Talk:2005 French riots/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Islam

There was a fatwa by the Union of French Islam (SP?) AGAINST THE RIOTS. But someone saw fit to remove that from the article (political agenda seems to be interfering with the POV of this article btw...), even though it's pretty the strongest evidence agaisnt religion backing up these riots.

Free Images at flickr.

Tagged with France & Riot. Attribution Licence. [1] Especially [2] Agnte 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you the photographer? Can we find out where/when these pictures were taken? That would be very important if we were to include them. Perhaps the photographer reads wikipedia? Sdedeo 21:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

They're uploaded to flickr under cc-by-2.0 - He also says they're in Strasbourg Agnte 21:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Agnte. Great. Can you get any more information? Where in Strasbourg? When were they taken? (Which days, presumably one night and the day after.) It would be great to stop violating that copyright we have up there right now. His e-mail is Francois.Schnell(at)gmail.com -- can you contact him? Would do it myself, but not sure how much longer I will be up. Sdedeo 21:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you should just use the information on flickr :) Agnte 21:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that myself. :) Never used flickr before. Am uploading image now. Sdedeo 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I confirm there's no problem to use the picture which is CC-BY (I'm the author). It has been taken in Robertsau neighborhood which is a residential area near the Europeans institutions of Strasbourg. Many cars burnt there in the night of Saturday to Sunday.

@ Sdedeo: yes Flickr is a usefull place to find Free pictures, more than a milion under CC-by or CC-by-sa: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons. --Schneo 13:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of material re: "spread to other countries"

I have removed the following:

---

Belgium

Main article: 2005 Belgian urban violence

In Saint-Gilles, Brussels, five cars were torched in the evening of November 6. The day before, youths threatened the police to "start riots like those in France". [3]

Denmark

Possibly inspired by the French riots, young immigrants commits several acts of vandalism in Århus, Denmark. One of the immigrants says "The police should stay away. This is our territory. We are in charge here." The incidents have gained little attention in the Danish media, with for example only a single article in the newpaper. This event has significantly been under-reported; the riots have occurred on several nights making the area around Rosenhøj Mall a virtual no-go area. This is not unsuprising since the principle paper covering the area is the Jylland Post, which is already the target of Muslim extremists, who have issued death threats against a number of JP journalists. politiken [4].

---

from the article, for a number of reasons. First of all the Belgium reference is suspect: the sentence gives a direct quotation, but while I don't read the language, there appear to be no quotation marks in the very brief stiry. Secondly, the Denmark story is rather hard to understand, and seems highly speculative ("possibly inspired"... "event significantly under-reported"... speculation that the event is "covered up" because of fear of reprisal... etc. etc.)

This is a judgement call I am making. I am not confident that removal is the correct thing. But I am very skeptical that the articles say what is claimed in these highly speculative paragraphs. I hope someone who speaks the relevant languages can help us by describing/partly translating them into English.

Also, please note that even if someone commits violence in a different country, even if they are Muslim immigrants, and even if they make passing reference to the now-famous events in France, that does not necessarily mean we should describe it as a "spread to other countries" of the Paris/France riots. We need something more than that. Sdedeo 21:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

(Just to be clear, one thing that would be necessary is for the linked article to speculate on the events being an example of the "spread" of violence, that they are "copycat" attacks, etc. etc. Again, the criteria is no original research -- we should report it if respectable media suggest it, but should not suggest it ourselves unaided.) And again, just to be clear -- I am not sure if I am doing the right thing. I think the best thing now would be if some speakers of the relevant languages (not google translator) could translate parts of the articles for us. Sdedeo 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. If the riots do spread to other countries, the info will be reinserted. - Ze miguel 22:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read articles in both French and Flemmish and it seems the St Gillis reference is so far speculation, possibly by far right newspapers but I'll leave that unsaid for now. Regarding the events in Germany Spiegel Online says that Police do not rule out a connection to the French riots. Tagesschau takes a similar stand. 85.8.2.43 00:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the Ekstra Bladet article. Here is my translation:

The Rosenhøj Center in Århus-suburb Viby resembles a warzone. Several evenings in a row it has been hit by the worst riots in memory. So writes JP Århus. - Torchings were attempted at several businesses. As late as Sunday evening there was another attempted arson. This time it was a pre-school diagonally across the street from the Rosenhøj Center. The responding firemen moved in with a police escort. - Earlier, among others, a burger-joint, a bakery and a pub were subject to attack. - Responsible for the unrest is a large group of young immigrants. - "We are tired of being suppressed. We are tired of the police searching our parents homes. We are tired of the police stopping our cars and searching us in view of everyone such that we get mocked. We are tired of the police beating up one of our friends" declared one the youths to JP Århus with reference to a 16-year-old Somali boy. He [the Somali] is charged with a especially dangerous violent act after he threw a cobble stone through the window of a bakery in which the baker was nearly struck in the head. - "The Police must keep away. This is our area. We make the rules here" he explained to JP Århus. Translation of Unge amok i Århus "Youth gone wild in Århus" by --SVTCobra 01:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment that while the timing is uncanny, the article does not mention the concurrent events in France. But the idea of creating "no-go" zones where the police and other authorities may not enter seems similar. As far as the claim that it was under-reported I can only say that I scan Danish news-sites regularly and this was the first I heard of it. Oh, and for reference the Danish article is dated October 31, so not "new news".--SVTCobra 01:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I searched further to "get" the situation in Denmark. I found this article Good Dialogue with Youth in Rosenhøj in Berlingske Tidende. I offer this translation:

Pedagogs, socialworkers, the police and a homeowners association were among the participants of a meeting on Monday after several instances of violent unrest in the Rosenhøj neighborhood of Viby near Århus. - "Over the weekend it was calm and quiet in the neighborhood after constructive dialogue between authorities and the youth and their parents," informs councilman Flemming Knudsen after the so-called "bringing together" meeting. - He encourages all to provide information to the police, so the perpetrators of arson and aggrevated vandalism can be held responsible for their actions. - Translation by --SVTCobra 03:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

thank you

thank you wikipedians for putting so much effort into details and accuracy in this story. Kingturtle 20:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hear,hear. I'm continually amazed at the ability of wikipedians to cover current events in a comprehensive manner. Many thanks to all for their hard work. Lisiate 21:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks a lot better than it did Sunday!!! Kudos to the people who helped to design a much cleaner article!--Dr.Worm 13:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am very glad to see that this subject is covered in such a precise, neutral and professional way. Thank you to all the wikipedians who put so much effort in this article.

no maps?

what happened to the images, Image:Paris riots satellite.jpg and Image:France Riots spread.png? I mean, I made them, so I may take too kindly to them, but I do think they have a place at least in the history section. It appears they were removed without comment. dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I say put them back in, and remove the one there that copies your "Paris riots satellite" image. Yours are much better. There has been some content that has mysteriously gone missing over the last couple hours without comment. Sdedeo 21:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Since there was no justification of the image removal, I've put 'em back in. Is there any other notable content missing?

Possibly. I've noticed user 82.236.91.108 has been drifting in every now and again to delete paragraphs without any notes in the edit history or discussion on the talk page. I've left a message for her on her talk page. However, given the nature of the edits (removal of references to the ethnicity of many of the rioters) I doubt it was the same person who removed the paragraph on the New York Times interepretation, or your maps. I have to stop futzing on wikipedia now, so I wish everyone good luck in maintaining and improving the article. Please, everyone, keep an eye out for recent changes, especially those made without notations in the edit history and/or by anonymous users who may not be totally familiar with how to do things. And good luck. This is in many ways the best article on the events online. Sdedeo 21:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The "martyrs"?

Bouna Traore and Zyed Benna as redirects? I think not. --Wonderfool t(c) 22:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

there is nothing notable about them except that they triggered these riots. All information on their articles is already treated here, with more detail and context. Until we get notable biographic details, or until their poems are posthumously published or something, keep the redirects. dab (ᛏ) 11:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

extremly biased

Parts of this wikipedia article are extremely right wing biased. They are ill informed, mostly based on english language sources. They picture the riots as a confrontation between islam and western "civilization". This is completely false. The linked editorials verge on the fascist. I find it unacceptable that wikipedia could link to such pages.

