Talk:Jacques Hamel/Archive 1

Unnecessary fork

S/b merged into the attack's article. juju (hajime! | waza) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but this is the first time I've heard of a Catholic priest being killed by Islamic terrorists, at least in recent days. I say we wait on a potential merge until further developments come in. Parsley Man (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the big bloody deal?

Crispus Attucks has his own article. Why not Fr. Hamel? 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations

When I added the first content to this article after the redirect, I placed all the references at the end in the references section, with WP:LDR. I did this to avoid clutter. User:Zigzig20s has asked me not to. Zig believes that it is easier cite at the end of each sentence, but I find that doing so "can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing."

The article was created with all the references at the end, and as "articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so," I am going to revert back to the original format. If a consensus should emerge that references should appear in the body, I will respect that. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. I don't want to edit-war over this, but your version creates three citing errors. This article is fairly short and we don't need to worry about "clutter". The in-line citations in the body of the text make it easier to expand the article, which is going to happen a lot as this is a work in progress. So please stop. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war over this either. That's why I said that I would respect the consensus if one emerged, but so far none has. It is simply you unilaterally changing the format of the references. That was the third time you have moved those references and I will remind you about the WP:3RR. I apologize for the errors; that was clearly my mistake. However, the solution in this case would have been to fix the errors, not simply revert back to your preferred version.

I do not understand why you think it is easier to to grow the article by keeping the references inline. Could you explain it to me? Several of the references in this article are used multiple times. Would it not be better to have them all in one central location than to have to search the entire article for them? Additionally, as the article grows, the clutter will increase. It is far easier to keep it neat and clean as well go than it is to do a massive job once the article has been expanded. I will wait for others to chime in on this before taking any other action. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Briancua: There is, once again, yet another citing error, because of your action. Please STOP!! It is perfectly normal to add in-line citations in the body of the text, and it prevents recurring citating errors from occurring again and again and again...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize for the citation errors. They don't appear in my sandbox when I am working on the changes. I don't know why they appear once it is moved to the mainspace. Again, however, I will point out that it would be preferred if you would fix the errors rather than revert. You do not have consensus to make this change. I am going to revert, and ensure there are no citation errors. Please do not revert again without getting a consensus on talk first.--BrianCUA (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? You do not own this article. The vast majority of articles have in-line citations in the body of the text. Why should this article be different?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't own the article. However, you are mistaken about where the references originally were. Originally they were all at the end. You moved them. The reason they were originally at the end, and why I continue to move them back, is to avoid clutter, as I stated above. WP:CITE warn against this, saying "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing." To prevent this, one can use "list-defined references by collecting the full citation code within the reference list template." That is why.

Again, if you can gain consensus to move them into the body of the text, I will respect that. In the meantime, I would ask you to respect WP:CITEVAR, which states, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page..." --BrianCUA (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Religious characterizations of Hamel

Hello. There is some disturbing trend going on with this encyclopedia page. While certainly a tragic and extremely violent event, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a general place to declare sympathy, praise or mourn anything. There are numerous other places on-line where one can engage in such activities.

One place where this trend has put its mark on this page is in the case of martyrdom. Martyrdom is not something anyone can declare. There are rules about this, just as there are rules about how and who can declare someone a saint. There is a sketchy description in one of the sources for this article here:

The canonisation process is a lengthy one involving two miracles attributed to the person’s intercession, but in the case of a martyr only one miracle is needed, after beatification. There must first be a declaration by the Vatican that the person indeed died for the faith.[1]

Until (or if) Hamel is officially declared a martyr, we cannot write that he is. No matter who says so.

Ok, this was just an effort to hopefully end the current editorial quarrel about this single issue. But the problem with religious characterizations goes a bit deeper than that. Islamists has described Hamel as an infidel for example, so should Wikipedia reflect this characterization also? I hope this helps to illustrate that introducing religious characterisations in Wikipedia is a blind road that leads nowhere. So please be more cautious about it. RhinoMind (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

