Talk:Je suis Charlie

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

Pun[edit]

The French-language word "suis" is polysemic and used here as a pun: "Je suis Charlie" means both "I am Charlie" and "I follow Charlie". This can be stated in the article; sourcing for it is trivial. Tuvalkin (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added extra interwikilink. Lotje (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. In this context, it only means "I am Charlie". Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proof for your claim? The BBC said several times in articles that the phrase has double meanings.--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 19:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Xania: Something called context and I speak French. Charlie Hebdo also released a PDF with translations in other languages, see for example in German : "Ich bin Charlie", etc. [1]. Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of context and that's exactly why I thought it may have had a double meaning - it was being used on Twitter so follow may seem very appropriate. However, you are right that the Charlie Hebdo website did translate the phrase into other languages where there is no ambiguity - so yes, I'll accept that it means only I am Charlie.--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 23:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a French speaker born in a French region, the suivre double-meaning resonated with me. Effective slogans work on many levels, such as the recursive nuance as a hashtag. Moi, je suis la discussion [1]. If the French language discussion on this topic leads to revise their section, I propose we follow them at that time, but not until then. (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right to accept alternate meanings for this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.250.159 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Je_suis_Charlie#Le_sens_du_slogan

""Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") is a statement used by supporters of free speech against the 7 January 2015 massacre."[edit]

That was fast! While most newspapers are still reporting the killings, this comments makes it (and the protests) sound like an historic event. For the present, should not the killing and reactions be reported as more of a news story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.15.199 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Wikipedia is not a source of news. CodeCat (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an homage to the line from Spartacus?[edit]

Or is it merely a coincidence? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered that, as I am sure many have. We would need a third party RS to wonder it in Wikipeia's voice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC).
I'd rather think it's a reference to Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.15.145 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author has said it wasn't a reference to anything and that he just thought of it because of the Where's Charlie books. After that of course, everybody interprets it this way or that. Mezigue (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't look like a reference to anything. Xharm (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

It would be good to have pictures like these:

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

    • Unfortunately they are the copyrighted property of their original authors. We have to settle on images taken by our users, or ones where the author has explicitly stated that it is permitted to use their work '''tAD''' (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hence my use of the word like... But we must have Wikipedians from Cannes. And maybe some of these pictures could be released. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
    • I think some of the Je suis Charlie cartoon drawings could appear in this article under the fair use provisions. After all, the authors clearly want them to be publicly disseminated by media (and if notable in media, suitable for WP as well). jni (delete)...just not interested 11:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a greater range of the Je suis Charlie cartoons should appear - if only to show people how nasty this 'newspaper' really is. Then again, since governments have always attempted to control of public opinion, does not anyone find it odd the powers-that-be are now supporting the right of free speech? Just what is going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.50.143 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the place to talk about editing the article, not make personal pronouncements. Alaney2k (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, while containing a conclusion that here some might not agree with, the comment was set against a suggestion - that the article allow a greater range of the Je suis Charlie cartoons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.50.143 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You must be referring to Charlie Hebdo cartoons if you are making a point like that. The other Je Suis Charlie cartoons would be from the world-wide groundswell of support for the magazine and free speech. So, no, you've made up your mind and want to slant opinion, not provide a neutral article. Alaney2k (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered that this groundswell of support might have been carefully manufactured? Sadly, far from being neutral, this article seems to give the impression that Charlie Hebdo are brave supporters of free speech. But might it be said that the cartoons, having nothing to do with freedom of expression–are more about terrorising the freedom of others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.122.124 (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carefully manufactured by a group of thugs who believe they are being righteous? Yeah maybe. As for terrorizing others, how do you get terrorized by drawings? Ooh, that one scares me! :-) Seriously, there is no basis for your theory. There has not been one CH drawing that has advocated terrorism against the people who have attacked it. Look at the most recent cover. All are forgiven. If you want to see advocation of terrorism, then you look at protests with slogans of 'death to XXX'. Or videos advocating attacks. Etc. I hope you can see the difference between those and drawings. Alaney2k (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this ‘theory’–as quoted in the Criticism section–was first put forward by the president of Turkey. Who stated that the cartoons had nothing to do with freedom of expression, but rather with "terrorising the freedom of others." That is, far from killing people, this expression might be taken to mean terrorising the views of people. For, in the present climate, objecting to pro-Charlie statements and sentiment is almost considered a crime against free speech. And so, getting back on topic, should wikipepia use (press) pictures that might have been staged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.233.48 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the images are freely-licensed and editors feel their addition would enhance the article, yes. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page for: International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Mezigue (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}} Add category Category:2015 in France, please. 178.94.120.204 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting use[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30760877