Yep. Whoever wrote it in is a ... let me rephrase that, is not well informed. Ariele 19:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Links to alternative sources were deleted. Clearly, this is not objective information. (post not signed by 82.236.91.108 -dsol)

What is the majority religion of the rioters? Are they Catholic?, Hindu? or Bhuddist? Nope, they are muslims, that is to say people who beleive in Islam. Sorry that the truth hurts you and your politically correct leftist world view. When the caliphate is established in france, the leftists will be first against the wall after the jews. 155.33.229.115 22:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

He's out of his mind, but that doesn't mean stooping to his level of rhetoric with "They'll be first against the wall..." platitudes is required. Hyperbole is unbecoming of you. While I am a Christopher Hitchens conservative when it comes to dealing with Muslim extremism, there's no proof yet that this is somehow a European intifada. The fact that they are Muslim is relevant, that their intentions are the same as extremists is at the moment a baseless accusation. Kade 06:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick pointer to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. In addition, just because some people who happen to hold Islamic views (ie. Muslims) do something, does not mean that the religion condones it... Odd bloke 00:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of these rioters are male and it doesnt prove its a male riot against females and feminists. We can show hundred of common points between the rioters and it won't prove anything. As a french person living in one of the "uprised" town, I can tell everybody the problem clearly isn't religion-related. It's far more politically-related, toward a government that covers and encourages an abusive police. Just my 2 cents worth.

OP, if you think the article needs work, please work on it and be bold. Also, please try to concentrate on individual facts and phrases, instead of simply mentioning "parts" of the article, so everyone else can know what you mean. Perhaps others will agree with you and these sections you view as problematic will be changed. Dsol 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok now I see you're removing content wholesale, this is not ok. You need to allow for discussion before showing up and making drastic edits like this. Dsol 23:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

the article is not 'ill informed and mainly based on English language source'. I read the French reports, however, if I find an English report, I link to that, because this is en:. I link to a French language source only if it contains information that I couldn't also find in English. dab (ᛏ) 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I must point out that all French muslim "authorities" (non there is no hierarchical organisation, but some famous people), including local imam, have called to calm.

And I don't how you can know someone is muslim or not just by looking at him/her. I know a lot of children of Algerian immigrants who do not believe in god, and just keep some tradition (e.g. no pork) just by habit or to please their parents. The equation North African = muslim is a doubtful statement.

Cdang|write me 07:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well , I lived 8 years in Algeria and I can assure you that North African = Muslim is a true statement.

When they say that they don't believe in god thay are just cheating you and may be themselves 62.212.111.107 15:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

prelude

Missing from the article is that the area was a no-go area which the police had not patrolled for several decades. The word no-go area is not even in the text.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/pothot/articles/20051101.aspx

"had not patrolled for several decades" is an exaggeration. -- Zeno of Elea 01:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually this whole article is more than an exaggeration, its purely bullshit. Sorry to put it this way but, its simply true. The very few interesting things in this text is anyway irrelevant to the current article. The best thing to do is to ignore it. We're on Wikipédia, not on some far-right biaised website fantasizing about some french cities being some kind of Frankistan. Lets just be serious for a second, and dont care about that article.

I think it is hypocritical and sanctimonious of you to be striving for openness and transparency in a Wiki entry while simultaneously not signing your posts with a registered username, so that we know who we're dealing with. Kade 06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Article introduction

Could someone more informed about the event convert the lead paragraphs into something resembling an adequete summary? That is, briefly mentioning the catalyst, initial riots, their spread, damage and injuries/sole fatality, political reactions (Villepin, Chirac, Sarkozy) and curfews. At present, it doesn't outline the events very well and the are NPOV issues with regards to tone. As an article linked prominently from the Main Page, it would be good if this could be dealt with expeditiously. Sorry I can't help myself (I've not been following closely), --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Beat me to it. It was okay, but a contributor added an in-depth description of the start of the events that does not belong in the very beginning of a much more general article! As a temporary fix, I've removed it from the page altogether - not knowing where it should be stuck - and moved it here. I ask that someone evaluates this ("community leaders" in quotes doesn't exactly stink of reliability) and finds a place to stick it back into the article. --Kizor 02:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[...in an eastern banlieue (suburb) of Paris], which is over 80% Muslim. Shouting “Allahu akbar!” groups of youths armed with clubs and sticks went on a rampage forcing the regular police to retreat.Video. When the riot police came in force to reclaim the area, the protests became focused on the demand that the French police get out of the “occupied territories.” The trouble would be ended, various Muslim “community leaders” claimed, if the French authorities accepted that there were de facto no-go areas within the country which should be self-administered. “All we demand is to be left alone,” said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local imams engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of religious community leaders, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood (a notorious Islamist political movement), to negotiate an end to the hostilities.[5]

[Violence then spread...]

If this is true, and a widely hoped for goal in the Islamic communities (which I doubt) I hope this isn't going to be like the valiant 10 minute struggle france fought against the NAZIs.

That aside, don't put it in the article until it is known that this is a general sentiment and goal among the rioters (rioters often don't have any particular goals.) --Brentt 02:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I find myself increasingly doubtful. The video link was featured in JihadWatch - though of course there must be plenty of other ways to find it. The other reference seems somewhat suspect and the quote looks like it might be a leeetle unbalanced. Details are neat, but is it even possible to integrate that into a general-level article? --Kizor 02:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The section was just readded with an edit summary of "If you do not know have a solution as to where to put this section , then you should leave it there." That's a nice point, but I've still re-removed it. My justification is that not only is it doubtful that it should be here at all (see above), but it's a word-for-word copy of the Chronicles. The article does quote news sources, but only on a smaller scale and when it truly adds to the article - in my arrogant opinion, that's exactly the kind of stuff that's in the timeline as small notes followed by links to the full articles, and it serves no purpose to have an in-depth look into the very start of the riots right in the overview of an article about what's now a much larger-scale thing. And I'm afraid I'm off to bed now. --Kizor 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you could re-write the section in your own words then , rather than removing it. If you doubt its content you could also review the video link provided goes a long way towards supporting the Chronicle article. I hate to do this, but I am going to use my second revert option to put it back. We can discuss this further when you come back to the talk page--CltFn 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Following up on my botched edit summary: I removed that part of the paragraph because it doesn't blong in the introductory paragraph. Please, if you must, incorporate it elsewhere in the article.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The US states that this is a problem for the French people and French government to solve for themselves. When something happens in the States, the whole world is expected to mourn, pity and avenge. An incredibly insensitive reaction.

What do you suggest, that America invade France and restore order? Just have the 1st Armored Division plow through the French farmlands? Kade 09:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Title

By now it is clear that what were are seeing is much more significant than some instances of "rioting." The introduction correctly notes, "Altogether, the unrest is the worst to hit France since the 1968 student revolt." The May 1968 crisis is not known as the 'May 1968 riots' but rather as an uprising or a rebellion. This article should be moved to 2005 French urban uprising or 2005 French civil unrest. Otherwise, one could allege that there is a racial bias in classifying the largely white middle class students of May 1968 as 'rebels' or 'mass demonstrators' while participants of Middle Eastern and North African origin in the civil unrest today get labeled "rioters." 172 | Talk 02:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason for this: the 1968 demonstrators didn't put the handicapped on fire and didn't beat the elderly to death, the 2005 rioters did...1652186 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

On another note, the inclusion of "urban" in any title on this topic is somewhat problematic. The unrest is largely occurring in suburban areas. Public housing projects dominated by impoverished, socially marginalized ethnic minorities were largely constructed in the outskirts of major cities in France, as opposed to the "inner cities," where they are found in the U.S. As a result, the unrest we are currently observing is taking place on the outskirts of France's major cities. 172 | Talk 02:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are beating around the bush, the event is broadly known as the French riots, that being its most used description in the worldwide media. The title you suggest is so wishy washy that it does not reflect the actuality of the event. Should we next call the rioters , freedom fighters against the French occupation?