We have reliable sources who are declaring that he was a martyr. I don't understand what the problem is. --BrianCUA (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No you clearly do not. And that was one of the reasons I wrote this lenghty paragraph here, where I elaborately explains that it is the Vatican that declares if someone is a martyr or not. And the Vatican has not declared Hamel a martyr. End of story. RhinoMind (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't need an official declaration of martyrdom for someone to be considered a martyr, even within the Church. For example, Óscar Romero was included in a commemoration of 20th century martyrs by Pope John Paul the Great in 2000, but his official declaration did not come until 2015 with Pope Francis. Can you cite for me the requirement that the Vatican declare someone to be a martyr before we can call them one? --BrianCUA (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Martyrdom is not a solely Catholic thing! People of ANY religion can be martyred. Just because the Vatican didn't declare him a martyr doesn't mean he wasn't martyred. 107.147.214.139 (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Edit: You can also be martyred for secular causes. 107.147.214.139 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Hamel was a Catholic, so this is of course about that. Take the general discussion to the martyr page. It is in need of much information on how exactly to attain martyrdom within various religions. Some people think they have authority to declare someone a martyr. To continue the religious phrasing, it is nothing but heresy. RhinoMind (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

We could certainly add that the press has called him a "martyr", and cite over a dozen sources. Would you prefer that?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Good morning. Well, I think I managed to get across that it is not about what I prefer, but a general issue about balancing, being an encyclopedia and most of all getting the facts right. I for my part am fine with mentioning (in the section about his death) that people has dubbed him a martyr in the press and others have suggested that he becomes one, if not putting outright pressure on the Vatican to announce him one. Because that is true. But as I also think I managed to make clear in my initial post, we also have to think about the consequences of endulging in these (unofficial) religious characterizations. Should we also write that Islamists have dubbed him an infidel perhaps? I see this whole thing as a slide in to a mumbo-jumbo devoid of any substance and meaning and certainly not something with a place in an encyclopedia. And above it all hovers the unasked question: What difference does it make to this tragic event, that Hamel is dubbed a martyr or a saint even? As I see it, it does not make any difference, except perhaps serving other peoples political purposes. That is more of a moral and philosophical question of course, but one that everyone involved should ponder. RhinoMind (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

PS. Please read carefully everything I have taken my time to write (I do that myself with other peoples posts). Most editors are too casual in their reading of posts and comments and a lot of misunderstandings and general quarrel can be avoided, simply by taken the time to carefully read posts before commenting. Just a general request. Thank you. RhinoMind (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It does make a difference if he becomes a saint, because he will end up in statues and paintings in churches around the world. As for being a martyr, the international press seems to agree he is one, and it would be original research to question it.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at what original research is, before you use that concept. The issue of whether Hamel is a martyr or not is closed. We can return, when the Vatican announces something of interest in that matter, if ever. As to the difference, I was of course thinking about how it could affect what has happened. It cannot. What the implications would be is another matter.

As I explicitly requested a proper reading of my post before commenting on it, I see that you are not inclined to engage in any constructive dialogue. Not to be impolite, but how old are you if I may ask? RhinoMind (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If the press calls him a martyr, it is not for you to say he is not. We could write, "The international press has called him a martyr", instead of simply saying he was martyred. I agree with User:E.M.Gregory that this belongs in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

So now it is the press that decides who is a martyr? I don't think your one-sided babbling leads anywhere. You don't even read my posts or relate to them, before commenting. Excuse me, I have things to do. RhinoMind (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I pinged another editor who agrees with me.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question above, RhinoMind. Who decides who is and who is not a martyr? Where does it say that for a Catholic to be declared a martyr, there must be an official declaration from "the Vatican?" Who within the Vatican makes that decision? --BrianCUA (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@BrianCUA:The answer is my very first post. It is taken from the very reference you supplied yourself, when we discussed this earlier. I am getting a little bit bored by this "discussion". Everything has been answered already and there is no conflict. There is even consensus. Just read what goes before this post. It is that simple. I am beginning to feel a bit helpless in this sea of ignorance, is there some experienced editors out there with some average understanding of the English language? I need you. RhinoMind (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This is such a BS discussion. If the WP:RS call him a martyr, we cite the references and he can be described as a martyr per the references. If the Pope formally calls him a Martyr of the Catholic Church, then he is described as a Martyr of the Catholic Church, so determined by the Pope and his bureaucrats. Jeez. By the sort of rationale being applied here by Rhino et al., you would have to say that the terrorist was not a Muslim, because even though the terrorist wrote to the judge that he was "a good muslim", since people of authority and who presumably are experts on Islam such as Obama have said that a terrorist cannot be a muslim (!). All I am saying, stop making appeals to authority and just go by the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:XavierItzm, so, by that logic, if the press (or Obama, or whoever) refer to someone as 'a hero', are we going to put it in an article as a fact, or are we going to say President Obama/the Daily XX/some newspapers referred to MrY as a 'hero'?. You cannot extrapolate a fact from an opinion, even one expressed by several, but by no means all sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You could write, "The international press has called him a martyr", and cite any relevant refs. XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What we have, in lead and body, is "Hamel has been called a martyr by some international press", followed in the body by the Arch of Sydney's remarks. I don't think anyone objects to either, or other attributed comments. This I do object to, apart from anything else, it contradicts the body of the article. Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, we are not extrapolating a fact from an opinion here. We are not saying he was a good guy, or an above average dancer, or the best singer this side of the Seine. We are saying he is a martyr, and getting that information from RS. Where are the sources who say he did not die a martyr? By this logic, should we not attribute his death to sources as well? e.g. "The French president said he died. The bishop said his throat was slit. The mayor said he was saying mass at the time of his death." --BrianCUA (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