Lots of examples of use by professional sportsmen here, if an editor finds such examples notable '''tAD''' (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considered for deletion?[edit]

Why? 83.104.133.97 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Je suis Charlie#Procedure etc. Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a couple stubborn people insisted it violated "Wikipedia:Recentism" Wikimandia (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please enjoy your soapy slogans that have no place in a serious encylopaedia. If you want to play the advocate's game, go somewhere else. This isn't a compendium of slang terms, political slogans, and other neologisms. This article will be deleted. Wikipedia is not a piece of social media to be scribbled upon by children, like scrap paper. RGloucester — ☎ 06:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 83.104.133.97, try to guess who has their panties in a wad about this article? Wikimandia (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants to delete a page of history ? This is the french equivalent for 9/11, as the world reckons it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.242.22 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a certain site once noted, destroying content in Wikipedia is as rewarding as creating it. 37.219.152.40 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD made the news at http://www.historyandheadlines.com/je-suis-charlie-deletion-discussion-wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.123.193 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! That's amazing. Electronic book burners as used in that article is the apt phrase. RGloucester's declaration above that "This article will be deleted" shows he/she has no neutrality whatsoever in this discussion. How would you know it WILL be deleted for certain? What if an astronaut carved Je Suis Charlie on the moon? What if France renames its country Je Suis Charlie? You can't know the future, and things have to be evaluated without bias. Ahhh and I see from the article that he/she was also the one who wanted to delete the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis article. hmmmm... Wikimandia (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that there shouldn't be an article for every single slogan or hashtag. However, due to the gravity of the events and the usage of the slogan, it gained enough value to be of encyclopedic value. Maybe not all of the information in it is interesting (such as in which sports events it was mentioned), but there's definitely information in there that merits to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Jurjenb (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article title?[edit]

Was there a discussion about moving the article to Je suis Charlie (motto). What was wrong with simply Je suis Charlie? I don't see why the disambiguation is needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see the point either. WP:RM would be needed to move it back. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that definitely needed a discussion. There was no reason to move it. Disambiguation does not happen when the main space is free for a primary topic. I would move it back immediately until someone makes a discussion that agrees to the move, but they've edited the redirect multiple times so it can no longer be undone without an admin. Thanks for that Zfish. JTdaleTalk~ 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This move and redirect of the original made absolutely no sense. It was the editors first edit in relation to Charlie Hebdo articles.Cathar66 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Move it back.--Mrjulesd (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why was "Je suis Charlie (motto)" even chosen at all? There's nothing to disambiguate the phrase from. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, moved back. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not really a motto, more a slogan or even a meme but not a motto, see also wikt:motto, wikt:slogan and wikt:meme. Andrewa (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Are there any good sources for the criticism that you may well be pro freedom of speech and against violence, without actually supporting the Charlie Hebdo newspaper and the Je suis Charlie campaign? For example this blog talks about it but a blog is only a blog and not necessarily credible. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But any online search will show a fair number of I Am Not Charlie blogs and related comments. So why is the Criticism section a mere three lines? If we all believe in Free Speech, should not Wikipedia include the views of people questioning the simple-minded 'I am Charlie' head-line? Should it not reflect on the views that Charlie Hebdo is not a respected, Free Speech supporting, national 'newspaper' - but a vile, Hate Speech pushing, little rag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.15.142 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"But any online search will show a fair number of I Am Not Charlie blogs and related comments" - any online search will show a fair number of blogs saying just about any opinion about anything, but unless they are reliable, they cannot be used. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not about Charlie Hebdo, but rather the 'Je suis Charlie' slogan. Any criticism or simple slander about the mag like the anon expressed would be more appropriately ignored in the Charlie Hebdo article. :-) To the point made though, the weekly knows it is a rag that pokes at authority, so making the point that it is not something more than what it is, is an empty comment. I do think though if you state that it is hate-filled, then you have not actually read it. Alaney2k (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anonymous IP is clearly not familiar with Wikipedia policies if he wants to equate anonymous blogs and Internet comments with a worldwide phenomena of people who went outside to prove their point. I'm fed up of these anonymous IPs abusing talk pages on Charlie Hebdo-associated topics with a blind persecution complex and ironically accusing them of bigotry while citing nothing but their personal beliefs. Maybe if they toned down the hyperbole they would get their point across easier. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 #Jnepascharlie is a "thing" and a reliably sourced "thing". I can't look for RS now but they are out there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Is it simple opposition or is it actual criticism? I think it would be interesting to cover the spectrum of opinion, because even the Islamic State of Iran denounced the Charlie Hebdo killings. Alaney2k (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a section on it, from a BBC article. One sentence on how it garnered 20,000 tweets compared to the 3.5 million by the main one. Which is about due weight. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just added info on recent protests that resulted in injuries and death. The protesters specifically shouted "I am not Charlie, I am Mohammed!" so I think it's clear that they're protesting the "Je suis Charlie" idea. ProfessorTofty (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only includes Charlie's anti-Islamic cartoons. Keith McClary (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe if they toned down the hyperbole they would get their point across easier." While the comment seems to be aimed at anyone questioning the right of Charlie Hebdo to offend and insult people - it could just as well apply to the 'newspaper' in question. Then again, all the mass-media hyperbole does not seem to have harmed Charlie Hebdo. For did not such over-the-top reporting help turn a band of hate-makers into (false) defenders of freedom?