If there is ambiguity between urban and suburbs we can avoid that by simply using 2005 French riots as the title . --CltFn 02:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

International media outlets have their own editorial polices, which may differ from Wikipedia's WP:NPOV. Yes, we do have to consider why the language in this article is not consistent with the language in entries on the May 1968 student uprising. "Civil unrest" is a neutral alternative to the views underlying the usage of both the terms "uprising" and "rioting." 172 | Talk 03:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about using the word RIOT and no need to replace it with UNREST. Riots is what what is taking place in France, there is no controversy in this term and no need to uses a more diluted term which only serves to obfuscate the issue. The approach of trying to use the 1968 article as a standard would only lead to us into an unecessary complication on what should be a direct reporting of information, or in other words we would bepicking bones over nothing.--CltFn 03:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but the term "riots" carry a connotation that strips the legitimacy away from an militant uprising or mass protest or cry for help. I am not saying that we should give legitimacy to the unrest, but rather use a term that does not make a commentary one way or another regarding the legitimacy of the events in France. 172 | Talk 03:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not true. See also - Boston Massacre, which is referred to as a riot in all but the most biased of publications. Kade 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

ri·ot "2 a : public violence, tumult, or disorder b : a violent public disorder; specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent." I do not see any 'negative' connotation in there. Born and bred english speaker and I am completely unaware of a negative connotation to the word riot. I'd also like to point out that "Perhaps you are not a native English speaker" is insulting. Careful of your words. -fau

Rest assured I am a native English speaker, but that is besides the point. You are splitting hairs and only making it more difficult for the readers to grasp the nature of the events that are taking place. "Unrest" connotates , if you want to get into it , the idea of unease , a sort of low level social discomfort without a clear emphasis on violence. The word "Riot" on the other hand implies action, conflict and violence . If we get mired in the rhetorical slippery slope of polical correctness , as you seem to suggest that we should , then we will only wind up misderecting the reader as to the nature of the events.--CltFn 04:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Civil unrest is a more encompassing term that reflects the nature of the events in France, which go beyond just rioting. It's not likely to cause any confusion as its a fairly common term, and one for which we a corresponding article.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. No term is perfect, but "civil unrest" for now is the least objectionable with respect to neutrality and most encompassing. 172 | Talk 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow very interesting, its almost convincing. Political correctness is now a fine art. It is so important to not offend the "feeeeelings" of "youths" by implying that their torching cars, buildings and attacking the police and bystanders are riots. --CltFn 04:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Civil unrest" is a POV term and utterly objectionable. It is not used anywhere widely but partisan publications and (now) Wikipedia, and is inaccurate as well. This is not civil unrest; it is a riot mainly contained to youths, and rejected by the larger communities some claim they represent (e.g. the recent fatwas against the rioting). --Delirium 10:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Partisan publications like ABC News? [6] Like AP? [7] Do a Yahoo News search before making inaccurate statements. [8] I am going to move the page back to civil unrest. 172 | Talk 11:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Delirium, it was rather inappropriate to unilaterally move the page without agreeance. Yes, the page was originally moved in such fashion, but there's no need to act in the same maner. Specifically, how is it a POV term and utterly objectionable? "Riots", while indeed taking place, have not been the only incidents over the past two weeks. It is thus too limited a term, and one better replaced by "civil unrest (or disorder)", which is one used legitimately in socio-political discussion.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As you note, I was merely properly reverting the unilateral move that was done without agreement or even discussion on the talk page.

Look above. I started the above heading before moving the talk page. The presence of this discussion thread itself is evidence of the Inaccuracy of your above statement, just as your comment that only "partisan publications" (like AP and Reuters) use the term "civil unrest." 172 | Talk 19:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Riots are the primary thing taking place; the primary problem of interest; and nearly the only thing we actually discuss in this article. As you can see from 172's comments above, he is not interested in neutrality, but in POV-pushing in attempting to unify the treatment of this article with the wholly unrelated and quite different in character 1968 student revolt. He would no doubt try to move 1992 Los Angeles riots to 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest if he could get away with it. --Delirium 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Haha, apparently there is no room for satire when dealing with 172. I just checked Talk:1992 Los Angeles riots, and he did object to the term "riots", calling them instead an "uprising". --Delirium 18:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from 172's comments above, he is not interested in neutrality, but in POV-pushing... Be careful. I assume that it's not in your interest to be too uncivil in your dealings with me again, as you were on the mailing list some months back, prompting you to get chided by a certain authority figure around here. Mind the Wikipedia policies on assuming good faith and against personal attacks. By the way, the ad hominem against me doesn't even help your argument. Notice that Cyberjunkie is taking the same position. Are you going to personally attack him too? 172 | Talk 19:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to assume good faith when people have demonstrated overt POV-pushing. Am I going to be "chided" for calling the LaRoussians POV-pushers too? You clearly have an agenda against the use of the word "riot" in all contexts, against the general usage of the term and consensus. I should also note that this is not only my personal opinion: You have been officially sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for your previous disruptive behavior. --Delirium 22:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the third flat out lie that you have spewed under this discussion heading. I am under no sanctions by the arbitration committee. The committee, however, did note that I am "a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest." [9] It is also worth noting that the case was brought against me by Lir, whom I suppose to you is a fellow editor worthy of consideration. And, no, I am referring to you being chided by the site owner for harassing me on the mailing list. I could post the email that I was sent informing me of this (nothing in it told me to keep it to myself), but I am choosing for now to spare you the embarassment. So stop baiting me; this is only causing disruption. 172 | Talk 03:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with the term 'civil unrest', as the people who are causing the 'unrest' (which is a euphemism, 'riots' would be better) do not consider themselves civilians/citizens of France. Unless we're going to have to call it 2005 European Jihad or something in a few days/weeks/months, I'd keep 'French urban riots'.1652186 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Civil unrest can encompass rioting, as Cyberjunkie noted. It also encompasses more than rioting, which is important, as Cyberjunkie noted, because we are seeing more than rioting. Hence, evidence of very common usage of the term by media outlets like AP and Reuters can be found by doing Yahoo and Google News searches. "Civil unrest" is the most accurate and neutral term for our purposes here. 172 | Talk 20:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also object to the term 'civil unrest', which suggests general restlessness or uneasiness, rather than violence. These aren't simple street protests or mere civil disobedience. 2005 civil violence in France might be a better title. MisfitToys 21:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think that one major qualities of "civil unrest" is to convoy the idea of a riot with no particular aim. A remarkable feature of the current events is that people are fighting in the streets without any revendication. Rama 21:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Observe the definition of civil unrest here:

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/HIVA/civil.pdf Basically, civil unrest is a FEELING. Folks, this is not civil unrest. There is nothing civil about this. This is RIOTING, and it is completely ridiculous to attempt to use euphemisms. These people are RIOTING, they are burning, they are injuring, etc. By changing the title to 'civil unrest' you put them on par with non violent demonstrators elsewhere. That is wrong. This is clearly NPOV. Please change it; it is the only proper thing to do.Trilemma 22:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

While I still maintain that "civil unrest" is a more accurate description of the events - and one which is used by primary sources - in light of objections, I suggest "urban violence" as a compromise. This acknowledges that the incidents have been largely violent, but not always riotous. It's also the term our French friends are using. As for the disagreement between 172 and Delirium, there's obviously a wider context editors here aren't privy to, but I encourage you both to remain civil and keep the Wikilove. With regards to an alleged [attempt] to unify the treatment of this article with the wholly unrelated and quite different in character 1968 student revolt, I have to disagree. It is wholly legitimate to note that the past two weeks have been the most "dramatic unrest" since the 1968 revolt. IIRC, I heard one media outlet state "the unrest is the most significant challenge to the French state since the 1968 student uprising".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Urban violence" is fine with me, especially if this is indeed the term widely used in France. I don't object to the phrase in the intro comparing them to the 1968 riots; what I was objecting to was 172's claim that we have to word our treatment of the two articles similarly (either call them both riots or neither one riots), because they are patently dissimilar in many ways. The 1968 unrest was much wider and more varied in character; in addition to riots, it included nonviolent strikes, marches, sit-ins, and mural-painting, while the current riots are more narrowly restricted to things like arson and stone-throwing. As for my run-in with 172, I find it difficult to work with someone who has an overt agenda, an observation I am hardly the first to have made; I have no objections to your much more good-faith efforts to accurately and neutrally describe the situation. For more on the background of 172, see his previous run-ins with the arbitration committee (1; 2). --Delirium 23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, to everyone, please see that arbitration case, which was brought against me by User:Lir, who was later banned for a year. The fact that it ruled that I am "a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest" and places me under no santions at the moment demonstrates that I am an editor wothty of respect and consideration, as any other editor, while Delirium is the one who is acting out of line here. [10] 172 | Talk 03:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to note that this article was previously entitled 2005 French urban violence, and at that time, objections were made to the term "urban". They should be considered before any move to 2005 urban violence in France. There are also problems with the term insomuch as it implies a continuous phenomenon, as with gangland "warfare" in the US.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 23:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the term 'urban violence' to be perfectly acceptable (I don't understand the objections to the term 'urban', as it accurately describes where the occurances are happening). Trilemma 23:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, despite my compromise suggestion, I would personally prefer to see it remain as is :). And with regards to "urban", I think the objections were to do with different conceptions of the word. It was suggested that "suburban" was more accurate. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 00:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, there is no reason to change the article's title to "urban violence," at least other than POV reasons, as it may carry a worse connotation. Unrest is a more specific and descriptive term for our purposes here. 172 | Talk 04:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

172, did you check the definition of civil unrest that I linked to? I think there's a divergence of opinion as to what that infers. To me, that infers a part of a population or an entire population being upset about something--there was civil unrest in America during the 1960's, regarding Vietnam, seperate of the riots that also occured.