BrianCUA, all RS say he was killed and how, if there were any doubt, we would attribute. Some sources are characterising Hemal as a martyr, some individuals, and possibly groups, believe that he should be officially recognised by the RC Church as one, a few that he should be canonised. We record those responses, we don't decide whether they are true, nor whether the RC Church will act on them. 'Martyr' has both an 'official' and a looser metaphorical meaning, while the religious sources can probably be relied on to understand the 'official' meaning, some more popular sources can not. If 'popular' sources, or figurative accounts, start telling us 'Fr Hemal was a saint', are we going to unilaterally canonise him as well? Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

With the risk of fuelling even more bollocks, I have to add and point out that anyone calling somebody a martyr, without an official recognition of a religious authority, is a heretic. Just FYI. I am quite amazed of the religious ignorance of most people calling themselves Catholics, Muslims, etc.. RhinoMind (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Then I will ask you again for the third time, RhinoMind, who is the religious authority qualified to recognize someone as a martyr? Is a canon lawyer qualified, or is he a heretic for declaring Fr. Hamel to be a martyr? He even went to say that "Of this there can be no question." If Fr. Hamel wasn't Catholic, and was the pastor of a non-denominational, non-hierarchical church, with no authority above him besides his own congregation, then who makes that determination? --BrianCUA (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Then I will answer you for the fifth time: The answer is in the very first post of this section. The Vatican determines if someone is a martyr. Extra; Yes mr. or mrs. X is a heretic if he/she declares someone a martyr, if this someone isn't already officially announced as such by a proper religious authority. In this case the Vatican. No one else but the Vatican can be or act like the Vatican. It would mean the destruction of the Catholic Church. It is really basic. I can't believe I am giving you this much attention. I must be overtired. RhinoMind (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific,RhinoMind. Who in the Vatican? Also, where does it say that this person is the only person who can make that determination? Finally, how do you account for the 2000 inclusion of Óscar Romero by Saint John Paul the Great in a list of martyrs when his "official announcement" did not come until 2015? Was Saint John Paul a heretic? --BrianCUA (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, maybe you also want me to teach you what Catholicism is all about? What heresy is about? And why any random martyr has been announced as such? Or maybe you just need to find books, read articles and educate yourself, by yourself. If you can read these lines. What a lazy ignorant. If enough people called you a moron, would you happen to be one? Maybe we should do a vote about it? RhinoMind (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: Please be civil. Bradv 19:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I shouldn't have answered a single thing after my first post. I have just spend time repeating stuff. Is there a Wiki-page for anger management? Anyway, what I wrote was not just rude insults. I observed a certain behaviour and wrote these observations. "lazy" because said person didn't want to read or study for himself, but called on others to do the job for him. "ignorant" beacause said person didn't read any of the posts he chose to answer. And my last example actual has several points in it, it was not just a way to throw an insult. "moron" is a word that has lost its (medical, psychiatric) meaning, because people began using it in a casual way (ie as an insult). And no, of course you cannot vote on someone to be a moron or not. Just like you cannot vote if someone is a martyr or not. I will take your point though and try to funnel frustration elsewhere. RhinoMind (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: You are right. A Catholic who tries to love God and be loyal to Church Doctrine cannot declare someone a Martyr prior to the Pope pronouncing the formula of canonization. But I think some are trying to say here something compatible with that.

