Talk:2016 Normandy church attack

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

Name change

Could '2016 France church attack' be a more appropriate for the page name on the basis France will likely be more widely searched than Normandy and France attack seems to be a common name in articles? --LegereScire (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy is a well-known region. Jim Michael (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was titled
2016 Nice attack and not 2016 Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur attack. Having the city's name in the title as opposed to the region's is more useful for the reader IMO. --Tocino 15:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Present name is good IMO 'French' is too vague, but could be a redirect. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dallas, Munich and Nice are all very well-known, major cities. Very few people outside France have heard of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, which has fewer than 30,000 inhabitants. If you were talking about this to anyone who doesn't live in Normandy, you wouldn't even mention the name of the small settlement it's in - you'd say Normandy or (Northern) France. Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about Rouen as a compromise? I think it meets both criteria (or misses very closely) Cato censor (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just like "Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray", next to no non-French have heard of "Rouen". juju (hajime! | waza) 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse '2016 Normandy church attack', 'Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray church attack' can always be a redirct as can 'French church attack'. Media are not saying 'Rouen', they are using either the town or Normandy. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It may depend on the country. At least in Spain Rouen is well known, and probably is as well in other Western European countries. However, a title with Rouen would be misleading as readers would interpret that the attack took place in Rouen proper. IMHO, Normandy is a better choice. France... is just too vague. Sabbut (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just question if people in other countries see the incident as one in Normandy or France. Do people around the world know Normandy and is the most common name for the incident France rather than Normandy? --LegereScire (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Canadian and I think Normandy's the second most-famous city in France. I'm from the New France part, though, so might be a bit skewed (voyageurs are basically gods here). That aside, I still think the
Invasion of Normandy put it back on the map for most who took history class in an "Allied" country. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Normandy is a
city. Jim Michael (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I'll be damned. Turns out Étienne Brûlé was also basically a man. Maybe I could have paid more attention in class, but the name still rings a bell. That's the important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normandy is probably the most well-known region of France, probably because of its major role in WW2. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it was a well-known something. This at least suggests the better-educated reader will recognize it as a French region, the dumber folk will recognize it as "somewhere in France, near the water" and this title works best overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible name, needs change. No, not one, news sources calls it "2016 Normandy church attack" so the title is illegal Wikipedia original research. Should merge with "Murder of Jacques Hamel". Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. Should just be Normandy church attack. No need to distinguish by year, especially when a main angle is the rarity of something like this happening, in the entire Western world, nevermind just Normandy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Murder of Jacques Hamel", the only outlet I see running with that in the headline is The Belfast Telegraph. A fine paper, but hardly makes it a common name. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, but only to comply with Wikipedia custom that no names should be used, only "Murder of ____". That rule should be changed. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent, The Washington Post, The Telegraph, The Express etc. The year 2016 is just there as a time marker, otherwise "Normandy church attack" is used extensively around the world. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is some logic. In the spirit of cooperation, I can accept that but the 2016 must go unless there is a 2017 attack. The Munich massacre of Israelis does not have a year. We don't need a year (or a stardate). Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or a feast day (Hieromartyrs Hermolaus, Hermippus and Hermocrates in the East, Jesus' grandma in the West, if anyone was wondering). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this count as a Normandy church attack before 2016? WWGB (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely counts as a mess, but I can't seem to Google what happened. If it's "collateral damage", no. If someone aimed for it, probably. Does a Catholic abbey war count as a church attack if the dead soldiers were prisoners, so the killer spent his life in prison? Does snagging on a spire count as landing on a tower? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Wikipedia has an Ardenne Abbey massacre I somehow missed the first time. No yearly disambiguation needed there. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fun Fact: Google no longer autocompletes "normandy church attack", at least for me. Nor "nice truck attack" or "wurzburg train attack". They were all working two days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite this is a first