What we have here is riots. There are people rioting and by not allowing a title that in any way conveys the scope of the action undertaken, you are not doing justice to those affected or the wikipedia community at large. We describe the incidents of 9/11 as the 'September 11, 2001 attacks', not "September 11th incident" or any other supposedly neutral but in fact NPOV term.

And, how is 'unrest' more specific? Unrest is not specific term at all; in fact, it is quite vague, as is evidence by the number of interpretations of it. Riots is far more specific and descriptive of what's going on, and I offer into evidence for comparison the 9/11 article. We're dealing with riots here, people rioting. Trilemma 13:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

There's a group effort to censor the truth and delete an accurate page. See 2005 Belgian urban violence and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Belgian urban violence. freestylefrappe 03:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The script was written by the illuminati and implemented by the Moslem Leaders

21% of France´s military is Muslim. This is too early for the islamo-nazis and for the illuminati. That´s why the first try to calm down the rioters and the second keep as silent as possible. The reason why the islamo-nazis are desperately trying to stop the riots is the projection of that number for 2015.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=who+are+the+illuminati+exposed+MattMarriott

Comic fiction is fun, isn't it? 172 | Talk 04:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone stop taking their meds? --Brentt 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixon Kennedy Carlyle Group Philadelphia Experiment Einstein Oppenheimer Chiang Kai-Shek Atom Bomb Johnson Knew Oswald Shot First Heritage Foundation Michael Moore Conspiracy 2004 Lincoln assassinated by time-travelling Jerry Falwell..... Kade 06:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

News at 11. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO SECRET MASTERS OF THE ILLUMINATI! THIS WEBSITE WILL BE DELETED WHEN CRUDE OIL PASSES 66.6 US DOLLARS ITS IN REVELATIONS PEOPLE211.30.200.2361!

You will all KNEEL before ZOD!!! 68.95.130.81 17:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well damn, I forgot my tinfoil cap today too. Kyaa the Catlord 09:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Revelations says that the Wikipedia 2005 Civil Unrest article will be deleted when oil passes $66.6 per barrell? Well if its in Revelations it must be true, can't think of a more reliable source than a ancient cult's eschatology. --Brentt 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Where's De Gaulle?

Where's Charles de Gaulle when one needs him? He would have cut this Gordian knot radically by repeating Algeria — getting the French to evacuate France and leave it to the Beurs and Caliph Osama.

It is time that the French acknowledge that the Apostasy of the 1790s has got them into bad trouble and will get them into worse — National suicide.

Undo the Freemasonic Revolution, return to orthodox Catholicism (not the "French Revolution in the Church", aka "Vatican II") with Catholic exclusivism and expell non-Catholics.

WikiSceptic 05:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the Napoleon hat the international symbol for insanity? Kade 06:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So why don't you post here a picture of you wearing one? WikiSceptic 07:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What. Kade 08:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What is it with the crazies and this thread? 211.30.200.236 10:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"What" is what you may well ask. Wikipedia is full of crazies, dominating, as I find, and when they find a few who are not, they think that they are! WikiSceptic 11:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

What the heck is the matter with the external links section? We have a whole bunch of links about rapes (one about the gang rapes that happened in Western Sydney, Australia which is in my neck of the woods) - none of them seemingly has anything to do with the article at hand. Someone care to explain why they are in there? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have sent User:Malber asking him to explain his edit. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

These links are certainly relevant to discussing the problems of muslims in france but they are not relavent to this article untill the rioter's start engaging in gang rapes. Klonimus 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

the problems of Muslims in France go to Islam in France. use {{main}}, people (I call it Wikipedia:Main article fixation): this article is about the riots. Islam in France has received some 20 edits since the riots started. This is significantly less than the number of edits to this article dealing with the topic of Islam in France in general. Try to add your material to the most relevant article, not to the one you think is best visible. Edits like Malber's (if worth preserving) could be exported to a 'gender' section on "Islam in France" dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

references to religion and race

From reading the discussion on this article, it is quite obvious that several right-wing extremists are trolling it.

I live in Paris and teach in those neighborhoods. I can assure you that the riots have nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. The whole article is full of nonsensical references to religion and ethnicity.

Quite frankly, the quality of the whole article is dubious. (preceding unsigned comment by Emile123 (talk • contribs) )

---

It has nothing to do with race? Nothing at all? That's a bit of a stretch. Even the liberal take on this issue says that your city is burning because there's systematic discrimination by the police towards these North African immigrants. And please, sign your posts, I'm seeing a pattern of those who thing this article is "too conservative" fail to identify themselves. At least the "too conservative" people have the credibility of registered usernames. Kade 08:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry, Kade, it really has nothing to do with race or religion. Please go to those neighborhoods for a while, talk with their inhabitants, try to understand the whole situation, and then come and post here. (preceding unsigned comment by Emile123 (talk • contribs) )

Care to back that up with anything other than anecdotal evidence? Did you not just hear what I said? I'll quote it for you. Even the liberal take on this issue says that your city is burning because there's systematic discrimination by the police towards these North African immigrants. Care to refute this? Kade 09:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

well, the right-wing trolls are not just on wikipedia. This is a division of opinion within France. I am sure you have seen sites like http://www.france-echos.com/ ? These are French trolls, not Wikipedia trolls. This kind of reaction is to be portrayed in the article. Of course, the article cannot portray these opinions as facts, and it must as well note that people in direct contact with the banlieue tend to emphasize that the events are completely unrelated to race or religion. {{sofixit}}. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The cause of the riots may be human stupidity, but are the rioters predominantly Muslim? Predominantly of North African descent? I've seen a whole lot of references saying they are, and to date not a one to the contrary. Now, several of us have been plucking anti-Islamic content from the article, but saying that the people involved are Muslim when they are isn't the same as going ARRRGH JIHAD. --Kizor 09:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi dab. The opinions in http://www.france-echos.com are expressed by a tiny minority of extreme far-right people. Including that reference here, would imply including hundreds of other opinions on different sides of the political spectrum.

Btw, here is an interessting article: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=9066 Emile123

Kizor, I understand your argument. However, there is no evidence that these youth are mostly muslim. I teach in one of those neighborhoods, and there are students from many different backgrounds, including a lot of christian blacks from the Antilles. Furthermore, most of the youth, including "muslims", are not very religious. Third point, mentioning religion in prominent parts of the article, implies that religion is an important factor. That is clearly false. Emile123

Huh. Your position's clearly stronger than I had given you credit for. In my defense, there was some exasperating trouble about the same parts not long before. Don't know about the others, but personally I'll have to think about this for a bit. --Kizor 10:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not that this discussion is still active, but I've come to support both sides. That the rioters are predominantly Muslim (or thereabouts - of Muslim background?) is a significant fact, but it shouldn't be epresented as an issue of religion. The present arrangement, though not perfect, looks much better; there's no mention in the overview, but a good New York Times quote at the top of the historical context section not that far from the top of the article. --Kizor¨

christian blacks from the Antilles. muslims that are not very religious. so its racial indeed? -- Zondor 10:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of there youth are indeed Muslim believers, though usually not practising. The matter is that this is one characteristic among thousands of others (they are mostly male, mostly interested in football, mostly wearers of baseball caps, ...), but the fact that they are Muslims and that they are of African descent (though most of them are French citizens) is vulnerable to attempts at hijacking by the French far-right wing, and by foreign "neo-conservative" ideologues (see in "editorials").