On one hand, you can give an opinion w/o necessarily putting pressure on the Holy See: Cardinal O'Malley is not automatically heretic when he says it was a question of hatred of faith that put him in harms way (thus implying Fr. Hamel could be declared a Martyr).

On the other hand, human language is limited, and words often have more than one meaning: an author isn't necessarily heretic by calling a work his creation, because he is not (necessarily) intending to mean God did not Create everything ex nihilo, nor any reasonable counterpart would think he is trying to imply that. In Spanish you even have the same word for sky and Heaven: you are not heretic by saying an airplane is en el cielo, because obviously you are not implying it has a rational soul and is enjoying beatific vision. The word martyr has also more than one meaning. It is reasonable to think most of the time secular media don't intend to judge in the place of the Pope when they call Fr. Hamel —or anyone else— a martyr. Cato censor (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with the first part of your post. The examples you give in the second part though are just about narratives of words with a religious meaning and not cases were people take the rules and doctrines of religion into their own hands. There is a very big difference. The (sad) case of Hamel is just one in a literal ocean of cases where socalled religious people are announcing someone as a martyr by themselves without any relation to religious authorities, rules or doctrines. In fact I think this idea that you can take religion into your own hands (heresy), is what drives a lot of terrorism in our day and age. In particular (but not exclusively) in the Muslim community. It is a very big problem and it is important that it is dealt with and corrected. One cannot just throw around declarations of martyr, saint or jihad whenever one feels like it or put one's own meaning into the terms. RhinoMind (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion was about this edit:

RhinoMind, Rather than impugn another editor's English, can you please explain to me what there has been a public call to make him a saint means? Would that be the public in China? In Tel Aviv? In your village? Or does it perhaps refer to Roberto Maroni or the Twitter hashtag? Because, as I'm sure you are aware, nothing can be in the lead which is not expanded and sourced in the body of the article, and Maroni and Twitter are at the moment the only cited examples. Fisher and some other bishops, have equivocally, characterised his death as 'martyr-like', but, as I understand matters, a martyr is not necessarily a saint. Unless you wish to give the impression that there is a single organised, world-wide, 'public' call for canonisation, the present sentence is nonsensically vague, and more importantly, completely unsourced. I was intending to be kind to Hamel by recording that a number of people, and notably media, have speculated about 'sainthood', even though this is largely unrecorded and uncited in the body of the article at present. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Maroni made an open statement about sainthood, nothing wrong with naming it a public call. WWGB (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WWGB, I of course saw the Maroni comment, but are we seriously saying that one Italian regional politician's speculation is lead-worthy? If so, and that is the only 'public call' referred to, why is it not attributed to him? Unattributed it is misleading, suggesting a wider public call. I personally think that there have been wider (media) speculation on this than the one, relatively insignificant (in RC terms), non-French individual, but if that is all there is, it should be attributed, or go. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I am sorry if I came across a a bit rude, but let me explain, I think this might be a misunderstanding altogether. "A public call" can include more than one public call, it is just a way to say that some (or several) group or person of a fair size, notability or influence has made a public call on something. I read your change like you wanted to make clear in the lede that many other calls had been made. But that would need a better description and ref-ing in the body. And you also deleted the word "public" which is essential. That was why I reverted you. I assumed that you was not aware that "a public call" can mean more than just one singular public call. A bit rude perhaps, but that was how I read your change. I haven't followed the recent edits in this regard, but I guess you guys figured it all out? RhinoMind (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

RhinoMind, no problem, 'a public call' is ambiguous. In can mean a general clamour or, in this instance one named individual on 'social media'. Effectively meaning, 'someone has said it should happen', to which my response is 'who is that someone?' I think discussion/ speculation has been wider than the one individual and the proper response is for editors to find other 'calls' and then rephrase the lead proportionately. Speaking personally, I'm not RC, am inclined to think that martyrs and saints are declared thus for what they do, rather than what is done to them, but recognise the sincerity of feeling behind those wanting to see Hamel honoured. Pincrete (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Martyrdom