  • Charlie Hebdo was already doing things on behalf of freedom of speech, making points about politicians, etc. making their points with articles and drawings. Without using guns. Without holding hostages. If you disagree with them, fine, but to call them hate-makers only shows your ignorance. Alaney2k (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you appear to (willfully?) misunderstand the true nature of Charlie Hebdo and their nasty agenda. And yet, as right-wing fully understand, there is no need to use guns and or hold hostages to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment. As with the fake Pussy Riot, all they need to do is paint a group as some kind of brave freedom-fighters. For, as if from nowhere, how did the “I am Charlie’ posters just appeared? Clearly, and sadly, few people appear to understand the clever way public opinion can/has been manufactured.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy theories. Take it to the sites dedicated to that sort of thing. Mezigue (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Although it's a bit of a tangent, I do think we have to, as part of editing this article, be able to respond to criticism of its content. I do feel some of it is nonsense. I don't think we can find cartoons to illustrate this person's contention that Hebdo is hateful, and ramping up sentiment. And the tag "Je suis Charlie" is not that either. So, and hopefully to make this point to end this discussion, I don't think we can find examples of either the tag, or in the content of the magazine, because they don't exist. A French court was tasked with determining this very thing and ruled in Hebdo's favour. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before putting this issue to bed - a few comments. Although the reply might have started digressing, this person's main point seems clear enough. Also, the content of Charlie Hebdo must have been less-than-loving, and contain something that was highly insulting – since people do not tend to riot for no reason at all. As the following makes clear:

“…The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that this newspaper specializes in…” David Brooks, I Am Not Charlie Hebdo, New York Times, 8 Jan, 2015

So, is it not a human right for people to avoid having to put up with deliberately-offensive ‘humour’?

Is it not their free speech to say: 'I Am Not Charlie'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.95.200 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#KillAllMuslims[edit]

I brought this over because someone commented that if this hashtag #KillAllMuslims is appropriate to edit here instead of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. This is becoming a trend on Twitter alongside with #KillAllChristians Xizuki (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a RS something like "Why the surge in #KillAllMuslims is not as important as it seems". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

"Je suis ... " translates also as "I follow" - so give it a mention[edit]

Any kid after their first French lesson will tell you "Je suis" means "I am", and if you ask almost anyone who has ever learnt French they will quickly respond the same way. But hey, wait a minute, there is that other not obscure meaning that will come out if they have learnt a little more, and right, it's the 1st person singular present indicative of "suivre", "je suis" meaning "I follow". The two translations both fit for the slogan: the "I am" would make sense if Charlie Hebdo or maybe his animator or creator is making that statement; the "I follow" would make sense for the followers - the readers and supporters. What seems important is to not reject suivre without consideration, but decide if both serve as translations here - using evidence of what was intended by the French people who initiated it, not the obvious single assumption that would be made by an English first-year student. If king and subject can both say je suis le roi, that je suis is also true for both Charlie and his supporters. Or has this point been discussed before and resolved, because I looked and could not find it? Que faire? P0mbal (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the top of this page! Section titled "pun". Mezigue (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merci P0mbal (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translations[edit]

I'd like to add a footnote listing the 7 translations provided in the Charlie Hebdo pdf. It would be something like:

Each translation is three words, where "I am" is a single word, "Hebdo" has been added.