Hence it is important to be very cautious not only with the correctness of the information we provide, but also with the way we show them. Exactitude can be a victim of "proven facts" shown in a particular way. It is as touchy to start this article now by saying that the two dead boys were Muslims than, say to start the article about the "War on Terrorism" by saying that Bush Jr. is a Christian who has said that he was on a crusade (though this is factually true). Rama 10:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

why do they all speak about islam whereas none of them rioters are real muslims ! I live in one of those neighborhood and i can tell you that they're just kids not well educated that just want to annoy the authorities ! So stopped telling such craps and just mind your business

AeK

thank you AeK, I hope we may quote you on this. Emile, I realize france-echos is an extremist site, and I was not suggesting quoting it in the article. What I wanted to point out is that we had about a dozen French people come to this talkpage, telling us clueless English-speakers we don't know our asses from our elbows, and let us tell them how it really is. I am pointing out that we are reading French sources, and that we are portraying differences of opinions within France. So just because you are French doesn't automatically make you better informed on this, you'll have to cite your sources like everybody else. dab (ᛏ) 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

Timeline of the 2005 French civil unrest was created some time ago, but the timeline was never fully hived off. I've done so now. It might be worthwhile to retain a paragraph summary of each week.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I see; my revert was maybe a bit harsh, sorry. However, I maintain that this article is about the timeline of events, not an editorial about French minorities. If you want to cut the article size, cut down the "Historical perspectives" section first. Most of it is offtopic, and could be exported to Islam in France. Once this section is reduced to a short paragraph and you still want to shorten the article, we can talk about exporting accounts of the actual events this article is supposed to describe. I agree that this article could be refactored once things calm down a bit. At the moment, it is still treating an ongoing event, and the timeline is the very focus of that. dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Being about a current event shouldn't excuse this article from encyclopædic standards. A main article should never consist largely of a timeline, as this did before the fork. Indeed, in other current events, timelines were split off relatively early on in the piece. Whilst the Historical persepectives section is off-topic to an extent, its intent does have merit - ie, a considered discussion of the causes and effects. It is possible to give a chronology of events without resorting to a timeline format. It's my opinion it should remain separated, and effort in this article be directed towards providing a written overview (as opposed to minutiae).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean "timeline"? It isn't just a list, it is a chronological description of events, which is precisely what this article should be. I agree that the full text could be exported, but then we'd need something better to replace it, such as a good overview of the events of the first week, for example. I repeat that the pruning should first be done on material that is only tangential to the topic. As for "you haven't [objected to the move on talk]", I have. It just got archived however, see Talk:2005_French_civil_unrest/Archive_3#Proposal:_Move_Timeline_to_separate_article now. Things get buried fairly quickly here. dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your objection (even though I did the last archive). In any case, I couldn't have associated the comment with you, as you had been logged out :). With regards to It isn't just a list, I actually believe it is: It's a series of dot pointed facts in succession - a list. It is not written; ie, in paragraphs. But I do agree that we should have something *better* to replace it. A few paragraphs on each week should be sufficient.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Now both Timeline and Historical persepectives have their own articles, and the article is STILL too big. WAS 4.250 10:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

well, with the insane amount of editing going on, it may actually be beneficient to split it into subarticles, so I can update the timeline without getting into edit conflicts with assorted pov-pushers. I insist that if we export the timeline, the entire "historical background" is also to be exported. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

new laws on secularity

proposed addition:

Recent legislation has also been passed for new laws on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools which the prime minister of turkey has pointed to as being a possible part of the motivation for the riots. with a link to this article: French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools why?

• schools have been burned down.
• a large percentage of rioters are considered to be of muslim background which these laws effect
• Turkey - The Turkish prime minister named the French prohibition of headscarves in schools to be one of the reasons for the upsurge of violence in the banlieues. He stated this in an interview with the Turkish newspaper Milliyet.

quoted in this article.

This is iron when you consider that Turkish politicians cannot wear the headscarf either!!!

• history from a million years ago is in this article
• its so god dam relvant and at least i managed to get the link into the prime minister quote.
• I had suggested this article before he even was quoted.
• i see the 3 deletions of this add on in the main article as a attempted by some people to try remove reason from the riots.
• I feel this article deserves a whole section but in this current climate of editing aggainst possible POV from rioters and over whelming support for the POV of the government. It seems impossible for balance.

come on people. Is their anyone who agrees that this should be in the article?

--Whywhywhy 10:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, link to the law got added and removed dozens of times. It should be linked from the "Racial and religious tensions" subsection imho. The whole "background" thing reads like an editorial and should be cut down to a few relevant links, including this one (link to the law, don't discuss the law here). dab (ᛏ) 10:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This law seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the present unrest. I know that there is an intense and misinformed fascination for this law in English-speaking countries, but this does not warrant inclusion on this article. I have seen absolutely no mention of this law by protesters. That it was mentioned by the Turkish Prime Minister is notable of course, but this should go to "international reactions", along with the delirium by Jirinovski about the CIA. Rama 11:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, the law is just illustrating cultural background, which is being done in another article now anyway; Zhirinovsky is a madman, of course; maybe we should restrict ourselves to official government statements? dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Jirinowsky is an official. Now, he's not the first one who manages to cumulate being official and mental... Rama 00:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Exageration : reference to 1968 and to the LA riots

I have to come again to this subject since the edit I've made mentionning the LA riots has been erased, several times, and without discussion here.

It is possible the people are supposed to follow the link on riots. But if so, they are directed to all kind of riots, not to specifically anti police riots.

Moreover the tone of the article is highly dramatic and one would think reading it that what's happening has a fantastic size, when in comparison to other riots elsewhere, those ones have so far produced little damage. Is it a policy to systematically dramatize present events ? Just as in the katrina case ? Or can we from the start produce a balance account that put things into perspective ?

THe sentence It is the most dramatic civil disorder experienced in France since the events of May 1968 [2]. is wrong.

Either 1968 is not a civil disorder because it was mostly a general strike, well organised, or it is. ANd in this case, 1986 and 1995 strikes apply as examples of massive desorders way over the present situation.

What's more, the present unrest has less to do with 1968 France (student and workers movement for more liberties) and more to LOs angeles riots (anger at police violence). THe young people in the "cités" indeed often compare themselves to the US rappers, adopt their style, listen to the same kind of anti cop music etc.

So I think reference to the LA riots must be reinstated. It also helps to put the event in perspective. The civil unrest in France has so far resulted in far less deaths and damage that the LA riots, let alone the 1968 upheaval (with all the country paralysed by a general strike, millions marching, oil lacking, panic ...)

Besides I wonder if the word "factory" is to be used. Factory seem to imply machine tools, labor division etc. ALl that has been found is a workshop where those young people around Paris build these gasoline bombs, I don't think factory applies.

Seen from France the presentation here seems a bit exagerated. So far the events in France have led to far less damage than 6 days and nights of rioting in Los Angeles. Besides, for the majority of the people they are less disturbing than many strikes : most of the damage is done to those living in the "ghettos" (cités) by a minority of those living in the "ghettos". So it's hard to compare it to 1968 with days of general strike in France. I don't think it even compare's to 1995's strikes, or 1986.

If there is some comparison with 1968 it is not about the amount of damage or the amount disturbance but about the lack of clear leadership and the fact that it's a youth movement. But durign 1968 revendications were plenty. TOo many if anything. less authority, equality of sexes, less consumerism RIgh now rioters have no public revendication, their movement is interpreted as they have no representants, no slogans, no tracts ... Revendications are close to 0, the main idea being revenge against the police, protest against lack of justice and the idea that burning cars and buildings is a good way to attract the media, political attention and fundings. So far it has been working. It is highly probable that the riots will result in a call for more authority, schools with more male teachers, stricter sanctions teenagers under 18 and their parents. The riots would then appear as an anti 1968. Clearly most of those who compare the events to 1968 do so most often in order to discredit the 1968 movement, blame 1968 for producing parents lacking authority, for having destroyed the work ethic, they belive 1968 made 2005 possible.

I should add that mentionning the LA riots puts the riot in a wider perspective. It reduces the US Conservative focus on "Islam is taking power worldwide, especially in the no balls french monkeys", and helps understand that discriminated minorities worldwide, within which a decent minority is making a living out of illegal activities, are always targeted by the police, and resent it. It's called statistical discrimination, if blacks as a whole commit twice more illegal activities all blacks will be checked by the police twice as much (sometimes more) even though only a minority are responsible of these illegal activities. And it also help to see than gun laws have helped to keep the number of deaths within controls, compare to the LA situation...

Some comparison with the LA riots in the press

Compared to the gunbattles and body counts of riots in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities in recent decades, the French disturbances have been marked by a kind of ritualistic restraint. The rioters have mainly attacked private property and symbols of the state. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/07/MNG5KFK79T1.DTL

You should read this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/6/2207/72726

-panache

The riots are ALL about being gettoed and ignored by the nongetto living French. Now you write most the french want to ignore the riots because it's only happening in the gettos!!! That kinda makes their point for them doesn't it? So what do they have to do to get the average french person to give a good damn? WAS 4.250 10:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

the French may be very nice people, but I doubt that after immigrants/Muslims torched 6,000 cars in 500 towns all over France, the French public will have a better opinion of them, or be inclined to treat these communities with more kindness. The most natural reaction to this kind of outbreak is clamping down. The right-wingers are gleefully shouting "we told you so" as we speak. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that french people want to ignore the riots ! I'm saying that those riots do not disrupt daily life. During a major strike, people can't get to work, schools are closed etc. During 1968 the city of paris was completely blocated, most enterprises were closed because of strikes and millions marched... Now about ten thousands young people at most, destroy cars and fight with police in their own guettos. IT simply can not be compared as far as magnitude is concerned. My point is simply that things should not be overhyped just like katrina and about any global event has become now. Yes there have been 1200 cars burned every night for 6 nights and lots of fighting in many "ghettos" (cités in French). However unlike in 1968 or 1995 it does not create any threat for the government or most of the french population. Indeed those riots mostly look as suicidal acts, self inflected wounds by people wanting to attract attention and care. That's what they're saying anyway, burning stuff in order to get attention, respect and more stuff.