I've restored the phrasing 'has been called a martyr, I'm happy for someone to improve on the phrasing, but I am wholly against stating as an objective fact in WP voice that he IS a martyr. Millions of christians respect the Pope, but not his authority, whilst millions of other people are not Christians at all. I would compare this with someone being described as 'a hero', it can be an objective fact that many people describe a person thus, it can never be an objective fact that someone is. It can be an objective fact that Francis has called Hamel a martyr, or that the RC church has declared him thus, it can never be an objective fact that he is. Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fr Hamel was a Roman Catholic. If the Pope says he is a martyr, then he is. Nobody cares what Protestants or other Christians think.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll state at the outset that I care what non-Catholics think, and many of them have referred to Fr. Hamel as a martyr. Many others in the international press have as well, which I think is more than enough to state as a fact that he is. The consensus on this page was to wait until Pope Francis called him a martyr, however, as Fr. Hamel was a Catholic. Pope Francis has so stated. I will also point out that many other articles state, in WP's voice, that so-and-so is a martyr, or was martyred. See, for example, Hassan Ghazi, Tarani Debnath, or Aberoh and Atom. I don't see why this should be any different. We have a definition of what a martyr is, we have many people around the world using that terminology to describe Fr. Hamel, and we have the highest earthly authority of the Catholic Church declaring him to be one. This should be more than enough to objectively state that he was a Christian martyr. Would it make you feel better, Pincrete, if we used the phrase "Christian martyr," or "Catholic martyr, instead of just "martyr"? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, if Pope Francis or the RC church speaks of Hamel as a martyr, it means THEY consider him a martyr, it does not mean WP considers his martyrdom to be an objective fact. Pope Francis believes Jesus is the son of God, that is a belief to be respected by WP, it does not make JC's divinity an objective, verifiable truth. The strongest that could ever be said of Hamel is that 'the RC church declared him a martyr', should that ever be decided. You cannot turn a belief or attitude of Francis, nor of catholics, nor of christians into a universal truth. Pincrete (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what is subjective about Hamel's martyrdom. I believe Ted Williams to have been a player for the Boston Red Sox. That's an objective fact. Some may believe he was the greatest hitter of all time. There's very strong evidence to support that, but I can see why that may be subjective. What aspect of martyrdom do you think is subjective whereby some may consider Fr. Hamel to be a martyr, but others do not? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I consider Hamel to be a man brutally and pointlessly murdered under the most cowardly and offensive circumstances, I would not use the word martyr however, which to me implies conscious choice, not victimhood, what you do, not what is done to you. Nor would I be more outraged by Hamel's death than the near-murder of the equally old parishioner, who, by chance, survived. Mother Teresa was canonised relatively recently, WP would record this as 'she was declared a saint by Pope John Paul in year xxxx' or similar wording, we would not record her sainthood as an objective fact unless it was clear that it was in the eyes of the RC church that this was true. To the best of my knowledge, only catholic sources have used the term 'martyr', this is not because the rest of us are indifferent to what happened to Hamel, but for other reasons. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think your understanding of martyrdom is flawed. By definition, a martyr is someone who is persecuted or killed, or both. A martyr doesn't choose to persecute himself. Check out WP's own definition of martyr, or Merriam-Webster's: "a person who is killed or who suffers greatly for a religion, cause, etc." A quick Google search shows that many others besides Catholics have called him a martyr, as I stated before. The Anglican Communion News Service speaks of him as a martyr, and quotes an Orthodox priest as saying “He exemplifies the Christian understanding of martyrdom." That's two religions other than the Catholic Church in the same article. I am going to revert and return the wording to say he was martyred in WP's voice. If you still think this is a mistake, perhaps we should get a WP:Third opinion. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

'Exemplifies' does not mean 'is' and the leader writer, not the Anglican notables use the term 'martyr', the Anglican notables refer to his 'murder' and 'the attack'. However, even if the entire Christian world declared Hamel to be a martyr, they would be expressing the opinion of the christian world, not an objective fact. Do you think me stupid that I do not understand that martyrdom involves being put to death? But being murdered during a church service is not sufficient reason, otherwise many victims of church burnings would equally be declared 'martyrs'. They are not. However my opinion or your opinion is, in the last resort, academic. The opinion of Francis or other christian leaders is notable, but is not 'holy writ'.

I'm trying hard to NOT make this a catholics vs rest of the world issue. Francis, the RC world, the christian world, and non-christians were all deeply shocked by this event, but all the bishops, priests, popes on the planet cannot turn this into a fact anymore than all the Imams and muslims of the world can turn Muhammed into the last and true messenger of God. A religious belief or opinion is to be respected, not treated as an objective truth on a neutral encyc.