  1. Farsi : من چارلی هستیم
  2. German  : Ich bin Charlie
  3. Spanish : Yo soy Charlie
  4. Catalan : Som Charlie Hebdo
  5. Czech  : [Jsem Charlie Hebdo] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: cz (help)
  6. Arabic  : انا شارلي
  7. Russian : Я Шарли Эбдо (Ya Sharli 'Ebdo)
The translations issued by Charlie Hebdo on the day of the shooting.
  • Farsi
    Farsi
  • German
    German
  • Spanish
    Spanish
  • Catalan
    Catalan
  • Czech
    Czech
  • Arabic
    Arabic
  • Russian
    Russian

Independent translations in Czech did not use the "Hebdo" sticking with "[Jsem Charlie] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: cz (help)".[1]

  1. ^ Názory (8 January 2015). "Rudolf Polanecký: Jsem Charlie".

Maybe a separate section would be better?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Are you sure that's supposed to be Catalan? "som" means "we are" in Catalan, but seems to mean "am" in Slovak https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/som#Slovak Siuenti (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are right. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC).


Do what weve been waiting for the whole time. For every french quote in the article, put the translation in brackets beside it. I dont feel like having to translate words when reading an english article.Saintobalys (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sofixit . All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC).

Origin[edit]

There is a little more about the origin here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Cheer-leading for Charlie and the 'Right' to Insult?[edit]

Despite house rules against pushing a Point-Of-View, it almost seemed that Wikipedia was Charlie. For the general tone and framing of this acticle (almost) appeared to take their line - that Freedom of Speech is the freedom to insult people. Given the growing undertone of anti-muslim feeling,(as well as race-riots in the US), it does not seem wise to be overly-supportive of Charlie. And yet, while few would question the Right to Free Speech, should Wikipedia be supporting the right to insult people or inflame racial problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.134.17 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat balanced by the criticisms section, however the usage section is way in violation of WP:UNDUE. Not every usage of the slogan should get mentioned. It give a "everyone's doing it, why aren't you" vibe in Wikipedia's voice. The number of pictures could be reduced as well. People can go to Wikimedia Commons if they want to see lots of pictures. Richard-of-Earth (talk)
We cover "Je suis Muslim" in the echoes section, and "Je suis Ahmed" was a widely used version. I have removed an illustration that is not of the use of the slogan.
Wikipedia does not support the right to free speech with its editorial voice. Nor does it support Charlie, or any of the other things you mention. On the other hand it is not written to sooth those who are discriminated against.
This article is about a three word phrase that caught the public imagination world-wide for a time. Diminishing or aggrandizing it are against the ethos of Wikipedia, no matter how apparently noble the cause.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Views[edit]

This article has had over 800,000 views, most of them in the first couple of weeks. It is interesting to see the level of views decrease to about 1000 per day from a peak of 131,000+. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

What about criticism of Je suis charlie that hasn't come under then #JeNeSuisPasCharlie banner?[edit]

Some high-profile critics of the movement (Teju Cole, Glenn Greenwald, Emmanuel Todd etc.) have criticized the JSC movement without making use of the "anti" hashtag. Their criticism are yet to be included on the entry. Should they be included in the #JeNeSuisPasCharlie subsection, or should another subsection be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F7:D180:CDF6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need another section. Use the Je Ne Suis Pas section if there is something useful to add. Just adding names critical of the three words might not be of any use. Something notable. Remember this is not a pro- or anti- article per se, but a description of what went on. I mean, I'm not sure there -is- a "movement." I think there was widespread use of the words 'Je Suis Charlie'. I mean you can use the words 'Je suis Charlie' to express solidarity with the victims of the attack, but I suppose an actual movement would have to be ongoing. Maybe you are looking for the Charlie Hebdo article? Alaney2k (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alaney2k, I've just published the edits I wanted to make. I hadn't seen your post, so and I included them in a new subsection. If you see it as fit to put the two segments together, be my guest! 2804:7F7:D180:CDF6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed off the first sentence. It is leading, in the legal sense. Let the criticism speak for itself. I do think it's a large section and could use some trimming. Otherwise, it is useful content. I can't suggest a better location for it, though I do think the criticism attacks something larger than Je Suis Charlie, like Western ignorance and so on. That said, I don't think the critics think the Hebdo writers should have died and that is what a lot of people used the slogan for. Alaney2k (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Town Square in France[edit]

There was a mention of a town square "in France" named "Je suis Charlie". Where in France? In Paris or another city? Oops, now I see the answer. The mention in the 3rd paragraph is supported in another section called Place Name. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Je suis Charlie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Je suis Charlie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 23 November 2017 (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:Je_suis_Charlie&oldid=1207048416"