I actually agree with this view, but I am saying, I do not think it will work. People will not care more about them because they inflicted wounds on themselves, they will just be more marginalized and shunned as a menace than before. It gives them a sense of power to make the headlines for a few days, but they will be worse off than ever in the end. dab (ᛏ) 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Majority of Political Responses removal to own article

• i ask if the fire fighters are considered diffrent then these two groups are.

and in In light of the removel of the history which i support. (It gives a chance for a more enlightened and less Fox news based article.)but Maybe it deserves a little blurb.

• Also i propose the removal of the majority of french and world political commentary to a article entitled "Political implications of civil unrest in france".

• and maybe the three can be under a sub section " Authorities Response "

--Whywhywhy 10:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This has historical reasons. You may note that the article is under frenetic development. I have separated "politics" from "police" now. phew, with all the exports, I think the article is actually taking better shape now. People who want to vent about us having no clue about the banlieue can do so on Social situation in the French suburbs now :) dab (ᛏ) 11:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• why is the political response so important of 671 word devoted. yet the next closest of 460 triggering events? Whos more important???? just adding to my politicals own article case :) --Whywhywhy 11:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sigh, word-countitis now :) -- much more text is devoted to the underlying causes, so much, in fact, that its own article is now devoted to them, at Social situation in the French suburbs. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sets a precident for the creation of a article "Political implications of civil unrest in france". full of all these political quotes.which im sure their are alot more of and could be Analysed so much better in it own article which i am sure will progress to more words on its own article then the history and it will serve a better document for future refrence in it self:) :) i see your sarcasm and raise you a pointless sentence.hehe sorry clearly its a case--Whywhywhy 11:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have some parsing difficulty here, but you are right that further exports may become necessary. The difference between the "background" stuff and the politicians' statements, however, is that the latter pertain directly and exclusively to the ongoing events, so I say we keep them here for now. dab (ᛏ) 11:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that some should say but it shouldnt over shadow the rest of the article. The sooner a new article is created the more comprehensive the politcal reporting will be, not being restrained in its current state. --Whywhywhy 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

edit

saw a minor mistake, said started thursday 5:20 october 29, October 29 is a saturday. I assumed it meant THURSDAY OCT 27 5:20am therefore changed it

Thanks. It seems that the article is drawing a fair share of number vandals. --Kizor 17:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

complaint

[Talk:2005 French riots]] je pense que c'est tout à fait hors de propos de parler d'islam dans un conflit qui oppose des jeunes (pas forcement musulmans) et les forces de l'ordre ! Je vis en plein coeur d'un quartier touché par ces incidents et je peux vous assurer que TOUS ces vandals n'ont jamais vu l'interieur d'une mosquée de toute leurs vies ! Donc pourquoi parler de jeunes islamistes ? pour le spectacle ? pour le fun ? ou alors juste pour faire chier les français en leur disant "vous voulliez proteger les islamistes ? et ben vous voilà dans le merde ! donc, s'il vous plait, recentrez le débat sur les vrais problemes rencontrés par les habitants de ces cités et EVITEZ DE PARLER DE CE QUE VOUS NE CONNAISSEZ PAS ! (preceding unsigned comment by 82.233.173.193 (talk • contribs) )

using Babel Fish Translation this translates to:

I think that it is completely out of matter of speaking about Islam in a conflict which opposes young people (not forcing Moslems) and the police force! I live in full heart of a district touched by these incidents and I can ensure you that ALL these vandals never saw the interior of a mosque of very their lives! Thus why speak about islamist young people? for the spectacle? for the fun? or then just to make shit French in their saying "proteger the islamist ones voulliez you? and Ben here you are in the shit! therefore, please, centre the debate on truths problems encountered by the inhabitants of these cities and AVOID SPEAKING ABOUT EC WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW!

-- Zondor 12:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

from Talk:2005 French civil unrest -- Zondor 12:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is totally irrelevant to talk about islam in the context of a conflict that opposes youth (not necessarly Muslims) and the police ! I live in the heart of a quarter struck by these incidents, and I can assure you that ALL these vandals have never seen the interior of a mosque in their whole life ! Thus, why speak of young islamists ? For the show ? For the fun [in English in the original text -- Note by Rama] ? Or just to shit on the French [attempt at translating rather rude sland "faire chier", worth what it's worth... Note by Rama] by telling them "You wanted to protect islamists ? Now you are in the shit !

So please, put back the debate on its tracks discussing the real problems which residents of the "cités" meet and REFRAIN FROM TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW !

Text translated by Rama 12:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, Babelfish sucks THAT bad ? :p Rama 12:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

this is one pov (the 'leftist' one), and it should be expressed. However, there is also the 'rightist' pov, yes, also in France, not just among illiterate Anglo-Saxons, which also deserves mention. We need notable sources for both sides, Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion on the matter. It boils down to the semantic field of "musulman"/Islam. If the terms are used in a strictly theological sense, of course the violence is unrelated, the only "Islamic" thing in the article is the fatwa that is condemning the violence. If "Islam" is taken in a wider, cultural, sense, it cannot be claimed to be unrelated to what is going on. We need to navigate between these poles, being extremely careful of how we apply religious terminology. I do think the anti-riot fatwa needs to be mentioned as soon as the first occurrence of "Muslim" in the intro, to clarify things. dab (ᛏ) 12:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

cet article ne s'occupe pas avec les problèmes rencontrés par les habitants des banlieues en général. Pour cela, nous avons un article specialisé. Ici, on parle des émeutes, et des gens involvé avec les émeutes. Il est vrai que leur motivation n'est pas religieuse, et je ne pense pas que nous avions indiqué autant. Mais il est aussi vrai que l'origine culturel de leur maojrité peut-être décrit comme "musulman", et pas justements comme "jeunes". dab (ᛏ) 13:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Removals/Forks

whywhywhy, you are not to 'remove outdated information' [11]. What will you do? Delete the entire article once the riots have died down? What you need to do is date things, so the sequence of event becomes clear to people reading this a month or a year from now. dab (ᛏ) 12:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Its still alive in the other article dont worry if we had this sort of reporting from every night it would be hug. i think i miss named my edit moved to other article: --Whywhywhy 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the article as a whole now it looks and reads alot better dont you think ? and it will incourage more Political information in the dedecated page. --Whywhywhy 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we've gone a little fork crazy. We now have at least three daughter articles. That's nearing 7 July 2005 London bombings! I'm not sure all are necessary. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

it's a relief, seeing that it was almost impossible to edit the article this (CET) morning. once things calm down a little bit, we can still make judgements about how to refactor the material, and what should be in the main article. We don't know how much longer this will continue. If the riots turn out to last for two months, it will clearly be inappropriate to keep detailed documentation of every single day in the main article. If all is over on Wednesday, we pretty much have all material together. We just don't know yet. dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

: it is because this incident has taken place over a longer period . Effected phyiscal millions more people althought theirs has been only one death. Naturally alot of information will be involved and it takes alot of space and thus more articles are necessary to keep this article readable.and word to what dab said

--Whywhywhy 13:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Small deletion

The following sentence should be removed from the Trigger/Catalyst section:

The New York Times reports, citing two police investigations, that the incident began at 5:20 p.m. on Thursday, 27 October 2005 in Clichy-sous-Bois when police were called to a construction site there to investigate a possible break in.

The French police have denied this, and confirmed that they were doing an identity check, as is written twice elsewhere on the article. Ze miguel 13:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Editorials

Perhaps we could deiced on a common policy about editorials rather than keeping going back and fro.