Take this to a RfC if you wish. I see no evidence of a concensus for stating this as a fact.Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a couple of days late, but I see here a similar problem to that of the previous subsection: the meaning of the word martyr. As a word with many meanings, some of them may apply while some not. In this case what I see is that all (three) parties are right from the POV of the meaning of martyr they're embracing:

• In the wider sense, Fr. Hamel is a martyr. It is not OR, since many people, including some non-believing politicians have called him so, pointing the obvious connection of the murderers killing him for being at Mass.
• In the stricter sense, I agree with Pincrete that he cannot be called so unless other Christian Churches agree. It is even dubious since he may have not had the opportunity to refuse to renounce a belief or cause as demanded by an external party.
• In the sense of a Catholic martyr, in turn, it won't be possible to say so until there is a formal decree of his martyrdom signed by the Pope (and in this, I agree with RhinoMind).

I don't know whether there is a WP: criterion for this kind of ambiguity, but IMHO it is factual, not OR that Fr. Hamel is a martyr in the wider sense, and I don't see any harm in preferring the common meaning of the word. If someone thinks it might be misleading, a clarification may be added. Cato censor (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The necessary qualification IMO, is to record who or which organisation has deemed or described him thus. This is more informative, as well a more neutral. The word can be used across a wide spectrum of meanings from "she's a martyr to her family" through to formal designation from this or that church. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is formally acknowledged as a martyr by some Lutherans, Bishop Romero is often spoken of as a martyr, (not sure whether formally so by RCC). We need to be clear who is using the term and how the term is being used and it is OR to decide as editors that he does fit the dictionary definition. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this is where we disagree. It is not us, as editors, that are describing him as a martyr. There are plenty of Reliable Sources who do so. In fact, I don't know of any who are arguing that he is not. (While I am open to being proven wrong, I would caution against giving them WP:UNDUE weight.) There are plenty of examples WP stating it its own voice that so-and-so is X, when plausibly an argument could be made about them along the lines you are making. The overwhelming evidence is that that are X, however, and thus it is so stated. See, for example, Tamerlan Tsarnaev described as a terrorist, John Wayne Gacy described as a serial killer, and the article on Polymaths declares a number of people to be one, all in WP's voice. When RS overwhelming declare someone to be something, we are justified in using WP's voice to say so. --14:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There are no significant non-RC sources using the term that I know of, no non-christian ones. I don't wish to denigrate Hamel, but the true position is that some/several/many in his own church wish him to be so honoured and remembered, just as Bonhoeffer is honoured by his own church. I believe it is more informative as well as more neutral to say who so wishes. Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Roberto Maroni a Catholic? I did a quick search and found nothing for or against, only some indirect evidence suggesting he is at most a shallow Catholic, if at all. (I don't know what to think now: still nothing really clear.) Cato censor (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC).

Update: so far I found one source (reliability unassessed, though) defining him as an avowedly lay and atheist, and none saying he is a Catholic.Cato censor (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Update 2: here is a Muslim leader explicitly calling him martyr. Cato censor (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Over and above the issue of this one word, there are some notable Muslim reactions to Hamel's death in that source, which could perhaps be included somewhere. I haven't changed my position on the word, especially as we link to the christian concept of martyrdom and are therefore using it in a specific way. The majority of sources do not use the word, (except to quote others), that is the 'litmus test' of whether ANY word should be stated as a fact (ie 'is', in 'WP voice'), otherwise we attribute it to who (individuals or groups), are saying it. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Was he an aristocrat?

There is a Viscount Hamel ("Vicomte du Hamel"). Is anyone able to find out if he was an aristocrat?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, just an old priest who did not want to retire. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you know? The press has not even published his parents's names yet. I wonder if he was a descendant of Ernest Hamel, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe an antecedent of Star Wars? WWGB (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It would not be unusual for an aristocrat to become a priest. Also, there is a Hamel family tomb at Pere Lachaise. Hopefully the press will let us know if he came from a prominent family.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Interfaith dialog

Question: the Imam Karabila said he considered Fr. Hamel a friend in the same interview he detailed their work together. I see it adds information about his level of commitment with interreligious dialog. Is it relevant enough for the article? Cato censor (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cato censor, I would say yes, if only as a 'Karabila later described Hamel as his friend' or whatever is best from the article. I would add myself but cannot do the translation. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) … … ps I've seen in Eng sources Karabila using the description 'my friend', though yours looks more complete.Pincrete (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)