Radical muslims often call westeners cruzaders because of the Christian heritage, however, I'm pretty sure this is the first time a terrorist attack by ISIS targets specifically practizing Christians outside the Middle East or the Arab world. I'd like to add that to the article, but I feel like it would need a citation. I find hard to even look for a citation for that, though. Is there a workaround for this? Cato censor (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cato censor, short answer, no, wait for someone to make that observation.Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cato censor, here is a helpful link for you. From that link, you'll find recent attacks in Ohio, India, Netherlands, and New Jersey, allegedly committed by Islamists against Christian targets. It is not clear if the perpetrators were members of ISIS. I hope this helps. Allreleeg N. S. Ally (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be rude or sarcastic on WP, Allreleeg N. S. Ally, —not even belligerent—. Your search leads to a couple of sites I've already visited and do not give any additional insights. Cato censor (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing rude, sarcastic, or belligerent in my comment, solely intended to point you to further information that you seek. Are you confusing me with another editor? Allreleeg N. S. Ally (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about this event, only comparisons drawn by others are valid. No
WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Aye. And no Daily Mail, if at all possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion here. For reading only now. Continue here. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see that the statement this is not quite a first is there and isn't sourced. IMHO it was said this actually is a first and so it is written in the article ("first killing of a priest inside a church in Europe"). This is an important statement. Similar statements were previously deleted by other editors in the ground that they thought it wasn't true (as far as I understand). It became relevant to add details (what has actually happened before). I don't see any conclusions in the current text.
Just to understand your point, i) Maybe the verb to target is ambiguous here? I read it as a plan (not currently successful). It adds to the fact that this is a first, and to which extent. ii) Maybe you mean the very fact of citing related attacks should be left to the See also section? In that case, I fear the whole paragraph could be deleted by someone thinking this is not true, the journalist in the first sentence thus not being reliable enough. Cato censor (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole spirit of "However..." is the problem. It posits an idea that isn't connected to this topic by a reliable source. The idea that the idea of Islamists attacking a church is pertinent is your own. That's not to say it isn't pertinent, it just isn't said to be by a (cited) source. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see. The word However got out of context after an edit. What the whole sentence was meant to say when I wrote it is there have been plans before (not attacks), with a cite to CNN and to other WP article. Not to deny anything previously stated. Cato censor (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine everyone was allowed to clarify firsts with something kind of similar that happened before. Neil Armstrong's first man on the moon bit could be augmented by Lucian considering it in
dead horses as parked cars. These are admittedly a bit absurd, but on the same track as contrasting actual European church killings with imagined ones or actual ones in Asia. CNN mentions nothing about ISIS targeting or attacking any church, but you use it to say it has. That's even beyond mere synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I see the point, and I think you are right.
No need to be aggressive though: 1) I was trying to help, and 2) CNN (which was first cited by another editor, who I just trusted) mentions ISIS many times and states that islamists —at least linked to ISIS in a loose sense, judging for documents they possessed— have planned to attack the Vatican, undisclosed French churches and Christian people. It might have some degree of synthesis, but was neither made by me nor is "even beyond mere synthesis", as I see it.
I'd be thankful if you propose an alternative wording. I also want to make sure you see that my point never was to diminish the attack's relevance, or refute this was the first attack to a European church by radical islamists. Cato censor (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? Still only related by our own willpower, but closer to what CNN says. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That reflects exactly the spirit of what I wanted to say: previous plans, not attacks. Cato censor (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could even add that the orders are alleged.Cato censor (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the spirit's fine by you, and the meat is fine by me, I guess that's fine by us. But if someone else still objects on relevance grounds, I won't argue to keep it. I said they were "accused", I think that covers "alleged". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding i) I originally added the word unsuccessful in the text but it was subsequently deleted. Maybe we can find a better wording for that. Cato censor (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that French guy had a list, which sources actually did use to link this to that. Go figure. How the Vatican plot factors into anything is still unclear. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looses a lot of relevance in the light of this. Cato censor (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of Ahura Mazda! How now? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is, "How do you figure it's presently less relevant", not how now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
AFAIK, this church being on the alleged list of the accused plotter is not supported by any RS, (except 'The Sun'), Telegraph speaks of 'reportedly on the list', without saying who reported it. I don't object to present text, because speculation about a connection is widespread, but confirmation by any authority is missing AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We might want to be careful about both mentioning tabloid-sourced damning bits about an untried defendant and mentioning him at all in the context of a more high-profile, arguably eviler, crime. The whole idea of a section explicitly called "Context" is a bit weird, too. I can't remember seeing it in similar articles, and it seems vaguely-defined enough to include all sorts of tenuous connections that turn out to be nothing. But as long as we're only somewhat tainting one man, it's not exactly terrible yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Timeline useful at present?

