does not necessitate that we give the entire laundry list of 1178 variants, and so therefore it does not necessitate we give the entire laundry list of "survivor" variants. This is extremely obvious to anyone with a modicum of objectivity. It is also obvious to anyone with a modicum of objectivity that it is worthwhile to mention, in some capacity, a widespread title / description of the issue.
And I can't believe people could still cowed by the OR non-sequitur. I am fairly sure you don't have a source saying "the official title of this publication is Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178". And I am fairly sure it would be extremely stupid of me to use this as an argument to rename the article. Original research does not entail the need to find this nonexistent source: "Simon says, this is the survivor issue."
This is ridiculous. It's bad faith. It's disingenuous. It's trolling. It's making the article objectively worse and less helpful. But at least it has given me an idea for a new project. It only works in practice (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck finding anyone to listen to you. You've convinced me you're just here to stir the pot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Project much? The default position of someone making a good faith argument about something that they think seems to be given undue weight or isn't being framed properly isn't "make up random arguments to justify removing it at all costs." I started by agreeing wholeheartedly with the new title and in this short exchange I never stooped to the level of intentionally lying about your edit. It only works in practice (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lying"?! Yep, you're here to troll. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you start talking about the necessity of needing a source that supported "generally" and "widely" when my edit (that you reverted) contained no such words? If you were mistaken, you could have apologized or at least acknowledged this mistake on your part in your second reply instead of claiming that I was "not understanding at all". You could still prove your sincerity and good faith by apologizing and clarifying your position, and in turn I'd be likely to apologize by being so quick to judge you a troll. But experience tells me this is not likely. It only works in practice (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know the answer, you're simply being dishonest about it—"also known as", in the context of introducing the topic, means the same thing as "generally known as"—especially when you capitalize "Survivors' Issue" (which the sources don't). Good luck refuting that.
I have no idea what I'm supposed to apologize about—you still have your completely off-base and unsupportable accusations of "straw men" and "lying" on the table. You could demonstrate your own good faith by (a) publicly retracting these dishonest accusations; and (b) paying attention to the actual arguments being made. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It shouldn't have been capitalized. Reflexive action on my part. Like I said, I'm the reasonable one in this discussion. You have still poisoned the discussion with your straw man ("widely" or "generally"--I never said or supported this!) such that even the third party opinion provider cannot comprehend this issue. If you're go full of good faith, why didn't you correct his misapprehension? Why do you let your straw man stand, unretracted? Many thousands of people and sources have used "survivor's issue" or similar to describe it. I believe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article along the lines of "also known as". You believe it shouldn't be mentioned at all based on ever-shifting justifications. One of these is a reasonable position. The other is not. It only works in practice (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you won't retract your lies, and you can't be bothered to read what people have written. Listen, buddy, you're obviously trying to bait me, so I'm going to start ignoring you. Nobody's bought your garbage, and you have the persistence of a troll. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Curly Turkey: Let me be absolutely crystal clear here... I was for the article retitling. I am for putting it in lowercase. And I never said anything about putting words like "generally" or "widely" in the article. I simply believe that the phrase "survivor's issue" or variations ("survivor's edition", etc. And no, we don't have to list all minute variations--see my previous post above on this matter) should be used in this article because it is used by so many of the sources. I think that "also known as" is a very general, terse, neutral way of referring to that phrase. But if you insist on having bizarre definitions of "also known as", then I am open to alternative suggestions. I am, in fact, open to ANY suggestion you have for using that phrase in this article, somehow, in some way. Quick, now is your chance to show off just how overflowing you are with good faith. A phrase has been used by multiple sources. Now, I am requesting that you simply explain if there is ANY context in which that phrase is allowed to be used in this article. It only works in practice (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick, now is your chance to go away and never come back. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'."