We don't need people's oppinions cluttering up the article. I say, if a source isn't held to the the same standard of accuracy and ballence of a newspaper article, it should not be included. If a person wants to share a POV through editorials, they can create a blog.--Dr.Worm 14:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A number of these editorials are remarkably offensive, uneducated and partisan, but it does not necessarly means that we cannot link to these. Perhaps labeling them with "Far-right" and "far-left", like was done for the blogs, could be an acceptable middle term ? Rama 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

saying something is offensive is certainly POV. labeling something far-right or far-left is possibly itself POV, no? -- Zondor 13:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not mentioning that a particular editorial is representative only of a very minor and extreme part of the population strikes me as even more dangerous and insidious. Rama 13:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I must reiterate my puzzlement at what I regard as an arm race toward the most extreme and spectacular possible editorials, disregarding more factual and moderate ones. That someone who, for instance, cannot refrain from comparing things to the battle of Poitier and from using words such as "Eurabia", should be cited, is one thing. But that this sort of points of view should be the majority of the cited editorial strikes me as an over-representation. Rama 13:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

no, such extremist editorials should just be cleaned off the list without much discussion. clearly inappropriate. The same goes for the other extreme, editorials who portray the rioters as poor victimized innocents. We want a collection of the best commentators on the issue, preferably experts (sociologists, politologists etc.), not a fringy freakshow. dab (ᛏ) 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, and I invite people who do not share this point of view to discuss here rather than engage in sterile edit warring. Rama 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

: (Thanks Rama for your invitation to this discussion. I did not think of that. Sorry for "edit warring".)

Thinking about freedom of information I think the best practice with the editorials section is to just keep them all in - and for God's sake you can label it with left or right or far-right etc. ... whatever ... just let the readers decide for themselves what arguments to value! If one thinks that there is not enough balance - he/she should just add links with editorials with a different perspective - as long as the writer could articulate ;) There certainly was an over-representation of a conservative POV - but he who simply deletes those links would better place a brilliant different POV beside it. (@dab - apropos the "fringy freakshow" --> that sounds like utter arrogance - you dictate who belongs to the "best commentators"? Go ahead Einstein.)

I see your point, but this is a risk (certainty) of setting up a schizophrenic display of increasingly extremist points of view, with both opposing camps engage in an arm race. This is negative because

• It will make moderate entries less and less noticeable
• It will result in the linking of increasingly cretinous sites
• It will encourage Wikipedians to see one another as either allies or ennemies in two opposite camps, rather than a communauty of people of nuances sensibilities working toward a common goal.

Hence I reiterate my suggestion that these links be carefully considered before inclusion. Rama 00:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

About the historical part

OK most of the information can be moved to the new article Social situation in the French suburbs.

However, there are some specific topics which are not related to the general social situation but to the present situation. They should thus be in this article or in another article called, by example Political context of the 2005 civil unrest in France.

But if it is a major concerne to keep the main article readable (and thus relatively small)

1. removing an information instead of moving it in a new artile is not NPOV
2. beware not having something totally senseless; the choice of what is in the main article and what is in satellite articles is a POV and should be evaluated with care.

Cdang|write me 13:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Maps

here is the overview map so far; feel free to add labels, or to do a nicer job altogether :)

the Paris overview. I really don't have time to do the labels right now; feel free to replace this by something labelled and/or more accurate.

The BBC have produced some nice informative maps. Maybe one of you experienced wikipedia should include this link in the article, or the maps directly in the article if it doesn't violate some kind of copy rights. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/4417096.stm Nesnetsirk 14:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll update our maps based on this. dab (ᛏ) 14:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

• 2005 French riots/Summary and Map - place where we work to make maps. --

Denmark

I've been trying to look for NEUTRAL references to the riots in Arhus, Denmark, without much success. As a result, I'm becoming increasingly sceptical. Can someone give me some references that don't involve extremist anti-Islamic hate sites? XYaAsehShalomX 14:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the eagerness of the Islamophobes (not the Islamists) to portray the riots as spreading beyond France alone speaks volumes about their alleged "Islamist" nature. Fearmongery. dab (ᛏ) 14:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

== Porn Link Change to Article as of 11/8/05 ==

Someone has altered the main article to refer to and link to a scatological site. Any helpful ideas to fix it?

Miscegennation 14:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been reverted. Incidentally, I am answering these sorts of behaviour by immediate blocks without warning. These IPs know what they are doing, they do it repeatedly, and this article had a very high visibility. Rama 15:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Needs Revert

65.35.197.181 has defaced the page, it needs to be reverted. From 65.35.197.181's user history, he might need to be banned or something. Thanks.--Limetom 15:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

context

can everybody try to keep the "context" section from blowing out of proportion again? Only concise data pertaining to the actual riots are desireable, and we don't want a florilegium of newspaper editorial quotes. We may need a separate section about observations of the ethnic composition of the rioters themselves, or statements they may have made when interviewed, to parallel the "political response". dab (ᛏ) 15:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

private property edit

this edit by O^O with the extremely cryptic and incomprehensible edit summary most HLM ZUG do not have shops or private homes. (what is HLM ZUG?) removed the sentence: It is noteworthy that fires have been burned mostly in the poorest areas, and that so far not a single store has been looted, or private houses been flamed. Aside from cars, young rebels seem to be destroying mostly public property. This marks a radical difference with other forms of town rebellions, like Los Angeles in 1992 and draws it closer to other forms of violent political and union protest in France.. I don't see why this has been removed, even if HLM ZUG, whoever that may be, do not have homes or shops, the homes they live in can still be regarded private property. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about HLM ZUG, but this was a sort of "editor's comment" anyway, so I'm not too unhappy it was removed. Is it true that no shops were looted? Lots of shops were burned, anyway, and I think the comparison to union protests is ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 17:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

HLM stands for "Habitation à Loyer Modéré" and basically means subsidized housing; ZUG stands for "Zone Urbaine Générale": urban area. What the original editor meant is that there aren't much stores or private homes in the poor areas where the rioting is occurring (which is mostly true). However, I don't think it really invalidates the original point, since it would have been very easy for rioters to go to richer areas to destroy stores and private property.

I guess I made the first edit. There was a problem in comparing the riots now to 1968. 1968 was a political event, with demonstrations slogans etc. 2005 is not clearly a political event. It is an anti police revolt. The thing that comes closest to it is LA riots. However LA riots were very destructive with lots of looting. There's no such story of looting. THere's no private incentive if you want. So it's not completely the same as LA either, it's not a mayhem situation where there's complete disorder and each man for himself. It's an organised confrontation.

The way I see it, the article has no real perspective. I think a correct description would specify that the riots are not indeed union protests (like 1968, 1986 or 1995) but are not LA riots or even less NEw orleans looting. It's something in between. If we can't state that, then we miss the all issue. -- Panache

== Historical Context or Summary thereof belongs at the front of this article ==

I've been suggesting for days now that Historical Context section, or a summary of it, belongs at the front and no one can or will explain why this has not been rectified.

Some editors have claimed that Historical Context doesn't belong at the beginning. I guess some don't even think it belongs in this article, period. The rationale usually being that this is a news article and we need to get straight to what's happening.

But people have commented (on this Discussion page) over the last few days that they don't understand why 2 deaths started all of this, based on the current format. This would seem to indicate that it's not performing even as a news article. Putting at least *some* Historical Context at the beginning is arguably a necessary prelude to this news story.

It might quicker and easier to read if the Historical Context is bumped to the end, but the news should never be QUICK at the expense of MAKING SENSE.

Lastly, as Sdedeo has said, I would remind that this is Wikipedia "the free Encyclopedia". Emphasis on the encyclopedia. Though if my reasons make sense, there's no reason my proposed change wouldn't make it a better news and encyclopedia article.

So I move for the immediate move of the Historical Context section (OR at least a summary) to the top of this article, as it is in the French article.

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [9:43 am (Pacific Time), Nov 8th] 17:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with a summary and link to the section, but good luck coming up with a summary everyone can agree with. Dsol 18:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I think this article is about what happened, period. There is simply no way you can summarize "teh historical context", in the intro no less, in a way everybody can agree with, because people do not agree why this is happening. This is something to be addressed in in-depth articles. Nobody is sure what is happening, and why it is happening. This is not a problem for us, because we do not need to know, we simply describe the facts without an editorial in front. dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Any "historical context" would furthermore be original research, unless it is summarized from some notable figure or organization's analysis of the historical context. It does make sense to have a section, but not at the beginning, that discusses various people's arguments for what the proper historical context and ultimate causes are. I imagine this will be easier to do well in a year or two when some well-research scholarly books have been published on the subject. --Delirium 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It does not have to be original research. Information on the historical context can be found articles by the major international news agencies. Do a Google or Yahoo News search for any of the key words related to the historical context and a great deal of relevant material can be found immediately. 172 | Talk 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of contradictory stuff people cite though. As long as we do attribute it to who claims it is proper context, and mention all the relevant stuff, then that's fine. To take just two opposing views each often cited: Some people claim that immigrants being discriminated against is the major problem, while others claim that immigrants being unwilling to integrate is the major problem. --Delirium 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all that's really needed in a SUMMARY of historical context.