Timeline of attack

26 July:

  • 09:43 – priest, Jacques Hamel, two nuns and two worshippers taken hostage by two men armed with knives in the church during mass. Hamel was killed.
  • App. 11:00 – police operation over, with both attackers shot and killed by police.
All times are UTC+01:00.

I question whether this timeline is useful, since it records only two events, Priest attacked and killed, Killers killed. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say not. It's too sparse. Maybe if more detailed information comes out. juju (hajime! | waza) 21:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed for now.Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to figure out at what time was the Mass scheduled (which I think is relevant for all), or at what point was it interrupted (which is very relevant for Catholic readers), without success yet. How many events do you guys think would justify such a timeline? (If it can be justified at all). Is there a WP criterion for that? Cato censor (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Is there a WP criterion ?, no there isn't. An RfC is ongoing on the 'Nice attack' about a timeline. Finally it is up to us to judge when one is useful. One of the disagreements on the 'Nice' article is about whether ANY of the times are reliable, since many are 'approx', or contradictory in different sources. Basically the questions are, is a timeline useful? and are we fairly sure about times?. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, side note: according to Corriere della Sera, the Church had a Mass scheduled on weekdays at 9 am, [which is consistent with the attack happening nearer to the end of the Mass] normally celebrated by the Parish-priest, Fr. Hamel acting as a substitute that day. I'm not sure where to put it, nor exactly how to write it. Cato censor (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cato censor, not sure either and I have very basic Italian, so I can't vouch for info in the source, I would suggest either very briefly in first sentence of 'Attack'. E.g. "as Mass was being held" becomes "during the Mass, which was held daily(?) at 09:00 at the church". Or add a fuller sentence later possibly in 'context' saying the service was daily and the circumstances of Hamel being 'stand-in'. I suspect that if you put too much early on, other editors will think it too trivial. Also, although we know normal 'start times', we maybe don't know for sure at what point in the service they were that particular day. Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The town’s mosque opened in 2000 on land donated by the Catholic parish ?

This text has been inserted a couple of times: The New York Times reported that "the town’s mosque opened in 2000 on land donated by the Catholic parish". Is this relevant? On the one hand it shows good faith towards the Muslim community, on the other, it's a bit 'ungrateful people', who as far as I know are as appalled as everyone by what happened. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant (It was worthy for me to know), but I might be biased. About the text itself, I think it intended to point exactly the opposite way: there were good interfaith relationships in the town. The attackers just did not care about these good relationships ---or might have even considered them offensive?---. It has been reported Fr. Hamel had himself worked together with the towns Muslim leader. Cato censor (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better moved to alongside Hamel's 'good interfaith relations', although it's about the parish and not strictly about him. Pincrete (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it suggests Christians are one cohesive unit and Muslims are the other. Perpetuates an oversimplistic view. Fine for bees vs hornets, not so much for human society. If Hamel had personally done something for one (or both) of his killers, that would be more relevant to this topic. Many writers are using this incident as a pretext to ponder the wider picture, so that sort of thing is fine in those stories. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Hamel had anything to do with the land grant, and/or either of the killers attended the mosque, that could help the case for relevance. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The local attacker was recently 'banned' by the mosque, but apparently continued to go anyway, I'm fairly sure I read that in one of our sources. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, —not sure how trustworthy, though— he was the Parish-priest at the time the land was donated. Most sources only cite the year 2000 for both the donation and his arrival to the office, without citing more accurate dates. I'm still looking for something stronger.Cato censor (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
«The NouvelObs reported that after his attempts to reach Syria, the local mosque asked him to stay away from prayers; a request he apparently ignored.»[1]. There you go. XavierItzm (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/french-church-killer-adel-kermiche-a-ticking-time-bomb-1.2735986

Brexit reaches the Vatican?