Opinion: I've not looked at the sources, but from what's been said above I strongly doubt that the inclusion of "survivor's edition" is appropriate. There is a very subtle distinction to be made here. Everything in Wikipedia must have a reliable source. When we say something like "Y is widely known as X," that cannot be based on the fact that many different sources use that term, but must be based upon a reliable source which says, in so many words, that Y is widely known as X. To count sources and come to the editorial conclusion that Y is widely known as X violates the no original research policy and, especially, the synthesis section of that policy, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." While sources may use the term X, the conclusion that "Y is widely known as X" requires a reliable source for the "widely known as" part.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes, but you seem to have completely missed the central the issue involved. As I have already pointed out, the "generally" or "widely" bit was a straw man created by Curly Turkey. My original edit did not contain those words. My edit simply said "also known as". My point is simply that the phrase should be in the article, somewhere, because a lot of sources are using the term to refer to the issue. This is a simple matter of mentioning a common synonym *at all*; not of claiming the relative importance or frequency of usages in the article itself. Analogy: I don't care whether more people call the glowing orb in the sky "the Sun" or "Sol" or "a star"; the point is simply that the article on the Sun is incomplete if all three terms are not mentioned somewhere, in some capacity. To establish that these terms should be mentioned in the article on the sun, we don't need to find one source that literally says the exact phrase "the glowy thing in the sky is commonly known as the sun", "the glowy thing in the sky is commonly known as Sol", "the glowy thing in the sky is commonly referred to as a star" in order to be able use these terms at all even in the presence of multiple sources that use them. It only works in practice (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in Wikipedia must have a reliable source if it is challenged, so what I said about "widely" also applies to "also known as" if it is, as it was, challenged. There must be a source which says that it's also known as that, not merely some source or sources — even many sources — which happen to use that name. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's been told that by me, and he's been told that by you. He's not going to have some epiphany at this point. Just ignore him. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. That's akin to saying "you can't say the New York Times said X unless you find an article (other than the NYT article) saying that the New York Times said X. Where on earth are you reading WPs that specify the necessity of meta-sources? I'm pretty sure Curly Turkey doesn't have any meta-sources saying that the issue is known (be it "also", "generally", or "widely") as 1178. It only works in practice (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right here and here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the rule I was referencing, click on the "must have a reliable source" link in my last post, above. See, here's the thing, if you said that "the Guardian called this the survivor issue" then the Guardian could serve as a PRIMARY source for that statement, but when you combine sources to say "also known as" then you have to have a source which says that it's also known as, otherwise it is — as Curly Turkey says above — a form of prohibited synthesis, a form of original research. On the other hand, saying that the Guardian called it that raises issues of undue weight for that fact, the issue being whether the Guardian saying that is of sufficient importance in relation to the rest of the article to include it, the fact that it's only primarily cited doesn't help that much: important facts about a subject will ordinarily be reported in multiple secondary sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: I swear it looks like you and turkey are trying to mess with practice's head. Anyways, here are refs that imply that others use the term "survivor's issue":

This is an important fact, published in multiple secondary sources. What is the problem here? All he wants is for the article to say it is also known as the "survivors' issue". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of issues:
  • You quote "The "survivors' issue", as the magazine calls it, is available in six languages including English, Arabic and Turkish."—but this quotation does not appear in the source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30808284.
  • What makes http://whshiseye.com/index.php/op-ed/1964-attacks-in-paris a Reliable Source?
  • A number of other sources have been presented which call the issue different variations of "survivors' issue", as has already been pointed out, none of which claim it is official or even widely used.
  • Does the issue actually call itself "survivors' issue", or are these sources simply quoting from when this Wikipedia article's title was "Charlie Hebdo survivors' issue"? Can we get some evidence that was so, especially as TransporterMan was not claiming CH itself called it that, but that the media did?
I'm particularly concerned with the attribution of such a claim to the BBC that is not backed up by looking at the BBC article itself. I'm afraid we'll need much stronger evidence than this, especially as it's already been demonstrated that the media use a wide variety of terms. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I believe that with some of those sources that this issue changes. The third and fourth one are reliable sources for an assertion that this issue is "being called the survivor's issue" and the second one, using "so-called" could also be included. However, the most intriguing one is the first one which says that Charlie Hebdo itself calls the issue the survivor's issue. I tracked that down to this article at the French Le Monde site which says (machine translation)

"On the website of the newspaper, a text accompanied by a drawing of a hand holding a pencil were published Thursday. Announcing the release of the January 14 'newspaper of the survivors,' it says: '"Because the pen is always above barbarism ... Because freedom is a universal right ... Because you support us ... We, Charlie come out next Wednesday your newspaper!'"