1.) The grievances of the rioters and the people from those neighborhoods. Basically, WHY were they already upset. These grievances will be supported if there is support for them in work that can be cited. (Like citations regarding unemployment, poor living conditions, economic conditions, whatever.)

2.) Government response to worsening conditions, up to this point. Like current or proposed policy, or policy changes. Like the increasing police patrols, etc. There were charges of police brutality, with interviews from residents to support it.

I'm not even talking about "original research". We HAVE all this information, but are still leaving readers to assume that somehow 2 youths dying made everyone leave their jobs to riot for over a week. But OOPS, the unemployment runs from up to 50% in some of these neighborhoods, so many of them don't have jobs. Things like that might be important to note at the beginning. Otherwise what we have is a SLANTED article, by reason of OMITTED information.

I will say it again, it might quicker and easier to read if the Historical Context is omitted from the beginning, but this should not be QUICK at the expense of MAKING SENSE. It's useless to have all this information on an event if it DOESN'T make sense to new people who are reading it.

I'm not saying a FULL article needs to be at the top of this one. A summary would do. But no one has refuted the need for at least that much.

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [11:04 am (Pacific Time), Nov 8th] (UTC)

I agree that unemployment and ghettoization can uncontroversially be mentioned as 'background'. The "Kärchner" incident can also easily be put in context, since it happened only two days before the riots. But it is my impression that we have been mentioning these points for days now. Even now, unemployment is mentioned in the "trigger" section. The Kärchner incident is mentioned in the "historical context" section, so I don't really see what you want. dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is a summary of Historical Context that links to the main page of Historical Context.

The reason why: SOME of what I'm talking about is BRIEFLY mentioned, but then BURIED under the rest of the article.

Immigration trends, public policy (i.e., urban planning, etc.), the different cultures of the immigrants, unemployment, and poverty, all had a hand in creating an environment in which the triggering event was able to lead to riots. This is not something adaquately explained in three or four lines at the end of a section focused on the triggering event. (Even when you throw in the line you mentioned in a later section.)

This proposed section doesn't have to date back to Adam & Eve. It doesn't need to be in-depth. But it needs to be there, at the beginning. Much of this sort of information can be summarized and then linked to another related article, for the sake of concision. This is would be a section that passes over the issues, then links to the article that deals in-depth with them.

No one seems to be able to explain satisfactorily why we are not following the precedent set by other articles depicting riots and the like. The most clear articles lay out a summary of the historical context, then the triggering event, then they get into the main subject of the article.

Have I answered your questions? Please answer mine.  :)

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [2:19 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 8th] (UTC)

October 25 incident.

There's a timeline at CBC.ca that starts with an incident on Oct.25 where bottles and stones were thrown at Minister Nicolas Sarkozy during a tour of Argenteuil (a Paris suburb?) dose this warrant inclusion in the main article or timeline? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/paris_riots/Mike McGregor (Can) 18:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was mentioned somewhere in "Underlying causes" the last time I looked. --Kizor 19:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't, but there was a mention of the Argenteuil tour, so I added this there. --Kizor 19:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

beyond France

CBC reports 5 cars burned in Belgium and 'a handful' of cars burned in Germany, (in Berlin and Bremen) http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/08/france-curfews051108.html Mike McGregor (Can) 18:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparison Riots 1976

What is happening in France now, reminds me of the Soweto riots in 1976 http://about-south-africa.com/html/soweto.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_Riots Maybe one can add a comparison to the article?

French, not Muslim problem

I honestly cannot believe that people are discussing this as "Muslim" issue. The French colonial policy in west and North Africa, was "assimilation" whereby they pretty much expected and trained the Africans under their rule to become culturally French. any educated colonized person would be expected to give in to the *magnificence* of the French culture and language and adopt it as his own, one woulnd't be just an 'Algerian under French rule', one would be a 'French Algierian' or 'French Senegalais'. this has continued to cause problems today because now that these Africans are actually living in France, they still refuse to 'assimilate' the French culture and the French government pretty much just refuses to accept this and therefore does not make any attempts to aid them unless they conform. This is the primary cause of this unrest, the area with the easiest access to France via immigration is North Africa, an area which just happens to be heavily Muslim. It's a problem caused by the extension French colonial policy into modern times.--Gozar 20:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

well, of course, they just happen to be Muslim; everybody agrees the riots are not religiously motivated. "Muslim" or "French Muslim" is still the handiest description encompassing "descendents of immigants from North and West and sub-Saharan Africa who are now French citizens but who remain culturally and ethnically a distinct group within France and influenced by their African, i.e. Muslim background". "Muslim" pretty much is a description of an aggregate of ethnicities, here, not a theological term. 81.63.124.34 22:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Many may be muslims, but I do not see that they are ALL muslims. What unites them is not being White and their hate for the French people.

The problem is they are not all Muslims or decendents of Muslims. Many many of them are from former french colonies in the Caribean. Places like Hati. You will not find many Muslims there. -66.92.130.180

Interesting; 81.63.124.34's point reminds me of the way that Algerians were called "Muslims" during the French occupation of Algeria, since one could not say a word which would have suggested that Algeria was not just another French département :p Just idle musing... Rama 00:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that smacking the "Muslim" label on it distorts the picture, since there are some pretty specific stereotypes about what that would imply. But I also think that it's equally as distorting to refer to them like they're just Joe Frenchman. They're mostly the descendents of immigrants who have been stuck in Public Housing and in unemployment for decades now; so it's definately a very specific area of French life that this is coming from. So that situation needs to be more closely examinedAmargo Scribe 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat dismayed that my post has generated nothing but more talk about Islam, i'm just upset that what everyone seems to be making a big deal about is the fact that these are mainly Muslims. Tony Blair said something along the lines of "i hope the french are going to be ok" with little concern about what is causing the situation. International responses seem to be sympathetic toward the Fr. government despite that they are chiefly at fault for failing to intergrate immigrants simply because they refuse to accept the French cultural identity. Has it even occured to the government to say "OK, we can work on the social situation, we aim to make drastic reforms economic reforms of some kind" or are they just going to keep trying to use force?--Gozar 01:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In the past 24 hours this article has gone downhill

24 hours ago we had a great article, a focused one-stop shop article where one could find all the information related to the French riots. Now the information is dispersed over numerous sub-articles making it harder to follow and understand and political correctness has overtaken the editing of the information and has been used to censor most of the relevant information greatly reducing the usefulness of the article. Since one can just as well find the watered down narrative and talking points in any world newspaper one might ask what is the point of the Wikipedia version? --CltFn 01:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You see, there is lots at stake for many people here. We are seeing the practical effects of multicultural ideology here. Those promoting it are loosing their credibility with everyone that can think, since the flaws of their policies become all to obvious to every one.

well unfortunately we dont have a team of reasonable reporters. Their is a small group and the rest just try fill it with POV. To put this into perspective it is neccary for the affending section to have their own page. and if you cant following linked artiles in wiki i think you should consider sticking to the mainstream hard copy media which has no interactivity.Wikipedia is not a blog it is for stating the facts that you wouldnt find if you read 5 newspapers and adding all the commentary. Where else can you find a event based page that contains all the information in one page. Its the best overview you will ever get. --Whywhywhy 01:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC) also if you want the article presented like regular news then go to wiki news and follow the development there --Whywhywhy 01:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree... Now the editing of the timeline has gone down to zero. Splitting the pages was perhaps a big mistake. Tfine80 02:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not a news source. That is the job of Wikinews. Try it: I think you'll find it a better source. We'll work at this article till it gets better. Articles are often atrocious while an event is occuring. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

time to archive discussion again

i think we have reached a turning point and now would be a good time to archive.alot of what is discussed above is now in diffrent articles... of course keep the still relevant stuff--Whywhywhy 02:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

spread to other countries

as long as we qualify that they are possible and perhaps isolated, i think wikipedia is a good place to catalog incidents in other countries. the incident in spain, involving attacks on police and multiple cars torched, does not seem insignificant. Tfine80 02:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The inccidents in Seville doesn't seem to have any relation with those of France. Nowhere it has been reported that the perpetrators belonged to any ethnic minority nor have any political purpose. More: it seems that the inccidents have been happening for some time (years) now but they have taken relevance at the light of those in France. It seems that it's just urban gang vandalism in a marginal neighbourhood. Though it's true that the firefighters have been insulted and have asked for police protection

I suggest to delete it at least until further informations can effectively link it to French riots, something that won't happen. One thing is clear, Spain doesn't have many 2nd generation Africans yet. It is still in the 1st generation of inmigration. --Sugaar 03:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)