Re: Andrea Tornielli, writing for the Vatican Insider, says "this is the first time a priest has died inside a European church" … … has Tornielli never heard of

Thomas a Becket? Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It is not unreasonable to think he was talking about present-day radical islamism. Otherwise he is obviously wrong, and unworthy of writing for the Vatican Insider: I doubt no priests died inside churches during the Spanish Civil War either. Cato censor (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I looked for a context, intended perhaps, but not there. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fair philosophical case to be made that things which happened when we didn't exist didn't actully happen. It's usually applied to trees, but deep down inside, aren't we all trees? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fun Fact: The priest Herbert Mullin killed in a California church came from Marseilles. Police said they were looking into "all possibilities", though "stopping earthquakes" likely never crossed a mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#SomosTodosLosGatos? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

How many nuns?

This source speaks of two 'hostage nuns' + one 'escapee' (Danielle?. Most sources speak of only two nuns + two parishioners. Which is right? Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are right. There were briefly five, one escaped, then there were four for the longer while. Like how Pete Best both was and was not a Beatle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, there were initially 6 hostages, one who got out during the killing. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
again, three nuns. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not following. Three nuns plus two non-nuns is five hostages, not six. Unless you include the priest, but killing him seemed the intention from the start, not holding him. When one nun went on the run, she stopped being a hostage, leaving two nuns and two parishioners. If a parishioner got away (before it ended), that's news to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes inc priest, who was initially a hostage, but I've rephrased such that I hope numbers are clear. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 'captive' would be clearer than 'hostage' of the initial phase, will amend. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That works, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the year from the title?

Seems to be something like a consensus that this sort of disambiguation is unneeded above at "Name change", but thought I'd doublecheck. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like the addition of the year, though not necessary for disambig purposes, it does help to define the subject. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The years used to mean more when they were defined by what was on TV and the radio. Since the Internet took off, those lines are blurred. To me, anyway. If demarcation still works for you, that's cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The year is needed to disambiguate between this and the Ardenne Abbey massacre - both of which were murders in churches in Normandy. Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, it would be called the 1944 Ardenne Abbey massacre. The murders there happened in a chateau's garden, not a church, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both locations are Christian buildings in Normandy. The 1944 massacre doesn't need disambiguation because it specifies the building by name. Jim Michael (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An abbey isn't a building. More of a neighbourhood. This particular garden was outside; a garden building is a conservatory. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? Try Westminster Abbey, Shrewsbury Abbey etc. Larger abbeys frequent have a complex of secondary buildings and sometimes attached land but an abbey is essentially one or multiple buildings. A conservatory is a specific kind of garden building, usually attached to a conventional building, mainly glass. Pincrete (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are just the common names for the abbey churches. A church is the heart of most abbeys, but not the whole thing. In England, the churches were often all that remained from the
Dissolution of the Monasteries, so got the whole word. In Ardenne, nobody was killed in the church. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd support removing the year from the title in strong hopes that there's not another attack in a Normandy church, not sure if that's wiki policy though. Zaostao (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any other attacks in/at/on churches in Normandy ? Jim Michael (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was some manner of carnage going on while John Steele hung around, but we don't have an article on it. According to Wikipedia, the church itself was shot at least twice. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And something went down here. Whether it was an attack or accident, I don't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primary purpose of a title is to identify a subject, 'Normandy church attack', could refer to anything in the last 1000+ years, it works in the current news cycle, but how well when attention moves on? I don't see the advantage of removing the year, when it does so much to 'pin the subject down'. Disambiguating is a secondary purpose of titling. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can only refer to church attacks in Normandy. If this remains the only one on Wikipedia, the
concise name is precise enough. To me, specifying a date seems like calling it a Catholic church or an Islamist attack; details are for the lead. In any case, this story is already old news. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree with Pincrete, the year adds useful specificity. Also it avoids our endemic recentism. It's been a long millennia. Plus during WWII churches in Normandy were specified as targets by officers ordering tank attacks because they were tall and, therefore, useful targets to mark the location of a town or village.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, if true. Seems a little primitive for the time. Any notably hit? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Church towers were often used by snipers and 'lookouts' in 'Normandy etc' campaign in WWII. Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's defending, not attacking. Were many or any hit? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Church militant ?