(emphasis added). The actual image from the website can be seen here in the Internet Archive. I think in translation "le journal des survivants" — "the newspaper of the survivors" would be the "survivors' issue." Since the magazine's website is a PRIMARY source for this, I think something like "which the magazine referred to as the survivors' issue" is wholly warranted, sourced with the actual image and supported by cites to the first source given by Richard-of-Earth, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC) PS: Curley, the first source does say "'The survivors' issue', as the magazine calls it, is available in six languages including English, Arabic and Turkish." It's after the subheading 'Charlie is alive,' just below the photo. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Big problems, TransporterMan: as I've already pointed out, the BBC did not claim that CH called it the "survivors' issue" (read the source—the quote isn't there), and the only other source that made that claim does not appear at be a RS. The archived link you provide is an advertisement for the then-upcoming issue, and it calls itself "Le journal des survivants" ("the newspaper of survivors") but does not label the issue as a "survivors' issue". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a direct cut and paste copy from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30808284: "Normally Charlie Hebdo prints 60,000 copies but the planned run increased steadily this week - from one million to three million to five million. The 'survivors' issue', as the magazine calls it, is available in six languages including English, Arabic and Turkish." You have a point, however, about the newspaper vs. issue translation: Issue is credible - "today's issue of the NYT" is interchangeable with "today's NYT newspaper" especially when used in a newspaper-shaped box — but PRIMARY says that there can't be any interpretation (of meaning, not language) when using a primary source and that's interpretation, so I stand down on that particular point. However, the BBC source discussed above is enough to get in the assertion that Charlie Hebdo calls it the survivors' issue and the third and fourth sources are enough to get in an assertion that the issue is "called the survivors' issue." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I apologize—there was a pop-up at the bottom of the BBC site that was blocking out my searches. Now that we have something to go on, can we get direct evidence that CH themselves actually called it "le numéro des survivants"? I've been searching in French (also an image search), and I can't find such evidence. It doesn't say it anywhere on their website. There's still the danger that BBC took Wikipedia's word when the article was still titled "Charlie Hebdo survivors' issue". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it may be that an editorial declared "this is the survivors' issue". In that case, it would be apporpriate to quote that in the body, but it would still be totally inappropriate to say "aka The Survivors' Issue" in the lead, as in such a case it wouldn't have been officially titled so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My role here is as a neutral party giving my opinion as dispute resolution. As part of that, I limit myself to doing that and to avoid participating in the editing of the article in relation to the matter in dispute. In light of that, I am probably done here. Unless the other participants in this dispute, It only works in practice or Richard-of-Earth, wish to pursue this further, it's up to Curly Turkey and the community at large to decide what to do in regard to this "survivors' issue" material. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity of respecting the person of the Prophet[edit]

The article should provide better information to counter allegations that the cover actually slanders the Prophet. The cover certainly doesn't do that, since it clearly figures the Prophet as someone wholly according to the cartoonist's own heart, and the linked interview of the latter confirms as much: the Prophet is figured as someone with whom the cartoonist can identify with affection, while staying true to himself, his art and his lost friends. In contrast, muslim religious authorities as much as imply that the Prophet is slandered - IOW, pictured on that cover with intent of showing him hateful or ridiculous to the eyes of the journal's ordinary public or the western world. This isn't so at all.

The heart of the irony of the cartoon is thus that it mocks whoever it mocks - if anyone - by loving the Prophet according to the cartoonist's own standards. Whoever that cover mocks, if anybody, is therefore not the Prophet himself. The language of the condemnations of that cover page by various authorities and crowds, seems therefore predicated on a confusion of the matter

(a) of respecting or loving as a non-muslim the person of the Prophet; what, by definition of non-muslim, doesn't include submission to his commands (or alleged commands) - no more so than respecting any arbitrary person as a person, implies a necessity to submit to what that person commands (or is alleged to command),

with the distinct matter

(b) of respecting or loving the person of the Prophet as a Muslim, what would include obeying his words and thus the ban on figuring him derived from these words.