there is an alternative response here, written by Maureen Mullarkey, who is an art critic and occasional writer on religion, the article criticises everyone from the Pope ("Jorge Bergolio’s (sic) quisling pontificate") to one of the 'nun hostages' ("The historical (St.) Francis … … would spin in his grave at the words of Sister Helene … … Her captor turned from his kill to ask if she was familiar with the Qur’an. She answered, “Yes, I respect it like I respect the Bible.” Her words suggest equality between the two"). Basically she criticises the whole idea of tolerance/respect of Islam and failure to defend RC. I don't know whether any of this is usable, as I'm unfamiliar with 'the Federalist' or this writer. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is The Federalist, here is Mullarkey. At a glance, I'd guess they're all nuts, but assuming they're fine, what would you want to use them to say? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From a technical point of view, tolerance towards Islam and suggesting equality between it and Catholicism are two very different things. Cato censor (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She technically only said the books were both fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
“Yes, I respect it like I respect the Bible,” is not at all saying that both books are fine. Much less when one considers that the original speaker is a nun. XavierItzm (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, and she can't spell the Pope's name when she is using it trying to be rude to him. It wasn't whether we agree, or think she is correct, rather just whether this was a valid, alternative response. Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The part
someone with a bit of clout said the same thing, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Sid Ahmed Ghlam hit list

I'm a bit sceptical about "Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray was allegedly on a list of ISIL target churches found on April 2015 on electronic equipment belonging to accused terrorist Sid Ahmed Ghlam".

The source used is the Express. The Daily Mail and The Sun printed a similar story, but no other major Eng language source as far as I can see. None of the three papers indicated any source to their claim and the Sid Ahmed Ghlam case page repeats the same claim, with no additional sources. That such a list of churches existed is widely reported, that Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray was on it doesn't appear to be. That major churches or cathedrals might be on such a 'hit list' is unsurprising, that an obscure provincial church should be on it seems bizarre, especially since the list has not yet been made public AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Express, the Daily Mail and the Sun are three major English newspapers. Next time a bit of news is only printed by the NYT and the LAT, which proportionally are smaller than the three Brit papers together, should we dismiss the report because it just came from these two? XavierItzm (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm, these are three papers known for 'sensationalising', and I believe most, if not all of them reported it as "other papers reported this" ie we claim no responsibility for it and are only repeating what others said. Reliability is not established by sales figures, but by reputation for fact checking. If only these printed it, it should at least be attributed, not in WP voice, I would feel exactly the same if NYTimes were the only source. The existence of such a list is widely reported in relation to the 'Ghlam' case, its contents have not been made public AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Express appears to be the original source, several international news sources repeat the story, many of them crediting the Express. None indicate where the info came from (police sources?/spokesman?). My French is not good enough to find out, but given the extraordinary claim(s) (that police knew, but did nothing), it would be pretty extraordinary that Fr news would not cover this story if is more than Chinese whispers. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

This discussion has been moved to
Join WP Japan! 05:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

Alfred Nemours (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 28 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


2016 Normandy church attack → Normandy church attack – There's no disambiguation, so no year is needed. Gateshead001 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose there was a lengthy discussion earlier in the year about this article and similar ones I'll try to look for the links. The point made was that in some instances, omitting the year made the title so vague, that it failed to identify the subject. Does the title refer to an event in WWII? Or to some event in Normandy's 1000+ year history? Many other possible names were considered, but it was thought unlikely that non-French people would know or remember the name of the church or the village or the priest. The purpose of a name AFA possible is to identify a subject, not simply to give a unique title. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we use the year for terrorist attacks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I choose to oppose because
    WP:COMMONNAME. MayMay7 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Normandy_church_attack&oldid=1196713067"