I don't see that the Wikipedia article does what's necessary to clear up that confusion, although I see it as being its duty, but given my experience with updating Wikipedia articles, I won't try to update it myself. 178.238.175.179 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I removed a few redundant linebreaks in your comment to ease reading, I hope it's okay.) I don't disagree with your view, but we would need to base such an update on reliable sources. If you know of reliable and significant sources which have covered this distinction, you could provide links to them here, and someone might update the article accordingly.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary political assumption[edit]

This statement can be found in the Media coverage section: "The centre-left Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet included several pages from the Charlie Hebdo issue in its own edition and included small pictures of the cover."

Is it appropriate to call it "centre-left"? First, is there objective, cited evidence that it has a political leaning, and second, is it even relevant to the article? JarmihiGOCE (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has some relevance, but whether it can be sourced is of course another matter. Often, the political alignment of newspapers is common knowledge and not really disputed by anyone (including the papers themselves), but disproportionately difficult to prove in some sort of scientific manner. Yet, knowing this paper's alignment helps me understand its motives/message (i.e., it's likely not an overt hatred or opposition towards Muslims or Muslim culture in general, but rather towards religious authoritarianism and oppression of free speech), and that understanding is not without value - on the contrary, the mere factlet that some paper printed excerpts from the Charlie Hebdo issue would only have little value without an accompanying understanding of that paper's message. That is not to say that considerations for meaningfulness can override Wikipedia policies here; but maybe rather that it ought to could.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Careful: that's veering into WP:OR territory. Being merely interesting or even helpful is not sufficient for inclusion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Luz's experience[edit]

As I've mentioned in Luz's talk page and the shooting talk page, Vice recently came out with an interview with Luz (the man who drew the cover) -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebL1oCy6tgY -- that seems relevant. I'm not yet sure myself how much is relevant and where, but it's probably just going to get disputed anyway so I thought I'd throw it up here and see what the consensus is.

It's a little tricky because the interview itself is quite terse, very dense, and conducted in subtitled French. In a nutshell, it seems that Luz didn't "oversleep" but rather spent the morning celebrating his birthday (which happened to be Jan 7th) with his wife, apparently arrived immediately after the gunmen entered the building and was told not to go inside, heard "the first shot", did not leave the premises and eventually saw the gunmen leave the building, at which point they fired at him (presumably not knowing who he was?) and missed. He then entered the building, apparently before the paramedics, and was apparently to some degree involved in administering first aid in an attempt to save lives. He further goes on explain his (rather poetic and quirky) interpretation of the "All is Forgiven" line on the cover and then recounts a brief story about a Muslim apologizing to him at a funeral and his response that he had nothing to apologize for.

I think much of this is relevant, at least insofar as the experience / context / intentions of an artist is highly relevant when a work of art is as controversial as this one has been. It only works in practice (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For people who don't appreciate Buzzfeed-style glosses as above, the upshot is
a) The interview was conducted in English. Luz understood and, as Parisians do, simply replied in French.
b) The interesting issue is the Journal Responsable, their mock-up issue for those who say Je suis Charlie mais... It doesn't hurt anyone's feelings because it's almost entirely white space, with a few headlines and sentence fragments.
c) Wear a belt. It's terrible to need a tourniquet and be unable to make one.
d) For him, the highlight of the solidarity march was a pigeon shitting on Holland.
e) Saudi Arabia is not Charlie.
f) For people who've only seen this cover out of context, he notes (around 00:11:30) it's a reference to the other one, where Muhammad (pbuh) is saying "100 lashes! ... if you don't die of laughter". For him, All Is Forgiven's not about M— himself but the drawing itself, as though it were an actor playing a part. The forgiveness is him apologizing to his creation for "putting you through all this" and the drawing 'forgiving' him in turn: "You're alive. You'll be able to keep drawing me."
As a side note, that's not his "interpretation". He is the actual guy who wrote it. It's his meaning, although other people can take it as they will. — LlywelynII 02:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hebdo image[edit]

FYI in case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_April_12#File:Charlie_Hebdo_Tout_est_pardonné.jpg Some1 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_issue_No._1178&oldid=1206626945"